New criteria for evaluation will likely include kids' test scores
By ERICKA MELLON | HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Nov. 8, 2010
About 99 percent of teachers in the Houston school district receive satisfactory job evaluations, with their students' academic success barely playing a factor.
That's likely to change next year. Houston ISD Superintendent Terry Grier and the school board are developing a new appraisal system for the district's 13,000 teachers. The process will affect who's promoted and fired, as well as the training teachers receive.
The nitty-gritty of evaluations might seem incidental, but the topic has become a cornerstone of public education reform, with President Barack Obama calling on schools to hold teachers more accountable for their students' performance.
Ann Best, the Houston Independent School District's chief human resources officer, acknowledged that teachers are nervous about the changes, but she said they, along with parents and administrators, are represented on committees developing the new criteria.
"This effort is designed to ensure that we have effective teachers in all of our classrooms," Best said, "and part of having effective teachers is giving teachers really clear feedback about their performance. What we should expect coming out of this initiative is more effective teachers in our schools."
Still, HISD's largest teachers group is threatening a possible challenge at the Texas Education Agency.
Texas law says any teacher evaluation systems that veer from the state-approved model must be "developed by" school-based committees and a district-level committee.
Gayle Fallon, the president of the Houston Federation of Teachers, questioned whether HISD officials are letting the committees drive the process as required.
"What we're getting back from the teachers is they feel they're window dressing — that all the decisions have been made," Fallon said. "If (the new evaluation) isn't really developed by them and accepted by them, then we will promise a challenge at the state."
Best and Dan Weisberg of the New Teacher Project, a nonprofit helping HISD with the evaluation process, rejected the claim that teachers are being sidelined.
"There is no secret tool in any file that someone could say it's already been developed," Best said.
Sticking point
Committees have met over the last two months and, according to a presentation made to the school board, have agreed on three broad categories for the ratings: student performance, instructional practice and professional expectations.
The main sticking point, by all accounts, will be how to define student performance. The current appraisal tool focuses mostly on principals' observations of teachers — not on student test scores or other data.
The HISD board approved in February a policy ordering future evaluations to include an analysis of test score data called value-added, but trustees did not set any details, such as how much the scores should count in teacher ratings.
Value-added is meant to be a statistical measure of teacher effectiveness, looking at whether students' test scores met, exceeded or fell below expectations based on each child's past performance.
Fallon, whose union represents more than 7,000 educators, said it would be a "deal breaker" if the evaluations included the value-added data that HISD uses to determine teachers' bonuses. She and Chuck Robinson, who heads the district's second-largest teacher group, repeatedly have said the formula developed by North Carolina statistician Bill Sanders is confusing and unreliable.
HISD model criticized
HISD's general counsel, Elneita Hutchins-Taylor, declined to speculate what would happen if the committees decide against making value-added data part of the evaluation as the board policy mandates.
"It's premature for us to comment on what will or will not be in there," she said. "Obviously the board policy exists. I think it's a policy of an aspirational nature."
Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, met with members of the Houston chapter in October to encourage them to work with the district to adopt an "evaluation system that does look at both teacher observations and student learning."
Weingarten made headlines in January when she said she favored including student test scores and other measures of student performance in evaluations. But she has blasted HISD's value-added model.
"The more we look at it, the more concerned we are it's not ready for prime time," she said. "It's like a weather forecast."
A study of four years of teachers' evaluations in HISD found, as in other districts nationwide, that few teachers got poor marks. Of all the ratings, 62 percent were "exceeds expectations" and 37 percent were "proficient." The other 1 percent were "below expectations" or "unsatisfactory."
Best said she expects the new appraisal to better differentiate among teachers.
"To me it's impossible that nearly 100 percent of our staff are performing at the highest levels because there are varying levels of performance in any profession," she said.
Robinson, who leads the Congress of Houston Teachers, said it's more important to train principals or other evaluators than to change the appraisal document.
"It's the way it's applied and used and the kinds of instructional leadership you have in a building," he said, adding that teachers expect the new evaluation will lead to more firings.
