1. In case you missed it, Aaron Churchill had an op ed published in the Dispatch yesterday in which he argues for a revamp of Ohio’s school and district report cards. He lays out in brief the recommendations of his recent Back to the Basics report. (Columbus Dispatch, 12/19/17)
    
2. Also possibly up for a revamp—Ohio’s teacher evaluation system. State Senator Peggy Lehner has introduced a bill that would make changes to what data are used to measure performance, the timing of observations, the rubric by which teachers are graded, and the professional development track which follows evaluation findings. A lengthy and important list. (Dayton Daily News, 12/19/17) Speaking of teachers, Youngstown Schools CEO Krish Mohip says that his teachers must improve their attendance. Some of those Y’town numbers look kinda bad, but the biggest question in this article for me: why is Austintown’s teacher absenteeism so much higher than Youngstown’s? (Youngstown Vindicator, 12/17/17)
    
3. It’s all change in Dayton these days. After this week’s school board meeting, it seems likely that their next president with be a newcomer rather than one of the experienced continuing members. Maybe he was the only one with a copy of Robert’s Rules? (Dayton Daily News, 12/19/17)
    
4. I have more questions than answers after reading this story about the end of a universal free breakfast program offered in two schools in Clark County. According to the Ohio Department of Education spokesperson quoted here, no changes were made in the state’s funding process regarding breakfast. And yet more than 600 schools across the state received a letter from ODE telling them that they needed to make changes in their breakfast programs. The resulting change means that students qualified for free and reduced price lunch (FRP) will continue to get free breakfast if they want it but that students who are not qualified for FRP will have to begin paying for breakfast after January 1 if they want it. So, were these schools mistakenly giving away breakfast to anyone who wanted it—regardless of FRP status—and billing the state for them? For a year or more? Did the state actually give them the money? If so, and if that was wrong, how is that that over 600 schools were doing the same procedure in the same incorrect way? For a year or more? And what about the hundreds of schools who were doing it correctly? Or were they? Tell us, Springfield News-Sun! Ask the hard questions! The taxpaying, breakfast-eating citizens of Ohio want, nay demand, to know!! (Springfield News-Sun, 12/16/17)
    
5. Finally today, Elyria schools has unveiled its electronic, interactive “academic hall of fame”. It is intended as a companion to the sports and arts award collections already in place in traditional display cases in the high school building. Folks are pretty happy with this electronic “walk down memory lane”; eventually it will include data on every district graduate and include club participation, academic honors, and other “notable fun facts”. Don’t let that last item make you nervous, Pioneer alums. I’m sure they don’t mean “best prank” or “most epic parking lot fail”. Well, pretty sure. (Elyria Chronicle, 12/16/17)

Here at Fordham, we try to keep our finger on the pulse of what our Ohio readers are interested in. But every year, we are pleasantly surprised when blog posts take on lives of their own.

Herewith, the most-read Ohio Gadfly blog posts of 2017, with some thoughts as to why these pieces caught your attention.

1. The student perspective

Chad Aldis’ daughter Alli had just finished her sophomore year when she wrote “My experience with AP U.S. History: The importance of rigor in bringing history to life” in June. In it, she described how much she disliked the rote memorization and dry recitation of facts that characterized her previous history classes. But all that changed when she enrolled in Advanced Placement. Engaging content, in-class debates, essays, and take-home packets allowed Alli and her classmates to dig deeper into the aspects of American history that they found interesting. It’s hard to say whether it was readers’ own experience of the dry and dusty version of history class or perhaps their own love of APUSH that drew them to this piece; but whatever it was, this was our most-read blog of the year by a very long way.

2. Wishful thinking?

In March, Jessica Poiner and Chad Aldis produced our first blockbuster post of the year—“Ohio: Give up on teacher ‘evaluations’ and focus on teacher feedback instead.” Surely the title alone reeled in some readers, figuring that Fordham had some unexpected epiphany and was joining the ranks of folks calling for an end to teacher evaluation. The authors’ admission that the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System (OTES) has been unsuccessful in fulfilling its intended purposes was likely proof. Wrong! While Chad and Jessica did call for student test scores to be removed from consideration as part of teacher ratings, the recommendations they championed—part of those put forward by Ohio’s Educator Standards Board—called for rigorous observations and a clear rubric for rating teacher effectiveness along with concrete steps for improvement.

3. Show us the money!

Also in March, Fordham released a report with recommendations to improve the state’s school funding system, and we held a panel discussion on the topic in Columbus. We also produced a video that aimed to demystify the labyrinthine nature of school funding, especially when it comes to the state’s charter schools. The blog post that accompanied that video—“Ohio’s method of funding charter schools is convoluted, in need of change”—was steadily popular throughout the rest of the year. We suspect this topic will remain on readers’ minds in 2018.

