By TAWNELL D. HOBBS | Dallas Morning News
04 August 2011
The number of Texas schools failing to make adequate progress under federal law skyrocketed partly because the state eliminated a rule that allowed some students who failed state exams to be counted as passing.
The dramatic rise was also driven by federal standards that become more difficult to clear each year.
Texas schools failing to make “adequate yearly progress” under the No Child Left Behind Act increased to 2,233 from 368 last year, according to preliminary results released Thursday by the Texas Education Agency.
Districts didn’t fare much better — 605 missed the standard, up from 250. That means 49 percent of districts are not in compliance.
The number of Dallas ISD nonqualifying schools increased to 83 from 30. Houston ISD increased to 75 from 20, while Fort Worth increased to 76 from 20.
Texas Education Agency officials said the elimination of the Texas Projection Measure probably played a big role coupled with the climbing federal standards. The projection measure gave schools credit for students who failed the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills but were predicted to pass in the future.
Last year, 78 percent of schools that met the federal standard benefited from the projection measure, said TEA spokeswoman DeEtta Culbertson. She added that student passage rates on state tests help determine if adequate yearly progress is met under the federal definition.
The required passing rates under federal guidelines this year were 80 percent in reading and 75 percent in math. Individual student groups, such as white, black, and Hispanic, also had to meet the requirements. Last year, the required passing rates were 73 percent in reading and 67 percent in math.
The law requires that 100 percent of students be proficient in both subjects by 2014.
Other factors taken into consideration include attendance and graduation rates.
Culbertson said that the basic federal standards this year are similar to standards required to achieve the state’s second-highest performance rating, “recognized.” But even some schools that did well in the state rating system this year did not meet the federal requirement, including Liberty High School in Frisco and Allen High School, which both received the state’s “recognized” rating last week but did not meet the federal standard.
Despite the increase in schools on the list, Culbertson noted that a majority of them met the federal standard.
“We still have two-thirds of our campuses meeting AYP,” she said.
Schools that don’t meet the federal standard and receive Title 1 federal funding are subject to corrective action, from restructuring and replacing staff to closure.
Campuses must meet the federal standard for two consecutive schools years to be considered making progress.
Dallas ISD Interim Superintendent Alan King said in a news release Thursday that the district makes no excuses for student performance under the federal guidelines. But he noted that 2011 TAKS results for DISD showed overall gains in math and a half-point decline in reading.
“The annual ratcheting up of standards is catching up with our district and does not necessarily reflect on the quality of teaching or opportunities available to students whose campuses did not meet AYP status,” he said.
Showing posts with label Texas Projection Measure (TPM). Show all posts
Showing posts with label Texas Projection Measure (TPM). Show all posts
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Schools struggle to catch up to No Child rules
By JENNIFER RADCLIFFE | HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Aug. 4, 2011,
A record number of school districts missed federal standards as Texas continued its uphill march toward No Child Left Behind targets.
Statewide, 605 districts — or 49.3 percent - failed to make "adequate yearly progress" during the 2010-2011 school year as defined by No Child Left Behind, according to data released Thursday by the Texas Education Agency.
Houston and North Forest are on the list of repeat failures. Galena Park, Galveston, Pasadena and Clear Creek ISDs also failed to make adequate progress for at least two consecutive years.
Several districts, including HISD and Klein, failed because they exceeded a federal limit by testing more than 3 percent of special education students with alternative assessments.
"It is unfortunate that when the number of special education students reaches the predetermined cap, students beyond the cap are considered to have failed the test, even if in reality, they achieved a passing score," Klein Superintendent Jim Cain said.
Tougher to pass
The number of failing districts more than doubled since last year, when the so-called Texas Projection measure spared 175 districts. That growth measure, which credited students for expected future progress, was discontinued this year. Districts also faced tougher passing standards.
Eighty percent of students needed to pass the language arts test, compared to 73 percent in 2010. The passing rate for the math test jumped to 75 percent, from 67 percent in 2010.
U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan warned Congress earlier this year that 82 percent of schools nationwide were on pace to fail. In Texas, individual campuses fared better, with just 26 percent missing the mark.
Florida and New Mexico topped that with failure rates of 89 and 87 percent, respectively.
Other states had much lower rates: Only 11 percent of Wisconsin schools and 20 percent of Rhode Island schools failed to meet the standard.
Several HISD schools, including Jones, Lee, Westbury, Wheatley, Worthing and Yates high schools, face sanctions for the first or second year.
"We'll make sure we're in compliance with the requirements," HISD spokesman Jason Spencer said.
All students are expected to pass reading and math exams by 2014 under the federal law championed by former President George W. Bush in 2001. Schools are also rated either on attendance or graduation rates.
Scott Imberman, a University of Houston economics professor, called the goal unrealistic and the ratings meaningless.
"I personally just ignore them," he said, adding that a more accurate measure would include a student growth component.
'Eye-opening'
While parents would have a hard time using the ratings to judge schools, the focus on standardized testing over the last decade has had a tremendous impact on teachers and schools, said Melissa Pierson, associate dean for the College of Education at the University of Houston.
Many of the changes are beneficial - the high-stake climate is even prompting UH to raise admissions standards for teachers-to-be. Teachers must be able to produce results, she said.
"We need to be able to produce teachers who know how to use data and read data," Pierson said. "It's very eye-opening."
Districts have until Sept. 2 to appeal the ratings.
jennifer.radcliffe@chron.com
Aug. 4, 2011,
A record number of school districts missed federal standards as Texas continued its uphill march toward No Child Left Behind targets.
Statewide, 605 districts — or 49.3 percent - failed to make "adequate yearly progress" during the 2010-2011 school year as defined by No Child Left Behind, according to data released Thursday by the Texas Education Agency.
Houston and North Forest are on the list of repeat failures. Galena Park, Galveston, Pasadena and Clear Creek ISDs also failed to make adequate progress for at least two consecutive years.
Several districts, including HISD and Klein, failed because they exceeded a federal limit by testing more than 3 percent of special education students with alternative assessments.
"It is unfortunate that when the number of special education students reaches the predetermined cap, students beyond the cap are considered to have failed the test, even if in reality, they achieved a passing score," Klein Superintendent Jim Cain said.
Tougher to pass
The number of failing districts more than doubled since last year, when the so-called Texas Projection measure spared 175 districts. That growth measure, which credited students for expected future progress, was discontinued this year. Districts also faced tougher passing standards.
Eighty percent of students needed to pass the language arts test, compared to 73 percent in 2010. The passing rate for the math test jumped to 75 percent, from 67 percent in 2010.
U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan warned Congress earlier this year that 82 percent of schools nationwide were on pace to fail. In Texas, individual campuses fared better, with just 26 percent missing the mark.
Florida and New Mexico topped that with failure rates of 89 and 87 percent, respectively.
Other states had much lower rates: Only 11 percent of Wisconsin schools and 20 percent of Rhode Island schools failed to meet the standard.
Several HISD schools, including Jones, Lee, Westbury, Wheatley, Worthing and Yates high schools, face sanctions for the first or second year.
"We'll make sure we're in compliance with the requirements," HISD spokesman Jason Spencer said.
All students are expected to pass reading and math exams by 2014 under the federal law championed by former President George W. Bush in 2001. Schools are also rated either on attendance or graduation rates.
Scott Imberman, a University of Houston economics professor, called the goal unrealistic and the ratings meaningless.
"I personally just ignore them," he said, adding that a more accurate measure would include a student growth component.
'Eye-opening'
While parents would have a hard time using the ratings to judge schools, the focus on standardized testing over the last decade has had a tremendous impact on teachers and schools, said Melissa Pierson, associate dean for the College of Education at the University of Houston.
Many of the changes are beneficial - the high-stake climate is even prompting UH to raise admissions standards for teachers-to-be. Teachers must be able to produce results, she said.
"We need to be able to produce teachers who know how to use data and read data," Pierson said. "It's very eye-opening."
Districts have until Sept. 2 to appeal the ratings.
jennifer.radcliffe@chron.com
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Changes mean tougher road for schools
Unclear future on credit for student gains
Kimberly Reeves | Austin KXAN News
Updated: Tuesday, 26 Apr 2011
AUSTIN (KXAN) - Education Commissioner Robert Scott ended the use of the controversial Texas Projection Measure on Friday, and the impact of his decision on Austin-area school district ratings is still hard to determine.
The Austin Independent School District, like many across the state, benefited from the Texas Projection Measure last year. More than half the school districts in Texas saw their ratings boosted because of it, along with thousands of school campuses.
The accountability system's newly incorporated measure , requested by lawmakers and created by the Texas Education Agency, bumped up ratings based upon a statistical model’s prediction of how well students would do on the next year’s state-mandated test. That raised a lot of doubts in the public about the soundness of the measure, which the elimination of TPM now addresses.
