Standards Issue
President Obama wants to lower the dropout rate. He also
wants to raise academic standards. But does one come at the
expense of the other?
and
Small is Still Beautiful
Showing posts with label academic standards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label academic standards. Show all posts
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Why Are We Pursuing the Wrong Set of National Standards?
Sam Chaltain
The Huffington Post
une 25, 2009
With $100 billion to spend in the next two years, the Obama administration means business when it talks about reshaping the public education system. Why, then, is it ignoring some of the business community's best insights when it comes to core questions of how to spark systems change?
There's a disconnect between what the administration is promising - a set of voluntary national content standards - and what we the people will receive - a standardization of the public school system.
As U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has explained, the Obama administration's top priority is to "make sure our K-12 students are prepared to succeed in college and the workforce." As a first step toward achieving that goal, Duncan wants states to adopt "rigorous K-12 standards that prepare students for success in college and the workforce." Almost every state has agreed to participate - an unprecedented step toward a uniform definition of success in American schools.
At first blush, it's an optimal way to remedy the ongoing injustice that some children receive a high-quality public education, while others barely achieve proficiency. But here's the problem: although the public school system needs greater quality control, content standards are not the optimal measure to pursue.
If our goal is to "prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace," the standards we pursue should be whatever young people need most to be successful in college and the workplace. And in today's world, although young graduates certainly need a foundation of content knowledge, the greater measure of their long-term success will be the extent to which they learn to use their minds well.
Using one's mind well means more than just acquiring large numbers of discrete facts; it means learning how to find, analyze, and use information in adaptive ways. It doesn't mean content doesn't matter, either - just that our decisions about which content to teach (and why) should be made at the school level, by the people who know students best - their teachers. Neither does it mean we should throw up our hands and say there are certain things we just can't measure. In one school, for example, the curriculum is organized around seventeen standards of intellect, and the school has figured out how to measure factors as elusive as "collaboration" and "quality work."
The purpose of a national set of standards must be to ensure that a school in California and a school in Mississippi are reaching for the same golden ring. The standards must be aspirational, not basic. They must be guideposts, not hitching posts. And they must be indicators of wisdom that students will need to be successful in college and the workplace, not shards of knowledge that make it easier to devise uniform tests and mandate standardized modes of instruction.
Numerous experts share this concern. As Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen has observed, "there are powerful economic forces in place to standardize both instruction and assessment despite what we know to be true - students learn in different ways. The question now facing schools is this: Can the (current) system of schooling designed to process groups of students in standardized ways in a monolithic instructional mode be adapted to handle differences in the way individual brains are wired for learning?"
Princeton economist Allan Blinder echoes a similar note of caution. "It is clear that the U.S. and other rich nations will have to transform their educational systems so as to produce workers for the jobs that will actually exist in their societies. Simply providing more education is probably a good thing on balance, especially if a more educated labor force is a more flexible labor force that can cope more readily with non-routine tasks and occupational change. But it is far from a panacea. In the future, how we educate our children may prove to be more important than how much we educate them."
We desperately want to believe it is possible to find simple solutions to the complex problems we face, and to neatly divide cause and effect. To improve student learning, the conventional wisdom goes, we must make schools (and teachers) more accountable to student test scores. As Secretary Duncan said recently in remarks at the Governors Education Symposium: "Once new (content) standards are set and adopted, you need to create new tests that measure whether students are meeting those standards." Duncan has pledged up to $350 million to "help pay for the costs of developing those tests."
I believe the Secretary genuinely believes this path will best serve the needs of all children. I believe just as strongly that it will not. So how do we take this knowledge and create a more effective intervention strategy for our public school system?
Let's start by remembering that in any organization - whether it's a school, a business or the entire public school system - the central challenge is to strike the right balance between individual freedom and group structure. Artful leaders allow enough individual freedom so individuals have the room to be innovative, adaptive, and empowered, and they provide enough structure so all people have the support and clarity they need to do their best work.
Apply that thinking to our current challenges, and a good rule of thumb emerges for the Secretary to follow: First, provide simple structures that clarify for all schools what we mean when we say we want children to learn to use their minds well. And second, provide educators with the freedom to make complex decisions about which content will help them grab the golden ring and truly prepare our children for success in college and the workplace.
The Huffington Post
une 25, 2009
With $100 billion to spend in the next two years, the Obama administration means business when it talks about reshaping the public education system. Why, then, is it ignoring some of the business community's best insights when it comes to core questions of how to spark systems change?
There's a disconnect between what the administration is promising - a set of voluntary national content standards - and what we the people will receive - a standardization of the public school system.
As U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has explained, the Obama administration's top priority is to "make sure our K-12 students are prepared to succeed in college and the workforce." As a first step toward achieving that goal, Duncan wants states to adopt "rigorous K-12 standards that prepare students for success in college and the workforce." Almost every state has agreed to participate - an unprecedented step toward a uniform definition of success in American schools.