4. Lunch break

Fordham has a tradition of reviewing research reports through the lens of our mission to support educational excellence for all students. It is gratifying, then, that one such short review, “School Lunch Quality and Academic Performance” by Jessica Poiner, managed to break into our list of most-read posts of the year. Maybe it was the timing of the report release as the school year was winding down; maybe it was the searchbot jackpot of “Trump/Obama/regulations/test scores/lunch”; or maybe folks were just hungry. In any case, the findings, which suggested a healthier lunch increased test scores in study participants, seemed attractive to many readers.

5. How about some b-ball at recess?

In April, Akron City Schools announced that basketball great LeBron James was lending his name—and his foundation’s considerable financial wherewithal—to support the opening of a new school in the district. The I Promise School will begin next year with a specially selected group of second and third graders and plans to expand. With its extended school day and year, a strong focus on mentorship, and a few other off-the-beaten-path features, one would be forgiven for mistaking this trailblazing project for a charter school. Jamie Davies O’Leary said just that in her blog about I Promise—“LeBron James to start a new school in Akron, but it’s not a charter”—and got lots of attention for it.

6. But seriously, folks

Jamie Davies O’Leary shared “Thoughts on educational privilege from a middle-class parent” in early October, discussing the early stages of her process of choosing a school for her child. While personal, such a choice has resonance far beyond her own decision. She will weigh all the available options against her family’s needs and perhaps her family’s choice won’t be second-guessed by others. But that is a luxury not enjoyed by many other parents in Ohio. Clearly, this unfortunate double standard resonated with Ohio Gadfly readers.

*****
There you have it; the top blogs of 2017 from the Ohio Gadfly.

Other popular posts covered Ohio’s ESSA plan, dropout recovery schools, closing dysfunctional schools, and even a couple of additional research reviews.

We produce content designed to address the most important education issues in Ohio and beyond in the most thoughtful ways possible. Thanks for reading and engaging with the issues. Make sure to keep an eye on Ohio Gadfly Daily for more analysis, commentary, reviews, and news coming in 2018. And if you haven’t subscribed to our biweekly email newsletter to have all our great content delivered straight to your Inbox, you can do so by clicking here.

Last week, Bellwether Education Partners (in partnership with the Collaborative for Student Success) released its review of Ohio’s plan to comply with the federal law known as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). This was part of a larger project gauging the strengths and weaknesses of each state’s ESSA plan. Ohio policymakers should give careful thought to their feedback; but what should they take away from this evaluation? Let me offer three points of strong agreement with their Ohio review—and one different viewpoint. Note: I participated in this project as a peer reviewer but did not evaluate Ohio’s plan.

The areas in which the reviewers’ opinions were spot-on are as follows.

• Ohio’s accountability system is too complex. Under its summary of weaknesses, Bellwether writes: “The sheer number of measures included creates a complicated system and tends to dilute the value of many individual measures as a result.” Amen. Ohio now includes up to fifteen district or school ratings, including an overall rating, six component ratings, and eight subcomponent ratings (i.e., ratings within a larger component). This creates a noisy, cluttered report card that can lead to confusion rather than clarity on school and student performance. State legislators should heed these concerns and trim the number of ratings Ohio assigns; in a recent Fordham report, we recommend an accountability system with just six letter grades.
• Ohio’s focus on high-achieving students is laudable. Bellwether’s review notes as a strength the “multiple incentives across its system … for schools to focus on supporting students to reach advanced levels.” As evidence, the review cites Ohio’s use of a performance index—a weighted measure of proficiency that awards extra credit when students reach higher levels—and the incorporation of gifted students into the accountability system. They also mention the “innovative” Prepared for Success component that provides bonuses when students earn passing scores on AP or IB exams, or earn dual enrollment credits. Ohio’s attention to high-achievers is indeed commendable, and it’s fantastic to see this review recognizing the state’s success.
• So is Ohio’s decision to lower the n-size for subgroup accountability. It may sound wonky, but Ohio’s ESSA plan proposes an important shift in “n-size” policy—a change that reviewers cite as a strength. N-size refers to the minimum number of students who must be in a subgroup in order for their school to be held accountable for their performance, as an individual subgroup. Subgroups refer to various grouping of pupils based on similar characteristics (e.g., race/ethnicity or students with disabilities). ESSA requires reporting of subgroup data following previous federal law.