"The commissioner made the right call," said Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce senior vice president Drew Scheberle. "Elimination of TPM will restore the credibility of the Texas accountability system. Business people throughout the region had a hard time believing that students who fail the TAKS test but might pass some time in the next three years should be counted as passing."
How significant was the impact of eliminating TPM? Well, if you go to the Texas Education Agency's accountability website and type in the name of your school district, it appears more than two-dozen campuses in Austin benefited from TPM, along with more than a dozen campuses in the Round Rock school district and four campuses in San Marcos CISD.
Here are a number of area campuses that have higher ratings, in all or part, due to a boost from TPM: Austin and Bowie high schools in Austin ISD, along with Kealing Middle School; Westwood, McNeil and Stony Point high schools in Round Rock ISD; Lake Travis High School and Hudson Bend Middle School in Lake Travis ISD: and Bowie Elementary and Miller Middle School in San Marcos CISD.
The commissioner, along with a focus group and an advisory committee, makes key decisions about changes in the state’s accountability system each year, such as the percentage passing required to qualify for each rating category. In his annual announcement on Friday, Scott chose to toss out TPM after some scathing reviews from key lawmaker Rep. Scott Hochberg, D-Houston, and a unanimous vote in the House to end the use of TPM as part of House Bill 500.
Scott wrote, in his decision document released on Friday, that such criticism of the TPM detracted from actual gains in student test scores, which showed growth in every subject and every student group.
“Unfortunately, this hard work is overshadowed by criticism of the use of the TPM, including an assertion made on the floor of the Texas House of Representatives during debate on House Bill 500 that school ratings in 2010 went up without demonstrations of increases in performance,” Scott wrote. “The commissioner does not want the TPM to continue to detract from the achievements of students and educators.”
Scott called the TPM sound and statistically valid after a year of use, comparing it to the methodology behind SAT and ACT tests, but lawmakers such as Hochberg had doubts. Scott's own children attend Bowie High School, and he told reporters he thought no less of the school's quality and achievement because TPM had bumped the campus from "academically acceptable" to "recognized."
To many lawmakers and parents, however, the decision to base better ratings on a statistical model that predicted what students might do one or two years down the road was questionable, and the model’s reliability grew fuzzier and less accurate the closer the scores drew to the passing score.
Criticism of the TPM was no more than political rhetoric seized by Democrat Bill White’s campaign for governor last year, Scott has told numerous audiences. The vote to end TPM, however, was bipartisan and unanimous in the House.
Hochberg, for his part, released a single sentence on Scott’s decision yesterday: “The Commissioner's decision will provide better confidence that improved ratings really reflect the hard work of students, teachers and parents, instead of the results of statistical manipulation.”
The agency has no firm predictions about what the future, minus TPM, might hold. New school and district ratings, based on this spring’s test scores, will be released at the end of July.
Agency spokeswoman Debbie Ratcliffe did predict that the exclusion of the projection measure would probably have the greatest impact on those campuses that had moved from “recognized” to “exemplary” with the use of TPM, even more than those that moved from "academically acceptable" to "recognized."
Just because TPM is gone doesn't mean growth measures are out. A new growth will have to be incorporated when the state starts its new STAAR testing system . In fact, the state will not be issuing accountablity ratings in 2012, waiting until 2013 to break in the new ratings system.
Kimberly Reeves | Austin KXAN News
Updated: Tuesday, 26 Apr 2011
AUSTIN (KXAN) - Education Commissioner Robert Scott ended the use of the controversial Texas Projection Measure on Friday, and the impact of his decision on Austin-area school district ratings is still hard to determine.
The Austin Independent School District, like many across the state, benefited from the Texas Projection Measure last year. More than half the school districts in Texas saw their ratings boosted because of it, along with thousands of school campuses.
The accountability system's newly incorporated measure , requested by lawmakers and created by the Texas Education Agency, bumped up ratings based upon a statistical model’s prediction of how well students would do on the next year’s state-mandated test. That raised a lot of doubts in the public about the soundness of the measure, which the elimination of TPM now addresses.
"The commissioner made the right call," said Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce senior vice president Drew Scheberle. "Elimination of TPM will restore the credibility of the Texas accountability system. Business people throughout the region had a hard time believing that students who fail the TAKS test but might pass some time in the next three years should be counted as passing."
How significant was the impact of eliminating TPM? Well, if you go to the Texas Education Agency's accountability website and type in the name of your school district, it appears more than two-dozen campuses in Austin benefited from TPM, along with more than a dozen campuses in the Round Rock school district and four campuses in San Marcos CISD.
Here are a number of area campuses that have higher ratings, in all or part, due to a boost from TPM: Austin and Bowie high schools in Austin ISD, along with Kealing Middle School; Westwood, McNeil and Stony Point high schools in Round Rock ISD; Lake Travis High School and Hudson Bend Middle School in Lake Travis ISD: and Bowie Elementary and Miller Middle School in San Marcos CISD.
The commissioner, along with a focus group and an advisory committee, makes key decisions about changes in the state’s accountability system each year, such as the percentage passing required to qualify for each rating category. In his annual announcement on Friday, Scott chose to toss out TPM after some scathing reviews from key lawmaker Rep. Scott Hochberg, D-Houston, and a unanimous vote in the House to end the use of TPM as part of House Bill 500.
Scott wrote, in his decision document released on Friday, that such criticism of the TPM detracted from actual gains in student test scores, which showed growth in every subject and every student group.
“Unfortunately, this hard work is overshadowed by criticism of the use of the TPM, including an assertion made on the floor of the Texas House of Representatives during debate on House Bill 500 that school ratings in 2010 went up without demonstrations of increases in performance,” Scott wrote. “The commissioner does not want the TPM to continue to detract from the achievements of students and educators.”
Scott called the TPM sound and statistically valid after a year of use, comparing it to the methodology behind SAT and ACT tests, but lawmakers such as Hochberg had doubts. Scott's own children attend Bowie High School, and he told reporters he thought no less of the school's quality and achievement because TPM had bumped the campus from "academically acceptable" to "recognized."
To many lawmakers and parents, however, the decision to base better ratings on a statistical model that predicted what students might do one or two years down the road was questionable, and the model’s reliability grew fuzzier and less accurate the closer the scores drew to the passing score.
Criticism of the TPM was no more than political rhetoric seized by Democrat Bill White’s campaign for governor last year, Scott has told numerous audiences. The vote to end TPM, however, was bipartisan and unanimous in the House.
Hochberg, for his part, released a single sentence on Scott’s decision yesterday: “The Commissioner's decision will provide better confidence that improved ratings really reflect the hard work of students, teachers and parents, instead of the results of statistical manipulation.”
The agency has no firm predictions about what the future, minus TPM, might hold. New school and district ratings, based on this spring’s test scores, will be released at the end of July.
Agency spokeswoman Debbie Ratcliffe did predict that the exclusion of the projection measure would probably have the greatest impact on those campuses that had moved from “recognized” to “exemplary” with the use of TPM, even more than those that moved from "academically acceptable" to "recognized."
Just because TPM is gone doesn't mean growth measures are out. A new growth will have to be incorporated when the state starts its new STAAR testing system . In fact, the state will not be issuing accountablity ratings in 2012, waiting until 2013 to break in the new ratings system.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Education commissioner defends Texas Projection Measure
Ok, so the Texas Projection Measure (TPM) developed as a part of HB 1 (3rd special session of the 79th Texas State Legislature (2005) and that later got addressed by SB 1031 in the 80th (2007) legislature involves "predicted excellence," rewarding schools not on actual performance but on expected performance based on current test results and their school—an algorithm of a kind.
This measure involves students who fail a test but are predicted to pass it. However, some are more borderline than others and so it best "predicts" the percent passing students who are on the verge of passing (see earlier posts on TPM). Abby Rapoport from the Texas Observer suggests that this is a loophole to boost a school's rating. In any case, actual improvement or growth from one year to the next--independent of whether the cut score hurdle is met should also be considered. So one could improve and reward a school that may not quite hit the mark because of a privileging of the TPM over actual growth.
Measurement is also an issue with this model since it depends on student getting tested not only in all subjects (reading and math), but also the same language (English and Spanish) over a two-year time period, optimally.
A deeper problem with the test scores and the ratings that come from them is that we still never really know whether the students are actually learning anything. Maybe they're just becoming better test takers.
-Angela
Education commissioner defends Texas Projection Measure
08:07 AM CDT on Friday, July 23, 2010
By TERRENCE STUTZ/ The Dallas Morning News
tstutz@dallasnews.com
AUSTIN – Texas Education Commissioner Robert Scott defended a policy Thursday that has allowed schools to boost their state ratings by counting some failed students as passing, saying politics has driven many of the complaints.
Scott, speaking to the State Board of Education, said the Texas Projection Measure has been misunderstood and misrepresented by critics who contend it gives a false impression of school performance.
The complex formula allows schools and districts to count as passing some students who actually fail the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills if the projection measure shows they are likely to pass in a future year.
