The Looming Clash between Common Core and Standardized Testing

Posted on March 4, 2013 by coreeducation

Recently, Joshua Starr, the Superintendent of Montgomery County Public Schools (MD), one of the wealthiest, largest, and high-achieving school districts in the United States, went public with his idea that there be a three-year moratorium on federally mandated standardized testing. He is not fundamentally opposed to all standardized testing, but he does have a problem with forcing the issue right now on standardized testing when he feels that states and districts should be most concerned with preparing to implement the new Common Core standards well.

Starr is also opposed to the idea of using student test scores from standardized testing to evaluate teacher performance, hence why his county opted not to participate in Maryland’s Race to the Top bid and why Montgomery County does not receive funding through that competition. Starr is taking his county on a course opposed to his own state education department’s plans.

Starr argues, “A moratorium on standardized tests would give our school systems the ability to implement the Common Core with fidelity. It would also give the groups developing assessments aligned to the Common Core the time they need to get it right. These assessments will include performance tasks and multi-step problems. This is a vast improvement over most, if not all, current state assessments, which rely heavily on multiple-choice problems.”

Starr is not the only one to take a stand against standardized testing. News broke recently of a coalition of more than 130 Massachusetts professors and researchers from some 20 schools — including Harvard, Tufts, Boston and Brandeis universities — signing a new public statement that urges officials to stop overusing high-stakes standardized tests to assess students, teachers and schools. Elsewhere around the country, students, teachers, principals, and superintendents have been making more noise in slowly growing dissension against standardized testing.

Not everyone, however, sees standardized testing so negatively. Kristen Amundson, the senior vice president for the think tank Education Sector who was also a member of the Fairfax County (VA) School Board from 1991 to 2000 and chairman of the board from 1996 to 1998, wrote an op-ed response to Joshua Starr’s that recently appeared in the Washington Post.

Amundson’s central argument is that without federally-mandated standardized testing, the notion of accountability becomes just that—a notion. Ms. Amundon asserts, “My experience representing the diverse Mount Vernon area was that only the advent of national tests with real consequences led to sustained interest in our lowest-performing students.” While Ms. Amundson does not question Montgomery County’s overall level of student achievement, she does question whether this success is true for all strata of Montgomery County students.

For more on this developing controversy, please visit the following links:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/schools-need-time-to-implement-common-core-standards/2013/02/07/fb3a20dc-6bff-11e2-bd36-c0fe61a205f6_story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/02/22/massachusetts-professors-protest-high-stakes-standardized-tests/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-trouble-with-starrs-testing-moratorium/2013/02/22/2c3d4238-7adb-11e2-a044-676856536b40_story.html

2010 Census Statistics and Education: Enrollment, Cost, and Outcomes

Posted on November 8, 2012 by coreeducation

The United States Census Bureau has released educational statistics that have been compiled as part of its “How Do We Know?” initiative. The statistics are broken down into three categories: enrollment, cost, and outcomes and displayed in a visually appealing infographic.

For enrollment, the Census Bureau focuses on showing the similarities and differences between educational enrollment in 1970 (during the peak period of baby boomers in school) and 2010.

The Census Bureau evaluates Americans between the ages of 3 and 34 and finds that in all but the grade school level (elementary and middle school), there are more students than there were in 1970.
The largest differences were in nursery school (.9 million in 1970 to 4.9 million in 2010) and college (7.0 million in 1970 to 18.9 million in 2010). In other words, the largest increases in terms of who is receiving education in America concern its youngest and oldest students.
In 1970, only 27% of 3 to 5 year olds were receiving education whereas 60% of that age group were receiving education in 2010.
Most of those young children in school are in public, whole day education, an increase of over 40%.
In 1970, only 32% of 18 to 24 year olds were receiving education whereas 52% of that group were receiving education in 2010.
More specifically, the gender of those in college and graduate school has shifted: in 1970, 27% of men and 20% of women were enrolled but in 2010, 38.6% of men and 47.5% of women were enrolled. Nearly half of American women between ages 18 and 24 are enrolled in college or graduate school.

In terms of the cost of education, the U.S. government spent $602.6 billion on education in 2010, out of which 52.7% was for instruction, 29.7% was for support services, 9.8% was for capital outlays, and 7.7% was for other. Only four states, New York, New Jersey, Vermont, and Connecticut, spent over $9,000 per year per pupil. Twenty three states, mostly those in the Northeast and upper Midwest, spent between $6,000 and $8,999 per year per pupil. The rest spent between $3,000 and $6,000 per year per pupil.