The policy question turns on exactly how many students must be in a subgroup before a school is held accountable. Under its plan, Ohio would reduce this minimum n-size from a current policy of thirty to fifteen students. Naturally, this would also increase the number of schools held accountable for subgroup performance. For instance, Bellwether’s review notes that the percentage of Ohio schools accountable for students with disabilities rises from 58 currently to 86 percent under this change. Moreover, an n-size of fifteen should maintain privacy protections for individual students, a key concern when reporting data among smaller numbers of pupils.

On the balance, this review offers solid, reasoned opinions on Ohio’s accountability policies under ESSA.

Yet in my opinion, one of its conclusions was off the mark. Namely, it found Ohio’s K-3 Literacy component to be a strength. The reviewers write, “This is a novel approach other states could consider emulating.”

Although well-intentioned, the problems with the K-3 Literacy measure are significant. Most notably, this measure relies on data taken from a wide array of diagnostic exams from which schools may choose; this limits the comparability of the data (and ratings) across schools. Also troubling is the large number of schools and districts that are simply excluded, including 25 percent of low-poverty schools and 10 percent of districts. Lastly, the measure itself does not gauge the year-to-year growth of all students, including high-achievers; it simply looks at whether children move from “off track” to “on track” status from one autumn to the next.

The early elementary grades are as important as any for students’ academic growth, and policymakers could aim to ensure solid progress through the accountability system. Research also indicates that when states exclude early elementary grades, schools might respond by reassigning high-performing teachers into the tested grade levels. Creating a counterincentive would make sense (though the Third Grade Reading Guarantee accomplishes some of this). Yet any measure for early elementary grades should also be well-designed and yield meaningful results. Regrettably, K-3 Literacy doesn’t quite meet those conditions. Considering the tradeoffs, Ohio’s K-3 Literacy rating should be seen more as a liability than an asset.

***

The biggest takeaway from Bellwether’s ESSA review is this: Even smart, experienced people in education say our school rating system has become too complicated. If they’re having trouble distinguishing heads from tails, chances are that Ohio moms and dads also have difficulties. Efforts to strengthen our accountability policies didn’t end when ODE submitted its ESSA plan. In the coming year, here’s hoping that state legislators make the right moves to improve school accountability in the Buckeye State.

1. Fordham’s Aaron Churchill is quoted in this Dispatch piece on the topic of rising high school graduation rates. Our research guru warns that giving out unearned diplomas just for the sake of “fairness” can devalue both the piece of paper and the education it is supposed to represent. (Columbus Dispatch, 12/15/17)
    
2. Meanwhile, representatives of some of the state’s public colleges and universities were discussing a similar topic at the City Club of Cleveland last week. Apparently there was widespread agreement—from the perspective of college and career readiness for students—that “many K-12 schools aren't doing their job.” That is despite those rising K-12 graduation rates of which they are all aware. Pretty scathing if you ask me, although the college reps were nice enough to shoulder some of the blame for somehow not communicating with the high schools from which they recruit students what it is they are looking for in their incoming freshmen. I wonder a little how that is possible. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 12/15/17)
    
3. Perhaps the Vindy and Akron City Schools should stop discussing details of their new I Promise School while they are ahead. The more I hear about it, the less special it sounds. Most of the facets originally touted as being “out of the box” have now been undercut. The year round schedule, the only truly original part of the school’s plan, is here specifically noted not to add any days to the school year—just to “rearrange” them. The typical school day will actually be shorter than at other district buildings, starting later but including an extra hour at the end of the day for non-academic stuff. As many of the teachers as possible will come from within existing Akron district ranks. Most of the startup money going into the project will be aimed at adults (teachers, helpers, administrators, trainers, service providers, etc.) And even the trauma-informed practices and family-focused supports which the LeBron James Family Foundation are particularly helping to fund are noted as not unique to this new enterprise but simply more readily available in I Promise compared to other district buildings. No wonder the one parent interviewed for this piece calls it “a leap of faith” to enroll her daughter into I Promise. And now they don’t even get Morgan Spurlock to lead the documentary film crew anymore, although that is not the district’s or LeBron James’ fault. (Youngstown Vindicator, 12/15/17)
    
4. One of the more unique facets of the I Promise School that has yet to be demystified is provision of yoga instruction for students. However, even that is not new. Herewith: the yoga-class-in-lieu-of-detention program in Lancaster High School where kids can opt to swap the traditional punishment for excessive tardies and other infractions for sun salutations. (Columbus Dispatch, 12/18/17)
    
5. We end today with an interesting wrinkle in the ongoing saga of Dayton City Schools’ efforts to deal with its underutilized school buildings. Since the utilization report first surfaced last week, the administration has made changes to the criteria of what proper utilization should be (25 kids per classroom instead of the original 30), which has resulted in three of the original 11 schools being dropped from the list of concern. However, the two least-utilized buildings look even more empty based on the new criteria. Ouch. Closure discussions will continue based on this new data. Union officials are warning the district not to move too quickly on the evaluation/closure process. (Dayton Daily News, 12/15/17)

With reading and math scores that top the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a majority of the workforce holding college degrees, and international test scores that compete with leading countries, it is clear that Massachusetts produces some of the best education outcomes in the country.