"There is a little bit of election-year politics going on here," Scott said.
"It is very easy to demagogue. It is very easy for someone to say they gave students credit for failing."
Democratic candidate for governor Bill White has been among those attacking the policy, accusing Scott and his boss, GOP Gov. Rick Perry, of cheating to make some schools look better than they really are.
"They decided to cheat, and then once caught cheating they failed to acknowledge responsibility. They counted failing scores as passing," White has said.
Scott rejected that, saying the formula – which gives schools credit for projected growth in student achievement – is "statistically accurate, valid and reasonable."
Scott has said he may revise the policy and will be open to any legislative changes.
He also cited scores of e-mails from superintendents, principals and teachers who wrote that the projection measure was beneficial for their students and schools – and should be retained.
The Dallas Morning News obtained copies of all e-mails received by the Texas Education Agency through the beginning of this week.
"Please keep TPM and do not suspend the use of the TPM for school accountability ratings," said Lewisville High School principal Brad Burns, reflecting the viewpoints of numerous principals.
Weatherford High School principal David Belding urged Scott to please "not dismantle a system that gives schools with more difficult student groups to educate the chance to be recognized for moving those students forward. That is what TPM does."
But there were a few critics mixed in with all the supporters of the policy.
David Seizer of Frisco called the upward adjustment of passing numbers a "crime" and "an open admission that you have been negligent with one of your major responsibilities."
The TEA reported last year that 78 school districts and 355 campuses would have been rated academically unacceptable if the test results of their students had not been adjusted by the formula.
Instead, they received acceptable ratings.
This measure involves students who fail a test but are predicted to pass it. However, some are more borderline than others and so it best "predicts" the percent passing students who are on the verge of passing (see earlier posts on TPM). Abby Rapoport from the Texas Observer suggests that this is a loophole to boost a school's rating. In any case, actual improvement or growth from one year to the next--independent of whether the cut score hurdle is met should also be considered. So one could improve and reward a school that may not quite hit the mark because of a privileging of the TPM over actual growth.
Measurement is also an issue with this model since it depends on student getting tested not only in all subjects (reading and math), but also the same language (English and Spanish) over a two-year time period, optimally.
A deeper problem with the test scores and the ratings that come from them is that we still never really know whether the students are actually learning anything. Maybe they're just becoming better test takers.
-Angela
Education commissioner defends Texas Projection Measure
08:07 AM CDT on Friday, July 23, 2010
By TERRENCE STUTZ/ The Dallas Morning News
tstutz@dallasnews.com
AUSTIN – Texas Education Commissioner Robert Scott defended a policy Thursday that has allowed schools to boost their state ratings by counting some failed students as passing, saying politics has driven many of the complaints.
Scott, speaking to the State Board of Education, said the Texas Projection Measure has been misunderstood and misrepresented by critics who contend it gives a false impression of school performance.
The complex formula allows schools and districts to count as passing some students who actually fail the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills if the projection measure shows they are likely to pass in a future year.
"There is a little bit of election-year politics going on here," Scott said.
"It is very easy to demagogue. It is very easy for someone to say they gave students credit for failing."
Democratic candidate for governor Bill White has been among those attacking the policy, accusing Scott and his boss, GOP Gov. Rick Perry, of cheating to make some schools look better than they really are.
"They decided to cheat, and then once caught cheating they failed to acknowledge responsibility. They counted failing scores as passing," White has said.
Scott rejected that, saying the formula – which gives schools credit for projected growth in student achievement – is "statistically accurate, valid and reasonable."
Scott has said he may revise the policy and will be open to any legislative changes.
He also cited scores of e-mails from superintendents, principals and teachers who wrote that the projection measure was beneficial for their students and schools – and should be retained.
The Dallas Morning News obtained copies of all e-mails received by the Texas Education Agency through the beginning of this week.
"Please keep TPM and do not suspend the use of the TPM for school accountability ratings," said Lewisville High School principal Brad Burns, reflecting the viewpoints of numerous principals.
Weatherford High School principal David Belding urged Scott to please "not dismantle a system that gives schools with more difficult student groups to educate the chance to be recognized for moving those students forward. That is what TPM does."
But there were a few critics mixed in with all the supporters of the policy.
David Seizer of Frisco called the upward adjustment of passing numbers a "crime" and "an open admission that you have been negligent with one of your major responsibilities."
The TEA reported last year that 78 school districts and 355 campuses would have been rated academically unacceptable if the test results of their students had not been adjusted by the formula.
Instead, they received acceptable ratings.
Forget grade levels, KC schools try something new
Hmm. This sounds somewhat like the curricular approach taken up by the small schools movement that Deborah Meier writes about her in her, THE POWER OF THEIR IDEAS. Failure becomes more mythic than real because students progress through the curriculum in a self-paced manner after they demonstrate mastery. Grouping by ability, however, remains a concern given ample research that points to the harms of ability grouping. It seems that a self-paced curriculum could be done without ability grouping, per se.
-Angela
By HEATHER HOLLINGSWORTH (AP) – Jul 3, 2010
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Forget about students spending one year in each grade, with the entire class learning the same skills at the same time. Districts from Alaska to Maine are taking a different route.
Instead of simply moving kids from one grade to the next as they get older, schools are grouping students by ability. Once they master a subject, they move up a level. This practice has been around for decades, but was generally used on a smaller scale, in individual grades, subjects or schools.
Now, in the latest effort to transform the bedraggled Kansas City, Mo. schools, the district is about to become what reform experts say is the largest one to try the approach. Starting this fall officials will begin switching 17,000 students to the new system to turnaround trailing schools and increase abysmal tests scores.
"The current system of public education in this country is not working" said Superintendent John Covington. "It's an outdated, industrial, agrarian kind of model that lends itself to still allowing students to progress through school based on the amount of time they sit in a chair rather than whether or not they have truly mastered the competencies and skills."
Here's how the reform works:
Students — often of varying ages — work at their own pace, meeting with teachers to decide what part of the curriculum to tackle. Teachers still instruct students as a group if it's needed, but often students are working individually or in small groups on projects that are tailored to their skill level.
For instance, in a classroom learning about currency, one group could draw pictures of pennies and nickels. A student who has mastered that skill might use pretend money to practice making change.
Students who progress quickly can finish high school material early and move forward with college coursework. Alternatively, in some districts, high-schoolers who need extra time can stick around for another year.
Advocates say the approach cuts down on discipline problems because advanced students aren't bored and struggling students aren't frustrated.
But backers acknowledge implementation is tricky, and the change is so drastic it can take time to explain to parents, teachers and students. If the community isn't sold on the effort, it will bomb, said Richard DeLorenzo, co-founder of the Re-Inventing Schools Coalition, which coaches schools on implementing the reform.
Kansas City officials hope the new system will help the district that's been beset with failure. A $2 billion desegregation case failed to boost test scores or stem the exodus of students to the suburbs and private and charter schools. The district has lost half its students and will close about 40 percent of its schools by the fall to avoid bankruptcy.
Covington wants to start the system in five elementary schools in hopes of spreading it through the upper grades once the bugs are worked out.
"This system precludes us from labeling children failures," Covington said. "It's not that you've failed, it's just that at this point you haven't mastered the competencies yet and when you do, you will move to the next level."
As it plans for the change, Kansas City teachers and administrators have visited and sought advice from a Denver area school district that uses the reform.
Adams County School District 50 has about 10,000 students this past school year its elementary and middle students made the shift. The reform will be phased into the high schools starting in the fall.
Count 11-year-old Alex Rodriguez as a convert to the new approach. He used to get bored after plowing through his assignments. He had to bring books from home or the library if he wanted a challenge because the ones at his old school were one or two grade levels too easy.
"I liked school," he said. "But it was hard sitting there and doing nothing."
His parents transferred the high achiever and his three younger siblings to the Denver area district after learning it was trying something new. His father, Richard Rodriguez, has been thrilled with the turnaround.
"I wish school was like this when I was growing up," he said.
There also is growing interest in Maine, where six districts, with a combined 11,248 students, are transitioning to the reform, starting with staff training and community meetings and gradually changing what happens in classrooms.
"It is incredible what is happening in the classrooms in Maine that are trying it," said Diana Doiron, who is overseeing the effort for the state's education department.
Education officials in Kansas City, Maine and elsewhere said part of the allure is the success other districts have after making the switch.
Marzano Research Laboratory, an educational research and professional development firm, evaluated 2009 state test data for over 3,500 students from 15 school districts in Alaska, Colorado, and Florida. Researchers found that students who learned through the different approach were 2.5 times more likely to score at a level that shows they have a good grasp of the material on exams for reading, writing, and mathematics.
Greg Johnson, director of curriculum and instruction for the Bering Strait School District in Alaska, recalled that before the switch there were students who had been on honor roll throughout high school then failed a test the state requires for graduation.