At first blush, it's an optimal way to remedy the ongoing injustice that some children receive a high-quality public education, while others barely achieve proficiency. But here's the problem: although the public school system needs greater quality control, content standards are not the optimal measure to pursue.
If our goal is to "prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace," the standards we pursue should be whatever young people need most to be successful in college and the workplace. And in today's world, although young graduates certainly need a foundation of content knowledge, the greater measure of their long-term success will be the extent to which they learn to use their minds well.
Using one's mind well means more than just acquiring large numbers of discrete facts; it means learning how to find, analyze, and use information in adaptive ways. It doesn't mean content doesn't matter, either - just that our decisions about which content to teach (and why) should be made at the school level, by the people who know students best - their teachers. Neither does it mean we should throw up our hands and say there are certain things we just can't measure. In one school, for example, the curriculum is organized around seventeen standards of intellect, and the school has figured out how to measure factors as elusive as "collaboration" and "quality work."
The purpose of a national set of standards must be to ensure that a school in California and a school in Mississippi are reaching for the same golden ring. The standards must be aspirational, not basic. They must be guideposts, not hitching posts. And they must be indicators of wisdom that students will need to be successful in college and the workplace, not shards of knowledge that make it easier to devise uniform tests and mandate standardized modes of instruction.
Numerous experts share this concern. As Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen has observed, "there are powerful economic forces in place to standardize both instruction and assessment despite what we know to be true - students learn in different ways. The question now facing schools is this: Can the (current) system of schooling designed to process groups of students in standardized ways in a monolithic instructional mode be adapted to handle differences in the way individual brains are wired for learning?"
Princeton economist Allan Blinder echoes a similar note of caution. "It is clear that the U.S. and other rich nations will have to transform their educational systems so as to produce workers for the jobs that will actually exist in their societies. Simply providing more education is probably a good thing on balance, especially if a more educated labor force is a more flexible labor force that can cope more readily with non-routine tasks and occupational change. But it is far from a panacea. In the future, how we educate our children may prove to be more important than how much we educate them."
We desperately want to believe it is possible to find simple solutions to the complex problems we face, and to neatly divide cause and effect. To improve student learning, the conventional wisdom goes, we must make schools (and teachers) more accountable to student test scores. As Secretary Duncan said recently in remarks at the Governors Education Symposium: "Once new (content) standards are set and adopted, you need to create new tests that measure whether students are meeting those standards." Duncan has pledged up to $350 million to "help pay for the costs of developing those tests."
I believe the Secretary genuinely believes this path will best serve the needs of all children. I believe just as strongly that it will not. So how do we take this knowledge and create a more effective intervention strategy for our public school system?
Let's start by remembering that in any organization - whether it's a school, a business or the entire public school system - the central challenge is to strike the right balance between individual freedom and group structure. Artful leaders allow enough individual freedom so individuals have the room to be innovative, adaptive, and empowered, and they provide enough structure so all people have the support and clarity they need to do their best work.
Apply that thinking to our current challenges, and a good rule of thumb emerges for the Secretary to follow: First, provide simple structures that clarify for all schools what we mean when we say we want children to learn to use their minds well. And second, provide educators with the freedom to make complex decisions about which content will help them grab the golden ring and truly prepare our children for success in college and the workplace.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Texas rejects plan to adopt national school standards
By TERRENCE STUTZ / The Dallas Morning News
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
AUSTIN – Texas has decided to steer clear of a national effort – involving 46 states – to develop uniform standards for English and math instruction in public schools.
State Education Commissioner Robert Scott, with the backing of Gov. Rick Perry, has turned down an invitation to work with the other states in drafting "common core" standards for English and math classes, spelling out what students at all grade levels should be taught in those subjects.
Although the standards will be voluntary, the U.S. education secretary has suggested that some federal money might be attached to the them.
But Texas officials are wary of getting involved, largely because of the cost to the state of implementing new standards. Three other states – Alaska, Missouri and South Carolina – also have declined to participate in the nationwide push, being coordinated by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers.
"Texas historically has never been supportive of the idea of national standards for our schools," said Debbie Ratcliffe, a spokeswoman for the commissioner and the Texas Education Agency. "We believe most Texans want to see our standards developed in Texas."
State Board of Education member Don McLeroy, the former chairman of the panel, noted that the education board now has responsibility to approve curriculum standards and there is no reason to surrender that authority to a national panel.
"It's a very bad idea," said McLeroy, R-College Station. "It's not up to the federal government or national groups to set standards for our schools. In Texas, we have elected officials to determine those standards, and if people disagree with their decisions, they can vote against them."
Texas could be forgoing federal aid by not taking part in the effort.
