Strong signs of improvement on graduation
By Christopher B. Swanson | Ed Week
May 31, 2011
For more than two years, average Americans have followed reports on unemployment, the housing market, commodity prices, consumer confidence, and the daily fluctuations of the markets for signals that the economy has finally, and firmly, entered a period of renewed growth and stability. So too have education-watchers been on the lookout, for the better part of a decade, for signs of an educational recovery.
At the heart of the reform agenda lie commitments to combat the U.S. dropout crisis and propel the nation’s schools and its economy at full speed into the 21st century, by ensuring that all students have a chance to earn a meaningful diploma that prepares them for further education and training and a successful adult life. The administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama have espoused such goals, as have major philanthropies, leading nonprofit organizations, prominent business leaders, and state and district policymakers from coast to coast. Even with this high-profile attention and a host of new policy efforts, gaining traction on graduation has been frustratingly difficult.
Read on...
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
The State of Education in Chicago: A Community Response
If you're in and around the Chicago area please join us for this important community event. This is one of many planned gatherings that responds to the Chicago Public Schools' attempts to convert "failing" community schools to charters. Under HB 363 (a direct outgrowth of community action) CPS cannot make reform decisions w/out community input. Accordingly, on 6/16, the Humbolt Park community will begin dialogues and exercise their right to propose a research-based solution for turning around Roberto Clemente HS.
We are proud that this community is a part of the NLERAP family!
-Patricia
Monday, June 6, 2011
Switch to Outcomes-Based Higher Ed Funding Taking Time
by Reeve Hamilton | Texas Tribune
June 6, 2011
During the regular session, Gov. Rick Perry’s top legislative priority for higher education was the implementation of a new funding system that rewards universities for graduating more students, not just for getting students into classes. To reach its 2015 goals, Texas needs to increase the number of degrees awarded by 46,000 each year.
A financing system that includes more “outcomes-based funding” has strong support, including from Raymund Paredes, the Texas Higher Education Commissioner, and business leaders such as Woody Hunt of El Paso, who chairs the Governor’s Business Council. But policy makers have struggled to agree on which outcomes to measure, how to encourage them and if they should alter the funding formulas while budgets are being slashed.
House Higher Education Chairman Dan Branch, R-Dallas, passed a major bill on the subject this session. The final version approved by the full Legislature, however, stops short of actually implementing an outcomes-based system, and instead provides guidelines for the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and instructs the board to return next session with new proposals.
With the session over, Senate Higher Education Chairwoman Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo, said the question was still “if, not when,” Texas might adopt such a system. The state’s current financing formula is based on course enrollment.
Even getting to this point has been difficult. Lawmakers rebuffed Paredes’ initial proposals for failing to target the right outcomes. His plan focused on course completions instead of graduations. After a new proposal was drawn, Branch had to convince House leaders that the approach was not related to controversial strategies pushed by Perry and the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative research group.
“This is serious higher education reform that a lot of folks have had input on,” Branch said. Some lawmakers concerns were also diminished by including requirements in the bill that reports be submitted to a new higher education oversight committee created in response to the controversy.
The Coordinating Board’s last proposal would tie financing to total degrees awarded, as well as to degrees awarded to at-risk students and in critical fields. It also would reward each institution for surpassing predicted graduation levels or penalize them for falling short. Under this proposal, some of the institutions that produce the most graduates, including the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University, appear to lose funding.
“How is it that an outcomes-based approach ends up diverting money away from the two most productive institutions in the state? That’s a puzzle,” said UT President Bill Powers.
Paredes says the coordinating has analyzed the changes universities could make to improve their results under this system, and he said, “Everything institutions need to do is good for Texas.”
The proposal was part of the original House version of the budget, but was omitted from the final product. Rep. Scott Hochberg, D-Houston, who chairs a key subcommittee, said it was included to express support for the idea — not for the methodology. “It’s such a mess — it’s sort of a black box,” he said. “I know the equations have been all laid out, but it’s hard to know what they all mean.”
Sen. Kirk Watson, D-Austin, concerned about pitting universities against each other in a “zero-sum game” during a time when budgets are shrinking, was among those who pushed for taking more time to find a better formula. “We want to do the appropriate, correct, visionary things to increase positive outcomes,” he said.
Watson emphasized the need for the Coordinating Board to offer options that rewarded outcomes without altering the baseline funding for universities, as well as options — like the one Paredes has pushed — that do make such changes. Other guidelines ultimately included in the bill were that no more than 10 percent of funding can be outcomes-based, and the coordinating board must ensure that it does not have a negative affect on graduate education.
Still, Paredes considers passage of the bill a success, and looks forward to strengthening his case for the most recent proposal and giving universities time to make necessary changes over the next two years. “We’ve essentially come to a concurrence that outcomes-based funding is something that we ought to do,” he said.
Catherine Frazier, a spokeswoman for Perry, said, “If it doesn’t accomplish what he wanted to, he’ll look forward to continuing to pursue that in the future.”
Meanwhile, referencing the public school finance debate that threw a wrench in the end of the regular session and is now continuing in a special session, Hochberg added, “It’s interesting to see that small variations in funding at the university are perceived to drive significant performance change, and large variations in funding at the K-12 level get written off as ‘Oh, stop griping, you’re just jealous.’”
