3,000 denied diplomas because of MCAS
By Scott W. Lang | Boston Globe
June 8, 2010
PUBLIC HIGH school students across the state continue to suffer the collateral damage from MCAS. Almost 3,000 seniors will not graduate this month because they did not pass the science section of the test, a new hurdle imposed this year that students must pass, in addition to the math and English components of the exam. Since MCAS was imposed in 2003, thousands of public school students finished high school without a diploma, because they were unable to pass the high-stakes test. These students met all other diploma requirements mandated by their high schools, completing the requisite math, science, English, and social studies courses, maintaining a passing grade point average and meeting attendance requirements, participating in extracurricular activities, and contributing to their school community.
At private and religious schools across the state, fulfilling those requirements earns a student a diploma. Private and religious school students (nearly 144,700) do not have to take MCAS. Ironically, MCAS has no more weight in the college admissions system than a private or religious school diploma. MCAS scores are not even reported to colleges and universities.
We are holding our students to two different standards, and we owe it to them to ask why. The state’s implicit lack of faith in the caliber of public schools is troubling. If we are not convinced that our public school systems are ensuring that students who successfully meet all graduation requirements set at the district level deserve a high school diploma, then we should reevaluate the governance and accreditation standards for all schools in the state. About 3,000 students each year successfully completed their studies to earn a high school diploma but did not receive it because they did not pass the MCAS. They may face a life of economic hardship and disadvantage as they try to navigate in a society that has relegated them to dropout status. We are creating a permanent underclass of young people who will be denied many opportunities that would be available to them with a diploma.
Of the 2,649 students who did not receive a diploma last year because of MCAS, 51 percent (1,354) were minorities, even though minorities were only 27 percent of the statewide class of seniors. The same trend holds true for income — 43 percent (1,142 students) were low-income, despite the fact that low-income students constituted just 25 percent of the class. Students in cities fared far worse than their suburban counterparts, with 1,526 (or 58 percent) of the 2,649 students coming from urban districts (just 27 percent of students in this statewide senior class were in urban districts).
These trends hold true for every class since the MCAS graduation requirement was imposed — the young people who feel the brunt of the negative effects of this standard are minority, low-income, and urban. While no one questions the goal of education reform in Massachusetts, it is unconscionable that we continue to support a system that has produced these results. We need to give our young people every opportunity to succeed and provide them with whatever support we can, not create artificial barriers that will adversely affect them for their entire adult lives.
Education remains the best opportunity for social mobility, and a system that arbitrarily places limits on young people cannot remain in place.
Educational equity requires that we award a MCAS high school diploma for those who pass the MCAS test, and a high school diploma to our otherwise graduating seniors in public school. This will be the same high school diploma that the students who attend private and religious schools earn each year and will allow all of our graduating students an opportunity to lead a successful life and contribute their maximum to society.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Closing schools' achievement gaps
Five school systems across the country, with differences in location, funding and demographics, all have raised achievement notably using five common-sense steps.
By Heather Zavadsky | LA Times Editorial
July 7, 2010
While the Obama administration, with its federal Race to the Top program, is setting up a host of new rules for schools, five large urban school districts have raised achievement and closed achievement gaps using approaches that make such obvious sense, it would amaze parents to know that these aren't the norm everywhere.
The Broad Prize for Urban Education is awarded to large school districts that show the most progress. I had the opportunity to closely observe the innovations at five winning districts during the four years I spent working for the Los Angeles-based Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation, overseeing the process for selecting winners. That included visiting schools, analyzing test data and other statistics, and conducting follow-up interviews with teachers and parents.
Two of the districts are in Southern California — the Long Beach and Garden Grove unified school districts. The others are the Boston Public Schools, Norfolk Public Schools in Virginia and the Aldine Independent School District outside Houston. As different as the five school systems are in location, funding and, to some extent, demographics, all have raised achievement notably using five common-sense steps.
First, all developed a challenging, clear and specific curriculum. In these districts, every teacher and student knows exactly what academic content students should know and what skills they should be able to demonstrate in each subject and grade. While this might seem almost ridiculously obvious, the reality is that many districts never clearly articulate the skills that must be taught in a given grade, or consider the overall arc of the curriculum from kindergarten through senior year of high school, ensuring that there are no gaps or unnecessary repeats in instruction. It's also surprising how many teachers are unaware of the curriculum requirements for the grades just below and above the ones they teach.
