Trial Urban District Assessment Results at Grades 4 and 8Institute of Education SciencesNovember 2007andTrial Urban District Assessment Results at Grades 4 and 8Institute of Education SciencesNovember 2007
Trial Urban District Assessment Results at Grades 4 and 8
Institute of Education Sciences
November 2007
and
Trial Urban District Assessment Results at Grades 4 and 8
Institute of Education Sciences
November 2007
Eleven urban districts participated in the fourth reading and math Trial Urban District Assessments (previous administrations were given in 2002, 2003, and 2005). Scores for the eleven participating districts (Atlanta, Austin, Boston, Charlotte, Chicago, Cleveland, District of Columbia, Houston, Los Angeles, New York City, and San Diego) were compared "to that of public school students in the nation, in large central cities (population over 250,000), and to each other." Overall, the results look impressive. For fourth graders in math:
The reading results weren't as impressive, but still noteworthy:
Eighth-grade results for both math and reading follow a similar pattern. But the news is hardly all good. While scores were up in both fourth- and eighth-grade math among minority and low-income students, overall they're still well behind the nation as a whole. Nationwide, for instance, 39 percent of fourth graders score proficient or better on the math assessment. In Chicago it's 16 percent. And that's up dramatically from 2003. In fact, five of the eleven tested districts have 20 percent or less of their students at the proficient level. Two districts beat the national average (Austin with 40 percent proficient, and Charlotte with 44), but their scores have been flat since 2003. And reading performance is worse. Among fourth graders, just two districts have seen their scores rise since 2003. Among eighth graders, four districts' scores (Atlanta, Cleveland, D.C., and Houston) are up. But three of them, Atlanta being the exception, are up only at the basic level. There's considerably more to tease out of these two rich reports. You can begin by reading the math report here and the reading report here.
Steering Committee of the Delaware Statewide Academic Growth Assessment Pilot
October 2007
Among the many proposed changes to NCLB, nearly everyone agrees that "adequate yearly progress" should henceforth be measured using some kind of growth model--i.e., student and school performance should abe gauged by academic improvement instead of how well they do on a test at a given point in time. But, as always, the devil's in the details. This short study out of Delaware shows that, in order to get accurate and useful data on student growth, states must implement tests that are more dynamic than the current crop of assessments. The problem, in short, is this: "no one would argue that a student who begins 4th grade with 1st grade skills and ends with 3rd grade skills hasn't made excellent progress, but current 4th grade tests cannot document this progress." Computerized "multigrade adaptive growth assessments," on the other hand, draw on a large database of questions across grade levels, and adapt each student's test to his or her level of aptitude. The study compared results from Delaware's current growth-model pilot program, which uses grade-level exams, to results from an adaptive growth assessment (the MAP test). The same 11,000 students took both tests. The adaptive assessment was much more sensitive to their progress. One caveat, which the authors acknowledge, is that the two tests are imperfectly aligned. Still, they argue, the study convincingly shows that the "progress of students who are well above or below grade level is effectively invisible under the current testing system." That's one more thing for Congress to chew on when feasting on NCLB reauthorization. See the study here.
George H. Noell, Bethany A. Porter, and R. Maria Patt
Louisiana State University
October 2007
During the 1999-2000 school year, a blue-ribbon commission recommended revision of Louisiana's teacher-preparation programs. In response, the state required that all such programs either be redesigned or scrapped and replaced by July 1, 2003. The redesigned programs had to be aligned with state and national standards and they required teachers to take more content-specific certification tests. This report, written by Louisiana State University analysts, provides the first glimpse at how effective Louisiana's teacher-prep programs are (by looking at data from Louisiana's state test, the LEAP). Alternative certification programs come out looking better. Those programs run by The New Teacher Project, Northwestern State University, and Louisiana College produced teachers who perform in math, science, and social studies classrooms as well or better than their peers. Each institution even produced some teachers who perform as well or better than experienced teachers. As more data become available, researchers plan to continue analyzing new teacher effectiveness--one hopes other states will take notice. Find the report here.