University of Texas faculty workloads vary widely
By Richard Vedder | SPECIAL TO THE AMERICAN-STATESMAN
Saturday, June 4, 2011
The release of data on University of Texas faculty teaching loads, research grants and compensation has led to a firestorm of commentary, fanned in part by a Center for College Affordability and Productivity study by two of my colleagues, Jonathan Robe and Christopher Matgouranis, and myself, doing a preliminary analysis of some of the data. In that study, we argue that a reconfiguration of what faculty do at UT-Austin has great promise as a means of containing costs to both students and taxpayers.
The UT data reveal a dirty little secret that academics are loath to disclose: A relatively small portion of the faculty does most of the work. Twenty percent of them teach 57 percent of the students, for example, and the same proportion, 20 percent, generate an astonishing 99.8 percent of the external research funding received. But what about the other 60 percent of faculty (actually more, since some of the top researchers also have surprisingly high teaching loads)? They teach relatively modest numbers of students and receive little or no research money.
Professors in the humanities correctly argue that their disciplines generate little external research support. Yet a recent study by Canadian scholar Jeffrey Litwin suggests, after examining research at more than 70 top universities (including Texas A&M), that the average cost of producing a single published academic paper exceeds $72,000 (the figure for Texas A&M of more than $128,000 is the second highest of all universities examined). My guess is the typical article is read by perhaps 300 people, since a large portion of academic journals have a circulation of less than 1,000, so the average cost of producing an article runs more than $240 for every single reader. In short, we are producing a lot of marginal research at great cost but of dubious value.
The law of diminishing returns has reached higher education — Mark Bauerlein of Emory University tells us that we have published over 21,000 papers on William Shakespeare from 1980 to 2006. Wouldn't 5,000 papers have been enough? Are we really extending our knowledge and strengthening Western civilization by publishing those extra 16,000 papers?
If the 20 percent of faculty at UT teaching the most students were told to "keep doing what you are doing," and the rest were told to "teach half as much as those teaching the most," the number of faculty needed would be drastically reduced, potentially allowing tuition to be cut in half, state appropriations to be cut by an even greater percentage, or some combination of both (roughly 30 percent reductions in both tuition and appropriations).
Is that unreasonable? What is suggested is that the bulk of the faculty teaches on average around 450 credit hours a year, or roughly 150 students. A professor could do this by teaching a survey course to 100 students, two advanced undergraduate or graduate classes to 20 students each, and a graduate seminar to 10 students, being in the classroom six hours weekly for 32 weeks of the year. Some might be asked to teach a bit more to allow for reduced loads for those shouldering administrative duties like serving as department chair.
I managed to teach more than that over an active professional career and still published a number of books and scores of academic journal articles, and served as a visiting professor at schools rated higher than UT in magazine college rankings, etc. I did it by doing what other professionals (such as accountants, lawyers and physicians) do: I went to work at 8 or 9 in the morning and went home at 5:30 or so each evening, and I worked all but three or four weeks a year.
On a recent 10 a.m. Tuesday stroll past 24 offices in my department, I found three occupied. To be sure, two or three more colleagues probably were in class, meetings, or giving a paper elsewhere. Nonetheless, professors do not have the same work discipline as other professionals, and the slack is a major reason why faculty costs are so high.
I am not alone in believing this. Commenting in the American-Statesman on April 17, John Silber, a former dean of arts and sciences at UT and, at Boston University, one of the most esteemed university presidents of modern times, said: "I think the cost of education is largely a function of the reduction of productivity in the faculty and also the huge engorgement of administration. Today — in a typical university like Boston University — professors will teach one or two courses per semester. Well, that's not enough." He is absolutely right.
Changing teaching loads can be done in a way that adds to both efficiency and fairness. In some cases, the desired results can be obtained by the use of "carrots" (financial rewards) rather than "sticks" (compulsion). Some savings from reconfiguring teaching loads can be used to reward those who teach a lot and/or teach well.
One thing that the controversy over the data release and our interpretation of it has demonstrated is the radical disconnect between the views of people in the academy and other residents. A recent Pew Research Center poll showed 57 percent of respondents surveyed thought colleges delivered only poor or fair value to students, while 76 percent of university presidents thought these schools delivered excellent or good value. While we want to allow universities some independence to allow unpopular, diverse ideas to flourish, a big cost of this is the increasing divergence between what colleges do and what the public thinks they should be doing.
The "publish or perish" nature of the modern research university is revealed in the data. Salaries are far higher at research-intensive UT-Austin than at more teaching-oriented schools like UT-El Paso or UT-San Antonio. Beyond that, there are huge variations within UT-Austin, partly because of differences in research efforts but also partly because of huge pay differentials between disciplines (the typical accounting faculty member makes well over twice as much as the typical English professor, for example).
One result of the intense research orientation arising from huge financial incentives for research is that young faculty seem disengaged from teaching — the average teaching load of tenure-track faculty who have not yet been awarded tenure (most young assistant professors) is actually lower than that of tenured (and mostly older) faculty. The National Survey of Student Engagement data for UT-Austin suggest only 38 percent of students feel the faculty are "available, helpful and sympathetic"; students at UT-Austin rate their relationships with faculty at a lower level than students at some of the less research-oriented schools within the system.