These districts also set no more than six long-term strategic districtwide goals, and used them to drive practices in every school. For example, Garden Grove has had the same two goals since 2003 for students who attend the district for at least five years: Students would meet or exceed state standards in core academic subjects, and English language learners would gain a certain amount of proficiency in the language. Rather than continually changing goals, these districts stick to them, drilling down and refining them each year to ensure that all students, teachers and schools are able to move in that direction. From 2006 to 2009, the increase in the percentage of English language learners in Garden Grove who scored well enough on tests to be reclassified as proficient was more than twice as large as in Los Angeles Unified.
Third, the five districts developed smart strategies to attract and retain effective teachers, support them and cultivate a collaborative working environment. Boston Public Schools trained teachers to coach one another; teachers reported that it helped them to learn from experienced peers how to carry out particular classroom strategies.
Fourth, these districts asked staff to evaluate regularly whether each approach or program was improving achievement. The key to this strategy: data. The districts used data to select, pilot and monitor programs, and eliminate those that weren't working. Boston used a committee-created rubric to score the merits of various instructional programs and select the one that best met student needs. Aldine and Garden Grove required educators to demonstrate how programs or materials were tied to educational goals before they could buy them.
Just as important, data also helped these districts tailor their efforts to meet individual student needs, by revealing areas of improvement for each child and identifying which instructional approaches yielded the best results.
The Aldine schools match student needs with teacher strengths. Even in elementary school, students move to different classrooms when another teacher is better suited to work with them on a particular skill. For example, tests might have shown that one student is having trouble grasping fractions; he or she will be paired with a teacher who has demonstrated a particular talent for teaching fractions.
Finally, leaders in these districts have successfully built relationships with parents, community organizations, area businesses and others who have a stake in student success. In Norfolk, community engagement is so important that it appears as a performance indicator in the district's accountability system. The community in turn has helped the district carry out its plans; one corporation underwrote a leadership development program, and a foundation funded a large preschool initiative.
California is applying once again for Race to the Top funds. Whether or not its bid succeeds, its plan for the future should include prodding troubled urban school districts to adopt the sensible, student-centered efforts that have worked in the nation's most improved districts.
Heather Zavadsky is director of policy and communication for the Institute for Public School Initiatives at the University of Texas. She is the author of "Bringing School Reform to Scale: Five Award-Winning Urban Districts."
Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times
By Heather Zavadsky | LA Times Editorial
July 7, 2010
While the Obama administration, with its federal Race to the Top program, is setting up a host of new rules for schools, five large urban school districts have raised achievement and closed achievement gaps using approaches that make such obvious sense, it would amaze parents to know that these aren't the norm everywhere.
The Broad Prize for Urban Education is awarded to large school districts that show the most progress. I had the opportunity to closely observe the innovations at five winning districts during the four years I spent working for the Los Angeles-based Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation, overseeing the process for selecting winners. That included visiting schools, analyzing test data and other statistics, and conducting follow-up interviews with teachers and parents.
Two of the districts are in Southern California — the Long Beach and Garden Grove unified school districts. The others are the Boston Public Schools, Norfolk Public Schools in Virginia and the Aldine Independent School District outside Houston. As different as the five school systems are in location, funding and, to some extent, demographics, all have raised achievement notably using five common-sense steps.
First, all developed a challenging, clear and specific curriculum. In these districts, every teacher and student knows exactly what academic content students should know and what skills they should be able to demonstrate in each subject and grade. While this might seem almost ridiculously obvious, the reality is that many districts never clearly articulate the skills that must be taught in a given grade, or consider the overall arc of the curriculum from kindergarten through senior year of high school, ensuring that there are no gaps or unnecessary repeats in instruction. It's also surprising how many teachers are unaware of the curriculum requirements for the grades just below and above the ones they teach.