Finally, in terms of outcomes, the 2010 census strongly supports the known connections between level of education gained and income as well as the continuing discrepancy between what men and women of equal educational level earn per year. Starting at the level of those with graduate/professional degrees, who on average make $62,618 per year, those with bachelor’s degrees make roughly $15,000 less per year, those with some college or associate’s degrees make roughly another $15,000 less per year, those with only a high school degree make roughly another $5,000 less per year, and finally those without high school diplomas make roughly another $8,000 less than that per year. For those same respective categories, the men made more money per year than women did by roughly $28,000, $17,000, $12,000, $10,000, and $7,000.

The full breakdown of these statistics can be found at http://www.census.gov/how/infographics/education.html

Executive Order Establishes Initiative on Educational Excellence for African Americans

Posted on July 30, 2012 by coreeducation

Last Wednesday, during his remarks at the National Urban League conference in New Orleans, President Obama announced he would sign an Executive Order to improve outcomes and advance educational opportunities for African Americans.

The President has made providing a complete and competitive education for all Americans – from cradle to career – a top priority. The White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for African Americans will work across Federal agencies and with partners and communities nationwide to produce a more effective continuum of education programs for African American students. The Initiative aims to ensure that all African American students receive an education that fully prepares them for high school graduation, college completion, and productive careers.

In the less than 60 years since the Brown v. Board of Education decision put America on a path toward equal educational opportunity, America’s educational system has undergone a remarkable transformation. Nonetheless, substantial obstacles to equal educational opportunity still remain in America’s educational system. African American students lack equal access to highly effective teachers and principals, safe schools, and challenging college-preparatory classes, and they disproportionately experience school discipline and referrals to special education.

The President has set the goal for America to have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020. To reach this ambitious goal, and to ensure equality of access and opportunity in education for all Americans, the Obama Administration is dedicating new resources, through rigorous and well-rounded academic and support services, to enable African American students to improve their educational achievement and prepare for college and career.

To deliver a complete and competitive education for all African Americans, the Initiative will promote, encourage, and undertake efforts designed to meet several objectives, including:

Increasing the percentage of African American children who enter kindergarten ready for success by improving access to high-quality early learning and development programs;
Ensuring that all African American students have access to high-level, rigorous course work and support services that will prepare them for college, a career, and civic participation;
Providing African American students with equitable access to effective teachers and principals, and supporting efforts to improve the recruitment, preparation, development, and retention of successful African American teachers and principals;
Promoting a positive school climate that does not rely on methods that result in disparate use of disciplinary tools, and decreasing the disproportionate number of referrals to special education by addressing root causes of the referrals;
Reducing the dropout rate of African American students;
Increasing college access, college persistence, and college attainment for African American students;
Strengthening the capacity of institutions of higher education that serve large numbers of African American students; and
Improving the quality of, and expanding access to, adult education, literacy, and career and technical education.

To read the full Executive Order, please visit http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/26/executive-order-white-house-initiative-educational-excellence-african-am

District-Level Race to the Top to Focus on the Classroom, Provide Tools to Enhance Learning and Serve the Needs of Every Student

Posted on May 29, 2012 by coreeducation

The U.S. Department of Education has released proposed criteria for the 2012 Race to the Top program – a nearly $400 million competition that invites school districts to create plans for individualized classroom instruction aimed at closing achievement gaps and preparing each student for college and career.

“Today, we’re taking the next step forward. We’re announcing a new Race-to the Top competition for school districts that is aimed squarely at the classroom level and the all-important relationship among teachers and students,” said U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. “With this competition, we are inviting districts to show us how they can personalize education for a set of students in their schools. We need to take classroom learning beyond a one-size-fits-all model and bring it into the 21st century,” Duncan said.

The proposed 2012 program criteria invites applications from districts or groups of districts serving at least 2,500 students with 40 percent or more qualifying for free or reduced price lunch. Districts will choose to apply for funding to support learning strategies that personalize education in all or a set of schools, within specific grade levels, or select subjects.

Eligibility, as outlined in the proposed criteria, will be determined by a district’s demonstrated commitment to RTT’s four core reform areas. Applicants from all districts will be invited to apply. The criteria has been designed to ensure no district is at a disadvantage – including those already participating in a RTT grant awarded through one of the first three phases, districts not currently participating, and rural districts. Awards will range from $15 million to $25 million, depending on the population of students served through the plan.

As proposed, applicants will be selected based on their vision and capacity for reform as well as a strong plan that provides classrooms and teachers with the resources to prepare students for college and career. Districts must effectively engage and collaborate with teachers, parents and outside organizations to create their plan and provide assistance to ensure a successful transition to proposed reforms. Plans will focus on transforming instruction so that it meets all students’ learning abilities. Teachers will track and receive real-time data and information that helps them adapt their lessons and individualize instruction to accommodate the differences among their students.