Now, he said if students are on pace to pass a class like Algebra I, the likelihood of them passing the state exam covering that material is more than 90 percent. He's proud of that accomplishment and said teachers love it.
"The most die-hard advocates for our system are our teachers because, especially the ones who were back with us before the change, they saw where things were then," he said. "They see where things are now and they don't want to go back."
Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved
-Angela
By HEATHER HOLLINGSWORTH (AP) – Jul 3, 2010
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Forget about students spending one year in each grade, with the entire class learning the same skills at the same time. Districts from Alaska to Maine are taking a different route.
Instead of simply moving kids from one grade to the next as they get older, schools are grouping students by ability. Once they master a subject, they move up a level. This practice has been around for decades, but was generally used on a smaller scale, in individual grades, subjects or schools.
Now, in the latest effort to transform the bedraggled Kansas City, Mo. schools, the district is about to become what reform experts say is the largest one to try the approach. Starting this fall officials will begin switching 17,000 students to the new system to turnaround trailing schools and increase abysmal tests scores.
"The current system of public education in this country is not working" said Superintendent John Covington. "It's an outdated, industrial, agrarian kind of model that lends itself to still allowing students to progress through school based on the amount of time they sit in a chair rather than whether or not they have truly mastered the competencies and skills."
Here's how the reform works:
Students — often of varying ages — work at their own pace, meeting with teachers to decide what part of the curriculum to tackle. Teachers still instruct students as a group if it's needed, but often students are working individually or in small groups on projects that are tailored to their skill level.
For instance, in a classroom learning about currency, one group could draw pictures of pennies and nickels. A student who has mastered that skill might use pretend money to practice making change.
Students who progress quickly can finish high school material early and move forward with college coursework. Alternatively, in some districts, high-schoolers who need extra time can stick around for another year.
Advocates say the approach cuts down on discipline problems because advanced students aren't bored and struggling students aren't frustrated.
But backers acknowledge implementation is tricky, and the change is so drastic it can take time to explain to parents, teachers and students. If the community isn't sold on the effort, it will bomb, said Richard DeLorenzo, co-founder of the Re-Inventing Schools Coalition, which coaches schools on implementing the reform.
Kansas City officials hope the new system will help the district that's been beset with failure. A $2 billion desegregation case failed to boost test scores or stem the exodus of students to the suburbs and private and charter schools. The district has lost half its students and will close about 40 percent of its schools by the fall to avoid bankruptcy.
Covington wants to start the system in five elementary schools in hopes of spreading it through the upper grades once the bugs are worked out.
"This system precludes us from labeling children failures," Covington said. "It's not that you've failed, it's just that at this point you haven't mastered the competencies yet and when you do, you will move to the next level."
As it plans for the change, Kansas City teachers and administrators have visited and sought advice from a Denver area school district that uses the reform.
Adams County School District 50 has about 10,000 students this past school year its elementary and middle students made the shift. The reform will be phased into the high schools starting in the fall.
Count 11-year-old Alex Rodriguez as a convert to the new approach. He used to get bored after plowing through his assignments. He had to bring books from home or the library if he wanted a challenge because the ones at his old school were one or two grade levels too easy.
"I liked school," he said. "But it was hard sitting there and doing nothing."
His parents transferred the high achiever and his three younger siblings to the Denver area district after learning it was trying something new. His father, Richard Rodriguez, has been thrilled with the turnaround.
"I wish school was like this when I was growing up," he said.
There also is growing interest in Maine, where six districts, with a combined 11,248 students, are transitioning to the reform, starting with staff training and community meetings and gradually changing what happens in classrooms.
"It is incredible what is happening in the classrooms in Maine that are trying it," said Diana Doiron, who is overseeing the effort for the state's education department.
Education officials in Kansas City, Maine and elsewhere said part of the allure is the success other districts have after making the switch.
Marzano Research Laboratory, an educational research and professional development firm, evaluated 2009 state test data for over 3,500 students from 15 school districts in Alaska, Colorado, and Florida. Researchers found that students who learned through the different approach were 2.5 times more likely to score at a level that shows they have a good grasp of the material on exams for reading, writing, and mathematics.
Greg Johnson, director of curriculum and instruction for the Bering Strait School District in Alaska, recalled that before the switch there were students who had been on honor roll throughout high school then failed a test the state requires for graduation.
Now, he said if students are on pace to pass a class like Algebra I, the likelihood of them passing the state exam covering that material is more than 90 percent. He's proud of that accomplishment and said teachers love it.
"The most die-hard advocates for our system are our teachers because, especially the ones who were back with us before the change, they saw where things were then," he said. "They see where things are now and they don't want to go back."
Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Testing the Test: The Texas Education Agency now has several ways to count failing students as passing--and lawmakers aren't happy about it.
Testing the Test
The Texas Education Agency now has several ways to count failing students as passing--and lawmakers aren't happy about it.
by ABBY RAPOPORT
Published on: Monday, July 12, 2010
A 16 year-old gets ready to get her driver's license. She successfully gets through the eye exam and passes the actual driving part, although she's a little shaky on parallel parking. So far, so good. But on the written portion, she flunks entirely—she can't identify a single traffic sign. The state decides that while she didn't pass, she's quite likely to learn the information later and would probably pass the test another time. While she doesn't get her own license, the driving school who produced her lacking skills gets to count her as a success.
It's also rather similar to the state Education Agency's latest testing policies, which allow schools to count students who fail a state exam—but are likely to pass later. For instance, at Houston's Benavidas Elementary, kids who pass the state reading and math exams only need to do is show up to their writing test. Even if they get no credit for their writing attempts, they’ll be projected to pass the writing exam, and therefore count towards the school's passing rate in writing. Depending on the combination of scores and the school’s history, students can get literally zero points in the state exam and their school can count the students in the passing category. They can thank the Texas Projection Measure. (Read our earlier coverage of the measure here.)
In Texas, a single set of standardized tests—the TAKS—serve to answer a wide range of questions, from how much a single student learned to whether the school as a whole adequately educates minority and at-risk kids. Each year, the Texas Education Agency rolls out the latest TAKS results, and the news is generally good. More kids are proficient in math, writing, you name it—this year there was improvement in every grade except sixth and eighth. But whether the tests actually reflect high standards is a different question—and one lawmakers are raising. After all, last year there were only 43 school districts with top ranking. Now there are 117, and all but one of the new districts acquired its status thanks to projections that its student will pass. Call it predicted excellence. As more and more rides on test-performance, the state has implemented different strategies to showcase different statistics. Rep. Scott Hochberg, D-Houston, argues it masks the problems in the system.
"You set out what you call a ‘tough accountability system,’ and then you find a dozen ways to make it weaker," says Hochberg.
Hochberg, who chairs the appropriations subcommittee on education, has made it his mission to iron out some of the biggest concerns. His primary target: what counts as “passing.” Schools, obviously, get credit for each student who passes. But there are some handy loopholes that help boost a school’s rating for students who aren’t quite at the bar. Thanks to the Projection Measure, used last year as part of a voluntary federal pilot program, schools can also count students who fail a test but are projected to pass later based on their school and their other scores. And while a school must also show passing rates for subgroups like minority and at-risk students, those districts that have a lot of different subgroups—Black fourth graders, at-risk fifth graders, etc.—can still get credit even if one group isn’t performing up to standards. (Some districts can discount as many as four sub-groups.)
According to Prof. Ed Fuller, the latter’s not such a terrible thing. "If you have 25 cells, and one is low performing, does that really mean your whole school is low performing?” he says. “Not so much."
Little comfort to Hochberg, who sees the Agency’s policy as a contradiction to legislative goals. “You can take a mulligan on a few of them!” he exclaims. “That was never the intention.”
But it’s on the projection policy that Hochberg created a buzz amongst education experts. At an appropriations subcommittee meeting on education last week, the infamously nerdy legislator came in armed with data to question Education Agency officials. (The agency’s assessments expert, Criss Cloudt, did not respond to interview requests.) While currently the TAKS only test broad subject areas (like reading and math) as opposed to specific subject areas (like Texas History or Algebra), it's still not easy to figure out the projection measures. Hochberg spent time testing schools in his district with different combinations of scores on the tests, discovering that in some schools, kids who failed certain tests miserably still counted as "passes" based on the projection models. He had expected to ask Education Commissioner Robert Scott the questions, but when Scott did not appear at the meeting, Hochberg pounced on Cloudt and the agency's chief operating officer, Adam Jones. While he hammered the officials on the statistical basis for the projection measures, Hochberg found little comfort in the testimony.
"I'm starting to get to the point where I don't trust any assertions coming from the agency," he says a few days after the hearing. "...As I walked out of the hearing, the administration was still adamantly defending the system as it stands. I didn't hear any recognition by [the agency] that there was anything wrong with the current system."
He points to the moment when he asked Cloudt how accurate the projection measures actually are. "I think they're quite good," she said, pointing out they're right 90 percent of the time. It only took Hochberg a few seconds to find the flaw in her logic. Kids who are already safely passing or clearly failing are easy to predict—they'll likely continue to pass or fail (whichever the case may be.) But those kids aren't as affected by the projection measure.
