Archive for the ‘Annual Yearly Progress’ Category

Newer Entries »

What Do You Mean-I’m Accountable?

Tuesday, July 14th, 2009

As a reminder, the statistical data that evaluates every public school in the United States is reported as Annual Yearly Progress (AYP), a fixture of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).

This data is the factor that determines whether or not you have reached the appropriate AYP benchmark and that’s what makes you accountable-whether you are a school district, school in a district, teacher’s class in the school, or student.

Analyzing data

Analyzing data

All schools receive their AYP score sometime in the summer or fall based on the results of a “determining test” administered the previous spring. Since 2002 the statistical data available tells the federal department of education how many students are proficient in reading, language arts, and math for that particular year.

The benchmarks are precise: a fixed percentage of students must reach proficiency, the percentage per year decided by each state.

No matter the student’s ability to speak English; status as receiving Special Education support; family’s income and education level; condition of the school’s facilities or its ability to provide students with adequate materials; not to forget the quality of the determining exam.

By 2014 the Act specifies that 100% of the students in the United States will be proficient in those two curricular areas.

NCLB legislation requires that exams to measure performance are given in third grade, seventh grade, and tenth grade.  Many states, however, require more.  In California tests are given yearly, second grade on.

Measuring performance to ensure quality is not new.  Business people have developed practical models to design excellent products and to ensure that the products are marketable.  Those business models share a few basic elements.

The people assigned to an undertaking understand the desired outcomes and have the tools needed to achieve those outcomes.  Assessments - based on valid criteria that reliably measure progress towards the desired outcomes - are made at regular intervals.

The team responsible for the undertaking analyzes the results of each assessment to determine what’s working (and therefore needs to be maintained or enhanced) and what’s not working (and therefore needs to be improved).

Here’s the rub.  States authorize tests, school districts organize the distribution of tests, schools give tests and students take the exams, fulfilling the assessment tool element.

All the other elements (e.g., standards of success, analysis, program improvement) are not outlined in the NCLB legislation and, even eight years later, are barely understood or implemented by many states, much less school sites.

A state department of education website can show the reader in detail the percent of improvement each school is accountable for each year.  The teacher’s unions explain implementation difficulties in detail for each state.  Go to your union’s website.

You will have considerable difficulty finding tools* that show how to assure school improvement from year to year.

(*An example is Take Care!, a tool to improve communication strategies among adults in the school community, striving to ensure student success.)

Tags: , ,
Posted in Annual Yearly Progress, NCLB, No Child Left Behind Act, public schools, school accountability |
Be the first to leave a comment »

Questions the Tests Don’t Answer

Tuesday, May 26th, 2009

Almost every teacher in the country will put his hands over his face at the mention of the assessments required by No Child Left Behind.  And he can come up with the reasons.

Written by a publishing company?  The summative test is made to cover the curriculum taught anywhere in the country, so the company can sell as many as possible.  No matter that the standards in one state aren’t the same as those in another.  (Another controversy to resolve.)

Tests written to satisfy the standards in one state?  Criterion referenced tests, as they are called, may test minor standards with large numbers of test items, built in to separate the proficient from the advanced, the ‘basic’ students from the proficient.  What does that tell anyone?  Perhaps which students have increased their understanding of the standards for a grade level, or maybe that they’ve mastered the tricks to test taking?

And what about the thousands of students with limited understanding of English?  They still have to pass the same test with the same required increase in points to reach the No Child Left Behind benchmarks each year as students who have been in the United States since birth.

Or students whose parents are working two jobs and don’t or can’t find the time to spend on take-home practice or reading or math or writing essays?  Or students with parents who had limited education themselves?  Many parents do manage and their children do well, but the achievement gap wouldn’t be like it is, if that kind of relentless, selfless support were achievable in all cases.

What about the often mentioned issue that the class spends so much time on preparation for the state test in reading and math that, except in schools with strong numbers of high-achievers, there is little time to spend on science and social studies, art and music?  There is a reason for all the emphasis on the 3 R’s.  Research has shown, on the SAT for example, constant practice can pull up performance scores, if that’s what is being asked for.

Well, why don’t they practice reading with the science text?  Great idea, except the test is focused on specific reading and language skills, not the science content which those texts, fabulous as they may be, cover for a grade level.

And what does the school find out from the API (California’s Academic Performance Index), a number that ranks a school among all 6000 elementary schools in the state?  Or from the AYP (United States Annual Yearly Progress), percentages that tell how far along a school is on the grid to become 100% proficient in reading and math by 2014?

It’s an indicator, but those numbers don’t help analyze the needs of the students who are not yet proficient reading and math learners.  So far in California, for example, only 40% of the elementary schools scored at least 800 (considered excellent) on the index, San Francisco Chronicle, “School Making Big Strides…”, May 22, 2009.

How does the teacher and school analyze the data and plan the reforms to improve learning for all students during a school year, not just for students almost ready to make the next leap?  That’s the important question to answer.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Academic Performance Index, Annual Yearly Progress, Education, Elementary, No Child Left Behind Act, public schools |
Be the first to leave a comment »

THE TEST

Thursday, May 14th, 2009

It may be called summative assessment in field studies and research, but I know, and every teacher in my school knows, it is THE TEST.

In my fourth grade, five mornings were set aside in the beginning of May for THE TEST, also called the California Standards Test, a criterion referenced assessment written just for California students based on the standards taught in reading and math and used to identify the school’s Annual Yearly Progress, authorized by the No Child Left Behind Act.

In fact, every California public school child, grade 2 to grade 11, got to pick up a pencil and make dark bubbles.

On day one, my students took the practice test, so they were familiar with the test format.  In fourth grade, they must read the test questions in the booklet, but fill in a bubble on an answer sheet.  That’s a skill all in itself and, believe me, the class has filled in many bubbles, not just with the practice test provided by the state testing department.  Of course, you know this, if you’ve been teaching.

Then on day 2, they read passages and analyzed sentences and read more text until, in my view, their eyes crossed.  It’s a long test filled with spelling rules, punctuation and other writing conventions, grammar, and on and on and on.

Then on day 3, at my school another testing section was devoted to more reading, comparing stories, analyzing correct writing skills.  Another morning with a lot of rubbing heads and rolling shoulders to get the kinks out after hunching over their booklets for more than an hour and a half.

That’s all, folks…for the first week.  Two more days the following week were devoted to THE TEST.

Big change on day 4.  The test switched to math which my class tackled with enthusiasm, being high-achieving math lovers.  Well, most of them, but there were some who showed signs of fatigue, a few finishing way too soon, the signal for random filling-in-the-bubbles.

The last day, was more math.  The kids pulled out their rulers and scratch paper.  They turned the test pages sideways to see if that helped them compare polygons.  I forgot to say the class gets snacks each day, the idea being that food helps keep your energy up.  Gummy bears disappeared with abandon.

Then time was up and everyone went out to recess.  No more summative assessment for this year.  Unless a child was absent on one or more test days.  She would not be forgotten.  Someone would sit her down to read and calculate.  I don’t know about the 30 kids in my class, but I was relieved.  And grabbed some gummy bears on my way out to yard duty.

Before school this morning, the day after the last school-wide assessment day, I read an article about turning around 5000 low-performing schools in the nation (San Francisco Chronicle, “Obama wants to turn around…”, May 13, 2009).  How does the Department of Education know a school is low-performing?  From performance on THE TEST.

How has your school been doing?

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Annual Yearly Progress, No Child Left Behind Act, low-performing schools |
1 Comment »

Newer Entries »