Last week, St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay wrote to over 70 potential charter school operators and invited them to start new schools in his town. The mayor hopes to begin a system of handpicked, high-quality charter schools that will, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "rival the city's sinking school district and draw families back to the city." Slay has even offered to help charter-starters secure building loans, find sponsors, and train teachers. Of course, not everyone is happy with the mayor's idea. "It sounds like a plan, then, to abandon half the children in St. Louis," said school board President Peter Downs. Not sure how Downs makes the connection from starting more charter schools to abandoning lots of kids--but whatever. Slay's persistence deserves special praise, as he's found a novel way to support charters even though the state legislature refused to give him the authority to authorize such schools himself. (He wanted the same power that Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson, who was just voted out of office, used so effectively in his Midwestern city.) In other words, Slay's approach could be mimicked by any city executive in the country...hint, hint.
"Mayor Slay pushes system of charter schools," by David Hunn, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, November 9, 2007
Last year--the first that seniors in California were required to pass a high-school exit exam in order to graduate--the number of dropouts spiked in the state. According to the Associated Press, that fact "could give ammunition to lawmakers and others who have criticized the exam." But it's worth noting that until now, the majority of America's dropouts left school not because they couldn't do the work, but because it's boring to them or seems like a complete waste of time. By adding an exit exam, by demanding at least some academic rigor from high schoolers, California may well encourage some bored, at-risk students to stay in school. Unfortunately, an exit exam will also encourage those who won't do the basic academic work (or can't) to leave, too. There should be a safety net for such students; perhaps those who remain in high school but don't pass the exit exam could earn a "certificate of completion." But if we want a high-school diploma to mean something we have to demand that it means something.
"California Dropouts Spike in First Year of Exit Exam," by Juliet Williams, Associated Press, November 8, 2007
This one was about as unexpected as I-95 traffic tie-ups on Thanksgiving eve. If you make aspiring teachers jump through lots of hoops, don't allow school districts to pay more to instructors in high-need subjects or schools, and outlaw emergency certification, then districts will face teacher "shortages"--but they'll still find a way to get warm bodies into the classroom. The long-term sub is the solution du jour. Consider Flint, Michigan, which hired over 30 long-term subs at the beginning of the year even though its 15,000-student enrollment is shrinking. High-school senior Dominique Bolden says of her math class, "The long-term sub made the learning experience very challenging because the class was not understanding him. Sometimes he made it clear that he didn't understand himself." The district and the teachers union see a solution, though: require all long-term subs to be certified. In other words, just add more regulation! May we suggest another approach? Open the classroom door to talented people without traditional credentials, pay extra to those who teach high-demand subjects or take challenging assignments, and then watch the teacher "shortage" melt away.
"Debate grows over use of long-term subs in Flint and other school districts," by Melissa Burden, Flint Journal, November 11, 2007
Over the ten years of Fordham's modern existence, we have panned vigorously for gold--curricular gold.
This quest has mostly disappointed us, as our reviews of state standards have consistently shown that expectations for American primary and secondary students are typically weak and watery.
Worse, at the high-school level, state standards have few teeth. Barely half of U.S. states require high school students to complete exit exams or standardized end-of-course exams, and most states still define high-school graduation requirements in terms of "Carnegie units," i.e. time spent in courses with particular labels that may or may not bear a close relationship to what is actually taught to pupils and expected of them.
We're not alone in saying, "Enough!" The National Governors Association, for one, has declared that "all young people should take a rigorous college-prep curriculum." Federal law calls for students to take a "rigorous high school program of study" to qualify for super-sized Pell Grants in college. But what does "rigorous" mean? "College-prep"? "Honors?" Anything in particular?