Undergraduate students are being asked to shoulder a larger share of the cost of college, but they still are on average relatively neglected by faculty who shower attention on graduate students helping them with their research.
The most deplorable thing that has struck me, however, is not the evidence that many faculty seem to work at less than full capacity. Rather it is the attitude of the UT administration. Universities are in the business of transmitting and creating knowledge, but the UT administration has bitterly fought the release of data rightfully requested by the regents. For the school to put on every page of the 821-page compendium of data this — "The attached data spreadsheet in its current draft form are incomplete and have not yet been fully verified or cross referenced (and in) its present raw form it cannot yield accurate analysis, interpretations or conclusions" — is an affront to transparency and disclosure.
The statement of UT President William Powers Jr. that the study by the Center for College Affordability and Productivity was "inappropriate" is revealing in that it shows with crystal clarity the real problem, namely that the university leadership is either clueless or indifferent to the feelings and financial pressures faced by the people of the Lone Star State.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
The release of data on University of Texas faculty teaching loads, research grants and compensation has led to a firestorm of commentary, fanned in part by a Center for College Affordability and Productivity study by two of my colleagues, Jonathan Robe and Christopher Matgouranis, and myself, doing a preliminary analysis of some of the data. In that study, we argue that a reconfiguration of what faculty do at UT-Austin has great promise as a means of containing costs to both students and taxpayers.
The UT data reveal a dirty little secret that academics are loath to disclose: A relatively small portion of the faculty does most of the work. Twenty percent of them teach 57 percent of the students, for example, and the same proportion, 20 percent, generate an astonishing 99.8 percent of the external research funding received. But what about the other 60 percent of faculty (actually more, since some of the top researchers also have surprisingly high teaching loads)? They teach relatively modest numbers of students and receive little or no research money.
Professors in the humanities correctly argue that their disciplines generate little external research support. Yet a recent study by Canadian scholar Jeffrey Litwin suggests, after examining research at more than 70 top universities (including Texas A&M), that the average cost of producing a single published academic paper exceeds $72,000 (the figure for Texas A&M of more than $128,000 is the second highest of all universities examined). My guess is the typical article is read by perhaps 300 people, since a large portion of academic journals have a circulation of less than 1,000, so the average cost of producing an article runs more than $240 for every single reader. In short, we are producing a lot of marginal research at great cost but of dubious value.
The law of diminishing returns has reached higher education — Mark Bauerlein of Emory University tells us that we have published over 21,000 papers on William Shakespeare from 1980 to 2006. Wouldn't 5,000 papers have been enough? Are we really extending our knowledge and strengthening Western civilization by publishing those extra 16,000 papers?
If the 20 percent of faculty at UT teaching the most students were told to "keep doing what you are doing," and the rest were told to "teach half as much as those teaching the most," the number of faculty needed would be drastically reduced, potentially allowing tuition to be cut in half, state appropriations to be cut by an even greater percentage, or some combination of both (roughly 30 percent reductions in both tuition and appropriations).
Is that unreasonable? What is suggested is that the bulk of the faculty teaches on average around 450 credit hours a year, or roughly 150 students. A professor could do this by teaching a survey course to 100 students, two advanced undergraduate or graduate classes to 20 students each, and a graduate seminar to 10 students, being in the classroom six hours weekly for 32 weeks of the year. Some might be asked to teach a bit more to allow for reduced loads for those shouldering administrative duties like serving as department chair.
I managed to teach more than that over an active professional career and still published a number of books and scores of academic journal articles, and served as a visiting professor at schools rated higher than UT in magazine college rankings, etc. I did it by doing what other professionals (such as accountants, lawyers and physicians) do: I went to work at 8 or 9 in the morning and went home at 5:30 or so each evening, and I worked all but three or four weeks a year.
On a recent 10 a.m. Tuesday stroll past 24 offices in my department, I found three occupied. To be sure, two or three more colleagues probably were in class, meetings, or giving a paper elsewhere. Nonetheless, professors do not have the same work discipline as other professionals, and the slack is a major reason why faculty costs are so high.
I am not alone in believing this. Commenting in the American-Statesman on April 17, John Silber, a former dean of arts and sciences at UT and, at Boston University, one of the most esteemed university presidents of modern times, said: "I think the cost of education is largely a function of the reduction of productivity in the faculty and also the huge engorgement of administration. Today — in a typical university like Boston University — professors will teach one or two courses per semester. Well, that's not enough." He is absolutely right.
Changing teaching loads can be done in a way that adds to both efficiency and fairness. In some cases, the desired results can be obtained by the use of "carrots" (financial rewards) rather than "sticks" (compulsion). Some savings from reconfiguring teaching loads can be used to reward those who teach a lot and/or teach well.
One thing that the controversy over the data release and our interpretation of it has demonstrated is the radical disconnect between the views of people in the academy and other residents. A recent Pew Research Center poll showed 57 percent of respondents surveyed thought colleges delivered only poor or fair value to students, while 76 percent of university presidents thought these schools delivered excellent or good value. While we want to allow universities some independence to allow unpopular, diverse ideas to flourish, a big cost of this is the increasing divergence between what colleges do and what the public thinks they should be doing.