These districts also set no more than six long-term strategic districtwide goals, and used them to drive practices in every school. For example, Garden Grove has had the same two goals since 2003 for students who attend the district for at least five years: Students would meet or exceed state standards in core academic subjects, and English language learners would gain a certain amount of proficiency in the language. Rather than continually changing goals, these districts stick to them, drilling down and refining them each year to ensure that all students, teachers and schools are able to move in that direction. From 2006 to 2009, the increase in the percentage of English language learners in Garden Grove who scored well enough on tests to be reclassified as proficient was more than twice as large as in Los Angeles Unified.
Third, the five districts developed smart strategies to attract and retain effective teachers, support them and cultivate a collaborative working environment. Boston Public Schools trained teachers to coach one another; teachers reported that it helped them to learn from experienced peers how to carry out particular classroom strategies.
Fourth, these districts asked staff to evaluate regularly whether each approach or program was improving achievement. The key to this strategy: data. The districts used data to select, pilot and monitor programs, and eliminate those that weren't working. Boston used a committee-created rubric to score the merits of various instructional programs and select the one that best met student needs. Aldine and Garden Grove required educators to demonstrate how programs or materials were tied to educational goals before they could buy them.
Just as important, data also helped these districts tailor their efforts to meet individual student needs, by revealing areas of improvement for each child and identifying which instructional approaches yielded the best results.
The Aldine schools match student needs with teacher strengths. Even in elementary school, students move to different classrooms when another teacher is better suited to work with them on a particular skill. For example, tests might have shown that one student is having trouble grasping fractions; he or she will be paired with a teacher who has demonstrated a particular talent for teaching fractions.
Finally, leaders in these districts have successfully built relationships with parents, community organizations, area businesses and others who have a stake in student success. In Norfolk, community engagement is so important that it appears as a performance indicator in the district's accountability system. The community in turn has helped the district carry out its plans; one corporation underwrote a leadership development program, and a foundation funded a large preschool initiative.
California is applying once again for Race to the Top funds. Whether or not its bid succeeds, its plan for the future should include prodding troubled urban school districts to adopt the sensible, student-centered efforts that have worked in the nation's most improved districts.
Heather Zavadsky is director of policy and communication for the Institute for Public School Initiatives at the University of Texas. She is the author of "Bringing School Reform to Scale: Five Award-Winning Urban Districts."
Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times
Controversial Texas Projection Measure may again boost schools' ratings
Hundreds of Texas campuses are expected to receive high marks again this month, thanks to a state rule that counts some students who failed a TAKS test as having passed.
The Texas Projection Measure, introduced last year, predicts students' future TAKS scores in a given subject based on their current TAKS scores and on their previous year's average campus score. If a student fails this year's TAKS test but is predicted to pass in a future year, the school gets credit as if the student had passed this year. And that can boost a school's rating.
The Texas Education Agency is scheduled to release this year's ratings July 30.
The controversial formula came under attack during a recent Texas House subcommittee hearing. Rep. Scott Hochberg, D-Houston, gave a few examples of how students could bomb the TAKS but still get credit for passing.
Since then, TEA Commissioner Robert Scott has said the Texas Projection Measure may be eliminated or revised in 2011. One possible revision: allowing districts to decide whether to use the measure.
Supporters say the concept helps recognize the efforts of schools where students have made academic gains but still fall short of the passing standards.
According to the agency, 73 districts and 1,111 campuses saw their ratings rise from recognized to exemplary last year because of the measure. And 178 districts and 1,077 campuses climbed from acceptable to recognized because of the adjustment.
Here are some hypothetical North Texas examples of how the projection measure works and how it can benefit schools. All of the following schools saw a ratings boost last year because of the projection measure, but it isn't clear whether they'll benefit again this year.
SMITH HIGH SCHOOL, CARROLLTON-FARMERS BRANCH ISD
2009 rating: Recognized
Example: Ninth-grade math
Suppose a student answered only 20 of 52 questions correctly on the math TAKS (28 correct answers are needed to pass) but answered 32 of 42 questions correctly on the reading TAKS (26 are needed to pass).
Result: School gets credit for student passing the math test.
MAYNARD JACKSON MIDDLE SCHOOL, DALLAS ISD
2009 rating: Acceptable
Example: Eighth-grade science
Suppose a student answered only 15 of 50 questions correctly on the science TAKS (33 are needed to pass) but answered 42 of 48 questions correctly on the reading TAKS test (35 are needed to pass) and 34 of 50 questions correctly on the math test (29 are needed to pass).