"The part that you're using for accountability purposes are the kids that are below standard that your projecting upward to meet standard." Hochberg said. The ones on the borderline between passing and failing.
The rate for those kids turns out to be much lower, between 52 and 80 percent. "The place where you'll have your most inaccurate projections are right around the passing," Cloudt acknowledged under Hochberg's questions. In other words, the calculator's main use is in predicting the performance of those borderline students, where the calculator is least accurate.
The current system certainly has already been under fire recently. The Houston Chronicle's Rick Casey slammed the agency for the projection measures and, previously, for the fact that students can pass some of the TAKS tests answeringonly 44 percent of questions correctly. Hochberg isn’t the only lawmaker worked up about the news.
"The idea that we're gonna inflate a school's ranking based on what we predict what they're going to do the next three years into the future," says San Antonio Rep. Mike Villarreal. "That's just crazy!"
Villarreal worries that the data is becoming less and less useful, and Fuller echoes the sentiment, concerned that the tests themselves are becoming less effective measures. He says the projection measure that Texas uses doesn’t consider how the students actually do or how much they improve from one year to the next. And anyways, he says, rewarding schools for percent passing isn’t the best measure. A school that gets a lot of border-line students to answer a few more questions correctly and pass the test gets credit from the agency while a school that dramatically increases the number of questions students get right, but doesn’t get the students up to passing gets almost no credit. "The school with the greater increase in passing doesn't have greater growth," Fuller points out. Based on the agency’s measure, "it doesn't matter how much better they do,” he says. “It's just: did they get over a certain hurdle?"
The agency, on the other hand, isn’t offering any apologies for the current system. While they acknowledged Hochberg's arguments and did not argue with his facts, the staffers did not waver in support of the system and stood firm that their data was valid. In fact, while Hochberg hopes the agency will suspend using the measures, Cloudt alluded to their usefulness when the agency begins to implement a new battery of tests in 2012.
"At the end of the day," chief operating officer Jones told the lawmakers, "these numbers are driven by performance."
And it’s that line of thought that leaves Hochberg concerned. “The argument that I guess was being made [by the agency] was, ‘Well this wasn't perfect but it was the best we could do under the circumstances,’” Hochberg says a few days after the hearing. “And that's not good enough. This is far from perfect—it's seriously flawed.”
Updated to reflect new information.
The Texas Education Agency now has several ways to count failing students as passing--and lawmakers aren't happy about it.
by ABBY RAPOPORT
Published on: Monday, July 12, 2010
A 16 year-old gets ready to get her driver's license. She successfully gets through the eye exam and passes the actual driving part, although she's a little shaky on parallel parking. So far, so good. But on the written portion, she flunks entirely—she can't identify a single traffic sign. The state decides that while she didn't pass, she's quite likely to learn the information later and would probably pass the test another time. While she doesn't get her own license, the driving school who produced her lacking skills gets to count her as a success.
It's also rather similar to the state Education Agency's latest testing policies, which allow schools to count students who fail a state exam—but are likely to pass later. For instance, at Houston's Benavidas Elementary, kids who pass the state reading and math exams only need to do is show up to their writing test. Even if they get no credit for their writing attempts, they’ll be projected to pass the writing exam, and therefore count towards the school's passing rate in writing. Depending on the combination of scores and the school’s history, students can get literally zero points in the state exam and their school can count the students in the passing category. They can thank the Texas Projection Measure. (Read our earlier coverage of the measure here.)
In Texas, a single set of standardized tests—the TAKS—serve to answer a wide range of questions, from how much a single student learned to whether the school as a whole adequately educates minority and at-risk kids. Each year, the Texas Education Agency rolls out the latest TAKS results, and the news is generally good. More kids are proficient in math, writing, you name it—this year there was improvement in every grade except sixth and eighth. But whether the tests actually reflect high standards is a different question—and one lawmakers are raising. After all, last year there were only 43 school districts with top ranking. Now there are 117, and all but one of the new districts acquired its status thanks to projections that its student will pass. Call it predicted excellence. As more and more rides on test-performance, the state has implemented different strategies to showcase different statistics. Rep. Scott Hochberg, D-Houston, argues it masks the problems in the system.
"You set out what you call a ‘tough accountability system,’ and then you find a dozen ways to make it weaker," says Hochberg.
Hochberg, who chairs the appropriations subcommittee on education, has made it his mission to iron out some of the biggest concerns. His primary target: what counts as “passing.” Schools, obviously, get credit for each student who passes. But there are some handy loopholes that help boost a school’s rating for students who aren’t quite at the bar. Thanks to the Projection Measure, used last year as part of a voluntary federal pilot program, schools can also count students who fail a test but are projected to pass later based on their school and their other scores. And while a school must also show passing rates for subgroups like minority and at-risk students, those districts that have a lot of different subgroups—Black fourth graders, at-risk fifth graders, etc.—can still get credit even if one group isn’t performing up to standards. (Some districts can discount as many as four sub-groups.)
According to Prof. Ed Fuller, the latter’s not such a terrible thing. "If you have 25 cells, and one is low performing, does that really mean your whole school is low performing?” he says. “Not so much."
Little comfort to Hochberg, who sees the Agency’s policy as a contradiction to legislative goals. “You can take a mulligan on a few of them!” he exclaims. “That was never the intention.”
But it’s on the projection policy that Hochberg created a buzz amongst education experts. At an appropriations subcommittee meeting on education last week, the infamously nerdy legislator came in armed with data to question Education Agency officials. (The agency’s assessments expert, Criss Cloudt, did not respond to interview requests.) While currently the TAKS only test broad subject areas (like reading and math) as opposed to specific subject areas (like Texas History or Algebra), it's still not easy to figure out the projection measures. Hochberg spent time testing schools in his district with different combinations of scores on the tests, discovering that in some schools, kids who failed certain tests miserably still counted as "passes" based on the projection models. He had expected to ask Education Commissioner Robert Scott the questions, but when Scott did not appear at the meeting, Hochberg pounced on Cloudt and the agency's chief operating officer, Adam Jones. While he hammered the officials on the statistical basis for the projection measures, Hochberg found little comfort in the testimony.
"I'm starting to get to the point where I don't trust any assertions coming from the agency," he says a few days after the hearing. "...As I walked out of the hearing, the administration was still adamantly defending the system as it stands. I didn't hear any recognition by [the agency] that there was anything wrong with the current system."
He points to the moment when he asked Cloudt how accurate the projection measures actually are. "I think they're quite good," she said, pointing out they're right 90 percent of the time. It only took Hochberg a few seconds to find the flaw in her logic. Kids who are already safely passing or clearly failing are easy to predict—they'll likely continue to pass or fail (whichever the case may be.) But those kids aren't as affected by the projection measure.
"The part that you're using for accountability purposes are the kids that are below standard that your projecting upward to meet standard." Hochberg said. The ones on the borderline between passing and failing.
The rate for those kids turns out to be much lower, between 52 and 80 percent. "The place where you'll have your most inaccurate projections are right around the passing," Cloudt acknowledged under Hochberg's questions. In other words, the calculator's main use is in predicting the performance of those borderline students, where the calculator is least accurate.
The current system certainly has already been under fire recently. The Houston Chronicle's Rick Casey slammed the agency for the projection measures and, previously, for the fact that students can pass some of the TAKS tests answeringonly 44 percent of questions correctly. Hochberg isn’t the only lawmaker worked up about the news.
"The idea that we're gonna inflate a school's ranking based on what we predict what they're going to do the next three years into the future," says San Antonio Rep. Mike Villarreal. "That's just crazy!"
Villarreal worries that the data is becoming less and less useful, and Fuller echoes the sentiment, concerned that the tests themselves are becoming less effective measures. He says the projection measure that Texas uses doesn’t consider how the students actually do or how much they improve from one year to the next. And anyways, he says, rewarding schools for percent passing isn’t the best measure. A school that gets a lot of border-line students to answer a few more questions correctly and pass the test gets credit from the agency while a school that dramatically increases the number of questions students get right, but doesn’t get the students up to passing gets almost no credit. "The school with the greater increase in passing doesn't have greater growth," Fuller points out. Based on the agency’s measure, "it doesn't matter how much better they do,” he says. “It's just: did they get over a certain hurdle?"
The agency, on the other hand, isn’t offering any apologies for the current system. While they acknowledged Hochberg's arguments and did not argue with his facts, the staffers did not waver in support of the system and stood firm that their data was valid. In fact, while Hochberg hopes the agency will suspend using the measures, Cloudt alluded to their usefulness when the agency begins to implement a new battery of tests in 2012.
"At the end of the day," chief operating officer Jones told the lawmakers, "these numbers are driven by performance."