"There's just a lot of fear, a lot of insecurity and a lot of mistrust - and not from people who are lazy, indifferent people who just want to collect a paycheck."
The focus of the evaluations, Best said, will be on helping teachers improve their skills.
"What we want to assure people of is the first step is not termination," she said. "The first step is having accurate data to inform a plan for your development. Then we have to assess the extent to which the implementation of that plan actually works."
Monday, November 8, 2010
Immigration, budget top Texas lawmakers' agendas
By APRIL CASTRO | The Associated Press
Monday, Nov. 8, 2010
AUSTIN, Texas — Cracking down on illegal immigrants in Texas — on the roads, at schools and in the work force — was the focus of many bills Texas lawmakers filed Monday, the first day for proposing legislation to be considered in the upcoming session.
With a bigger majority in the House, Republican lawmakers and lawmakers-elect also want to make it legal for concealed handgun license holders to carry handguns on college campuses, prohibit state money from going to facilities that perform abortions and keep Texas from enforcing new federal health care laws.
Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Tomball, spent Saturday and Sunday nights in front of the chief clerk's office in the Texas House to be the first in line to file her bills.
The first one she filed when the office opened Monday morning was a proposal to require voters to provide proof of eligibility with either one form of photo identification or two forms of non-photo ID.
"A visitor that walked by told me that I reminded them of the kids that camp out for Duke basketball tickets in Durham, North Carolina," Riddle said. "It was eye-opening to realize that people think it's normal to be passionate about something like college basketball, but odd to be passionate about your state's politics."
She also filed measures that would make it a violation of state law for illegal immigrants to be in Texas, allowing state and local police officers to arrest them, and requiring school districts to report the number of illegal immigrants enrolled.
Riddle's were among dozens of hardline bills on immigration filed on the first day.
Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, filed a similar bill that would allow suspicious law enforcement officers to inquire about a person's immigration status and make an arrest based on the answer. His measure also makes an officer, his agency and state and local officials immune from any resulting litigation.
Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Flower Mound, filed a measure that would require all state and local governments and their contractors to use E-Verify — a joint program of the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration used to verify workers' immigration status.
By midday, 338 bills had been filed in both the House and Senate. Last session, almost 7,500 bills were filed, but less than 20 percent of them became law.
Lawmakers have until March 11 to file bills.
The Legislature is set to convene for the biennial session on Jan. 11 and will adjourn May 30.
Monitoring immigration legislation will be a priority for the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas during the session.
"On the first day of prefiling, it's pretty tough to know what's going to happen during a legislative session," ACLU lobbyist Matthew Simpson said. But, he called the focus on immigration a "solution in search of a problem."
"It's almost a red herring, at least a diversion or a move away from what I think are the critical issues facing the state," he said.
Some of the proposed legislation also reflects the dire situation lawmakers will face when writing the next two-year state budget. Texas has an expected shortfall of more than $20 billion. One bill would require all school districts to consolidate into countywide districts. Another proposal would eliminate the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and consolidate its duties with the Texas Education Agency.
Nelson filed a handful of bills that would require state agencies to streamline operations.
Patrick also filed a bill that would make it illegal for former lawmakers to become registered lobbyists until two legislative sessions after they've left office. The measure would likely hamper the plans of many of the 21 Democrats who lost their re-election bids last week.
Monday, Nov. 8, 2010
AUSTIN, Texas — Cracking down on illegal immigrants in Texas — on the roads, at schools and in the work force — was the focus of many bills Texas lawmakers filed Monday, the first day for proposing legislation to be considered in the upcoming session.
With a bigger majority in the House, Republican lawmakers and lawmakers-elect also want to make it legal for concealed handgun license holders to carry handguns on college campuses, prohibit state money from going to facilities that perform abortions and keep Texas from enforcing new federal health care laws.
Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Tomball, spent Saturday and Sunday nights in front of the chief clerk's office in the Texas House to be the first in line to file her bills.