The "publish or perish" nature of the modern research university is revealed in the data. Salaries are far higher at research-intensive UT-Austin than at more teaching-oriented schools like UT-El Paso or UT-San Antonio. Beyond that, there are huge variations within UT-Austin, partly because of differences in research efforts but also partly because of huge pay differentials between disciplines (the typical accounting faculty member makes well over twice as much as the typical English professor, for example).
One result of the intense research orientation arising from huge financial incentives for research is that young faculty seem disengaged from teaching — the average teaching load of tenure-track faculty who have not yet been awarded tenure (most young assistant professors) is actually lower than that of tenured (and mostly older) faculty. The National Survey of Student Engagement data for UT-Austin suggest only 38 percent of students feel the faculty are "available, helpful and sympathetic"; students at UT-Austin rate their relationships with faculty at a lower level than students at some of the less research-oriented schools within the system.
Undergraduate students are being asked to shoulder a larger share of the cost of college, but they still are on average relatively neglected by faculty who shower attention on graduate students helping them with their research.
The most deplorable thing that has struck me, however, is not the evidence that many faculty seem to work at less than full capacity. Rather it is the attitude of the UT administration. Universities are in the business of transmitting and creating knowledge, but the UT administration has bitterly fought the release of data rightfully requested by the regents. For the school to put on every page of the 821-page compendium of data this — "The attached data spreadsheet in its current draft form are incomplete and have not yet been fully verified or cross referenced (and in) its present raw form it cannot yield accurate analysis, interpretations or conclusions" — is an affront to transparency and disclosure.
The statement of UT President William Powers Jr. that the study by the Center for College Affordability and Productivity was "inappropriate" is revealing in that it shows with crystal clarity the real problem, namely that the university leadership is either clueless or indifferent to the feelings and financial pressures faced by the people of the Lone Star State.
Our schools: Officials say TAKS-based school ratings mislead
Excellent, research-based quote by Superintendent Dow:
-Patricia
by Caylor Ballinger \ El Paso Times
06/05/2011
El Paso school officials are stuck in a riddle.
Their schools are seen as failing, thanks to a confusing ratings system that bases performance on "exemplary or not."
This performance is determined by the results of the administered Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills test.
The reality is that area schools are doing well, in some cases, performing at a very high level. The problem resides in the fact that TAKS doesn't grade on the commonly understood standard of pass or fail.
Administrators view the current system as complicated and confusing, and they believe the scores and the ratings can be misleading to the public, further damaging the image of the educator in the eyes of the taxpayers.
One school that has suffered the consequences is Tippin Elementary School.
Gina Rodriguez-Nunez, principal of the El Paso Independent School District school, said that despite passable scores above the 90 percent mark, Tippin did not reach "exemplary status" for the third straight year. Though there is no financial incentive tied to a school's rating, that mark is important to the community's residents.
"I think it's the recognition of it all," she said. "Teachers aren't given huge salaries and are going on the second year in a row without a raise. To them, it's the recognition. It's overall a sense of pride."
But for some, hope for a more understandable system is on the horizon. Starting in Spring 2012, according to a letter to administrators that was posted on the Web site of the Texas Education Agency, students will take the State of Texas Assessments of Academics Readiness exam.
They will no longer use the TAKS tests or rating systems, but they will be held to their earned ratings for the first two years of the STAAR exams.
The Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills program is a standardized test used in primary and secondary schools statewide.
TAKS measures the student's attainment of reading, writing, math, science, and social studies skills that are required by the Texas education standards.
Every portion of the TAKS exam includes multiple-choice questions. The high school reading and English language arts tests require students to answer three open-ended questions: one on the literary selection, one on the expository piece, and one "crossover" synthesizing the two.
The writing and ELA tests include a written composition as well. The 9th-11th-grade reading test permits the use of a dictionary and/or thesaurus, and the high school math and science tests allow the use of calculators along with formula charts.
The TAKS tests are not timed.
In comparison, the State of Texas Assessments of Academics Readiness exam (STAAR) differs at the upper end of testing.
The STAAR program at grades 3-8 will assess the same subjects and grades that are currently assessed on TAKS. At the high-school level, grade-specific assessments will be replaced with 12 end-of-course assessments: Algebra 1, geometry, Algebra II, biology, chemistry, physics, English I, English II, English III, world geography, world history, and U.S. history.
STAAR also assigns time limits on testing.
Both TAKS and STAAR include the same number of testing days, 19.
There is no clear indication how the STAAR program will "grade" schools as their performance improves or declines year to year.
The public perception of the TAKS grading system is misleading, according to some educators.
Rodriguez-Nunez said her campus is not "exemplary" because only 21 percent of her subgroup of economically disadvantaged students earned a commended score in one of the subjects, falling short of the required 25 percent.
"I wish they would take a more equal look at the student population," she said. "No one is focusing on the major success we've had."
She said it's also a challenge because her school is not Title 1.
This means it receives less money because the school does not have enough economically disadvantaged students and doesn't have a budget that allows for additional tutors.
"I believe in the state assessments," she said. "I'm not against it. I'm against the inequity of it."