Increasingly, people using such terms mean the Advanced Placement (AP) and/or International Baccalaureate (IB) program. These two rapidly growing programs enjoy high esteem in education circles. But is it warranted? Are AP and IB academically sound? Have they resisted the postmodernist silliness that infects so much of the academy? Do their curricular frameworks and tests withstand scrutiny? In short, do AP and IB offer what most, maybe even all, high school graduates should ideally have mastered--and how to know whether they've mastered it?
Fordham's new study, Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate: Do they Deserve Gold Star Status?, provides some answers. Authored by Sheila Byrd and other subject-matter experts, it finds that, while not perfect, AP and IB deserve much of the praise they receive.
Sheila's team examined AP and IB offerings in the four core U.S. high-school subjects: English, history, math, and science (biology). The reviewers were generally satisfied with what they found and, in a couple of places, positively pleased. Both biology courses scored As, and the English and history courses secured grades in the B-range. (Fordham followers know that high grades are scarce around here.) Math, on the other hand, fared less well: the IB math course earned a B-, while AP Calculus emerged with a C+.
On the whole, these programs succeed for two reasons. First, they're built atop high academic standards and goals for learning that are clearly delineated for teachers, students, and parents. Their exams are well aligned (and sometimes superior) to their standards, testing students on the content of their courses and considerably more. Students are expected to make sense of complex materials; to write and defend their opinions intelligently; and to apply their knowledge in creative ways. These are all skills that will serve them well in later years--and that should find their way into state standards, too.
Second, these programs are linked with real-world benefits. AP and IB students not only develop knowledge and skills that better prepare them for college, but they can earn college credit (and sometimes college admission) for their efforts--a good motivation to stay with the program.
No, they're not perfect. We spotted some disturbing holes in their content, especially in math and in the English reading lists. Nor can we be certain that these programs will maintain their commendable rigor into the future. The College Board is currently revising its history and science curricula to address criticisms by "progressive" educators. Under the proposed changes, as we understand them, future U.S. history students in the AP program may spend less time studying the names, dates, events, documents, and movements important to our history, and more time talking about such themes as "politics and citizenship" or "continuity and change." Science students may also spend more time on themes (e.g., "science as progress") and on "investigative" learning, and less time on the material and terminology required to work at advanced levels of science.
These decisions are not yet set in stone. You may want to register your concerns now. For if the College Board kowtows to trendy history and science, it is apt to do the same when other courses come up for revision.
And while we're generally happy with AP and IB, we don't believe that every school in the country should rush to embrace them for all students. Successful implementation of these programs depends on the availability of talented, motivated, and well-educated teachers. As long as teacher certification regimes, school-district HR processes, and collective bargaining agreements conspire against the recruitment and development of such teachers at scale, particularly in our neediest schools, then the move to universalize access to the AP and IB programs is fraught with risk.
For now though, AP and IB deserve most of the esteem in which they are held. Parts of the two programs are gold, while others are alloyed with baser education metals. But they're mostly shiny and mostly worthy of emulation. (The Washington Post's Jay Mathews writes about the report here.)
The English have given the world many great things: the Magna Carta, Shakespeare, and the miniskirt, to name just a few. But lately they've hit a dry spell, with Boy George, the Spice Girls, and Prince Charles, among other unfortunate contributions. Undercutting solid math teaching is Britannia's latest addition to this lackluster list: an ill-considered effort by some academics to remake "maths" instruction. For example, Paul Ernest, a professor of education at Essex University, says that math is not "neutral and value-free" but "human made, therefore culturally influenced." He continues: "We need to think of different ways of contextualizing maths to take multi-culturalism, racism, and sexism into account." And Andrew Hodges, who teaches math at Wadham College, Oxford, thinks that once the subject moves from the straightforward stuff into more complicated and abstract problems, it should no longer be compulsory. Perhaps learning, say, words over three syllables shouldn't be compulsory, either? One hopes this British innovation stays on its own side of the pond.