The first one she filed when the office opened Monday morning was a proposal to require voters to provide proof of eligibility with either one form of photo identification or two forms of non-photo ID.
"A visitor that walked by told me that I reminded them of the kids that camp out for Duke basketball tickets in Durham, North Carolina," Riddle said. "It was eye-opening to realize that people think it's normal to be passionate about something like college basketball, but odd to be passionate about your state's politics."
She also filed measures that would make it a violation of state law for illegal immigrants to be in Texas, allowing state and local police officers to arrest them, and requiring school districts to report the number of illegal immigrants enrolled.
Riddle's were among dozens of hardline bills on immigration filed on the first day.
Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, filed a similar bill that would allow suspicious law enforcement officers to inquire about a person's immigration status and make an arrest based on the answer. His measure also makes an officer, his agency and state and local officials immune from any resulting litigation.
Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Flower Mound, filed a measure that would require all state and local governments and their contractors to use E-Verify — a joint program of the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration used to verify workers' immigration status.
By midday, 338 bills had been filed in both the House and Senate. Last session, almost 7,500 bills were filed, but less than 20 percent of them became law.
Lawmakers have until March 11 to file bills.
The Legislature is set to convene for the biennial session on Jan. 11 and will adjourn May 30.
Monitoring immigration legislation will be a priority for the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas during the session.
"On the first day of prefiling, it's pretty tough to know what's going to happen during a legislative session," ACLU lobbyist Matthew Simpson said. But, he called the focus on immigration a "solution in search of a problem."
"It's almost a red herring, at least a diversion or a move away from what I think are the critical issues facing the state," he said.
Some of the proposed legislation also reflects the dire situation lawmakers will face when writing the next two-year state budget. Texas has an expected shortfall of more than $20 billion. One bill would require all school districts to consolidate into countywide districts. Another proposal would eliminate the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and consolidate its duties with the Texas Education Agency.
Nelson filed a handful of bills that would require state agencies to streamline operations.
Patrick also filed a bill that would make it illegal for former lawmakers to become registered lobbyists until two legislative sessions after they've left office. The measure would likely hamper the plans of many of the 21 Democrats who lost their re-election bids last week.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Insiders Ask: Can K-12 Dodge Congressional Gridlock?
By Alyson Klein | Ed Week
November 5, 2010
Now that Republicans have taken control of the U.S. House of Representatives and bolstered their minority in the U.S. Senate, it remains to be seen if education is one area of federal policy that can avoid the partisan stalemate that many observers predict will paralyze Washington for the next two years.
Republicans and Democrats famously came together to pass the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001. That law, the latest version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, placed new accountability demands on schools and authorized more federal spending on education. Its renewal has been pending since 2007.
In his postelection news conference, President Barack Obama cited education as one of a handful of areas for possible cooperation.
“I think everybody in this country thinks that we’ve got to make sure our kids are equipped in terms of their education, their science background, their math backgrounds, to compete in this new global economy,” Mr. Obama told reporters Nov. 3. “And that’s going to be an area where I think there’s potential common ground.”
Continue Reading
November 5, 2010
Now that Republicans have taken control of the U.S. House of Representatives and bolstered their minority in the U.S. Senate, it remains to be seen if education is one area of federal policy that can avoid the partisan stalemate that many observers predict will paralyze Washington for the next two years.
Republicans and Democrats famously came together to pass the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001. That law, the latest version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, placed new accountability demands on schools and authorized more federal spending on education. Its renewal has been pending since 2007.
In his postelection news conference, President Barack Obama cited education as one of a handful of areas for possible cooperation.
“I think everybody in this country thinks that we’ve got to make sure our kids are equipped in terms of their education, their science background, their math backgrounds, to compete in this new global economy,” Mr. Obama told reporters Nov. 3. “And that’s going to be an area where I think there’s potential common ground.”
Continue Reading
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Perspectives: Education Reform and the Access/Success Pendulum
After spending the day with a few of Texas' long-time civil rights and education leaders, this message resonates. All of the issues that Gandara and Orfield address are currently being discussed in Texas, and dominated by politics, and void of community. Gandara and Orfield's argument that our focus for progress should not prioritize one issue (access) over another (completion) should be in bold.