Suzanne Marchman, spokeswoman for the Texas Education Agency, said the rating system has become more complicated over the years. For example, it now includes measures of improvement such as looking at multiple subgroups for each subject tested and then offering exceptions for close scores.
She said there has been some criticism for the current rating system, but a new test will usher in a new system and a new label for schools and districts.
"This is the last year under the accountability ratings as we know them," she said. "The desire is to have a system that is more even across the board."
A few years ago, the Texas Projected Measure was added. It inflated a school's scores if the campus above them did well.
The measure came under criticism from districts and state legislators who believed it painted a false picture. It was recently removed from the rating system, Marchman said. The timing of its removal and the fact scores will hold for two years was coincidental, not intentional.
She thinks the new test will bring new possibilities in how they determine ratings, although terms and measures have yet to be determined.
"I think you're going to see other things besides TAKS scores," she said, suggesting future ratings could possibly include SAT and ACT scores and career- and college-readiness scores.
Pauline Dow, associate superintendent for academics in the Ysleta district, said she would like the new ratings and assessments to be totally transformed.
She thinks the high-stakes testing Texas school districts now face is complex and not in the best interest of teaching and learning. She said the move to the new test and the trend toward even more days of testing is not a "gut feeling that it's bad; research says this is bad."
"The fact that there is a serious consequence for students and schools who don't measure up isn't in the best interest of students," she said.
She said the Texas Projected Measure rating system created an artificial ranking, and she is fine with not having to use it anymore.
EPISD Superintendent Lorenzo Garcia said he thought using the Texas Projected Measure was a mistake from the outset.
"To me, the most important thing is we're looking at all kids," he said. "The state exams should not be the absolute. There's a lot of intangibles that occur in the school."
Garcia said he thinks there is too much testing.
He would like the new rating system to look beyond test scores and include student scholarships and extracurricular involvement.
He said there is no perfect report card system -- each would have flaws -- but he emphasized that schools should be proud of overall student success.
"I think our report card system needs to be more expansive," he said. "We need a well-balanced student." Socorro Superintendent Xavier De La Torre said that in his opinion, the timing of a rating-system change does not reflect well on either the TEA or Education Commissioner Robert Scott.
"They're the ones who came up with the system and made it available to schools," he said.
De La Torre thinks the agency should have just continued with the current system.
He said the numbers should stand on their merit and do not need to be inflated.
"The TAKS has been shown to be the floor, not the ceiling," he said.
Caylor Ballinger may be reached at cballinger@elpasotimes.com; 546-6133.
the high-stakes testing Texas school districts now face is complex and not in the best interest of teaching and learning...the move to the new test and the trend toward even more days of testing is not a 'gut feeling that it's bad'; research says this is bad. The fact that there is a serious consequence for students and schools who don't measure up isn't in the best interest of students
-Patricia
by Caylor Ballinger \ El Paso Times
06/05/2011
El Paso school officials are stuck in a riddle.
Their schools are seen as failing, thanks to a confusing ratings system that bases performance on "exemplary or not."
This performance is determined by the results of the administered Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills test.
The reality is that area schools are doing well, in some cases, performing at a very high level. The problem resides in the fact that TAKS doesn't grade on the commonly understood standard of pass or fail.
Administrators view the current system as complicated and confusing, and they believe the scores and the ratings can be misleading to the public, further damaging the image of the educator in the eyes of the taxpayers.
One school that has suffered the consequences is Tippin Elementary School.
Gina Rodriguez-Nunez, principal of the El Paso Independent School District school, said that despite passable scores above the 90 percent mark, Tippin did not reach "exemplary status" for the third straight year. Though there is no financial incentive tied to a school's rating, that mark is important to the community's residents.
"I think it's the recognition of it all," she said. "Teachers aren't given huge salaries and are going on the second year in a row without a raise. To them, it's the recognition. It's overall a sense of pride."
But for some, hope for a more understandable system is on the horizon. Starting in Spring 2012, according to a letter to administrators that was posted on the Web site of the Texas Education Agency, students will take the State of Texas Assessments of Academics Readiness exam.
They will no longer use the TAKS tests or rating systems, but they will be held to their earned ratings for the first two years of the STAAR exams.
The Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills program is a standardized test used in primary and secondary schools statewide.
TAKS measures the student's attainment of reading, writing, math, science, and social studies skills that are required by the Texas education standards.
Every portion of the TAKS exam includes multiple-choice questions. The high school reading and English language arts tests require students to answer three open-ended questions: one on the literary selection, one on the expository piece, and one "crossover" synthesizing the two.
The writing and ELA tests include a written composition as well. The 9th-11th-grade reading test permits the use of a dictionary and/or thesaurus, and the high school math and science tests allow the use of calculators along with formula charts.
The TAKS tests are not timed.
In comparison, the State of Texas Assessments of Academics Readiness exam (STAAR) differs at the upper end of testing.
The STAAR program at grades 3-8 will assess the same subjects and grades that are currently assessed on TAKS. At the high-school level, grade-specific assessments will be replaced with 12 end-of-course assessments: Algebra 1, geometry, Algebra II, biology, chemistry, physics, English I, English II, English III, world geography, world history, and U.S. history.