Result: School gets credit for student passing the science test.
MEMORIAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, PLANO ISD
2009 rating: Acceptable
Example: Fourth-grade writing
Suppose a student missed all 32 questions on the writing test (17 correct answers are needed to pass) but got 27 of 40 questions correct on the reading test (27 are needed to pass) and 27 of 42 questions correct on the math test (27 are needed to pass).
Result: School gets credit for student passing the writing test.
BRIGHT ELEMENTARY, FRISCO ISD
2009 rating: Exemplary
Example: Third-grade math and reading
Suppose a student failed the math test by four questions (22 correct answers out of 40, 26 are needed to pass) and the reading test by just one question (20 correct answers out of 36, 21 correct answers are needed to pass).
Result: School gets credit for student passing the math test but not the reading test.
Legislators limited when it comes to trimming the budget
| AUSTIN BUREAU
July 18, 2010
AUSTIN -- Trying to carve billions of dollars from the state budget may seem tough enough, but the job will be even more challenging for lawmakers because of dollars they cannot easily touch.
When the current $182 billion, two-year state budget was written, $87 billion was labeled state general-revenue money. The rest was federal money and other dollars, such as the highway fund and bond proceeds, the uses of which are tightly specified.
"Well over half the state budget is essentially written before the Legislature has a chance to pull its own pen out," said budget expert Dale Craymer of the Texas Taxpayers and Research Association.
Even within the state general-revenue pot, all but about $17 billion was influenced or dedicated by the Texas Constitution, laws, regulations, court orders or funding formulas, according to the Legislative Budget Board.
Pressure building
When lawmakers writing the next budget grapple with a shortfall of up to $18 billion, the percentage of restricted money is expected to be about the same.
That does not mean lawmakers will not make cuts in restricted areas. Such cuts, however, could mean losing federal matching dollars that help fund key services — such as health care — or require additional legislation.
Nor does it mean they could eliminate everything funded with discretionary money.
The net effect is more pressure on programs whose funding has fewer strings, such as higher education.
Senate Higher Education Committee Chair Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo, said higher education "absolutely" could be vulnerable .
"There will be a lot of pressure on higher ed, but ultimately, you cannot protect the same sacred cows that have been protected in years past and balance the budget through spending cuts," Craymer said.
Eva DeLuna Castro of the Center for Public Policy Priorities, which advocates for programs for lower-income people, said the budget board analysis is a reminder of the challenge facing lawmakers.
"It obviously means they can't find $18 billion in cuts. They are going to have to use the rainy day fund," she said.
The rainy day fund is expected to have about $8.2 billion next year. The Texas Constitution requires a super-majority vote of lawmakers to spend rainy day money.
Medicaid an issue
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, said he isn't concerned about the bulk of the restricted money because it goes to programs the Legislature would fund anyway and lawmakers can adjust funding levels.
"The only one that, at least in my mind, causes a lot of frustration is Medicaid because Medicaid is an entitlement, and we have no discretion. We pay whatever it costs," he said.
The federal health care reform law gives additional protection to Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. Lawmakers cannot restrict eligibility and must maintain certain services, although they can cut optional services, such as coverage for eyeglasses or hearing aids, said Stephanie Goodman of the Health and Human Services Commission.
Such cuts come at a cost. This year's human-services cuts of $205 million, including reimbursement-rate reductions, will cost an estimated $190 million in federal matching funds.
TAKS formula draws concerns
By Lindsay Kastner | Express-News
07/19/2010
Several area school districts expect good news when the state releases its preliminary accountability ratings this month, but whether those good ratings are the result of actual student performance has become the subject of much debate.
Richard Middleton, superintendent of North East Independent School District, said he has concerns about the use of the Texas Projection Measure, which helps many schools and districts boost their ratings by giving them credit for students who did not pass the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills but who appear to be on track to pass in the future.
“I want to see our students improve, but I also want to have a credible assessment system that people believe in and understand,” Middleton said.