In the words of one well respected researcher and community advocate, any college-related goals, at least when it comes to students of Color in Texas, must not lose sight of the number of minority students who do not attain a HS diploma.
- Patricia
by Patricia Gándara and Gary Orfield ,
October 26, 2010
In education, reform tends to follow cycles, often bouncing from one extreme to another without considering the possibility of incorporating multiple perspectives simultaneously. Policies aimed at helping more underrepresented students enter college and complete degrees have bounced from one pole to another, embracing access as the primary goal without giving adequate attention to successful completion, which results in many underrepresented students coming through the campus gate but relatively few leaving with degrees.
There has been considerable publicity lately about the U.S.’s declining rankings in international comparisons of young people with college degrees. Today, we are not among the top 10 developed countries for degree attainment, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, with flat completion rates placing us so low in the rankings. Americans are waking up to the fact that something must be done to increase the rate at which our youth gain degrees—especially youth of color—if the U.S. is to remain competitive in international markets. Just 21 percent of African-Americans and an appalling 12 percent of Latinos have completed a degree by age 29. The Obama administration has set an ambitious goal for the U.S. to lead the world in the percentage of adults with a college degree by 2020, but this will require that we pay attention to both access and success in ways that we haven’t before.
Breaking Down Barriers
Much of the first half of the 20th century was characterized by a long march toward providing equal access to a basic education to African-Americans, Native Americans, Latinos and, to some extent, Asian students. Up to midcentury, these groups fought just to gain access to schools with equal resources. Importantly, many of the court rulings that resulted in the Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954, which promised access to the same schools for all children regardless of color, were decisions about access in higher education, such as the Sweatt v. Painter decision of 1950 that opened access to the University of Texas law school for students of color. Having been denied access to an equal education, it was logical that all efforts would be concentrated on the access issue during this period, culminating in Brown, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1965 Higher Education Act and the creation of Work-Study under the War on Poverty. The barriers were supposed to fall, and the students were to have the resources to enroll.
By 1975-76, an African-American or Latino high school graduate had an equal chance of attending college as a White high school graduate. The civil rights era shone a light on the yawning gaps in educational attainment that existed between White students and students of color, and the mid- to late-1960s and mid-1970s saw a strong focus on the importance of access to higher education, including opening the segregated public universities in the South and creating tribal colleges for Indian nations to help narrow those gaps. Almost all selective universities adopted affirmative action. Nonetheless, by 1975 only 15 percent of non-White young adults held college degrees compared with 24 percent for White students. It would take time, though, before the challenge of college completion became a focal point in struggles for equality.
Forty years ago the focus was on providing more equality of opportunity through affirmative action and other strategies to increase access to college. And it worked. However, by the early 1980s it became clear that access was not enough. Students of color entered college at all-time-high rates but they were too often not completing degrees. This fact stimulated competing responses between conservatives and progressives. On one hand, social conservatives argued that the students should not have been admitted because they weren’t prepared, which was the reason they weren’t completing degrees. Efforts to limit access to more selective colleges by redirecting “under-prepared” students to two-year colleges coupled with assaults on affirmative action policies were underway.
The 1980s became the era of “educational excellence,” in which a conservative rhetoric focused on framing the problem as incompatibility of excellence and diversity. Conservatives argued that American education had become mediocre because standards were not high enough. Although this was most directly communicated in the 1983 “A Nation at Risk” document that critiqued public schools, it was also a theme that played out in higher education. The question was posed in mainstream media as well as in academic publications: Could we have internationally competitive universities and still maintain a commitment to diversity? Weren’t these two goals fundamentally incompatible?
Dr. Alexander Astin countered the argument that excellence and equity were in conflict in the academy with his 1985 book, Achieving Educational Excellence, in which he proffered that excellence in higher education institutions in multicultural societies was only possible through diversity. The debate is like choosing between giving a child food or health care—both are necessary and strongly related. In addressing the completion problem, social progressives argued that, if the country was to move forward socially and economically, it required that marginalized populations be admitted to selective universities and be supported to succeed there.