Its ascent to the top began in the 1990s with a series of reforms that transformed its K–12 education system. To explore how state leaders were able to pull this off (as well as what challenges remain), the Thomas B. Fordham Institute hosted a discussion featuring David Driscoll, former Massachusetts commissioner of education and the author of the new book Commitment and Common Sense; Bill Bushaw, executive director of the National Assessment Governing Board; Jim Peyser, current secretary of education for Massachusetts and a veteran of the events recounted in Driscoll’s book; David Steiner, executive director of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy; and Mieka Wick, CEO of CityBridge Education (also an alumna of the Driscoll education department.) The discussion yielded ample food-for-consideration by other states as they dive into implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act. Fordham President Emeritus Checker Finn moderated. A few emerging lessons follow:

Lesson one: Grow a thick skin

Diving into his own personal experience, Driscoll emphasized a common-sense approach to leadership, informed by his time spent teaching math in several Bay State towns, and a thick skin, developed while growing up in a large family. The former experience fueled and framed his work as an administrator while the latter made him comfortable confronting the challenges that he would face in that role, which he played at several levels of the K–12 system.

Frank, plain-spoken, battle-scarred, tough, realistic, kid-centric, Driscoll felt he was able to appraise the system as it then was which led to the conclusion that students needed more support and higher expectations. But he also saw great things happening within schools. He felt his status as an insider-outsider gave him both perspective and cover when tackling problems.

Lesson two: Make a commitment

The so-called “Grand Bargain”—struck between Massachusetts policymakers, business leaders and K–12 stakeholders—led to higher standards for students and accountability for school and educator performance in return for adequate and equitable funding, as well as more choices for families. It contained a lengthy and challenging list of to-dos. “The entire time we were doing this, there was the expectation that we were going to get results because we were given the tools,” said Driscoll. But without the investment of effort and resources, the deal would have fallen apart.

The additional funds not only boosted the capacity of poorer districts but also sent a message to all districts: The administration kept faith with what it said it was going to do. Driscoll emphasized that this was key to the bargain: “The money was about the commitment,” involving stakeholders at all levels, both in and out of education, to draw together a big tent of support.

Lesson three: Be a “safecracker”

Calling himself and his predecessor “safecrackers,” Driscoll compared the “calibration” needed for opening an old-fashioned safe’s combination lock to the implementation of Massachusetts’s education law, saying “you want to make sure you’re checking in with the field to see where that sweet spot between bureaucratic compliance and the freedom of policy innovation is when you’re implementing” reforms. Balancing accountability and autonomy is critical to helping districts, schools and teachers succeed.

Lesson four: Set high expectations, send clear signals

Peyser said one important and enduring takeaway was the signal that “basic” performance was not good enough, adding that the reforms were “a reflection of the courage of the political establishment and Driscoll’s team to stick with the plan,” even as it reflected the new reality of the education system. Peyser acknowledged that a major reason for the success in Massachusetts was “Driscoll’s grounded, practical, and commonsense approach to research, actionable policy, and what works best,” and that having Driscoll’s voice during the legislative process made “all the difference.”

Lesson five: Build trust

Working with Driscoll, Wick emphasized that “David really believed we were going to make things better for educators in Massachusetts” and he communicated that faith to educators as well as Department staff. She cited his leadership in actually listening to teachers and designing programs to help them succeed, thus creating buy-in on the front lines. She also emphasized his trust in his staff, giving them the space to be creative and, at the same time, guiding the process toward his overall goals.

Lesson six: Embrace the data

Following enactment of the reform “bargain.” Massachusetts began its ascent. Acting as an informal “auditor” of the state’s results, Bushaw said, “without question, Massachusetts, by NAEP data, demonstrated very significant gains.” He noted that while some leveling off has occurred in recent years, Massachusetts remains at the top in NAEP data and compares favorably with many other countries. And while its achievement gaps remain wide, partly by embracing that data and recognizing its implications, Massachusetts has been able to raise all subgroups.

Lesson seven: Do the right thing

Steiner said that the “Massachusetts teacher test showed that real improvement is possible—we had been lying to ourselves and we needed real courage; more need to do the right thing.” He stressed that that the Bay State’s results have led to other states taking curriculum and teacher effectiveness more seriously—ideas that still reverberate in education today.