Achievement tests
U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan recently announced that his agency will offer as much as $350 million in federal assistance to help develop achievement tests that measure the proficiency of students in math and reading under the new requirements.
He said the new standards would replace the current hodgepodge of benchmarks in states, which makes it difficult to compare student performance from state to state. For example, some students passing in one state probably would get failing marks in another state because of different passing standards in each.
Duncan also indicated that tests used in some states are inadequate and should be replaced by more rigorous exams. He didn't identify any specific states.
Backers of the national standards initiative contend that it would hold all states and schools equally accountable and build on current efforts to improve the college and career readiness of students.
They also say the standards would be drafted with an eye toward making U.S. students more competitive with their counterparts in other countries.
"To maintain America's competitive edge, we need all of our students to be prepared and ready to compete with students from around the world," said Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas, vice chairman of the National Governors Association.
A memorandum of agreement being signed by the governors and education chiefs in the 46 states says that the goal is to have the national standards finished as early as December.
McLeroy said that over the last two years, the state board adopted curriculum standards for both math and English, and those requirements are gradually being incorporated into state achievement tests and textbooks that will be purchased by school districts.
"I don't want to see all that work in Texas negated," he said. "Besides that, we don't know what the national standards will be. Why would you sign on to something you have so little knowledge of?"
Texas' standards
Allison Castle, a spokeswoman for Perry, said Texas' participation in the national effort was unnecessary because the state has solid curriculum requirements in place.
"We already have excellent career and college-ready standards incorporated into all foundation areas," Castle said. "We are advanced [in adopting standards] compared to many other states."
Ratcliffe said agency officials have estimated that replacing the state's English and math curriculum standards could cost as much as $3 billion, including up to $2 billion to purchase new textbooks that reflect the new requirements.
Math textbooks in Texas were recently replaced, and the State Board of Education is scheduled to adopt new English textbooks this fall.
"It's a huge financial concern for us," she said. "If we suddenly switch gears and take on new standards, we could have to adopt new textbooks and revise the TAKS test to make sure it tests what we're teaching."
Ratcliffe said the state could make adjustments if it turns out that the national standards are more rigorous than what is now in place in Texas.
The new benchmarks are supposed to be research-based, be aligned with college and work expectations, and promote the teaching of rigorous skills and content in both subjects.
BACKGROUND: NATIONAL EDUCATION STANDARDS
Forty-six states – all but Texas, Alaska, Missouri and South Carolina – have agreed to create common academic standards in math and English language arts for grades K-12. A look at the agreement and the drive toward what are being called "common core standards."
GOAL: The states have committed to coming up with standards that will be "aligned with college and work expectations, include rigorous content and skills, and be internationally benchmarked."
WHAT THEN? The second phase calls for common achievement tests that are in line with the core standards. The standards could be finished this year and implemented in participating states within three years.
WHY DO IT? Advocates cite several benefits of national standards. Among them: commonly understood expectations for students; easier comparison between students across America and around the world; and more confidence that graduating seniors are ready for college work.
WHY NOT? Texas officials, in declining involvement, cite the cost of implementing new standards and a distaste for ceding control of state standards.
A FEDERAL ROLE? Participation is voluntary for states, and the effort is being pitched as state-led. However, the agreement signed by the states notes that the federal government can provide financial incentives. The government also may, at a later time, adjust federal education laws with lessons learned through the process, according to the document.
SOURCE: Dallas Morning News research
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
AUSTIN – Texas has decided to steer clear of a national effort – involving 46 states – to develop uniform standards for English and math instruction in public schools.
State Education Commissioner Robert Scott, with the backing of Gov. Rick Perry, has turned down an invitation to work with the other states in drafting "common core" standards for English and math classes, spelling out what students at all grade levels should be taught in those subjects.
Although the standards will be voluntary, the U.S. education secretary has suggested that some federal money might be attached to the them.
But Texas officials are wary of getting involved, largely because of the cost to the state of implementing new standards. Three other states – Alaska, Missouri and South Carolina – also have declined to participate in the nationwide push, being coordinated by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers.
"Texas historically has never been supportive of the idea of national standards for our schools," said Debbie Ratcliffe, a spokeswoman for the commissioner and the Texas Education Agency. "We believe most Texans want to see our standards developed in Texas."
State Board of Education member Don McLeroy, the former chairman of the panel, noted that the education board now has responsibility to approve curriculum standards and there is no reason to surrender that authority to a national panel.
"It's a very bad idea," said McLeroy, R-College Station. "It's not up to the federal government or national groups to set standards for our schools. In Texas, we have elected officials to determine those standards, and if people disagree with their decisions, they can vote against them."
Texas could be forgoing federal aid by not taking part in the effort.
Achievement tests
U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan recently announced that his agency will offer as much as $350 million in federal assistance to help develop achievement tests that measure the proficiency of students in math and reading under the new requirements.