The Race to the Top district-level competition will encourage transformative change within schools, targeted toward leveraging, enhancing, and improving classroom practices and resources. School leaders will have the ability and flexibility to strategize how best to use time, staff the school, and manage the school budget.

Teachers will have resources inside and outside the classroom that help them build on their talent and offer tools and ideas to improve their day-to-day work. School staff will work collaboratively to grow each teacher’s instructional skillset by leveraging the support and skills of their colleagues. And all students will have equal access to high-quality learning materials inside and outside of class, be challenged to demonstrate learning before transitioning to new material, and know where he or she stands in a given subject based on performance data.

The proposal offers competitive preference to applicants that form partnerships with public and private organizations to sustain their work and offer services that help meet students’ academic, social, and emotional needs, and enhance their ability to succeed.

To read or comment on the Race to the Top district-level proposal, visit http://www.ed.gov/race-top/district-competition. Public Comment ends June 8.

The Department plans to release the application in July with an October submission deadline.

Awards will be announced no later than Dec. 31, 2012.

National Dialogue on Strengthening and Elevating the Teaching Profession

Posted on May 10, 2012 by coreeducation

The US Department of Education kicked off Teacher Appreciation Week by initiating a dialogue on improving teaching profession, as well as the public perception of America’s teachers. A vision document for reforming the teaching profession created by active classroom teachers working temporarily for the U.S. Department of Education was posted for public comment on the Department’s website May 8. The 14-page document reflects input from more than 2,500 teachers across the country who participated in approximately 200 roundtable meetings over the past six months.

The RESPECT Project, which stands for Recognizing Educational Success, Professional Excellence and Collaborative Teaching, is the Obama Administration’s effort to honor and elevate America’s educators. The administration’s proposed 2013 budget seeks $5 billion for a new competitive program to support states and districts working to reform the teaching profession.

“Our goal is to make one of America’s most important professions into one of America’s most valued professions. We encourage educators nationwide to join this important conversation and share their ideas for transforming the field of teaching,” said Education Secretary Arne Duncan.

As part of its work to better support teachers, the administration has held two international conferences with labor leaders and education ministers from high-performing countries around the world. And, later this month, the administration, national teacher unions, school superintendents, school boards and labor mediators are convening for two days in Cincinnati to focus on reforming the teaching profession.

RESPECT explores transformative ideas for improving classroom instruction, making the most of the school day and year, strengthening the relationship between principal and teachers, and distributing talent to high-need schools and subjects. In addition, it discusses effective methods for recruitment, training, development, and creating career pathways that encourage talented teachers and leaders to maintain professions in education.

The vision document, titled “The RESPECT Project: Envisioning a Teaching Profession for the 21st Century”, is available for public comment until June 19, 2012 at http://www.ed.gov/documents/respect/discussion-document.doc

What the U.S. Can’t Learn from Finland

Posted on May 6, 2012 by coreeducation

Finland, with its high-achieving public schools, has been held up as a standard for the US as we slog down the path of education reform. However, are there things we can’t learn from Finland’s model? Pasi Sahlberg, author of Finnish Lessons: What Can the World Learn About Educational Change in Finland?, recently wrote an article for the Washington Post on what lessons Finland is unable to teach the US. Excerpts from his article are below.

“During the last decade, Finland has become the go-to place for education reformers all around the world. The main reason is its success in the international survey comparing 15-year-olds in reading, math and science learning called PISA (Program for International Student Assessment). Since that OECD report, I have been privileged to meet legislators, administrators, teachers, and parents here in the United States. Anywhere I go, people are eager to hear about Finnish education and its accomplishments. Especially, they want to know what they can learn from it.

What I have to say, however, is not always what they want to hear. While it is true that we can certainly learn from foreign systems and use them as backdrops for better understanding of our own, we cannot simply replicate them. What, then, can’t the United States learn from Finland?

First of all, although Finland can show the United States what equal opportunity looks like, Americans cannot achieve equity without first implementing fundamental changes in their school system. The following three issues require particular attention.

Funding of schools: Finnish schools are funded based on a formula guaranteeing equal allocation of resources to each school regardless of location or wealth of its community.
Well-being of children: All children in Finland have, by law, access to childcare, comprehensive health care, and pre-school in their own communities. Every school must have a welfare team to advance child happiness in school.
Education as a human right: All education from preschool to university is free of charge for anybody living in Finland. This makes higher education affordable and accessible for all.

As long as these conditions don’t exist, the Finnish equality-based model bears little relevance in the United States.