The panelists all noted that there’s ample room to improve, even in Massachusetts, and no call for complacency. Driscoll cited stubborn achievement gaps, the lack of progress on early childhood education, and the continuing need for remediation in community colleges. Peyser added the reforms were successful in capturing the “low-hanging fruit:” greater curriculum alignment with standards, increased focus on struggling students, and collective responsibility within schools for student achievement. With the reforms, he said, “we were able to create a sense that assessments could drive instruction in a way that could make a difference.”

Massachusetts has shown that a motivation to do what is best for students and teachers can lead to great success. It came down to “high standards and expectations for kids, for teachers, and for schools and districts,” Driscoll said, “all the time we were doing this, there was the expectation that we would get results.” And those results now speak for themselves, even as ample challenges remain there as elsewhere.

1. The state board of education finished up their meeting this week by drafting a resolution proposing to create a working group to review and recommend changes to state report cards. The resolution will be debated at the next meeting in January. Fordham’s hot-off-the-presses report on this very topic is quoted within. If any of you board members need copies, just say the word! (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 12/13/17)
    
2. Meanwhile, Ohio’s war on knowin’ stuff opened a new front this week as the state’s Kindergarten readiness assessment came under fire in the Senate Education Committee. I am assuming that the people who want to eliminate this “burdensome” and “time consuming” test are the same ones who want to spend millions on pre-K because it is the answer to all of K-12 education’s woes. But I could be wrong. (Gongwer Ohio, 12/13/17)
    
3. Fascinating piece digging deeper into the details of a plan to possibly close several schools in Dayton due to ongoing student population loss and serious underutilization of buildings. There are a lot of interesting bits in here—and more to come, I’m sure—but I will leave you with just this one stat: “Associate Superintendent Shelia Burton said based on staffing, utilities, maintenance and expenses, the cost to operate an under-enrolled building can reach as high as $14,000 per student, while fuller schools cost as little as $6,000 per student.” Stark. And probably with a much wider implication for the school funding discussion statewide. (Dayton Daily News, 12/13/17)
    
4. So one of the factors to which Dayton City Schools is attributing its ongoing student population slide is of course school choice. As all four of my loyal Gadfly Bites subscribers know, I am all about school choice, and here are two stories about other folks in Ohio all in on choice. First up, a group of citizens in Defiance this week met to learn about possible changes (dare I say “improvements”) proposed for the state’s voucher programs in HB 200. Hopefully they came away energized and supportive. (Crescent-News, Defiance, 12/14/17) Secondly, here is yet another love letter to the Life Skills High School in Elyria, whose family-oriented mission is to help students recover credits and get back on track to graduate. As with all the recent love letters to Life Skills, no mention is made of it being a charter school. Which is a good thing, because the choice is the program and the promise, not the school governance structure. (Northern Ohio Morning Journal, 12/14/17)
    
5. Sticking with our theme of “not the status quo”, a large enough number of parents in Canton are enthusiastic about the implementation of year round schooling there to allow the district to move forward. Planning will continue for the rest of this year and the Accelerating Innovative Minds (AIM) Academy will most likely launch next school year. Cool! (Canton Repository, 12/13/17)
    
6. Finally today, here’s a great story about an in-school credit union run by and for students in the Toledo suburb of Oregon. Kids get financial literacy education from both sides of the teller desk. I hope you have high interest in this cool story. Get it? “High interest”?! Anyone? It’s a financial reference! No? OK. (Toledo Blade, 12/13/17)

In 1970, the celebrated economist Albert O. Hirschman published Exit, Voice, and Loyalty. A few years ago, the Hoover Institution’s Williamson Evers explained its argument on the Education Next blog:

Hirschman discusses how individuals react when services they rely on deteriorate. The basic responses available to us are “exit” and “voice,” Hirschman points out, where exit means turning to a different provider or leaving the area, and voice means political participation.

We tend to think of these responses as stark alternatives. Hirschman, as a social scientist, wanted us to consider the interplay between them. Exit usually has lower costs than voice for the individual. With exit, you can avoid the long slog of politics and simply turn to someone else or move somewhere else.

But there is a limiting case: Exit can have high costs when individuals are loyal to institutions—thus the third component in Hirschman’s trio of exit, voice, and loyalty.

I’ve been thinking about exit, voice, and loyalty lately, and how they pertain to parents of school-age children, myself included.