He said the new standards would replace the current hodgepodge of benchmarks in states, which makes it difficult to compare student performance from state to state. For example, some students passing in one state probably would get failing marks in another state because of different passing standards in each.
Duncan also indicated that tests used in some states are inadequate and should be replaced by more rigorous exams. He didn't identify any specific states.
Backers of the national standards initiative contend that it would hold all states and schools equally accountable and build on current efforts to improve the college and career readiness of students.
They also say the standards would be drafted with an eye toward making U.S. students more competitive with their counterparts in other countries.
"To maintain America's competitive edge, we need all of our students to be prepared and ready to compete with students from around the world," said Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas, vice chairman of the National Governors Association.
A memorandum of agreement being signed by the governors and education chiefs in the 46 states says that the goal is to have the national standards finished as early as December.
McLeroy said that over the last two years, the state board adopted curriculum standards for both math and English, and those requirements are gradually being incorporated into state achievement tests and textbooks that will be purchased by school districts.
"I don't want to see all that work in Texas negated," he said. "Besides that, we don't know what the national standards will be. Why would you sign on to something you have so little knowledge of?"
Texas' standards
Allison Castle, a spokeswoman for Perry, said Texas' participation in the national effort was unnecessary because the state has solid curriculum requirements in place.
"We already have excellent career and college-ready standards incorporated into all foundation areas," Castle said. "We are advanced [in adopting standards] compared to many other states."
Ratcliffe said agency officials have estimated that replacing the state's English and math curriculum standards could cost as much as $3 billion, including up to $2 billion to purchase new textbooks that reflect the new requirements.
Math textbooks in Texas were recently replaced, and the State Board of Education is scheduled to adopt new English textbooks this fall.
"It's a huge financial concern for us," she said. "If we suddenly switch gears and take on new standards, we could have to adopt new textbooks and revise the TAKS test to make sure it tests what we're teaching."
Ratcliffe said the state could make adjustments if it turns out that the national standards are more rigorous than what is now in place in Texas.
The new benchmarks are supposed to be research-based, be aligned with college and work expectations, and promote the teaching of rigorous skills and content in both subjects.
BACKGROUND: NATIONAL EDUCATION STANDARDS
Forty-six states – all but Texas, Alaska, Missouri and South Carolina – have agreed to create common academic standards in math and English language arts for grades K-12. A look at the agreement and the drive toward what are being called "common core standards."
GOAL: The states have committed to coming up with standards that will be "aligned with college and work expectations, include rigorous content and skills, and be internationally benchmarked."
WHAT THEN? The second phase calls for common achievement tests that are in line with the core standards. The standards could be finished this year and implemented in participating states within three years.
WHY DO IT? Advocates cite several benefits of national standards. Among them: commonly understood expectations for students; easier comparison between students across America and around the world; and more confidence that graduating seniors are ready for college work.
WHY NOT? Texas officials, in declining involvement, cite the cost of implementing new standards and a distaste for ceding control of state standards.
A FEDERAL ROLE? Participation is voluntary for states, and the effort is being pitched as state-led. However, the agreement signed by the states notes that the federal government can provide financial incentives. The government also may, at a later time, adjust federal education laws with lessons learned through the process, according to the document.
SOURCE: Dallas Morning News research
Sunday, July 20, 2008
California mandates testing every eighth-grader in algebra -- ready or not
Critics say the expected three-year time frame for implementing the rule is unrealistic. School districts will need help to prepare students, they add.
By Howard Blume, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
July 10, 2008
Every California eighth-grader will be tested in algebra -- ready or not -- under a policy approved Wednesday that could make the state the first in the nation to require an upper-level math class before high school.
The state Board of Education voted for the change under pressure from federal officials and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who broke months of silence by siding this week with advocates who want algebra to become mandatory in eighth grade within three years.
Proponents say the new policy will push school districts to ensure that eighth-graders are ready for the demands of algebra. Critics say the anticipated three-year time frame is unrealistic. The new mandate, they contend, overlooks the real need to help school districts better prepare students.
Lucila Zetino, a summer school student at Monroe High in North Hills, typifies both the state's aspirations and its failings.
Zetino, 18, was part of an early push to get all students into Algebra 1 in eighth grade. Zetino flunked the class and has been flunking it ever since. Now she is attending classes after her senior year -- giving it another try, determined to earn her high school diploma.
Zetino's struggles demonstrate the depth of the challenge. Her math slide began at Millikan Middle School in seventh grade, she said. Then came eighth-grade algebra, when her teacher quit and was followed by several long-term substitutes. "I don't think I was prepared. I think they just, like, pushed me into algebra. . . . Math was like a different language I never understood. I felt hopeless."
