How we allowed ourselves to not immediately thank the anonymous blogger codenamed Eduwonkette for her delightful Photoshop work is beyond me. We were remiss. However, if she wishes to join us right-of-center think tank folk for cocktail hour, she would do well to jettison her visions of beer and embrace our right-of-center ritual, which involves sipping cognac from snifters and remarking about how this, that, and the other is really going to hell in a handbasket and what is to be done about it all.
It's an absolutely beautiful, sunny day in downtown D.C. this Friday, but I can't seem to shake this article that I was reading this morning on the metro into work. It's not about Michelle Rhee's school reforms, or alternative certification, or pay for performance, or teacher quality, or school choice, or student achievement, or any of those very important things we pontificate about here at Fordham. It's about homeless kids. It was in a pile of articles on education that our interns gather for us each day and I started to breeze by it for something "meatier" on the aforementioned topics. But then I stopped and read.
The article centers upon homeless schoolchildren in Ohio and Michigan. We learn that Ohio had a 12 percent increase in student homelessness between 2005 and 2007, with over 13,000 kids experiencing homelessness at some point in that timeframe. Michigan had about 18,000 homeless children during the last school year, a 16 percent rise from 2006-2007. Toledo has seen a tripling of homeless kids in the last two years, Cleveland a 60 percent increase. Heavy foreclosures from our current housing crisis are apparently driving the increases. But poverty, breakdowns in families, youth runaways, drug-addicted parents, the lousy economy--a multitude of factors contribute to putting kids on the street.
I feel compelled to pause at this point to say that I'm not raising this issue as a means to advocate that K-12 schools need to be curing all of society's ills. Or that they need to meet all of the needs of kids that parents can't or won't. We've been hearing a lot about that lately and I'm not addressing that here.
I'm simply saying that I'm sad about this. Really sad. And I have no answers to put forth. And I have no policies to advocate. And I'm not angry, and I'm not complaining, and I'm not pointing fingers today. I'm just reflecting upon the reality that we have kids living everyday in cars, motels, or street corners. Yes, some are "luckier"--they live in shelters or jostle back and forth between foster homes. The article actually mentions a teenager with special needs who was evicted from his foster home halfway through his senior year. The district superintendent remarked that "We were able to find him somewhere to live--and he graduated." Supposedly a happy ending, but I wondered where that "somewhere" was.
I'm not saying that the situation is hopeless. I know there are many folks and organizations out there doing all they can to help. But these are just kids and they're living a life of instability. I can't quite wrap my head around the fact that they have no home to go to after the school bell rings. They don't have a bed, or a computer, or a kitchen table at which to do homework--much less consistent meals. Ironically, a child psychologist commented that the routine of the school experience helps tremendously when kids lack it in other parts of their lives. So, school becomes the safe haven. Well, that's some solace I guess.
But I'm carrying a burden today for kids I don't even know and, like I said, just can't seem to shake it.
Here we are, somewhat dubious, but still enthused that Maryland reported record gains in proficiency scores this year, when we learn that Maryland neglected to mention they made their test easier. By making the test time 1 hour shorter (which, they claim only prevented the students from getting fatigued but did not decrease the difficulty--isn't part of what makes tests difficult the time limit?), some questions were necessarily cut. These were not just any questions, however, these were the psychometrically approved questions.
Maryland had taken an off-the-shelf test, created by psychometric experts at Harcourt or similar, in 2002 and combined it with in-house questions. They argued that the off-the-shelf test lent validity to the assessment because it had been tested on millions of students across the nation, while the in-house questions were more relevant and aligned with the curriculum. In a cryptic Baltimore Sun article, we learn that Maryland elected to drop the vetted off-the-shelf questions for the following four reasons:
Although students had to answer about 40 questions on the standardized portion of the test, Maryland officials did not count most of them. Instead, they elected to count the questions that focused on material they cared about and those that reflected the state curriculum.But Maryland students were not informed that some questions did not count and might have gotten bogged down on questions that covered unfamiliar material. In addition, teachers who looked at the tests when they were given each year saw material they had not focused on in class and might have been confused about what to teach the next year, according to Leslie Wilson, who heads the state's assessment office.
Dropping the standardized portion also meant that students did not have to be given two sets of directions for the two parts of the examination.
Let me see if I understand this correctly. Not only are the properly vetted questions on material that is not covered by the state curriculum, but they're not counted either. Instead, the questions that have not been vetted are counted because Maryland officials (who are, of course, experts in the art of test question design) just decided one day that that was the "material they cared about"? Teachers, of course, would be confused by the fact that the curriculum they had been given wasn't aligned with the test so instead of, oh I don't know, fixing the curriculum, we'll just eliminate those pesky questions. And while we're at it, let's blame a minor procedural question because obviously students can't listen to directions, even though that is, ostensibly, what they do all day, every day in school. Come now, Maryland. You can't possibly think that you'd be able to defend your "historic" rise in test results when you made the test easier, can you?
But don't lose all hope, because Fordham was there to shed light on this abominable double dealing in the form of Amber "The Axe" Winkler and the Baltimore Sun took notice:
Maryland's test also has been questioned for other reasons. When compared with state tests around the nation, Maryland's ranked 26th in difficulty, according to a report by the Fordham Institute, a nonprofit think tank in Washington."If already the proficiency bars are lower than half the nation, what can we really make of this?" asked Amber Winkler, Fordham's research director."