Those of us in education reform have generally viewed parents as either choosers or helpers—in terms of exit or loyalty. Under the former rubric: If kids are stuck in failing or mediocre or “bad-fit” schools, we parents should be able to vote with our feet, “exit” the school, and go someplace else. That is the great promise of school choice—it gives parents real power and thus makes the needs of our kids a priority while providing beneficial competitive effects for everyone else.

Under the latter rubric comes the role of parents as loyal helpers in the work of school improvement and educational betterment. This is important to many educators and some reformers and is surely a form of “loyalty.” There’s “parental engagement,” i.e. getting parents to excel as their children’s first teacher, for example by reading to them every night. There’s helping them with their homework, etc. And then there’s parents helping to improve schools by raising money, volunteering at events, pushing public officials to make education funding a priority, and more. “Loyal” parents that we are, we generally comply.

But what about giving more parents greater “voice”—and heeding it? Has anyone sincerely tried that as part of a reform strategy? Some of us talk about “parent power,” but that mostly refers back to school choice, i.e., exit. There are an increasing number of grass-roots organizing efforts in ed reform, but again most of them, like those led by Innovate Public Schools, are about pushing for systemic change or more school choice options.

What about parents who are committed to staying in our chosen school—typically the traditional public school in our neighborhood—but want to help it get better? Is empowering parents to have a real say in the affairs of their kids’ schools a promising strategy for school improvement? On issues big and small, from smarter approaches, to “differentiating instruction” so advanced kids aren’t bored and struggling kids aren’t left behind, to figuring out how to make recess less Lord of the Flies, to working on getting youngsters more exercise and healthier school meals, and on and on?

Don’t parents already have a voice?

I suspect many people assume that’s already happening, especially in affluent schools. Don’t pushy, prosperous parents pressure principals all the time to fix this or that about their schools? Isn’t that what PTAs are all about?

That’s certainly what I assumed before I become a pushy and (somewhat) prosperous parent myself. But, now that I am, I’m just not seeing it. And, as I’ve asked around and looked for evidence, I don’t see many examples out there. (Maybe Parents for Public Schools comes closest.) PTAs appear to be almost entirely in “helper” mode; structures to meaningfully engage parents in school decisions are almost always lacking. And when parents do advocate to make change it’s usually on behalf of their own children—to get additional services, or a different teacher, or some accommodation. When it comes to improving the school, though, we have a collective action problem, and a balance of power problem. (The schools have all the power, and the parents have none.)

I see this in my own kids’ neighborhood public school. Not once in my five years at the school have I filled out a survey or been asked my opinion about how the school might get better. As far as I know, there’s not even a suggestion box. It’s hard to send a clearer message than that.

None of this surprises Tim Daly, founder of EdNavigator. “We don’t want to admit that schools have a different agenda from parents,” he told me. We parents may have ideas on how to improve the educational experience at our school; a principal has to worry about other things as well, including keeping supervisors happy and living within contractual obligations. “Parents are not always right. Parents are also not always wrong. It’s that schools and parents frequently don’t have the same interests.” And schools are not generally open, Daly said, to giving parents a role as “co-strategists.” After all, educators are the experts.

That’s all true, of course, but surely there’s no harm in asking parents for feedback, input, and suggestions. It’s not a crazy idea that parents’ views might have some value. Some states (including Maryland!) have even considered including the results from parent surveys in their school accountability systems. And parent comments are a key part of the popularity of the GreatSchools.org site. Furthermore, at a time when many reformers are accused of being outsiders and not in touch with “the community,” why not extend an olive branch and indicate that parents’ ideas and concerns are taken seriously?

The honest reason why not, of course, is because it could make the principal’s life more difficult. Parents might want changes that teachers resist or are legitimately beyond a school leaders’ control—especially in big, centralized, bureaucratized systems (hello, Montgomery County!) where most key decisions are made at the school board or central office levels. And we can’t assume that all parents are going to want the same changes—which might be why parents in traditional public schools are less satisfied with engagement efforts than those in charter and private ones.

In some parts of the country, parents haven’t waited to be asked for their input—they’ve grabbed their pitchforks and forced school or district leaders to pay them heed. Parent activist and blogger Erika Sanzi has seen several such efforts up close. “A small brave group is all it takes,” she says, “armed with data and information and examples of how they do things in places that excel. A group of informed parents that doesn't only talk about their own kids but is fiercely on the side of improving the school/district for ALL kids.” And if the principal doesn’t listen? “Committed parents can be very influential when it comes to replacing lousy leaders,” she argues, “because once you get a strong leader into place—and they hopefully build their own leadership team— things begin to improve.”

As inspirational as such parents and their stories are, they seem to be the rare exceptions. What we need is a strategy that can work at scale.

