Posts Tagged ‘achievement gap’

Give Us a Break

Wednesday, November 24th, 2010

Don’t lose perspective says Nicholas Kristof in the 10/31/10 issue of the New York Times.  Until 2008 we had only No Child Left Behind aka NCLB (the current name for the Elementary and Secondary School Act) which has been roundly criticized in education circles in spite of the initial bipartisan send off as the new century began.

By now, in California and other states minority groups form the majority.  See the San Francisco Chronicle November 17, 2010, “When minorities are the majority” by Arun Ramanathan.  You didn’t see this happening? Our education for those students is no longer the old style sit-in-your-seat-and-drink-it-in model.

middle school renovated after a bond passed

middle school renovated after a bond passed

It isn’t even the model that mostly white student schools use nowadays, especially when students reach middle school and begin to lag behind, if they haven’t already.  For anyone, studies describe what works.  For instance, Edsource’s report “Gaining Ground in the Middle School: Why Some Schools Do Better.”  You can leave it, but if you’re looking to change, you’d be wise to take it.

The latest anxiety is teacher education, never mind that educators have been hollering about it since the 1983 report Nation At Risk.  Give us a break–it’s a favorite worry of those who like to blame all on weak teachers.  If only teacher’s unions would let the experts get rid of “bad” teachers.  If only teacher training was upgraded.

The United States does need to look at what other nations do to find good teachers, accepting high quality scholars would help.  Raising salaries would help.  Training in critical thinking, problem solving, effective communication, and collaboration would help.  All were points made by Thomas Friedman in his Sunday, November 21, 2010, New York Times column titled “Teaching For America.”

Does the world think teacher training-whether pre-service or staff development– isn’t happening?  Does anyone think that various school boards haven’t analyzed the compensation issue, realizing that the old “steps” approach no longer works?  Do teaching institutions not try to accept the best?

Here is what everyone doesn’t remember.  In America individual states can listen to the federal government, but their decisions are made depending are where they are regionally and demographically in the country.  No one can tell all states to change.

The federal Department of Education can offer grants like Race to the Top which have excellent guidelines.  The president can be correct when he reminds the 300 million citizens of the U.S. that being well-educated is what makes a country strong.  The governors of the 50 states can designate a commission to come up with Common Core Standards and ask, but not require, the states to teach them.

However, three main things must be done no matter where you live.  State departments of education, school boards, and teachers must address the accountability issue and the assessments used to evaluate accountability.

They must address the gap in achievement for the minorities that are now the majority of traditional public, many charter public, and even parochial schools in this diverse country.  Every week another model is given accolades.

Last, state departments of education, school boards, and teachers must find a way out of the financial mess.  Whether it’s through changes in the pension system, a different road for compensation, changes in the structure of a particular school district, or the realignment of school districts, anything can be tried.  Keeping what is already there without paying is not an option.

The obstacle is to get states or regions in a state to agree on any of them.

Zoom to the Wide Picture

Wednesday, November 17th, 2010

Every day, TV, radio, newspapers, magazines, and blogs write as if the journalist had the answer to the education crisis in the United States.

It could be the person against teacher’s unions and all they’ve done in the past or will do in the future. Perhaps it is an evaluation of the past and future of the latest superintendent to resign-think D.C. and New York.  Read Newsweek, October 25, 2010 and the New York Times, daily last week as well as November 17, 2010.

It could be the latest bit of hand-wringing from, say, Education Week, on-line and hard copy magazine, that has an article giving a warning about the misuse of formative testing, another warning about Common Core Standards, a warning about easing the NCLB rules, and a current piece on teacher pre-service training.  It could be about the use of the Bible as a text, Newsweek, October 25.  Perhaps it’s the distinction between funding according to the church and state doctrine of the Constitution.  See the opinion article about Arizona in the New York Times, November 5, 2010, and even the TV excerpt during the election season depicting Christine O’Donnell’s lack of knowledge about the Constitution.

Once in awhile as in Newsweek, November 8, 2010, a short article about closing the achievement gap appears which is a genuine problem in the United States.  Of course, depending on the state, the gap can refer to Hispanic students, Native American students, and/or African-American students.  See Bob Herbert’s column “This Raging Fire” in the New York Times, November 16, 2010.

Every so often, an article will address the issue of teacher accountability and using “tests” as the marker of a good or “bad” teacher.  See “Teachers should not be judged on test scores alone” by Sandra Dean and Valerie Zeigler in the San Francisco Chronicle, November 11, 2010.  The article refers to the Los Angeles Times use of a summative test to evaluate grade 3 and 4 LA Unified teachers.  While there is some validity in the concept described in the LA Times, the Chronicle article outlines specific ways that teachers can and should be evaluated.

The big debate that readers rarely see in the news is the fiscal issue for schools all over the country as states struggle with budgets. Right now as 111th Congress sits down in a lame-duck session, members are voting on the tax issue of $700 billion.  Should wealthy Americans contribute more to the federal budget-i.e. their tax rate goes back to what it was in 2000, while the middle income and poor people contribute their share and no more?  The argument rages, but in perspective, $700 billion means 12 million jobs can be approved, private and public.  Everyone in Congress knows that teachers and construction workers are necessary, two areas of employment that will not evaporate and that influence all citizens.