"Who needs maths?" by John Crace, The Guardian, November 13, 2007
George H. Noell, Bethany A. Porter, and R. Maria Patt
Louisiana State University
October 2007
During the 1999-2000 school year, a blue-ribbon commission recommended revision of Louisiana's teacher-preparation programs. In response, the state required that all such programs either be redesigned or scrapped and replaced by July 1, 2003. The redesigned programs had to be aligned with state and national standards and they required teachers to take more content-specific certification tests. This report, written by Louisiana State University analysts, provides the first glimpse at how effective Louisiana's teacher-prep programs are (by looking at data from Louisiana's state test, the LEAP). Alternative certification programs come out looking better. Those programs run by The New Teacher Project, Northwestern State University, and Louisiana College produced teachers who perform in math, science, and social studies classrooms as well or better than their peers. Each institution even produced some teachers who perform as well or better than experienced teachers. As more data become available, researchers plan to continue analyzing new teacher effectiveness--one hopes other states will take notice. Find the report here.
Steering Committee of the Delaware Statewide Academic Growth Assessment Pilot
October 2007
Among the many proposed changes to NCLB, nearly everyone agrees that "adequate yearly progress" should henceforth be measured using some kind of growth model--i.e., student and school performance should abe gauged by academic improvement instead of how well they do on a test at a given point in time. But, as always, the devil's in the details. This short study out of Delaware shows that, in order to get accurate and useful data on student growth, states must implement tests that are more dynamic than the current crop of assessments. The problem, in short, is this: "no one would argue that a student who begins 4th grade with 1st grade skills and ends with 3rd grade skills hasn't made excellent progress, but current 4th grade tests cannot document this progress." Computerized "multigrade adaptive growth assessments," on the other hand, draw on a large database of questions across grade levels, and adapt each student's test to his or her level of aptitude. The study compared results from Delaware's current growth-model pilot program, which uses grade-level exams, to results from an adaptive growth assessment (the MAP test). The same 11,000 students took both tests. The adaptive assessment was much more sensitive to their progress. One caveat, which the authors acknowledge, is that the two tests are imperfectly aligned. Still, they argue, the study convincingly shows that the "progress of students who are well above or below grade level is effectively invisible under the current testing system." That's one more thing for Congress to chew on when feasting on NCLB reauthorization. See the study here.
Trial Urban District Assessment Results at Grades 4 and 8
Institute of Education Sciences
November 2007
and
Trial Urban District Assessment Results at Grades 4 and 8
Institute of Education Sciences
November 2007
Eleven urban districts participated in the fourth reading and math Trial Urban District Assessments (previous administrations were given in 2002, 2003, and 2005). Scores for the eleven participating districts (Atlanta, Austin, Boston, Charlotte, Chicago, Cleveland, District of Columbia, Houston, Los Angeles, New York City, and San Diego) were compared "to that of public school students in the nation, in large central cities (population over 250,000), and to each other." Overall, the results look impressive. For fourth graders in math:
The reading results weren't as impressive, but still noteworthy:
Eighth-grade results for both math and reading follow a similar pattern. But the news is hardly all good. While scores were up in both fourth- and eighth-grade math among minority and low-income students, overall they're still well behind the nation as a whole. Nationwide, for instance, 39 percent of fourth graders score proficient or better on the math assessment. In Chicago it's 16 percent. And that's up dramatically from 2003. In fact, five of the eleven tested districts have 20 percent or less of their students at the proficient level. Two districts beat the national average (Austin with 40 percent proficient, and Charlotte with 44), but their scores have been flat since 2003. And reading performance is worse. Among fourth graders, just two districts have seen their scores rise since 2003. Among eighth graders, four districts' scores (Atlanta, Cleveland, D.C., and Houston) are up. But three of them, Atlanta being the exception, are up only at the basic level. There's considerably more to tease out of these two rich reports. You can begin by reading the math report here and the reading report here.