Parent advisory councils

What might work to give parents a real voice in their schools? The most radical approach ever tried in the modern U.S.A. was probably Chicago’s experiment with “Local School Councils” in the early 90s. These councils, comprised of parents, community members, and educators, were given real power over the day-to-day affairs of their schools, even including the selection and oversight of the principal. This didn’t go well in some low-income communities, where it was harder to develop a coherent plan for school improvement, and where cronyism combined with racial politics stymied efforts to make real change. But in more affluent parts of the city there was some evidence of meaningful progress, both in terms of student learning and in community buy-in.

Those local school councils have been stripped of much of their power, but some charter schools and private schools still put parents on their boards, which is an avenue for parent voice and engagement. Another alternative is via parental advisory committees. Take the Namaste Charter School, also in Chicago. Maureen Kelleher, another Education Post blogger, told me about her experience with its “bilingual advisory committee,” launched by the teacher who leads the school’s dual-language immersion program. In Kelleher’s words:

It quickly became the most visible and active parent-school connection, building community, designing meetings where teachers went in deep with parents about the instruction taking place. We had a great session where teachers shared classroom video and led mini-exercises so parents could get a real feel for how dual-language was working in the classrooms. We also became a place where parents could get questions answered about much more than just the dual-language program.

Perhaps most importantly, our council became a go-to for recruiting parents to help with the most recent principal search. We also went to the board to talk about the principal search and the need to find and keep a strong school leader. I think we have her now—and she continues to rely on us.

Another example comes from KIPP Comienza Community Prep in Los Angeles. That schools’ Family Leadership Council “meets regularly with school leadership to represent the voice and needs of parents.” They set goals together, collaborate on developing a strategy to meet them, and team up when it’s necessary to advocate for the school and its students.

I’m a long way from L.A., but a Family Leadership Council sounds great to this suburban public school dad. Maybe it could be connected to the PTA, or maybe it would work better independently. The creation of such councils would probably need to be mandated by local school boards, at least in the district sector. But it strikes me that this is the sort of civil society invention needed in every public, private, and charter school in America.

Parents are an untapped resource for reform. It’s time to give them—to give us—a voice.

Ever since the federal government mandated annual standardized testing two decades ago, test preparation, i.e., instructional time spent preparing students for tests, has been hotly debated. Critics argue that it negatively affects teaching and learning by focusing instruction on rote and procedure over more complex content, while proponents contend that test prep can improve instruction if the tests themselves, and the academic standards that they assess, are rigorous and high-quality.

Oddly, there’s little research to substantiate the claims of either side. So let us welcome a recent study on these issues by David Blazar of the University of Maryland and Cynthia Pollard of Harvard’s Graduate School of Education.

Using data previously collected by the National Center for Teacher Effectiveness (NCTE), Blazar and Pollard analyzed two separate measures of test preparation to answer two questions. First, does test prep lead to lower-quality instruction? And, second, does it make any difference if teachers are teaching to a more cognitively demanding test? 

The researchers used teacher surveys as well as transcripts from videotaped math lessons to determine how frequently teachers engage in test prep, and what types. The survey yielded self-reported data on how often teachers engaged in five common forms of test prep activities, including focusing instruction on students just below a given performance level on a state test and using standardized test items in their instruction. Blazar and Pollard also scoured transcripts of videotaped lessons to determine whether test preparation was a major focus of instruction. They then compared video and survey findings to teachers’ observation scores, as measured by the cognitive demand of math content provided to students, interaction with students, and the accuracy of content delivered.

After controlling for the background characteristics of teachers, students, schools, and districts, the researchers found that “test preparation is a significant and negative predictor” of instructional quality—though they stress that its negative effect is fairly modest and likely overstated in the current discourse. Somewhat surprisingly, when comparing the incidence of test prep to the rigor of respective state tests, they also found “little support for the moderating role of test rigor.”

The authors flag several major cautions. Most importantly, the data come from a relatively small, non-nationally representative sample of fourth and fifth grade mathematics teachers in Massachusetts, Georgia, and Washington, D.C., so it’s uncertain whether the findings can be generalized to other grades, content areas, and parts of the country. Data were also collected from 2010–13, prior to the administration of Common Core–aligned assessments such as PARCC and Smarter Balanced, so it’s unclear how test prep for “next-generation” assessments (which Fordham reviewed in 2015 and found to be generally high-quality) might affect instructional quality.  

Given all of the criticism and fearmongering around test prep in recent decades, surprisingly little research has investigated the relationship between test preparation and instructional quality. This study sheds a bit more light on this heated issue, and underscores the many complexities surrounding instruction, assessment, and student learning. But we clearly need more light to illuminate this tunnel.