In the Los Angeles Unified School District, more than half of eighth-graders, along with more than 2,000 seventh-graders, took algebra in 2007. But only 21% of eighth-graders tested proficient. About two-thirds of those who failed the class passed on their second try.
At many low-performing campuses, the picture is more dire. At Gompers Middle School in Watts, for example, only 30% of eighth-graders took algebra, and only 15% of those scored proficient. Moreover, only 1% of students in general math, an easier course, tested proficient.
The state's curriculum for eighth grade has long included algebra, and schools get penalized on their own report card, the state's Academic Performance Index, for every eighth-grader who doesn't take the algebra test.
The next step, the state board decided, was to force all students to take the test -- and thus an algebra course -- at a younger age. Under the likely terms of an agreement with the U.S. Department of Education, the state would have three years to make the transition.
State Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell had proposed instead a second, easier, algebra test as a fallback for some students. That test, already in development, would have been ready in spring 2010.
Requiring all students to take algebra "will hurt kids and contribute to other problems; I pray that I'm wrong," O'Connell said after the vote. "Absent additional resources, we're setting our students up for failure."
Statewide, only 24% of students, regardless of age or grade, scored proficient in algebra in 2007.
In eighth grade, 38% tested proficient -- a number virtually unchanged since 2003. But more students are taking algebra: less than a third in 2002 and more than half today.
For months, O'Connell's two-test option had considerable support. The governor's office raised no objection, and state board President Ted Mitchell co-signed a letter to federal officials with O'Connell.
"Board members were uncomfortable with a second test that would create the appearance of mastery of algebra but not actually do that," said Mitchell, explaining why he and other board members altered their positions.
Federal officials have complained that California established algebra as eighth-grade material but didn't require students to take the algebra test. Instead, they could take the more basic general math test. The requirements and the test have to match under federal law.
Washington couldn't tell California exactly how to comply with the law, said Holly Kuzmich, deputy chief of staff to U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings. "But education policy is leading us to getting kids access to algebra by the eighth grade, and we know that's what leads kids to jobs and college."
She added: "We are delighted at the governor's push for high standards." Kuzmich said she knew of no other state that required algebra as early as eighth grade.
For months, advocates lobbied against O'Connell's approach.
"This $1-million proposed 'algebra light' alternative test will be a disaster for California kids and teachers," said Jim Lanich, president of California Business for Education Excellence, before the vote. "It will be a watering down of academic standards. . . . It will institutionalize a lower expectation for minority and low-income kids."
There also were critics from a nearly opposite perspective who wanted a test that matched the state's new "algebra readiness" curriculum. Some of these advocates wanted the state to wait out the Bush administration.
For them, even the easier algebra test was "meaningless and cruel" for students who, because they weren't ready, hadn't taken algebra, testified Charles T. Munger Jr., a math curriculum expert.
The state board postponed the decision in May and also punted in June, but had to act this month to avoid possible sanctions.
The federal government could have stripped away several million dollars that the state uses to oversee programs for students from low-income families. The state also could have lost flexibility for developing reforms.
The approved solution creates another problem. If 95% of eighth-graders don't take the algebra test, a school could be judged as "failing" under federal rules and subject to penalties.
Schwarzenegger stayed out of the debate until 24 hours before trustees were to act.
"We must set our goals higher," the governor wrote to the state board. "Algebra is the gateway to critical thinking, pivotal for success in science, engineering and technology."
To graduate, California students must pass two years of high school math, including Algebra 1, and the high school exit exam. To enter the California State or University of California systems, students need a C or better in three years of high school math, which usually takes them at least through Algebra 1, Geometry and Algebra 2.
In L.A. Unified, as in other urban districts, students will need more help before eighth grade. The district has had trouble attracting and keeping qualified and effective math teachers.
Its teaching corps needs training in imparting the concepts of math as well as skills that will lead to algebra, said Jeanne Ramos, director of secondary mathematics.
Zetino's current teacher, Brian York, is taking part in a new effort among schools in his area to coordinate early math instruction.
"You can't just say, 'Eighth-graders, you're taking algebra,' " York said.
Despite clear explanations, good humor and words of encouragement, York can expect only about 50% of his class of algebra repeaters -- some of whom barely speak English -- to make it through, based on past experience. But he's going to keep trying.
So is Zetino, who wants to be a cosmetologist or find a job in the arts.
"I really want to graduate from high school," she said. "I'm hoping I do good in this class."
By Howard Blume, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
July 10, 2008
Every California eighth-grader will be tested in algebra -- ready or not -- under a policy approved Wednesday that could make the state the first in the nation to require an upper-level math class before high school.
The state Board of Education voted for the change under pressure from federal officials and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who broke months of silence by siding this week with advocates who want algebra to become mandatory in eighth grade within three years.