STAAR also assigns time limits on testing.
Both TAKS and STAAR include the same number of testing days, 19.
There is no clear indication how the STAAR program will "grade" schools as their performance improves or declines year to year.
The public perception of the TAKS grading system is misleading, according to some educators.
Rodriguez-Nunez said her campus is not "exemplary" because only 21 percent of her subgroup of economically disadvantaged students earned a commended score in one of the subjects, falling short of the required 25 percent.
"I wish they would take a more equal look at the student population," she said. "No one is focusing on the major success we've had."
She said it's also a challenge because her school is not Title 1.
This means it receives less money because the school does not have enough economically disadvantaged students and doesn't have a budget that allows for additional tutors.
"I believe in the state assessments," she said. "I'm not against it. I'm against the inequity of it."
Suzanne Marchman, spokeswoman for the Texas Education Agency, said the rating system has become more complicated over the years. For example, it now includes measures of improvement such as looking at multiple subgroups for each subject tested and then offering exceptions for close scores.
She said there has been some criticism for the current rating system, but a new test will usher in a new system and a new label for schools and districts.
"This is the last year under the accountability ratings as we know them," she said. "The desire is to have a system that is more even across the board."
A few years ago, the Texas Projected Measure was added. It inflated a school's scores if the campus above them did well.
The measure came under criticism from districts and state legislators who believed it painted a false picture. It was recently removed from the rating system, Marchman said. The timing of its removal and the fact scores will hold for two years was coincidental, not intentional.
She thinks the new test will bring new possibilities in how they determine ratings, although terms and measures have yet to be determined.
"I think you're going to see other things besides TAKS scores," she said, suggesting future ratings could possibly include SAT and ACT scores and career- and college-readiness scores.
Pauline Dow, associate superintendent for academics in the Ysleta district, said she would like the new ratings and assessments to be totally transformed.
She thinks the high-stakes testing Texas school districts now face is complex and not in the best interest of teaching and learning. She said the move to the new test and the trend toward even more days of testing is not a "gut feeling that it's bad; research says this is bad."
"The fact that there is a serious consequence for students and schools who don't measure up isn't in the best interest of students," she said.
She said the Texas Projected Measure rating system created an artificial ranking, and she is fine with not having to use it anymore.
EPISD Superintendent Lorenzo Garcia said he thought using the Texas Projected Measure was a mistake from the outset.
"To me, the most important thing is we're looking at all kids," he said. "The state exams should not be the absolute. There's a lot of intangibles that occur in the school."
Garcia said he thinks there is too much testing.
He would like the new rating system to look beyond test scores and include student scholarships and extracurricular involvement.
He said there is no perfect report card system -- each would have flaws -- but he emphasized that schools should be proud of overall student success.
"I think our report card system needs to be more expansive," he said. "We need a well-balanced student." Socorro Superintendent Xavier De La Torre said that in his opinion, the timing of a rating-system change does not reflect well on either the TEA or Education Commissioner Robert Scott.
"They're the ones who came up with the system and made it available to schools," he said.
De La Torre thinks the agency should have just continued with the current system.
He said the numbers should stand on their merit and do not need to be inflated.
"The TAKS has been shown to be the floor, not the ceiling," he said.
Caylor Ballinger may be reached at cballinger@elpasotimes.com; 546-6133.
Big Student Debt Could Limit Schools' Financial Aid Access
by Tali Arbel, AP Business Writer
June 3, 2011
NEW YORK - The government is moving forward with its crackdown on the country's for-profit schools, aiming to protect students from taking on too much debt to attend schools that do nothing for their job prospects.
But the final version of the Department of Education's rule, released Thursday, is much softer than its original incarnation. It gives schools more time to correct deficiencies and makes it likely that fewer will lose access to federal student aid dollars. The news sent education stocks soaring in morning trading, with companies that analysts had considered most at risk of having to shut down programs or change them significantly like Corinthian Colleges Inc. and Education Management Corp. gaining each more than 25 percent.
Shares of the nation's largest chain, Apollo Group Inc., which owns the University of Phoenix, rose 13 percent. DeVry was up 11 percent and the Washington Post Co., which owns the Kaplan school chain, rose 6 percent.
The “previously proposed onerous rules have been relaxed,” said UBS analyst Ariel Sokol.
Nearly 18 months after negotiations began on how to define “gainful employment,” the DOE has released conditions that for-profit schools must meet in order to access federal financial aid dollars. If graduates owe too much relative to their income or too few former students are paying back their tuition loans on time, schools stand to lose access to Pell grants and federal student aid. Such a loss would seriously crimp schools' ability to attract students.
“These new regulations will help ensure that students at these schools are getting what they pay for: Solid preparation for a good job,” Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said Thursday. “We're giving career colleges every opportunity to reform themselves, but we're not letting them off the hook, because too many vulnerable students are being hurt.”
Most students at career colleges and vocational schools pay tuition with federal financial aid dollars as much as 90 percent of a school's revenue can come from government aid. But that leaves taxpayers on the hook if students can't find good jobs and default on their loans.
And they are defaulting in large numbers.