And it’s that line of thought that leaves Hochberg concerned. “The argument that I guess was being made [by the agency] was, ‘Well this wasn't perfect but it was the best we could do under the circumstances,’” Hochberg says a few days after the hearing. “And that's not good enough. This is far from perfect—it's seriously flawed.”
Updated to reflect new information.
How schools get credit for a TAKS zero
Check out Hochberg's website on this: http://scotthochberg.com/staterep.shtml
I should have posted these earlier.
Angela
Houston state Rep. Scott Hochberg isn't your normal glad-handing politician.
Known as perhaps the only elected official in Texas who really understands the state's byzantine school finance system, Hochberg is at least as happy sitting alone crunching numbers as he is schmoozing with constituents or even lobbyists.
But he wasn't so happy when he sat at his computer a few weeks ago trying to figure out the new formula that more than doubled the number of "exemplary" schools in Texas last year and magically made the number of "unacceptable" schools about one-tenth of what it would otherwise be.
As he pored over the mounds of data available on the Texas Education website, and then used a handy calculator provided on the site to see how the new Texas Projection Measure turns failing TAKS scores for students into passing TAKS scores for schools, he found something that stunned him.
"I was literally sick over it," Hochberg told me. "I walked away and said this couldn't be right."
What he found was so unbelievable that he asked me not to report it until he had a chance to show what he had found to TEA officials at a public hearing. He wanted to make sure he hadn't made a foolish miscalculation.
The good news is that, as chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Education, Hochberg can summon TEA officials to a public hearing.
The bad news is that, when he did exactly that last week, the hearing drew almost no public attention.
As with most hearings, there was a fair amount of tedium. But one dramatic moment made up for it.
Chriss Cloudt (pronounced Klute) is TEA's associate commissioner for assessment, accountability and data quality. In other words, she's the top official when it comes to the TAKS test and the accountability system that rates the state's schools. Cloudt was testifying alongside Adam Jones, TEA's chief operating officer and second in command to Commissioner Robert Scott.
Hochberg asked them what accounted for the huge increase in the number of schools and school districts rated as "recognized" and "exemplary" in 2009.
Jones said he couldn't "intelligently answer that question," but Cloudt jumped in.
"Yes, I can," she said. "Performance."
She elaborated that the percentage of schools and districts rated in the top two categories had gone from the teens to the 60s because the state "defined a body of knowledge that students must learn and demonstrate knowledge of, your testing program measures that content and what you want to see is increases in performance on that test over time."
'Projected' numbers
Hochberg appeared skeptical. He noted that the number of school districts given the top rating of "exemplary" based on TAKS scores had risen from 43 in 2008 to 117 in 2009.
He also noted that 73 of the 74 additional "exemplary" districts used the Texas Projection Measure to attain that distinction.
TEA says the Projection Measure is an effort to give schools and districts "credit" for students who hadn't passed the TAKS, but were showing improvement. So Hochberg asked Cloudt to use a calculator on the TEA website that adjusts scores according to the "projection" formula. The results were beamed to a screen on the wall.
The "projection" is based on an analysis indicating that if a child does well on math and reading, other scores will improve.
Magic, or manipulation?
The formula includes a small adjustment according to the student's school, so Hochberg cited specific schools and asked Cloudt to assume the student made the minimum passing score for math and reading.
After a couple of examples in which a school got to count a student as "passing" with depressingly low scores, Hochberg asked Cloudt and an associate to see how many correct answers a fourth-grader with barely passing math and reading scores at Benavidez Elementary in Houston needed to be counted as "passing" the writing test.
The unbelievable answer Hochberg had reached himself was confirmed by Cloudt: The child needed zero correct answers for his or her teachers and administrators to get credit for his or her "improvement."
That's right: zero.
Coming Friday: Hochberg shows that TEA's top officials either don't understand this magical "accountability" system, or are lying about it.
rick.casey@chron.com
I should have posted these earlier.
Angela
Houston state Rep. Scott Hochberg isn't your normal glad-handing politician.
Known as perhaps the only elected official in Texas who really understands the state's byzantine school finance system, Hochberg is at least as happy sitting alone crunching numbers as he is schmoozing with constituents or even lobbyists.
But he wasn't so happy when he sat at his computer a few weeks ago trying to figure out the new formula that more than doubled the number of "exemplary" schools in Texas last year and magically made the number of "unacceptable" schools about one-tenth of what it would otherwise be.
As he pored over the mounds of data available on the Texas Education website, and then used a handy calculator provided on the site to see how the new Texas Projection Measure turns failing TAKS scores for students into passing TAKS scores for schools, he found something that stunned him.
"I was literally sick over it," Hochberg told me. "I walked away and said this couldn't be right."
What he found was so unbelievable that he asked me not to report it until he had a chance to show what he had found to TEA officials at a public hearing. He wanted to make sure he hadn't made a foolish miscalculation.
The good news is that, as chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Education, Hochberg can summon TEA officials to a public hearing.
The bad news is that, when he did exactly that last week, the hearing drew almost no public attention.
As with most hearings, there was a fair amount of tedium. But one dramatic moment made up for it.
Chriss Cloudt (pronounced Klute) is TEA's associate commissioner for assessment, accountability and data quality. In other words, she's the top official when it comes to the TAKS test and the accountability system that rates the state's schools. Cloudt was testifying alongside Adam Jones, TEA's chief operating officer and second in command to Commissioner Robert Scott.
Hochberg asked them what accounted for the huge increase in the number of schools and school districts rated as "recognized" and "exemplary" in 2009.
Jones said he couldn't "intelligently answer that question," but Cloudt jumped in.
"Yes, I can," she said. "Performance."
She elaborated that the percentage of schools and districts rated in the top two categories had gone from the teens to the 60s because the state "defined a body of knowledge that students must learn and demonstrate knowledge of, your testing program measures that content and what you want to see is increases in performance on that test over time."
'Projected' numbers
Hochberg appeared skeptical. He noted that the number of school districts given the top rating of "exemplary" based on TAKS scores had risen from 43 in 2008 to 117 in 2009.
He also noted that 73 of the 74 additional "exemplary" districts used the Texas Projection Measure to attain that distinction.
TEA says the Projection Measure is an effort to give schools and districts "credit" for students who hadn't passed the TAKS, but were showing improvement. So Hochberg asked Cloudt to use a calculator on the TEA website that adjusts scores according to the "projection" formula. The results were beamed to a screen on the wall.
The "projection" is based on an analysis indicating that if a child does well on math and reading, other scores will improve.
Magic, or manipulation?
The formula includes a small adjustment according to the student's school, so Hochberg cited specific schools and asked Cloudt to assume the student made the minimum passing score for math and reading.
After a couple of examples in which a school got to count a student as "passing" with depressingly low scores, Hochberg asked Cloudt and an associate to see how many correct answers a fourth-grader with barely passing math and reading scores at Benavidez Elementary in Houston needed to be counted as "passing" the writing test.
The unbelievable answer Hochberg had reached himself was confirmed by Cloudt: The child needed zero correct answers for his or her teachers and administrators to get credit for his or her "improvement."
That's right: zero.
Coming Friday: Hochberg shows that TEA's top officials either don't understand this magical "accountability" system, or are lying about it.
rick.casey@chron.com
Hochberg unmasks TEA’s controversial rule
Check out Hochberg's website on this: http://scotthochberg.com/staterep.shtml
I should have posted these earlier.
Angela
Hochberg unmasks TEA’s controversial rule
By RICK CASEY
HOUSTON CHRONICLE
July 8, 2010, 9:19PM
Criss Cloudt understandably grew defensive last week as she tried to explain to a group of legislators how a student who got absolutely every question wrong on a TAKS writing test could be scored as passing it.
Cloudt was in the hot seat because she is the Texas Education Agency's associate commissioner in charge of the "accountability system" that administers the TAKS test and ranks schools and school districts on a four-tier scale from "unacceptable" to "exemplary."
She was also in the hot seat because the man presumably most responsible for instituting the controversial new "Texas Projection Measure" that is producing such absurd results, Education Commissioner Robert Scott, failed to show up. But that's another story. Today we look at the ways that Cloudt appeared to try to mislead Houston state Rep. Scott Hochberg and his Appropriations Subcommittee on Education, and how Hochberg repeatedly called her on it.
It began with Hochberg asking what accounted for a huge jump last year in the number of schools and school districts rated as "recognized" and "exemplary."
"Performance," said Cloudt.
But Hochberg got her to admit that 73 of the 74 additional "exemplary districts" that took us from 43 in 2008 to 117 in 2009 received that distinction only because the new Texas Projection Measure miraculously allowed nearly half the 1 million TAKS tests that had been failed to count as passing for the purpose of rating schools and districts.
Cloudt said the Texas Projection Measure is a "growth measure." To most of us, that would imply that it looked at how a child did this year compared to last.
Hochberg brought out that it doesn't. It looked only at last year's scores and, based on a formula devised from thousands of prior results, projected that children who pass reading or math were likely to pass other tests in future years.