Proponents say the new policy will push school districts to ensure that eighth-graders are ready for the demands of algebra. Critics say the anticipated three-year time frame is unrealistic. The new mandate, they contend, overlooks the real need to help school districts better prepare students.
Lucila Zetino, a summer school student at Monroe High in North Hills, typifies both the state's aspirations and its failings.
Zetino, 18, was part of an early push to get all students into Algebra 1 in eighth grade. Zetino flunked the class and has been flunking it ever since. Now she is attending classes after her senior year -- giving it another try, determined to earn her high school diploma.
Zetino's struggles demonstrate the depth of the challenge. Her math slide began at Millikan Middle School in seventh grade, she said. Then came eighth-grade algebra, when her teacher quit and was followed by several long-term substitutes. "I don't think I was prepared. I think they just, like, pushed me into algebra. . . . Math was like a different language I never understood. I felt hopeless."
In the Los Angeles Unified School District, more than half of eighth-graders, along with more than 2,000 seventh-graders, took algebra in 2007. But only 21% of eighth-graders tested proficient. About two-thirds of those who failed the class passed on their second try.
At many low-performing campuses, the picture is more dire. At Gompers Middle School in Watts, for example, only 30% of eighth-graders took algebra, and only 15% of those scored proficient. Moreover, only 1% of students in general math, an easier course, tested proficient.
The state's curriculum for eighth grade has long included algebra, and schools get penalized on their own report card, the state's Academic Performance Index, for every eighth-grader who doesn't take the algebra test.
The next step, the state board decided, was to force all students to take the test -- and thus an algebra course -- at a younger age. Under the likely terms of an agreement with the U.S. Department of Education, the state would have three years to make the transition.
State Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell had proposed instead a second, easier, algebra test as a fallback for some students. That test, already in development, would have been ready in spring 2010.
Requiring all students to take algebra "will hurt kids and contribute to other problems; I pray that I'm wrong," O'Connell said after the vote. "Absent additional resources, we're setting our students up for failure."
Statewide, only 24% of students, regardless of age or grade, scored proficient in algebra in 2007.
In eighth grade, 38% tested proficient -- a number virtually unchanged since 2003. But more students are taking algebra: less than a third in 2002 and more than half today.
For months, O'Connell's two-test option had considerable support. The governor's office raised no objection, and state board President Ted Mitchell co-signed a letter to federal officials with O'Connell.
"Board members were uncomfortable with a second test that would create the appearance of mastery of algebra but not actually do that," said Mitchell, explaining why he and other board members altered their positions.
Federal officials have complained that California established algebra as eighth-grade material but didn't require students to take the algebra test. Instead, they could take the more basic general math test. The requirements and the test have to match under federal law.
Washington couldn't tell California exactly how to comply with the law, said Holly Kuzmich, deputy chief of staff to U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings. "But education policy is leading us to getting kids access to algebra by the eighth grade, and we know that's what leads kids to jobs and college."
She added: "We are delighted at the governor's push for high standards." Kuzmich said she knew of no other state that required algebra as early as eighth grade.
For months, advocates lobbied against O'Connell's approach.
"This $1-million proposed 'algebra light' alternative test will be a disaster for California kids and teachers," said Jim Lanich, president of California Business for Education Excellence, before the vote. "It will be a watering down of academic standards. . . . It will institutionalize a lower expectation for minority and low-income kids."
There also were critics from a nearly opposite perspective who wanted a test that matched the state's new "algebra readiness" curriculum. Some of these advocates wanted the state to wait out the Bush administration.
For them, even the easier algebra test was "meaningless and cruel" for students who, because they weren't ready, hadn't taken algebra, testified Charles T. Munger Jr., a math curriculum expert.
The state board postponed the decision in May and also punted in June, but had to act this month to avoid possible sanctions.
The federal government could have stripped away several million dollars that the state uses to oversee programs for students from low-income families. The state also could have lost flexibility for developing reforms.
The approved solution creates another problem. If 95% of eighth-graders don't take the algebra test, a school could be judged as "failing" under federal rules and subject to penalties.
Schwarzenegger stayed out of the debate until 24 hours before trustees were to act.
"We must set our goals higher," the governor wrote to the state board. "Algebra is the gateway to critical thinking, pivotal for success in science, engineering and technology."
To graduate, California students must pass two years of high school math, including Algebra 1, and the high school exit exam. To enter the California State or University of California systems, students need a C or better in three years of high school math, which usually takes them at least through Algebra 1, Geometry and Algebra 2.
In L.A. Unified, as in other urban districts, students will need more help before eighth grade. The district has had trouble attracting and keeping qualified and effective math teachers.
Its teaching corps needs training in imparting the concepts of math as well as skills that will lead to algebra, said Jeanne Ramos, director of secondary mathematics.
Zetino's current teacher, Brian York, is taking part in a new effort among schools in his area to coordinate early math instruction.