Second, school autonomy and teacher professionalism are often mentioned as the dominant factors explaining strong educational performance in Finland. The school is the main author of curricula. And the teacher is the sole authority monitoring the progress of students.

In Finland, there is a strong sense of trust in schools and teachers to carry out these responsibilities. There is no external inspection of schools or standardized testing of all pupils in Finland. For our national analysis of educational performance, we rely on testing only a small sample of students. The United States really cannot leave curriculum design and student assessment in the hands of schools and teachers unless there is similar public confidence in schools and teachers. To get there, a more coherent national system of teacher education is one major step.

[…]

Teaching in Finland is, in fact, such a desired profession that the University of Helsinki, where I teach part-time, received 2,300 applicants this spring for 120 spots in its primary school teacher education program. In this teacher education program and the seven others, teachers are prepared to design their own curricula, assess their own pupils’ progress, and continuously improve their own teaching and their school. Until the United States has improved its teacher education, its teachers cannot enjoy similar prestige, public confidence and autonomy.

Third, many education visitors to Finland expect to find schools filled with Finnish pedagogical innovation and state-of-the-art technology. Instead, they see teachers teaching and pupils learning as they would in any typical good school in the United States. Some observers call this “pedagogical conservatism” or “informal and relaxed” because there does not appear to be much going on in classrooms.

The irony of Finnish educational success is that it derives heavily from classroom innovation and school improvement research in the United States. Cooperative learning and portfolio assessment are examples of American classroom-based innovations that have been implemented in large scale in the Finnish school system.

Those who are looking at Finland’s education system as a possible model for reform in the United States point out, quite correctly, that our two countries are very different. In these comparisons, one critical difference is often overlooked that is also essential to understanding what our two countries can or cannot learn from one another.

In the United States, education is mostly viewed as a private effort leading to individual good. The performances of individual students and teachers are therefore in the center of the ongoing school reform debate. By contrast, in Finland, education is viewed primarily as a public effort serving a public purpose. As a consequence, education reforms in Finland are judged more in terms of how equitable the system is for different learners…The former is driven by excellence, the latter by equity.

[…]

What Finland can show to others is how equity and equal opportunity in education look like. However, school reformers in the United States need to be careful when considering equity-based reform ideas to be imported from Finland. Many elements of Finnish successful school system are interwoven in the surrounding welfare state. Simply a transfer of these solutions would add another chapter to already exhausting volume of failed education reforms.”

To read the full text, please visit http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/what-the-us-cant-learn-from-finland-about-ed-reform/2012/04/16/gIQAGIvVMT_blog.html

District Seeks Alternative Methods of Integration

Posted on March 5, 2012 by coreeducation

From the 1970s through the 1990s, Wake County Public Schools in North Carolina was known for its academic performance and dedication to racial integration of its schools. However, since 2000, when the courts ruled race could no longer be a criterion in determining which school students attend, Wake county has had to look for other routes to promote equality.

The County is now one of the first in the nation to adopt a system of socioeconomic integration. The idea was that every school would have a mix of children, with 60% not requiring subsidized lunch, while the other 40% did. However, in 2009 a new conservative majority was elected to the Wake school board, and it has voted to dismantle the integration plan. Families will now send their children to the closest neighborhood school.

This meant that students from poor areas will attend schools composed of mostly poor children, and wealthier children will attend wealthier schools. However, Wake county is full of well-educated people (50% of employees are college grads) and did not take this decision lying down. Two weeks ago, civil leaders proposed a “third generation” of integration: integration by achievement.

Under this plan, no school would have an overwhelming number of failing students. Rather, schools would have something like a 70/30 mix—70% students who score proficient on state assessments, and 30% who are below grade level. This type of integration plan is believed to be the first of its kind in the nation. So far, the initial reaction to the plan has been positive. Conservative and liberal school board members, as well as a former and the current superintendent have all expressed their satisfaction with this plan as a starting point.

Jack Jennings Retires, Leaves Words of Advice

Posted on February 12, 2012 by coreeducation

Jack Jennings, founder, president, and CEO of the Center on Education Policy (CEP), stepped down from his roles at the organization on January 31. As part of his retirement, he is releasing two publications. One is the history of the CEP, the other contains some final words of advice on the future of American public schools.
The second publication, Why Have We Fallen Short and Where Do We Go From Here? summarizes his reflections on his long career in education policy, which culminate in three major conclusions. The first is that the three reform movements of the past 50 years (equity-related, school choice, and standards-based reforms) have affected schools, but have not accomplished the broad goals intended.