Deciphering analysis
Cloudt claimed that based on analysis looking backward, the formulas used in the projections are "quite good, actually."
"Really?" said Hochberg. "What would you consider quite good?"
"They're on average in the 90s (percent) in terms of projection accurate," Cloudt said.
I assumed that she was referring to the cases in which failing children were counted as passing.
But Hochberg was on to her. He got her to admit that the predictions that were accurate more than 90 percent of the time included all children — those who did very well on all the TAKS tests (who can safely be predicted to pass) and those who did terribly an all the tests (who can safely be predicted to fail).
Hochberg revealed that TEA's own analysis showed that the accuracy rate for those whose performance was actually upgraded using the "projection measure" was in the range of 50 percent.
Failed projections
Cloudt continued to defend the projections, saying repeatedly that when a failing child was counted as passing it was because "hundreds and hundreds" of other children whose test scores fit the exact same pattern later passed.
But again, Hochberg was ready. He called as a witness an expert from Pearson, the national testing company that devised the Texas Projection Measure.
She explained that the formula used to "project" future success was not made by looking at the records of earlier kids with identical scoring patterns. It was based, again, on aggregate numbers that included the highest and lowest performing students as well as those in the middle.
Hochberg asked Cloudt if that was right.
"That's different than what I said before," she admitted. "It's a better explanation."
The question is, was Cloudt deliberately trying to mislead Hochberg and the public throughout the hearing, or did she really not understand the bizarre system that can turn a test score of zero to a passing score?
And which would be more disturbing?
Coming Sunday: The politics of this fiasco.
rick.casey@chron.com
I should have posted these earlier.
Angela
Hochberg unmasks TEA’s controversial rule
By RICK CASEY
HOUSTON CHRONICLE
July 8, 2010, 9:19PM
Criss Cloudt understandably grew defensive last week as she tried to explain to a group of legislators how a student who got absolutely every question wrong on a TAKS writing test could be scored as passing it.
Cloudt was in the hot seat because she is the Texas Education Agency's associate commissioner in charge of the "accountability system" that administers the TAKS test and ranks schools and school districts on a four-tier scale from "unacceptable" to "exemplary."
She was also in the hot seat because the man presumably most responsible for instituting the controversial new "Texas Projection Measure" that is producing such absurd results, Education Commissioner Robert Scott, failed to show up. But that's another story. Today we look at the ways that Cloudt appeared to try to mislead Houston state Rep. Scott Hochberg and his Appropriations Subcommittee on Education, and how Hochberg repeatedly called her on it.
It began with Hochberg asking what accounted for a huge jump last year in the number of schools and school districts rated as "recognized" and "exemplary."
"Performance," said Cloudt.
But Hochberg got her to admit that 73 of the 74 additional "exemplary districts" that took us from 43 in 2008 to 117 in 2009 received that distinction only because the new Texas Projection Measure miraculously allowed nearly half the 1 million TAKS tests that had been failed to count as passing for the purpose of rating schools and districts.
Cloudt said the Texas Projection Measure is a "growth measure." To most of us, that would imply that it looked at how a child did this year compared to last.
Hochberg brought out that it doesn't. It looked only at last year's scores and, based on a formula devised from thousands of prior results, projected that children who pass reading or math were likely to pass other tests in future years.
Deciphering analysis
Cloudt claimed that based on analysis looking backward, the formulas used in the projections are "quite good, actually."
"Really?" said Hochberg. "What would you consider quite good?"
"They're on average in the 90s (percent) in terms of projection accurate," Cloudt said.
I assumed that she was referring to the cases in which failing children were counted as passing.
But Hochberg was on to her. He got her to admit that the predictions that were accurate more than 90 percent of the time included all children — those who did very well on all the TAKS tests (who can safely be predicted to pass) and those who did terribly an all the tests (who can safely be predicted to fail).
Hochberg revealed that TEA's own analysis showed that the accuracy rate for those whose performance was actually upgraded using the "projection measure" was in the range of 50 percent.
Failed projections
Cloudt continued to defend the projections, saying repeatedly that when a failing child was counted as passing it was because "hundreds and hundreds" of other children whose test scores fit the exact same pattern later passed.
But again, Hochberg was ready. He called as a witness an expert from Pearson, the national testing company that devised the Texas Projection Measure.
She explained that the formula used to "project" future success was not made by looking at the records of earlier kids with identical scoring patterns. It was based, again, on aggregate numbers that included the highest and lowest performing students as well as those in the middle.
Hochberg asked Cloudt if that was right.
"That's different than what I said before," she admitted. "It's a better explanation."
The question is, was Cloudt deliberately trying to mislead Hochberg and the public throughout the hearing, or did she really not understand the bizarre system that can turn a test score of zero to a passing score?
And which would be more disturbing?
Coming Sunday: The politics of this fiasco.
rick.casey@chron.com
Monday, July 19, 2010
Education's Projected Reality Texas Education Agency officials came under attack for methods of testing and rating districts
Education's Projected Reality
Texas Education Agency officials came under attack for methods of testing and rating districts
by ABBY RAPOPORT
Published on: Wednesday, June 30, 2010
I know it may seem like I have a pretty cushy job at the Observer. After all, I'm not talking to death row prisoners like Dave or covering human rights abuses on the border like Melissa. Even Forrest has to go hang out at those smelly chicken farms to report on environmental abuse. I, on the other hand, mostly risk death by boredom. (Seriously, you have no idea how long some of those speeches are.)
But on occasion, I have to endure one of the hardest things a person can survive—watching a perfectly nice agency staffer get torn to shreds by a legislator. Your stomach churns, and, if it's especially bad, the awkwardness of the situation encompasses the whole room. It's as if you yourself are standing in front of a committee, unable to account for the agency's policies. By the time it's all over, you've promised yourself that you'll hug the next bureaucrat you see.
I have a feeling those of folks going to education-themed committee hearings are going to be promising a lot hugs. A few weeks ago, the Houston Chronicle reported the state Education Agency had lowered the number of questions students had to get right to pass the high-stakes TAKS test. Shortly after, the Chronicle pointed out more news—even those students who failed the TAKS can be counted as passing if they're projected to pass in the next three years.
It's not exactly an common-sense system, and certainly not the easiest one to defend under interrogation. Rep. Scott Hochberg, the chair of the appropriations subcommittee handling education funding, was definitely in Perry Mason mode as he laid into Education Agency staffers at a Tuesday meeting of his subcommittee.
Perhaps I should explain something about ol' Hochberg. If you think of the legislature as full of former quarterbacks and cheerleaders, Hochberg would be king of the AV Club. He's legislature's number one nerd. He's one of only a handful of people who actually understands how school funding works in this state, and he's always woefully well prepared. When I once asked a lobbyist whose advice Hochberg took, he laughed. "Hochberg listens to Hochberg," he had said with a shrug.
So it wasn't a huge surprise that our nerdy chair already had his homework done. He started with the lowered number of questions. He was relatively calm as he pointed to the very low passing standards the state's eighth grade social studies test. "If my math is right," he said, "a student who knows 12 of those question and bubbles in A on the rest stands a pretty good chance of getting the 21 that they need [out of 48.]" Cue silence.
He continued: "Where and how is it appropriate to ever need to know only 12 questions or even only 21 questions out of 48 to say you have met our standard for social studies?"
Things heated up by the time he got to the projection measures. He made Criss Cloudt, the agency's associate commissioner on assessment, walk the committee through the calculators. (And remember, all but one of the school districts to have newly achieve the agency's "exemplary" rating did so thanks to this calculator.) He pointed to examples in which a student passing in two subject areas could literally get a zero in the third and still be projected to pass.
"We had a discussion before about when it's crazy," he said, "and y'all agreed that there had to be a point where it's crazy."
Guess where that point is for Hochberg.
And he's not the only one. Appropriations chair Jim Pitts, a Republican, sat with a serious look through much of the meeting as Hochberg questioned the agency reps and subcommittee member (and Republican) Jimmie Don Aycock asked several questions in line with Hochberg. I spoke with Democratic Rep. Mike Villarreal—also a member of the subcommittee—shortly after news broke on the lowered standards. "I think it's important to just get some perspective on how arbitrary the larger system is," he said. The projection measures are "just crazy."
It didn't help that the commissioner on education, Robert Scott, didn't make the meeting. Hochberg said he offered to teleconference with Scott when it looked like the commissioner would be in Washington, and adjusted the meeting to fit into Scott's schedule. Hochberg wasn't exactly quiet about his frustration.
“Don’t go away Adam, unless you’re looking under the table for the commissioner,” Hochberg told Deputy Commissioner Adam Jones. I definitely squirmed around in my seat.
Over at the Statesman, Kate Alexander offers another nice summary of the meeting. Hers doesn't explain the horrors we all felt watching the interrogation unfold, but then again, Statesman readers may not be ready for that level of truth.