"You can't just say, 'Eighth-graders, you're taking algebra,' " York said.
Despite clear explanations, good humor and words of encouragement, York can expect only about 50% of his class of algebra repeaters -- some of whom barely speak English -- to make it through, based on past experience. But he's going to keep trying.
So is Zetino, who wants to be a cosmetologist or find a job in the arts.
"I really want to graduate from high school," she said. "I'm hoping I do good in this class."
Thursday, June 28, 2007
States Found to Vary Widely on Education
Just came across this important piece. Too much to read. -Angela
States Found to Vary Widely on Education
Posted by Dad on 6/08/07
June 8, 2007
States Found to Vary Widely on Education
By TAMAR LEWIN
Academic standards vary so drastically from state to state
that a fourth grader judged proficient in reading in
Mississippi or Tennessee would fall far short of that mark
in Massachusetts and South Carolina, the United States
Department of Education said yesterday in a report that,
for the first time, measured the extent of the
differences.
The wide variation raises questions about whether the
federal No Child Left Behind law, President Bush’s
signature education initiative, which is up for renewal
this year, has allowed a patchwork of educational
inequities around the country, with no common yardstick to
determine whether schoolchildren are learning enough.
The law requires that all students be brought to
proficiency by 2014 in reading and math and creates
sanctions for failure. But in a bow to states’ rights it
lets each state set its own standards and choose its own
tests.
The report provides ammunition for critics who say that
one national standard is needed. “Parents and communities
in too many states are being told not to worry, all is
well, when their students are far behind,” said Michael J.
Petrilli, a vice president of the Thomas B. Fordham
Foundation who served in the Education Department during
Mr. Bush’s first term.
Education Secretary Margaret Spellings said in a
statement, “This report offers sobering news that serious
work remains to ensure that our schools are teaching
students to the highest possible standards.” Still, in a
conference call with reporters, she said it was up to the
states, not the federal government, to raise standards.
The report for the first time creates a common yardstick
to measure the results on state tests against the National
Assessment of Educational Progress, considered the gold
standard of testing.
The report examines the minimum score a student would have
to get on each state’s reading and math tests to be deemed
proficient — or at grade level — and then determines what
the equivalent score for that level of competency would be
on the national test. Results on the national test are not
used to judge schools under No Child Left Behind.
The national test divides students’ scores into three
achievement levels, basic, proficient and advanced. Grover
J. Whitehurst, director of the Institute of Education
Sciences at the Education Department, said the achievement
level that many states called proficient was closer to
what the national test rated as just basic. And the report
shows that not a single state sets its reading proficiency
levels as high as the national test.
Although results were not available for all states, the
Education Department report based on tests given in the
2004-5 school year illustrated starkly the variations in
standards.
For example, an eighth grader in Missouri would need the
equivalent of a 311 on the national math test to be judged
proficient. That is actually more rigorous than the
national test. In Tennessee, however, a student can meet
the state’s proficiency standard with a 230, a score well
below even the basic level on the national exam.
And while a Massachusetts fourth grader would need the
equivalent of a 234, or just below the proficiency mark on
the national test, to be judged as proficient by the
state, a Mississippi fourth grader can meet the state’s
standard with a state score that corresponds to a 161 on
the national test.
Such score differences represent a gap of several grade
levels. New York ranked 9th in grade 4 reading, in terms
of the rigor of its standards. Its proficiency standards
corresponded to 207 on the national test. It ranked third
in grade 8 reading. But it was toward the bottom, 29th
among 33 states in grade 4 math. And it was 13th in grade
8 math.
New York has since approved new math standards. “The
results in reading are positive for New York relative to
other states, but math is mixed,” State Education
Commissioner Richard Mills said. “The comparison reminds
us of the need over time to keep raising standards and
providing extra help to students.”
The report found that eighth graders in North Carolina had
to show the least skill to be considered proficient
readers while those in Wyoming had to show the most skill.
Tennessee set the lowest bar on grade 4 math while
Massachusetts set the highest one.
The differences between state proficiency standards were
sometimes more than double the national gap between
minority and white students’ reading levels, which
averages about 30 points on the national test, Mr.
Whitehurst said.
Many education experts criticize No Child Left Behind,
saying it gives states an incentive to set low standards
to avoid sanctions on schools that do not increase the
percentage of students demonstrating proficiency each
year. Those experts argue that uniform national standards
are needed.
But Congress is unlikely to go that far. Ms. Spellings
said, “It’s way too early to conclude we need to adopt
national standards” and added that it is also too early to
conclude that state standards are too low.
On Tuesday, a survey of state scores in reading and math,
released by the Center on Education Policy, an independent
Washington group, found that since the passage of No Child
Left Behind in 2002, student achievement had increased and
the racial achievement gap narrowed in many states.