College success became a new focus, and programs to help ensure that students of color completed degrees increased in number and importance on campuses. However, support programs served few students, and the nagging gaps remained between White (and increasingly Asian) students and students of color with respect to degree attainment. Research showed that being admitted to a competitive college was a completion strategy because affirmative action students’ completion rates in these colleges were higher than in open-access colleges because there was a clear pathway and positive peer groups. Graduation was the default outcome.
There was also a change in the political climate of the country in the 1980s, ushered in by the Reagan years and the retreat from affirmative action and progressive policies to support low-income and students of color in higher education. The Bakke affirmative action Supreme Court decision at the end of the 1970s sent out alarms that the era of affirmative action was on life support. At the same time, fewer colleges were built, admissions standards were raised and tuition constantly went up faster than family incomes as state support declined. The impact was particularly pernicious for students of color, including Latinos, who did not have the HBCU-type institutions and were concentrated in states that relied too heavily on community colleges. Thus, we saw a steady downturn in access through the 1980s and increasing gaps among advantaged and disadvantaged groups in college admissions. The “success” part of the higher education equation was lost in the new swing of the pendulum away from access and an increasing concern that access to higher education was being lost for the nation’s minorities.
The 1996 anti-affirmative action initiative (Proposition 209) in California and the Hopwood decision, which likewise found affirmative action illegal in Texas the same year, resulted in huge drops in admission to selective public colleges in those states. Proposition 209 was followed by similar initiatives and court decisions in other states, with predictable downturns in minority access. During the 1990s, concerns of progressives once again became fixated on the access problem.
Changing Course
More recently, we have seen a return to the discussion about the “success problem,” with colleges under attack for providing too much remediation. Social conservatives have once again suggested the place for students shortchanged by inferior high schools is community colleges, not the four-year institutions from which they are more likely to graduate with a degree. The dramatic growth of the Latino population—now the nation’s largest and fastest-growing minority—has also raised new concerns about college success as a recent report from the Pew Hispanic Center revealed that Latinos go to college at rates comparable to other groups but they lag far behind others in degrees. The gaps in college attainment for this group are alarming in states where they constitute the majority of the school-age population. Financial aid policies that reward “merit” rather than need have proved debilitating for African-Americans, Latinos and other low-income groups as working too many hours makes completing college much more difficult. And so once again we shift our lens toward the challenges of success in college.
In a nation that will soon have a majority of non-White students in its public schools, the stakes are too high to focus on only one issue at a time. Access of the right kind fosters success and completion. Focus on support for students who fall behind makes access a better investment. We must do both all the time.
— Drs. Patricia Gándara and Gary Orfield are professors of education and co-direct The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles at the University of California, Los Angeles.
In the words of one well respected researcher and community advocate, any college-related goals, at least when it comes to students of Color in Texas, must not lose sight of the number of minority students who do not attain a HS diploma.
- Patricia
by Patricia Gándara and Gary Orfield ,
October 26, 2010
In education, reform tends to follow cycles, often bouncing from one extreme to another without considering the possibility of incorporating multiple perspectives simultaneously. Policies aimed at helping more underrepresented students enter college and complete degrees have bounced from one pole to another, embracing access as the primary goal without giving adequate attention to successful completion, which results in many underrepresented students coming through the campus gate but relatively few leaving with degrees.
There has been considerable publicity lately about the U.S.’s declining rankings in international comparisons of young people with college degrees. Today, we are not among the top 10 developed countries for degree attainment, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, with flat completion rates placing us so low in the rankings. Americans are waking up to the fact that something must be done to increase the rate at which our youth gain degrees—especially youth of color—if the U.S. is to remain competitive in international markets. Just 21 percent of African-Americans and an appalling 12 percent of Latinos have completed a degree by age 29. The Obama administration has set an ambitious goal for the U.S. to lead the world in the percentage of adults with a college degree by 2020, but this will require that we pay attention to both access and success in ways that we haven’t before.