Bam! Answer that one for us, Maryland.
The folks at Education Sector are really putting it all out there. First this and now this, from Andy Rotherham, who finds a host of problems with the NAACP convention speech and education platform of John McCain.
Then, at the bottom of his post, we learn:
In the interest of transparency as I start to write more about the campaign I should note that I'm supporting Senator Obama. And, although in my role at Education Sector, a non-partisan 501c3 organization I've had contact with both campaigns around our published work and theories of action, in my free (personal and non-compensated) time I have contact with the Obama campaign on policy issues.
Wait a minute. Isn't this just another way of saying: "In??my free time,??I actively work for Senator Obama, who I'm supporting, and in??my non-partisan 501c3 time,??I criticize Senator McCain and tell you I'm supporting Obama"???
The issue isn't transparency, as Rotherham writes. It's fairness. If Rotherham wanted to maintain even a patina of impartiality here,??he might have mentioned in his post something--anything--about how the deficiencies he identifies in McCain's education platform are filled by what Obama is offering.
Finally. At long last. A group of serious analysts, commissioned by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, has concluded that NBPTS needs to include student learning gains in its evaluation of teacher quality! What's more, that conclusion is based not on ideology but on some very sophisticated analysis of which teachers do and do not actually turn out to be more effective in the classroom. I didn't have Tom Kane's study to lean on but have been making that argument for approximately twenty years. So have numerous Fordham studies, reports, and manifestos. (See, for example, ??pp. 213-215 of Troublemaker; Better Teachers for Better Schools, and this and this Gadfly item.) Find the study by Kane et al at http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~pfpie/pdf/National_Board_Certification.pdf.
But will NBPTS take this sound advice? Education Week reporter Debra Viadero is far from confident. Read her excellent piece over at edweek.org (subscription required).
Regarding my article in this week's Gadfly, I'd like to clarify that my use of the word "disingenuous" was not meant to describe the moral character of the study's authors. I actually said that the co-author's suggestion that the study provided evidence of curriculum narrowing was disingenuous. Further, I was using the word to mean "not straightforward" rather than dishonest. Regardless, I goofed. It was clearly a poor word choice and we'll print a short correction in next week's Fly.
Since I've been at Fordham, I've actually enjoyed a little back and forth with Jay on the topic of special education. I look forward to continuing discussion with him on the things that I question. His moral character is not one of them.
"1 in 4 California students--and 1 in 3 in Los Angeles--quit school," reports the Los Angeles Times.
This made me go hunting for other ways students in California can graduate from high school or receive a diploma equivalent. Interestingly, California has a number of options. Students can take their GED as early as age 17 (but only within 60 days of their 18th birthday), or they can take the California High School Proficiency Examination (CHSPE). The CHSPE can be taken as early as 16 or after completing sophomore year (regardless of age!) with parental permission to stop attending school. While the GED tests reading, writing, math, science, and social studies, the CHSPE only tests reading, writing, and math. The CHSPE also differs from the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE), which all students take for the first time in 10th grade and is required for graduation. Passing the CAHSEE is not equivalent to a diploma and tests in English language arts and math. Students have at least six opportunities to pass the CAHSEE--one in grade 10, two in grade 11, and three in grade 12. If a student continuously fails the CAHSEE, the state is required to provide extra assistance until he or she can pass.
Between all these alternative options and the number of dropouts, one wonders if anyone is actually graduating anymore. I commend the fine state of California for biting the bullet and publishing these numbers, troubling as they are, but I hope they won't spur more alternative education programs like the 2-hour-a-week (non) school the LA Board of Ed announced last week. Giving students options is great, but there is a line. California needs to be careful not to cross it.
This fall, the Minnesota Center of Online Learning (MCoOL) will expand its offerings to meet growing demand for high-tech, rigorous virtual education. MCoOL is a free Minnesota public school for grades 7-12 like any other, except for the fact that all classes are conducted online. In fact, it has been "recognized for its reputation as the school of choice for Advanced Placement courses, academic rigor, highly experienced teachers, and commitment to individualized attention to help each student succeed," reports the Wall Street Journal's MarketWatch.
There are many forms of alternative education, virtual classes being only one of them. Offering students other ways to learn is a great idea, but only when executed properly. A quick perusal of the MCoOL website reveals that this particular virtual institution seems well done. And since it offers both full time and part time classes, students can even stay at the traditional school they currently attend but take an AP course that is not offered there. For rural students and others whose schools do not have the resources to provide AP courses or interesting electives, online schools are a great alternative.
Don't try any monkey business, though, since MCoOL makes all its students sign a contract and school work is closely monitored by the staff. To take a look, go here.
Charlie Rose interviewed D.C. Chancellor of Schools Michelle Rhee last night. Not only does she provide an in depth look at D.C. education politics (and what she thinks is the most important way to improve education: recruiting and maintaining high quality teachers) but she even lays into our old friend, Randi Weingarten. Teaser:
I believe that one of the things we have to be cognizant of is believing in charter schools doesn't mean starting a charter school or two charter schools. If you truly believe in charter schools, then you believe in an open market system where charter schools can flourish. If [Randi Weingarten] really believed in charter schools, is she advocating for a lift of the cap of charter schools? I don't think so.
Take that, Randi!
Warning: the interview is worth watching through to its 54-minute completion.