John Muir Elementary in San Francisco is an example of one local school that has been lucky enough to qualify for funds, even though California is one of the states in the worst financial disaster. Know why? It is one of the 188 lowest performing schools in the state and must be helped by stimulus funds from the federal Department of Education.

Suddenly, as stated in the San Francisco Chronicle front page article “Reversal of Fortune” by Jill Tucker, November 13, 2010, the school has money for something simple like chart paper, as well as a literacy coach, staff development, and a new principal whose focus is literacy, the basis for lack of achievement.  The school has three years of substantial funding.  From experience there will be a major change quickly and then the school will need to stand firm to overcome the factors that remain obstacles to achievement.

What It Takes

Wednesday, November 25th, 2009

With hoopla about grants for Race To the Top, in an effort to turn around high schools in dire need of help; gung-ho proposals about grants for elementary schools; and constant brouhaha over teacher’s union opposition to change, it’s just plain great to see an article about a school that has actually succeeded.

Not only succeeded, it’s in a low-income pocket of my neighborhood on the San Francisco peninsula, known for high-flying salaries and mega-homes and students who expect to go to Stanford, UC Berkeley, or an Ivy League university.  Leroy Anderson Elementary reached the goal of every elementary school with “at risk” students-an Academic Performance Index (API) 800+.

Reading the article “Learning to Teach to Bridge the Achievement Gap” by Phil Yost, New York Times, November 20, 2009, the qualities of a successful school filled the page.  The article covered highly-qualified teachers willing to pursue the achievement goal, dedicated administrators, curriculum changes shown to improve the capabilities of low-performing students, known successful teaching techniques, regular consistent assessment and analysis, and parent inclusion.

Why can’t all elementary schools with low test scores do what Anderson Elementary did, even in California, the land of no money for schools?

Certain requirements are only inferred in Yost’s article which must be present or developed in the effort to close the achievement gap in a school.

First and foremost, a cadre of teachers, who know the goal and stand by it, must agree to stay at the school.  They understand the difficulties to overcome and will not back away or obstruct.  The teachers are expected to be leaders, listened to by the administrators and asked to research and help organize the curriculum changes that will be needed.

Second, the school needs administrators who are determined to see the change through.  They must be partners with the teaching staff in developing and/or preparing for the reading/language arts and math models.  They must not give up when students don’t improve right away.  They must hold off district personnel who want to try the next big thing.  They must be relentless in the consistency of the program, but watch constantly to improve what isn’t effective.

Third, in spite of what one reads about improvement possible even when the funding picture is bleak, it helps to have a district office on the side of the school.  To turn around a school, it’s good to be a small school in a small district, easier for district personnel to keep in mind the issues the school faces.  (Moreland School District has 5 elementary schools and 1 middle school with about 4000 students total.)

When parents at the school need a program, as at Anderson, to learn English and parenting skills to support their children, the district must have helped find the money.  When teachers say they will tutor students after school, the district will find the money.  When the school principal wants professional development time set aside to analyze test data that drives the curriculum, the district doesn’t put her off, but finds the money.

Finally, when Charles Weis, Santa Clara County Superintendent of Schools (where Anderson Elementary is found), makes general statements about knowing which schools need help and how to help them, it’s not good enough.  If he’s on the side of school reform in low-performing, “at risk” schools, is he working with the district superintendents, the teacher’s unions, and school boards to set a time table for change and not back down?

Jonathan Alter in “Teddy’s Rightful Heir” Newsweek, November 9, 2009, suggests that is happening at the federal Department of Education.  “He (President Obama) and Arne Duncan are showing some Chicago muscle….”

Do what it takes.

Learning Math in the USA

Wednesday, October 21st, 2009

How can we be doing so badly?  The richest country in the world and our kids can’t get a decent math test score on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

hands-on math in textbook

hands-on math in textbook

That, at least, is the judgment based on data from the 2009 Nation’s Report Card released Wednesday, October 14, 2009, and noted in many national newspapers.  The San Francisco Chronicle, “State’s math scores near bottom” by Jill Tucker, says, “California consistently has ranked among the lowest-scoring states”–third from the bottom after this year’s testing sample, only Alabama and Mississippi with lower scores.

On the other hand, except for once every two years when the Nation’s Report Card test scores hit the newspaper, only a few people in the education world know the test was given.  When teaching, I never knew a school or teacher who had given the test.  I’d never seen an example of the test.

It’s a bet that only math gurus at the State Department of Education know fourth grade math proficiency has grown from a scale score 208 in 1992 when the test was first given in California to 232 this year, compared to USA national average 239.  The bad news is two years ago fourth graders had almost the same paltry score-230–out of a possible 500 scale score (a statistical tool to compare data from all 50 states).