The TPM was approved for use as a growth measure, meaning it is intended to give credit for a student's progress over time. But it has come under fire since state Rep. Scott Hochberg, D-Houston, chairman of the House Appropriation Committee's education subcommittee, recently called into question the use of a formula that projects future success rather than taking into account past improvement.
“The accuracy of the TPM varies according to where you look but in some cases is not very accurate at all,” said Hochberg, who said he began looking into the system after realizing that a school hailed as a turnaround relied on the model.
Locally and across the state, schools and districts have benefited significantly from the TPM, which was put in place last year.
The number of Bexar County schools that achieved the state's highest rating, exemplary, more than doubled in 2009 over the previous year. But 63 percent of the exemplary schools would not have achieved that rank without the TPM, according to a San Antonio Express-News analysis.
It also helped about 10 percent of Bexar County schools avoid a failing rating from the state.
Projection models are generally considered accurate, said Pete Goldschmidt, a senior researcher at the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing.
“Where they're less accurate are for those kids for whom you want them to the most accurate,” he said, noting that poor performers can trip up the models.
In a recent letter to districts' administrators, Texas Education Commissioner Robert Scott wrote that he is considering changes to the use of the TPM next year, including modifying or suspending its use “to ensure that student performance is acknowledged and to ensure that the state accountability system remains transparent.”
Hochberg said those options aren't good enough.
“I don't think you design an accountably measure by throwing out a half a dozen options and saying, ‘Gee, which one sounds best to you,'” he said. “This is a difficult problem, and it will take difficult work to figure out.”
Students also had to correctly answer fewer questions on most tests to earn a passing score this year. Last year, for instance, students had to correctly answer 58 percent of the questions to pass the 10th-grade social studies test. This year, that threshold dropped to 50 percent.
“That's probably a little bit larger that we would normally expect, but is it completely out of range? No,” researcher Goldschmidt said.
State officials say test questions were harder this year, which accounts for the reduction in the number of questions students must correctly answer.
“Every year, we have to ensure that the overall difficulty level of the test is the same,” said Gloria Zyskowski, deputy associate commissioner of the Texas Education Agency.
At San Antonio ISD, where preliminary passing rates increased significantly, Deputy Superintendent Betty Burks credits a strong math curriculum and more time spent in science labs.
Zyskowski attributed this year's rating gains in part to legislation that requires students to pass their tests at certain grades before they can move on.
“They had a little more reading and math instruction because they were required to pass those tests to be promoted,” she said.
07/19/2010
Several area school districts expect good news when the state releases its preliminary accountability ratings this month, but whether those good ratings are the result of actual student performance has become the subject of much debate.
Richard Middleton, superintendent of North East Independent School District, said he has concerns about the use of the Texas Projection Measure, which helps many schools and districts boost their ratings by giving them credit for students who did not pass the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills but who appear to be on track to pass in the future.
“I want to see our students improve, but I also want to have a credible assessment system that people believe in and understand,” Middleton said.
The TPM was approved for use as a growth measure, meaning it is intended to give credit for a student's progress over time. But it has come under fire since state Rep. Scott Hochberg, D-Houston, chairman of the House Appropriation Committee's education subcommittee, recently called into question the use of a formula that projects future success rather than taking into account past improvement.
“The accuracy of the TPM varies according to where you look but in some cases is not very accurate at all,” said Hochberg, who said he began looking into the system after realizing that a school hailed as a turnaround relied on the model.
Locally and across the state, schools and districts have benefited significantly from the TPM, which was put in place last year.
The number of Bexar County schools that achieved the state's highest rating, exemplary, more than doubled in 2009 over the previous year. But 63 percent of the exemplary schools would not have achieved that rank without the TPM, according to a San Antonio Express-News analysis.
It also helped about 10 percent of Bexar County schools avoid a failing rating from the state.
Projection models are generally considered accurate, said Pete Goldschmidt, a senior researcher at the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing.
“Where they're less accurate are for those kids for whom you want them to the most accurate,” he said, noting that poor performers can trip up the models.
In a recent letter to districts' administrators, Texas Education Commissioner Robert Scott wrote that he is considering changes to the use of the TPM next year, including modifying or suspending its use “to ensure that student performance is acknowledged and to ensure that the state accountability system remains transparent.”