Students at for-profit institutions such as technical programs and culinary schools represent just 12 percent of all higher education students but 46 percent of all student loan dollars in default. The average student earning an associate degree at a for-profit school carries $14,000 in federal loan debt.
Government scrutiny of the industry grew as the Great Recession exacerbated students' debt burdens. The DOE last fall created rules to rein in deceptive advertising and barred schools from paying enrollment counselors based on how many students they signed up, among other measures. The agency drew up the “gainful employment” rule in 2010 but delayed putting it into effect as it faced heavy lobbying from schools and politicians.
Under final terms of the law, announced Thursday, schools will only be able to receive federal-paid tuition if at least 35 percent of its former students are repaying their loans. Or, the estimated annual loan payment of a typical graduate must not be bigger than 30 percent of his or her discretionary income, or 12 percent of his or her total earnings.
Many maintain that the rule will protect students from toxic programs.
“The Department of Education's gainful employment rule is a modest and important first step to protect students and taxpayers from subprime academic programs that have a demonstrated track record of failure,” said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who has headed a series of hearings critical of the for-profit sector.
“The only programs that would lose funding would be programs that are consistently failing to provide students with gainful employment and are providing them with insurmountable debt,” adds Pauline Abernathy of the Institute for College Access & Success, an education advocacy group that favors more industry regulation.
Others, including the National Black Chamber of Commerce and the Hispanic Leadership Fund, have said the new federal rule could hurt minority and low-income students by eliminating important funding options and therefore reducing the number of schools they can afford to attend. Congressman John Kline, R-Minn., filed an amendment in February to try to cut DOE funding in order to stop the rule from being enacted. Harris Miller, the president of Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, an industry group, has said the rule has “fundamental legal flaws” because the DOE is “engaging in a form of price fixing,” which it doesn't have the authority to do.
The lobbying seems to have worked.
Analysts say the rule is more lenient than they and most investors had expected “meaningfully watered down,” according to R.W. Baird's Amy Junker. Under the rule's original terms, programs that failed to meet the criteria would have lost federal loan eligibility immediately and enrollment would have been frozen at any school in danger of failing. The finalized rule gives schools multiple chances over a four-year period to improve their stats. After “three strikes,” a school would lose eligibility for three years.
“We're focusing on improving (for-profit programs) rather than closing them. Students would be better off if their programs were stronger rather than closed down,” said James Kvaal, a DOE official, during a conference call with reporters.
The DOE said it expects 18 percent of for-profit schools' programs to fail its tests at some point, and 5 percent of programs to lose eligibility under the new law.
There's a lot at stake for the schools and their investors, who have benefited from the surge in for-profit programs hitting the market in the last decade. The country's largest chain, Apollo Group, has seen revenue and net income grow about eightfold since 2000. And despite the hit that the sector has taken from increased regulatory scrutiny, Apollo's stock has more than quadrupled in that time.
But BMO Capital Markets analyst Jeff Silber sees profits declining or stagnating at most for-profit schools over the next few years. New enrollments are dropping sharply after years of double-digit growth as the schools adjust their businesses to accommodate the government's stricter oversight.
Some schools have been trying to get out in front of the new laws and adapt their business models to the new reality. Apollo's University of Phoenix, for example, now offers a free, three-week orientation that helps weed out unprepared students without charging them. The Washington Post Co.'s Kaplan education division also has put in place a free trial period so students can see if they really want to commit to school. Career Education Corp. is making new online undergraduate students pass a college prep course if they haven't attended college before; if they can't do the work, they can drop out without paying tuition.
University of Phoenix spokesperson Rick Castellano and Kaplan spokesperson Mark Harrad said they had no comment yet on the new regulations.
June 3, 2011
NEW YORK - The government is moving forward with its crackdown on the country's for-profit schools, aiming to protect students from taking on too much debt to attend schools that do nothing for their job prospects.
But the final version of the Department of Education's rule, released Thursday, is much softer than its original incarnation. It gives schools more time to correct deficiencies and makes it likely that fewer will lose access to federal student aid dollars. The news sent education stocks soaring in morning trading, with companies that analysts had considered most at risk of having to shut down programs or change them significantly like Corinthian Colleges Inc. and Education Management Corp. gaining each more than 25 percent.
Shares of the nation's largest chain, Apollo Group Inc., which owns the University of Phoenix, rose 13 percent. DeVry was up 11 percent and the Washington Post Co., which owns the Kaplan school chain, rose 6 percent.
The “previously proposed onerous rules have been relaxed,” said UBS analyst Ariel Sokol.
Nearly 18 months after negotiations began on how to define “gainful employment,” the DOE has released conditions that for-profit schools must meet in order to access federal financial aid dollars. If graduates owe too much relative to their income or too few former students are paying back their tuition loans on time, schools stand to lose access to Pell grants and federal student aid. Such a loss would seriously crimp schools' ability to attract students.
“These new regulations will help ensure that students at these schools are getting what they pay for: Solid preparation for a good job,” Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said Thursday. “We're giving career colleges every opportunity to reform themselves, but we're not letting them off the hook, because too many vulnerable students are being hurt.”
Most students at career colleges and vocational schools pay tuition with federal financial aid dollars as much as 90 percent of a school's revenue can come from government aid. But that leaves taxpayers on the hook if students can't find good jobs and default on their loans.