Breaking Down Barriers
Much of the first half of the 20th century was characterized by a long march toward providing equal access to a basic education to African-Americans, Native Americans, Latinos and, to some extent, Asian students. Up to midcentury, these groups fought just to gain access to schools with equal resources. Importantly, many of the court rulings that resulted in the Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954, which promised access to the same schools for all children regardless of color, were decisions about access in higher education, such as the Sweatt v. Painter decision of 1950 that opened access to the University of Texas law school for students of color. Having been denied access to an equal education, it was logical that all efforts would be concentrated on the access issue during this period, culminating in Brown, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1965 Higher Education Act and the creation of Work-Study under the War on Poverty. The barriers were supposed to fall, and the students were to have the resources to enroll.
By 1975-76, an African-American or Latino high school graduate had an equal chance of attending college as a White high school graduate. The civil rights era shone a light on the yawning gaps in educational attainment that existed between White students and students of color, and the mid- to late-1960s and mid-1970s saw a strong focus on the importance of access to higher education, including opening the segregated public universities in the South and creating tribal colleges for Indian nations to help narrow those gaps. Almost all selective universities adopted affirmative action. Nonetheless, by 1975 only 15 percent of non-White young adults held college degrees compared with 24 percent for White students. It would take time, though, before the challenge of college completion became a focal point in struggles for equality.
Forty years ago the focus was on providing more equality of opportunity through affirmative action and other strategies to increase access to college. And it worked. However, by the early 1980s it became clear that access was not enough. Students of color entered college at all-time-high rates but they were too often not completing degrees. This fact stimulated competing responses between conservatives and progressives. On one hand, social conservatives argued that the students should not have been admitted because they weren’t prepared, which was the reason they weren’t completing degrees. Efforts to limit access to more selective colleges by redirecting “under-prepared” students to two-year colleges coupled with assaults on affirmative action policies were underway.
The 1980s became the era of “educational excellence,” in which a conservative rhetoric focused on framing the problem as incompatibility of excellence and diversity. Conservatives argued that American education had become mediocre because standards were not high enough. Although this was most directly communicated in the 1983 “A Nation at Risk” document that critiqued public schools, it was also a theme that played out in higher education. The question was posed in mainstream media as well as in academic publications: Could we have internationally competitive universities and still maintain a commitment to diversity? Weren’t these two goals fundamentally incompatible?
Dr. Alexander Astin countered the argument that excellence and equity were in conflict in the academy with his 1985 book, Achieving Educational Excellence, in which he proffered that excellence in higher education institutions in multicultural societies was only possible through diversity. The debate is like choosing between giving a child food or health care—both are necessary and strongly related. In addressing the completion problem, social progressives argued that, if the country was to move forward socially and economically, it required that marginalized populations be admitted to selective universities and be supported to succeed there.
College success became a new focus, and programs to help ensure that students of color completed degrees increased in number and importance on campuses. However, support programs served few students, and the nagging gaps remained between White (and increasingly Asian) students and students of color with respect to degree attainment. Research showed that being admitted to a competitive college was a completion strategy because affirmative action students’ completion rates in these colleges were higher than in open-access colleges because there was a clear pathway and positive peer groups. Graduation was the default outcome.
There was also a change in the political climate of the country in the 1980s, ushered in by the Reagan years and the retreat from affirmative action and progressive policies to support low-income and students of color in higher education. The Bakke affirmative action Supreme Court decision at the end of the 1970s sent out alarms that the era of affirmative action was on life support. At the same time, fewer colleges were built, admissions standards were raised and tuition constantly went up faster than family incomes as state support declined. The impact was particularly pernicious for students of color, including Latinos, who did not have the HBCU-type institutions and were concentrated in states that relied too heavily on community colleges. Thus, we saw a steady downturn in access through the 1980s and increasing gaps among advantaged and disadvantaged groups in college admissions. The “success” part of the higher education equation was lost in the new swing of the pendulum away from access and an increasing concern that access to higher education was being lost for the nation’s minorities.