Second, for major changes to occur, more focus must be placed on improving the curriculum, the teaching force, and increasing school funding. Finally, he encourages Congress to adopt an “equal education” clause, that states no child in the US will be “denied equal educational opportunity in elementary and secondary education through the lack of a challenging curriculum, well-prepared and effective teachers, and the funding to pay for that education.” In other words, a quality education should be a civil right.

In the end, Jennings emphasizes that the Americans have a choice. “We can adopt piecemeal approaches that have some effect. But if we want broad, major improvement for our nation’s schools, we have to act boldly, not just talk or try partial fixes.”

To read his full paper, please visit http://www.cep-dc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=392

Teacher Characteristics and Class Assignments

Posted on January 22, 2012 by coreeducation

There is ample research on the differences in teacher distribution across schools vis-à-vis teacher demographics and experience, but what about teacher distribution within schools? A paper published by the Urban Institute looks at this issue.

By comparing teachers within the same grade level and school in an urban district during a given year, the authors found that less experienced, minority, and female teachers are assigned students with lower and more variable prior achievement, more prior behavioral problems, and lower prior attendance rates; also, they are assigned more low-income and minority students. Their more experienced, white and male colleagues generally have a lower proportion of the low-achieving, poor and minority students.

Furthermore, the authors found that the teachers’ human capital, which they measured by experience, highest degree earned, attendance at more competitive colleges, and effectiveness at raising student achievement, consistently correlates to the types of students they are assigned—in that, the more effective teachers are assigned higher achieving students with few behavior issues. The authors propose that this may be because principals want to reward teachers they want to retain and punish those they want to get rid of via an informal method; however, other research suggests that this may not be the case. Generally the argument is that teachers with more human capital are assigned more advanced courses because they are assumed to have a better grasp of the subject matter; students in these courses of course tend to be higher achieving.

The authors concede that this last explanation may be plausible at the high school level, but argue that it does not explain the patterns of assignment they saw at the elementary level. Therefore, they are inclined to agree with the former argument that “good” classes are assigned as rewards. Altogether, these practices are part of the complex leadership process in most schools, which tries “to balance both short and long-term goals as well as pressures from students, teachers and parents.” It suggests that one avenue for decreasing the achievement gap may be through the principalship, with a focus on class assignment.

To read the full paper, please visit http://www.urban.org/publications/1001530.html

Six Ideas about Professional Growth for Teachers

Posted on November 28, 2011 by coreeducation

In a recent blog post for Education Week, educator Nancy Flanagan reflected on a recent encounter she had with a young teacher after a panel discussion. The teacher described her loneliness at her school, which is focused on raising test scores and has an atmosphere of fear and bitterness among the teaching staff subsumed by the incredibly high stakes of the profession. As a second-year teacher, she had no one to turn to for mentorship and felt disillusioned with the whole system, but had found the evening panel discussion (of which Flanagan was a key participant) uplifting and rejuvenating. She told Flanagan, “You don’t know how much I needed this!”

Thinking back on this interchange, Flanagan developed six ideas on changing the conception teachers have about professional growth.

1. Ask teachers what they need. What do they want to learn? What are their interests? Teachers should be asked to help develop their own professional learning objectives, with principals acting as facilitators.

2. Keep working on the right descriptors. We need to develop clearer terminology for the different types of professional growth opportunities for teachers. Professional development, professional learning communities, professional conversation…

3. Get rid of the PD verb “present.” Teachers should not be “presented” new instructional strategies, or listen to “presentations” on new techniques. “The only productive thing listening to a pre-packaged instructional presentation will yield is a rough idea of how the material might be adapted to fit your particular class.” Teachers need to share, discuss, and have the space to use their professional judgment.

4. Invest in teachers as valuable social capital. There is value in professional networking, but are large conferences the best way to grow as a teacher? Flanagan thinks the common format of professional development should be reconsidered, and activities viewed as “regenerative,” rather than remedial, and thus part of a long-term investment in teacher capacity.

5. Build more personal learning networking opportunities. We should be encouraging all teachers to interact with educational digital networking communities, and provide a time for them to do so during the school day. “It’s the most cost-effective professional learning available, and controlled by the teacher-learner.”

6. Demand that professional organizations give us what we want. “We need to stop thinking of professional development as something done to teachers.” In other words, we need to force unions and disciplinary organizations to focus on real professional learning goals, to provide viable alternatives to district-mandated PD.

To read the full post, please visit http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/teacher_in_a_strange_land/2011/11/you_dont_know_how_much_i_needed_this_six_ideas_about_professional_growth_for_teachers.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TeacherInAStrangeLand+%28Teacher+in+a+Strange+Land%29

The "Core" of Education

Tag Archives: equity