The final insult is only 35% of California fourth graders learned enough of the federal math standards to achieve scale scores considered proficient or advanced.

How can that be when the level of proficiency or better on the California Standards Test (CST) used as a growth benchmark for the California Academic Performance Index (API) and the national Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) report has shown considerable improvement?

How? Why?

After much clicking through data on the National Center for Education Statistics’ unfriendly website, the following was disgorged about California NAEP math scores:

1) 7400 of 6 million California students were tested

2) 310 schools agreed to give the test in Fresno School District, San Diego Unified, and Los Angeles Unified

3) where the largest groups of English Language Learners (ELL) in the state reside.

No wonder the scores are weak (ELL average scale score 211).  Every California school district already knows that the achievement gap in the state is most disparate for students who speak little English.

Seems like, as teachers say all the time, too many exams.  Teachers in-the-know are busy looking at in-school assessments, using on-site data to make teaching decisions for improvement in state standards math instruction.

Nevertheless, newspaper articles and various reports about NAEP student failure point to four problems.

1) Every state has different math standards, some too easy, some too broadly defined, none matching the federal standards.

2) State assessments are too easy or don’t assess the most important math standards.

3) State proficiency benchmarks are too low.

4) Teacher preparation, credentialing, and professional development aren’t good enough, often blamed on teacher’s union policies.

What to do?

Most teachers will say, get on with it, create common standards, assessments, and benchmarks between states for math education.  Another well-kept secret, 48 states have agreed to do so.  An example is the New England Common Assessment Program.

Most important by far, states need to step up and fork over the money to “turn around” low performing schools which all those achievement gap ELL students attend.  Various studies have documented a small number of excellent schools for “turn around” models.*

Once attendance is secured, high standards made clear, parents involved, teachers well-supported, the curriculum may begin to stress critical thinking skills, the way to pass any test with flying colors, no matter who gives the exam.

*The school community wants to talk about this dilemma?  Take Care!, showing ways for the school community’s adults to resolve problems successfully,  may help.  See the website for this blog.

Not a Gap-It’s a Chasm

Wednesday, September 2nd, 2009

In California education talk, the most important words are “achievement gap.”  Next most important are the tangle called “school finance reform.”

The two problem/solutions are as thorny as the briar patch at the edge of the moat surrounding Sleeping Beauty’s castle.

As if more money in itself is going to solve the multitude of education needs to close the achievement gap, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is calling a special session in the Fall to design legislation ensuring the state’s ability to compete for Race to the Top (RTTT) federal funds.

Actually, the education world should be relieved that the real issues may finally come to the fore.

Federal Department of Education guidelines for any state plan expect measures to turn around struggling schools.  This blog has outlined one of many proposals and its recommendations (post 6/30/09).

Lawmakers’ first argument will be about repealing California’s charter school cap, a no-no for the National Education Association (NEA).  Their argument is that school governance by charter schools is only one of many options to improve the chances for low-income, at-risk students to achieve, while in the federal RTTT guidelines charter schools are being treated as the one best way to achieve student progress.

California students will benefit from the guidelines’ focus on the 5% of consistently under-performing schools.  It will, however, require money to provide consistent staff development for on-site assessment and analysis tools that help students; train, recruit, and retain highly-qualified teachers; and supply resources to keep those schools running smoothly.

Which highlights the section in the governor’s proposal to retain highly-qualified teachers and administrators.  For a long time, education articles have argued for pay arrangements to accommodate the difficulties for teachers in the most under-performing schools.  In truth, coaches or advisors to support the teacher’s best practices and counseling services for students and parents would do as much if not more to create incentives for achievement.

The last two pieces of the federal Department of Education guidelines to be debated in the legislature’s special session will leave lawmakers teetering on the edge of the chasm.  Improving accountability and linking student achievement to teacher performance are the most prickly of issues.

First, think about accountability.  How the state uses the data from one summative exam a year to designate successful and unsuccessful schools does little good.  How each school analyzes all the data collected from formative tests and uses it to diagnose what to teach next has been proven, for the few staffs trained in the techniques, to help students improve.  How will schools improve student performance with no funds to train teachers how to analyze the data?

Next, as the NEA in its letter to the U.S. Department of Education says, “It is inappropriate to require that states be able to link data on student achievement to individual teachers for the purpose of teacher and principal evaluation.”  Governor Schwarzenegger’s press release notes linked data may provide transparency, but numerous sources give reasons why it’s difficult for a single test’s data to inform anyone  how one teacher assures that an under-performing school closes the achievement gap.

It will take a lot of compromise to fairly make choices about evaluation of highly-qualified teachers and a process to ensure proficient student achievement.

Have your eyes caught the words “money” and “funds?”  In California (post 8/19) the tallest thorny vines surround the abysmal school finance system that hides the chasm, delicately referred to as the “achievement gap.”

No matter the bite from the $4.3 billion RTTT funds California might get if the legislature manages to rewrite education policies, one sure way to seal the achievement gap is to reform how state money is allocated to school districts.