The 1996 anti-affirmative action initiative (Proposition 209) in California and the Hopwood decision, which likewise found affirmative action illegal in Texas the same year, resulted in huge drops in admission to selective public colleges in those states. Proposition 209 was followed by similar initiatives and court decisions in other states, with predictable downturns in minority access. During the 1990s, concerns of progressives once again became fixated on the access problem.
Changing Course
More recently, we have seen a return to the discussion about the “success problem,” with colleges under attack for providing too much remediation. Social conservatives have once again suggested the place for students shortchanged by inferior high schools is community colleges, not the four-year institutions from which they are more likely to graduate with a degree. The dramatic growth of the Latino population—now the nation’s largest and fastest-growing minority—has also raised new concerns about college success as a recent report from the Pew Hispanic Center revealed that Latinos go to college at rates comparable to other groups but they lag far behind others in degrees. The gaps in college attainment for this group are alarming in states where they constitute the majority of the school-age population. Financial aid policies that reward “merit” rather than need have proved debilitating for African-Americans, Latinos and other low-income groups as working too many hours makes completing college much more difficult. And so once again we shift our lens toward the challenges of success in college.
In a nation that will soon have a majority of non-White students in its public schools, the stakes are too high to focus on only one issue at a time. Access of the right kind fosters success and completion. Focus on support for students who fall behind makes access a better investment. We must do both all the time.
— Drs. Patricia Gándara and Gary Orfield are professors of education and co-direct The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles at the University of California, Los Angeles.
UT faculty members want role in budget discussions Provost pledges increased involvement, transparency.
By Ralph K.M. Haurwitz | AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Monday, Oct. 25, 2010
Faculty members at the University of Texas said Monday that they want to be in the loop on budget decisions, especially during the sort of tough financial times the university is currently facing.
A resolution adopted by the Faculty Council called for "significant" faculty involvement in budget matters and expressed concern about low-paid faculty members, staff members and graduate students serving as teaching assistants, who collectively have accounted for scores of layoffs in the past year or so.
"I think it's highly variable," Dean Neikirk , chairman of the council and a professor of electrical and computer engineering, said of faculty involvement in budget discussions at UT's colleges, schools and other units. He said the council is planning to survey the various units to gauge faculty members' roles.
Budgeting has been primarily the province of the business office and the president, provost, the deans and other top officials. Steven Leslie, the executive vice president and provost, told the Faculty Council that he wants to increase faculty involvement and the transparency of deliberations.
"We're working to try to figure out how to do that," Leslie said.
Among the questions are whether each academic unit should make its own arrangements or whether a common approach should be adopted. Alan Cline , a professor of computer sciences, said faculty members had more say on budget matters 25 years ago than they do now. Neikirk said he'd like to establish a structure that assures faculty involvement at the beginning of universitywide budget discussions.
Like other public universities in Texas, UT has been instructed by Gov. Rick Perry and legislative leaders to prepare plans for a 10 percent reduction in state funding. Lawmakers will make the final call when they meet next year.
UT President William Powers Jr. has warned that a 10 percent cut would require the elimination of 600 faculty and staff jobs in the next two years or so. That would be on top of positions already shed as a result of a previously imposed 5 percent cut in state funding.
Monday, Oct. 25, 2010
Faculty members at the University of Texas said Monday that they want to be in the loop on budget decisions, especially during the sort of tough financial times the university is currently facing.
A resolution adopted by the Faculty Council called for "significant" faculty involvement in budget matters and expressed concern about low-paid faculty members, staff members and graduate students serving as teaching assistants, who collectively have accounted for scores of layoffs in the past year or so.
"I think it's highly variable," Dean Neikirk , chairman of the council and a professor of electrical and computer engineering, said of faculty involvement in budget discussions at UT's colleges, schools and other units. He said the council is planning to survey the various units to gauge faculty members' roles.