Texas Education Agency officials came under attack for methods of testing and rating districts
by ABBY RAPOPORT
Published on: Wednesday, June 30, 2010
I know it may seem like I have a pretty cushy job at the Observer. After all, I'm not talking to death row prisoners like Dave or covering human rights abuses on the border like Melissa. Even Forrest has to go hang out at those smelly chicken farms to report on environmental abuse. I, on the other hand, mostly risk death by boredom. (Seriously, you have no idea how long some of those speeches are.)
But on occasion, I have to endure one of the hardest things a person can survive—watching a perfectly nice agency staffer get torn to shreds by a legislator. Your stomach churns, and, if it's especially bad, the awkwardness of the situation encompasses the whole room. It's as if you yourself are standing in front of a committee, unable to account for the agency's policies. By the time it's all over, you've promised yourself that you'll hug the next bureaucrat you see.
I have a feeling those of folks going to education-themed committee hearings are going to be promising a lot hugs. A few weeks ago, the Houston Chronicle reported the state Education Agency had lowered the number of questions students had to get right to pass the high-stakes TAKS test. Shortly after, the Chronicle pointed out more news—even those students who failed the TAKS can be counted as passing if they're projected to pass in the next three years.
It's not exactly an common-sense system, and certainly not the easiest one to defend under interrogation. Rep. Scott Hochberg, the chair of the appropriations subcommittee handling education funding, was definitely in Perry Mason mode as he laid into Education Agency staffers at a Tuesday meeting of his subcommittee.
Perhaps I should explain something about ol' Hochberg. If you think of the legislature as full of former quarterbacks and cheerleaders, Hochberg would be king of the AV Club. He's legislature's number one nerd. He's one of only a handful of people who actually understands how school funding works in this state, and he's always woefully well prepared. When I once asked a lobbyist whose advice Hochberg took, he laughed. "Hochberg listens to Hochberg," he had said with a shrug.
So it wasn't a huge surprise that our nerdy chair already had his homework done. He started with the lowered number of questions. He was relatively calm as he pointed to the very low passing standards the state's eighth grade social studies test. "If my math is right," he said, "a student who knows 12 of those question and bubbles in A on the rest stands a pretty good chance of getting the 21 that they need [out of 48.]" Cue silence.
He continued: "Where and how is it appropriate to ever need to know only 12 questions or even only 21 questions out of 48 to say you have met our standard for social studies?"
Things heated up by the time he got to the projection measures. He made Criss Cloudt, the agency's associate commissioner on assessment, walk the committee through the calculators. (And remember, all but one of the school districts to have newly achieve the agency's "exemplary" rating did so thanks to this calculator.) He pointed to examples in which a student passing in two subject areas could literally get a zero in the third and still be projected to pass.
"We had a discussion before about when it's crazy," he said, "and y'all agreed that there had to be a point where it's crazy."
Guess where that point is for Hochberg.
And he's not the only one. Appropriations chair Jim Pitts, a Republican, sat with a serious look through much of the meeting as Hochberg questioned the agency reps and subcommittee member (and Republican) Jimmie Don Aycock asked several questions in line with Hochberg. I spoke with Democratic Rep. Mike Villarreal—also a member of the subcommittee—shortly after news broke on the lowered standards. "I think it's important to just get some perspective on how arbitrary the larger system is," he said. The projection measures are "just crazy."
It didn't help that the commissioner on education, Robert Scott, didn't make the meeting. Hochberg said he offered to teleconference with Scott when it looked like the commissioner would be in Washington, and adjusted the meeting to fit into Scott's schedule. Hochberg wasn't exactly quiet about his frustration.
“Don’t go away Adam, unless you’re looking under the table for the commissioner,” Hochberg told Deputy Commissioner Adam Jones. I definitely squirmed around in my seat.
Over at the Statesman, Kate Alexander offers another nice summary of the meeting. Hers doesn't explain the horrors we all felt watching the interrogation unfold, but then again, Statesman readers may not be ready for that level of truth.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Hinojosa: Dozens of DISD schools risk ratings drop
By TAWNELL D. HOBBS / The Dallas Morning News
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Three dozen Dallas schools risk dropping in the state's rating system next year under upcoming tougher standards, trustees were told Thursday.
DISD administrators told the school board about several changes expected to affect next year's accountability ratings, including increased passing-rate standards for math and science, the inclusion of all scores for special education students, and a tougher standard to achieve the second-highest rating, "recognized."
"There's a lot more that's going to be impacted," DISD Superintendent Michael Hinojosa said. "It's going to be a bigger challenge. It is scary for the principals."
The district projected, based on current test scores under the new rules, that the number of Dallas schools rated "recognized" could drop from 84 to 58. Schools with the lowest rating, "academically unacceptable," would increase from 13 to 23.
Most of the schools that could lose their recognized rating are projected to fall into the "academically acceptable" category, taking that number up to 97 from 77. The schools with the highest rating, "exemplary," would drop off slightly from 46 to 45.
District administrators hope schools will continue making progress and won't be affected much by the changes. Hinojosa said he would "be very disappointed" if the district lost 26 recognized schools. He said board members were briefed on the changes so they would know the possible impact on Dallas schools.
A list of potentially affected schools was not revealed at the meeting.
Texas Education Agency spokeswoman Debbie Ratcliffe said big districts, like DISD, could be hit "pretty hard" by a rule change for counting scores for special education students.
She said that all Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores for special education students will now be included in the ratings. She added that the TAKS passing rate standards for math and science would increase by 5 percentage points, while the overall passing rate required to achieve "recognized" status will also increase by 5 percentage points.
There is a bright spot for school districts.
The Texas Projection Measure is being expanded to include science scores for eighth-grade students. The measure allows schools to count students who failed the TAKS as passing if they are predicted to pass in a future year because they have shown significant progress. Reading and math are already being projected under the rule.
Some trustees wondered how best to explain the changes to constituents without confusing them about the district's progress.
In August, DISD celebrated big surges in recognized and exemplary schools when last year's school ratings were released.
"The frustration is that we're doing so well, but it's hard to get the message out because we're competing with these other factors," Trustee Leigh Ann Ellis said. "It's hard for folks to understand the progress that we're making."
But trustee Carla Ranger said, "The standards are what they are." She said that she'd like more information on where the schools are now academically.
Hinojosa said he advises principals to focus on the curriculum and not just passing the TAKS because the state is making constant changes.
"We keep telling the principals, 'Don't just keep focusing on the TAKS test because that thing is going to keep changing,' " he said.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Three dozen Dallas schools risk dropping in the state's rating system next year under upcoming tougher standards, trustees were told Thursday.
DISD administrators told the school board about several changes expected to affect next year's accountability ratings, including increased passing-rate standards for math and science, the inclusion of all scores for special education students, and a tougher standard to achieve the second-highest rating, "recognized."
"There's a lot more that's going to be impacted," DISD Superintendent Michael Hinojosa said. "It's going to be a bigger challenge. It is scary for the principals."
The district projected, based on current test scores under the new rules, that the number of Dallas schools rated "recognized" could drop from 84 to 58. Schools with the lowest rating, "academically unacceptable," would increase from 13 to 23.
Most of the schools that could lose their recognized rating are projected to fall into the "academically acceptable" category, taking that number up to 97 from 77. The schools with the highest rating, "exemplary," would drop off slightly from 46 to 45.
District administrators hope schools will continue making progress and won't be affected much by the changes. Hinojosa said he would "be very disappointed" if the district lost 26 recognized schools. He said board members were briefed on the changes so they would know the possible impact on Dallas schools.
A list of potentially affected schools was not revealed at the meeting.
Texas Education Agency spokeswoman Debbie Ratcliffe said big districts, like DISD, could be hit "pretty hard" by a rule change for counting scores for special education students.
She said that all Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scores for special education students will now be included in the ratings. She added that the TAKS passing rate standards for math and science would increase by 5 percentage points, while the overall passing rate required to achieve "recognized" status will also increase by 5 percentage points.
There is a bright spot for school districts.
The Texas Projection Measure is being expanded to include science scores for eighth-grade students. The measure allows schools to count students who failed the TAKS as passing if they are predicted to pass in a future year because they have shown significant progress. Reading and math are already being projected under the rule.
Some trustees wondered how best to explain the changes to constituents without confusing them about the district's progress.
In August, DISD celebrated big surges in recognized and exemplary schools when last year's school ratings were released.
"The frustration is that we're doing so well, but it's hard to get the message out because we're competing with these other factors," Trustee Leigh Ann Ellis said. "It's hard for folks to understand the progress that we're making."
But trustee Carla Ranger said, "The standards are what they are." She said that she'd like more information on where the schools are now academically.
Hinojosa said he advises principals to focus on the curriculum and not just passing the TAKS because the state is making constant changes.
"We keep telling the principals, 'Don't just keep focusing on the TAKS test because that thing is going to keep changing,' " he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)