Hochberg said those options aren't good enough.
“I don't think you design an accountably measure by throwing out a half a dozen options and saying, ‘Gee, which one sounds best to you,'” he said. “This is a difficult problem, and it will take difficult work to figure out.”
Students also had to correctly answer fewer questions on most tests to earn a passing score this year. Last year, for instance, students had to correctly answer 58 percent of the questions to pass the 10th-grade social studies test. This year, that threshold dropped to 50 percent.
“That's probably a little bit larger that we would normally expect, but is it completely out of range? No,” researcher Goldschmidt said.
State officials say test questions were harder this year, which accounts for the reduction in the number of questions students must correctly answer.
“Every year, we have to ensure that the overall difficulty level of the test is the same,” said Gloria Zyskowski, deputy associate commissioner of the Texas Education Agency.
At San Antonio ISD, where preliminary passing rates increased significantly, Deputy Superintendent Betty Burks credits a strong math curriculum and more time spent in science labs.
Zyskowski attributed this year's rating gains in part to legislation that requires students to pass their tests at certain grades before they can move on.
“They had a little more reading and math instruction because they were required to pass those tests to be promoted,” she said.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Grant Writing & The Summer Time Slow-Down
Grant writers are some of the busiest development professionals in the nonprofit industry. I've held other development roles and can honestly say that grant writing is a distinct discipline. Our work is often viewed as 'slow' or 'easy' by colleagues who know that we spend countless hours researching, writing and polishing proposals. Wouldn't we rather be mingling with donors at a stylish happy hour event?
The answer for me is: no. I enjoy the daily work of being a grant professional and like the challenge of finding creative ways to make a difference. I am a sucker for deadlines and get excited knowing that six blank pages will eventually become a compelling case for support and hopefully funding for a program in need.
My busiest time of year is during the first and second quarter. This is usually because foundations and funders want to receive proposals/reports in time for their board meetings in the spring. January through May, I spend long hours researching, writing and reporting on the previous year's grant progress. Fewer proposals have summer deadlines because boards aren't meeting as often or foundation staff isn't available to work with grantees on a regular basis.
Summer is my time for a little professional development boost. When sunshine and snow cones arrive I finally have time to fit in an in-depth of my grant calendars, revamp old proposals and complete prospect research. Sure, these are things I do all year long, but during the 'slower' summer months, I can really clean up shop and create a road map for the next six months.
Luckily, the summer slow-down means that I'm also able to spend fewer hours at the computer and more time in the sunshine because I can review prospect research and edit old proposals without being tied down my desk. What’s not to love about that?
If you are a grant writer experiencing the summer slow-down, I hope you will take advantage of the opportunity to create a road map for the remainder of the year and find ways to make your proposals shine even brighter. I also take great delight in submitting several proposal that aren’t due until the fall…it’s a priceless feeling!
~Cheers!
The answer for me is: no. I enjoy the daily work of being a grant professional and like the challenge of finding creative ways to make a difference. I am a sucker for deadlines and get excited knowing that six blank pages will eventually become a compelling case for support and hopefully funding for a program in need.
My busiest time of year is during the first and second quarter. This is usually because foundations and funders want to receive proposals/reports in time for their board meetings in the spring. January through May, I spend long hours researching, writing and reporting on the previous year's grant progress. Fewer proposals have summer deadlines because boards aren't meeting as often or foundation staff isn't available to work with grantees on a regular basis.
Summer is my time for a little professional development boost. When sunshine and snow cones arrive I finally have time to fit in an in-depth of my grant calendars, revamp old proposals and complete prospect research. Sure, these are things I do all year long, but during the 'slower' summer months, I can really clean up shop and create a road map for the next six months.
Luckily, the summer slow-down means that I'm also able to spend fewer hours at the computer and more time in the sunshine because I can review prospect research and edit old proposals without being tied down my desk. What’s not to love about that?
If you are a grant writer experiencing the summer slow-down, I hope you will take advantage of the opportunity to create a road map for the remainder of the year and find ways to make your proposals shine even brighter. I also take great delight in submitting several proposal that aren’t due until the fall…it’s a priceless feeling!
~Cheers!
Friday, July 2, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)