Ms. Spellings said the results showed the law has “struck
a chord of success.” Her department’s report, though,
raises doubts about just how much progress has been made.
Mr. Petrilli said, “Even if students are making progress
on state tests, if tests are incredibly easy, that doesn’t
mean much.”
States Found to Vary Widely on Education
Posted by Dad on 6/08/07
June 8, 2007
States Found to Vary Widely on Education
By TAMAR LEWIN
Academic standards vary so drastically from state to state
that a fourth grader judged proficient in reading in
Mississippi or Tennessee would fall far short of that mark
in Massachusetts and South Carolina, the United States
Department of Education said yesterday in a report that,
for the first time, measured the extent of the
differences.
The wide variation raises questions about whether the
federal No Child Left Behind law, President Bush’s
signature education initiative, which is up for renewal
this year, has allowed a patchwork of educational
inequities around the country, with no common yardstick to
determine whether schoolchildren are learning enough.
The law requires that all students be brought to
proficiency by 2014 in reading and math and creates
sanctions for failure. But in a bow to states’ rights it
lets each state set its own standards and choose its own
tests.
The report provides ammunition for critics who say that
one national standard is needed. “Parents and communities
in too many states are being told not to worry, all is
well, when their students are far behind,” said Michael J.
Petrilli, a vice president of the Thomas B. Fordham
Foundation who served in the Education Department during
Mr. Bush’s first term.
Education Secretary Margaret Spellings said in a
statement, “This report offers sobering news that serious
work remains to ensure that our schools are teaching
students to the highest possible standards.” Still, in a
conference call with reporters, she said it was up to the
states, not the federal government, to raise standards.
The report for the first time creates a common yardstick
to measure the results on state tests against the National
Assessment of Educational Progress, considered the gold
standard of testing.
The report examines the minimum score a student would have
to get on each state’s reading and math tests to be deemed
proficient — or at grade level — and then determines what
the equivalent score for that level of competency would be
on the national test. Results on the national test are not
used to judge schools under No Child Left Behind.
The national test divides students’ scores into three
achievement levels, basic, proficient and advanced. Grover
J. Whitehurst, director of the Institute of Education
Sciences at the Education Department, said the achievement
level that many states called proficient was closer to
what the national test rated as just basic. And the report
shows that not a single state sets its reading proficiency
levels as high as the national test.
Although results were not available for all states, the
Education Department report based on tests given in the
2004-5 school year illustrated starkly the variations in
standards.
For example, an eighth grader in Missouri would need the
equivalent of a 311 on the national math test to be judged
proficient. That is actually more rigorous than the
national test. In Tennessee, however, a student can meet
the state’s proficiency standard with a 230, a score well
below even the basic level on the national exam.
And while a Massachusetts fourth grader would need the
equivalent of a 234, or just below the proficiency mark on
the national test, to be judged as proficient by the
state, a Mississippi fourth grader can meet the state’s
standard with a state score that corresponds to a 161 on
the national test.
Such score differences represent a gap of several grade
levels. New York ranked 9th in grade 4 reading, in terms
of the rigor of its standards. Its proficiency standards
corresponded to 207 on the national test. It ranked third
in grade 8 reading. But it was toward the bottom, 29th
among 33 states in grade 4 math. And it was 13th in grade
8 math.
New York has since approved new math standards. “The
results in reading are positive for New York relative to
other states, but math is mixed,” State Education
Commissioner Richard Mills said. “The comparison reminds
us of the need over time to keep raising standards and
providing extra help to students.”
The report found that eighth graders in North Carolina had
to show the least skill to be considered proficient
readers while those in Wyoming had to show the most skill.
Tennessee set the lowest bar on grade 4 math while
Massachusetts set the highest one.
The differences between state proficiency standards were
sometimes more than double the national gap between
minority and white students’ reading levels, which
averages about 30 points on the national test, Mr.
Whitehurst said.
Many education experts criticize No Child Left Behind,
saying it gives states an incentive to set low standards
to avoid sanctions on schools that do not increase the
percentage of students demonstrating proficiency each
year. Those experts argue that uniform national standards
are needed.
But Congress is unlikely to go that far. Ms. Spellings
said, “It’s way too early to conclude we need to adopt
national standards” and added that it is also too early to
conclude that state standards are too low.
On Tuesday, a survey of state scores in reading and math,
released by the Center on Education Policy, an independent
Washington group, found that since the passage of No Child
Left Behind in 2002, student achievement had increased and
the racial achievement gap narrowed in many states.
Ms. Spellings said the results showed the law has “struck
a chord of success.” Her department’s report, though,
raises doubts about just how much progress has been made.
Mr. Petrilli said, “Even if students are making progress
on state tests, if tests are incredibly easy, that doesn’t
mean much.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)