And they are defaulting in large numbers.
Students at for-profit institutions such as technical programs and culinary schools represent just 12 percent of all higher education students but 46 percent of all student loan dollars in default. The average student earning an associate degree at a for-profit school carries $14,000 in federal loan debt.
Government scrutiny of the industry grew as the Great Recession exacerbated students' debt burdens. The DOE last fall created rules to rein in deceptive advertising and barred schools from paying enrollment counselors based on how many students they signed up, among other measures. The agency drew up the “gainful employment” rule in 2010 but delayed putting it into effect as it faced heavy lobbying from schools and politicians.
Under final terms of the law, announced Thursday, schools will only be able to receive federal-paid tuition if at least 35 percent of its former students are repaying their loans. Or, the estimated annual loan payment of a typical graduate must not be bigger than 30 percent of his or her discretionary income, or 12 percent of his or her total earnings.
Many maintain that the rule will protect students from toxic programs.
“The Department of Education's gainful employment rule is a modest and important first step to protect students and taxpayers from subprime academic programs that have a demonstrated track record of failure,” said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who has headed a series of hearings critical of the for-profit sector.
“The only programs that would lose funding would be programs that are consistently failing to provide students with gainful employment and are providing them with insurmountable debt,” adds Pauline Abernathy of the Institute for College Access & Success, an education advocacy group that favors more industry regulation.
Others, including the National Black Chamber of Commerce and the Hispanic Leadership Fund, have said the new federal rule could hurt minority and low-income students by eliminating important funding options and therefore reducing the number of schools they can afford to attend. Congressman John Kline, R-Minn., filed an amendment in February to try to cut DOE funding in order to stop the rule from being enacted. Harris Miller, the president of Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, an industry group, has said the rule has “fundamental legal flaws” because the DOE is “engaging in a form of price fixing,” which it doesn't have the authority to do.
The lobbying seems to have worked.
Analysts say the rule is more lenient than they and most investors had expected “meaningfully watered down,” according to R.W. Baird's Amy Junker. Under the rule's original terms, programs that failed to meet the criteria would have lost federal loan eligibility immediately and enrollment would have been frozen at any school in danger of failing. The finalized rule gives schools multiple chances over a four-year period to improve their stats. After “three strikes,” a school would lose eligibility for three years.
“We're focusing on improving (for-profit programs) rather than closing them. Students would be better off if their programs were stronger rather than closed down,” said James Kvaal, a DOE official, during a conference call with reporters.
The DOE said it expects 18 percent of for-profit schools' programs to fail its tests at some point, and 5 percent of programs to lose eligibility under the new law.
There's a lot at stake for the schools and their investors, who have benefited from the surge in for-profit programs hitting the market in the last decade. The country's largest chain, Apollo Group, has seen revenue and net income grow about eightfold since 2000. And despite the hit that the sector has taken from increased regulatory scrutiny, Apollo's stock has more than quadrupled in that time.
But BMO Capital Markets analyst Jeff Silber sees profits declining or stagnating at most for-profit schools over the next few years. New enrollments are dropping sharply after years of double-digit growth as the schools adjust their businesses to accommodate the government's stricter oversight.
Some schools have been trying to get out in front of the new laws and adapt their business models to the new reality. Apollo's University of Phoenix, for example, now offers a free, three-week orientation that helps weed out unprepared students without charging them. The Washington Post Co.'s Kaplan education division also has put in place a free trial period so students can see if they really want to commit to school. Career Education Corp. is making new online undergraduate students pass a college prep course if they haven't attended college before; if they can't do the work, they can drop out without paying tuition.
University of Phoenix spokesperson Rick Castellano and Kaplan spokesperson Mark Harrad said they had no comment yet on the new regulations.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Proposal Writing: Getting Personal in Grant Writing
Proposal creation is craft. A creative endeavor. Technical language and dry prose can linger on the page, but at the end of the day (or week or month) you have created something that wasn't there before. You've communicated in a sophisticated way that is only possible between human beings. You've taken an obscure idea or project and given it legs, wings, a voice and pointed it in the right direction. How can you not get personal about writing a proposal?
Get personal in your proposal. It's okay.
There are good ways and bad ways to interject a personal touch into a grant proposal. Do it right and you'll connect with the funder in a way that matters and makes them feel something about your project. Do it wrong and you'll risk your future funding opportunities. Remember, it's personal for your organization, not for you. Be one with the organization and you'll find the right words (oh, Yoda).
Here are a few simple ways that you can give a personal touch to any proposal application--short, long, fat, squiggly or something in the middle. Think of it like your favorite spice. A little dash goes a long way.
- Connect with the funder's mission and focus. Point out how your organizations are similar.
- Mention a recent community event, site visit or shared connection. Did you recently give a tour? Can you weave a personal connection into your proposal or better yet, cover letter?
- Tell a Story. Share a thoughtful, true and meaningful story about someone who benefits from your organization's work.
- Do your homework and find another similar project that has received a gift from the funder. Remind them of this connection and your likeminded work.
- Finally, say thank you. "Thank you kindly". "Thank you in advance". Be gracious and respectful. Don't sound like a talking computer. That's so 1968.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)