SOURCE: David Blazar and Cynthia Pollard, “Does Test Preparation Mean Low-Quality Instruction?,” Educational Researcher (October 2017).

Science is just cool. Plain and simple. You can find science at play in all our surroundings. Whether one recognizes it or not, science can explain everyday encounters like music being heard from an instrument to more obvious interactions like combustion of materials. Because of these natural occurrences, classroom teachers have the opportunity to demonstrate science in action through everyday examples. Historically, science was taught in isolation using traditional pedagogical practices. Over the last twenty-five years, teachers of science have embraced hands-on types of science activities, and integrated forms of technology (e.g., graphing calculator, probes, and the like) to increase engagement and bring relevant experiences to the science classroom. More recently, the Next Generation Science Standards have influenced how we approach the teaching of science; however, students have redefined the definition of engagement.

Today’s generation of students are living in a world of immersive technology. They prefer to receive news and information through Facebook or Instagram, and are highly engaged in self-directed learning using YouTube. Their utilization of these platforms requires teachers to reexamine their own interpretation of student engagement and hands-on learning. These types of self-directed, interest-based student activities are surely a call-to-action for all educators to seek out new ways to reach and teach students…and is most definitely a clarion call for teachers of gifted students.

A recent article published by Family Zone reported that kids under 8 years old spend 65 percent of their online time on YouTube. Although social media platforms such as Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat come into play as they get older and their use of YouTube diminishes, YouTube retains the top spot through adolescence. Although many teachers use YouTube as an instructional video platform in the classroom, the use of YouTube as a hands-on engagement tool or as a component of immersive technology is not fully realized. There are a number of ways to use YouTube to direct hands-on immersive science activities. Let us look at one way that will greatly increase student engagement in science while fully embracing emerging trends in technology and student interest.

Utilizing/Creating 360 Virtual Reality YouTube videos for instruction and learning

The year 2018 will be huge for Virtual Reality (VR) technology. The use of VR is expected to nearly double in monthly users annually bringing estimates to 17 million monthly U.S. users by 2019 due to innovations in industries such as gaming (e.g., Oculus, PlayStation), social media, and in music and entertainment. Not surprisingly, Facebook is the largest single investor in VR (and Augmented Reality aka AR). Facebook’s highly-anticipated live VR platform “Facebook Spaces,” is expected to roll out in 2018, and the 2018 FIFA World Cup will be broadcast (by NBC) in VR. If they have not already, there is no doubt that children will engage in VR soon. The rise of both VR and AR serves as a predictor for the future trajectory of teaching and learning.

Although it is a newer technology, there are many 360 VR science videos on YouTube. Google Cardboard Glasses are available from Amazon for less than $7. Coupled with a smart phone, iPod Touch, or other hand-held tablet device, students can experience science in a virtual space. The glasses/headset is not required to view typical VR videos (if you only want students to experience a 360-degree view of a video); however, they are required for an immersive experience.

To differentiate instruction for advanced learners, have students create their own VR science experience using the Google Cardboard Camera app available on both IOS and Android app stores. If you want to explore other options, consider using the Full Dive Camera app (for Android), Google Street View app (Android, IOS), 360 Cam app (Android, IOS), or Video Stitch app (Windows/Mac). Some of these apps will allow you to view the end product directly within the app. Others will require you to upload to a video platform like YouTube (no worries, you can list the videos as “unlisted” to maintain student privacy). Regardless of the option you choose, student engagement will increase.

Moreover, teachers will certainly want to use VR as a virtual science laboratory simulator where students can perform lab experiments and safely perform dangerous experiments in virtual simulation. To do this, the teacher could record VR video for a specific experiment ahead of time for students to view, or peruse the YouTube 360 video library for related topics.

In addition to lab simulations, students can use VR YouTube videos to view everything from medical procedures (including operations) in 360 to space exploration. For example, students can now participate in virtual tours of the human body using VR YouTube videos, allowing students to gain a deeper understanding of the human body. Add in related apps (there are many), students can also supplement their learning with VR glasses and an iPad while performing actual dissections or other lab activities.

Although only a couple of uses for VR YouTube videos for science were discussed here, there are many ways you can use them to increase engagement, excitement, and interest in science. It is also important to note that Virtual Reality technology (and its closely related kin, Augmented Reality) is a viable career path for innovators in the STEM disciplines. So, enthusiastically embrace, use, and rejuvenate your science class in 360 VR.

Alicia Cotabish is an associate professor at the University of Central Arkansas.

Editor’s note: A version of this article will appear in NAGC's Teaching for High Potential (February 2018).