Budgeting has been primarily the province of the business office and the president, provost, the deans and other top officials. Steven Leslie, the executive vice president and provost, told the Faculty Council that he wants to increase faculty involvement and the transparency of deliberations.
"We're working to try to figure out how to do that," Leslie said.
Among the questions are whether each academic unit should make its own arrangements or whether a common approach should be adopted. Alan Cline , a professor of computer sciences, said faculty members had more say on budget matters 25 years ago than they do now. Neikirk said he'd like to establish a structure that assures faculty involvement at the beginning of universitywide budget discussions.
Like other public universities in Texas, UT has been instructed by Gov. Rick Perry and legislative leaders to prepare plans for a 10 percent reduction in state funding. Lawmakers will make the final call when they meet next year.
UT President William Powers Jr. has warned that a 10 percent cut would require the elimination of 600 faculty and staff jobs in the next two years or so. That would be on top of positions already shed as a result of a previously imposed 5 percent cut in state funding.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
The Ultimate Superpower: Supersized Dollars Drive Waiting for Superman
Excellent piece by Barbara Miner. She indicates here that to understand what motivates this film, we are to follow the $$$.
-Angela
-Angela
Even Sophisticated use of test scores is flawed....
Please consider signing this petition. In short, it says, "Even the most sophisticated use of test scores, called value added modeling (VAM), is a flawed and inaccurate way to judge whether teachers are effective or ineffective."
I just did.
Angela
NEWS FROM THE EDUCATION PROGRAM
October 22, 2010
Dear Colleague:
It is encouraging that there has been increased attention paid to improving the educational achievement of students, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. However, it is unfortunate that much of the new policy discussion has focused on the mistaken belief that educational outcomes can be significantly improved by heavy reliance upon students' scores on standardized tests in mathematics and reading to evaluate, reward, and remove the teachers of these tested students. We have recently co-authored a paper, Problems With the Use of Student Test Scores to Evaluate Teachers, which shows that even the most sophisticated use of test scores, called value added modeling (VAM), is a flawed and inaccurate way to judge whether teachers are effective or ineffective.
Adopting an invalid teacher evaluation system and tying it to rewards and sanctions is likely to lead to inaccurate personnel decisions, while also demoralizing teachers. Such a flawed system could lead talented teachers to avoid high-needs students and schools, or to leave the profession entirely, and discourage potentially effective teachers from pursuing careers in education. Moreover, heavy reliance on basic math and reading scores to evaluate teachers will further narrow and over-simplify the curriculum to focus only on the subjects, topics, and formats that are tested. We believe that the evidence shows that educational outcomes will suffer if policymakers establish systems of teacher evaluation, tenure and pay which rely heavily on student test scores.
We are writing to invite you to sign a statement opposing this approach by going to http://www.epi-data.org/education/. We have posted the statement and listed resource material that provides the research basis for the statement. We also urge you to encourage others to sign the statement. We will publish the signatories on the EPI website and elsewhere.
If you agree with our approach, please add your signature to this statement as soon as possible to ensure that your name is included among the signers. The deadline for signatures is November 19, 2010.
We hope you will join with us in this very important effort to improve the educational outcomes of students, especially disadvantaged students who will be most harmed by these misguided policies.
Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
Eva L. Baker
Paul E. Barton
Linda Darling-Hammond
Edward Haertel
Helen F. Ladd
Robert L. Linn
Diane Ravitch
Richard Rothstein
Richard J. Shavelson
Lorrie A. Shepard
Eva L. Baker is professor of education at UCLA, co-director of the National Center for Evaluation Standards and Student Testing (CRESST) and co-chaired the committee to revise testing standards of the American Psychological Association, the American Educational Research Association, and the National Council on Measurement in Education.
Paul E. Barton is the former director of the Policy Information Center of the Educational Testing Service and associate director of the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Linda Darling-Hammond is a professor of education at Stanford University, former president of the American Educational Research Association and a member of the National Academy of Education.
Edward Haertel is a professor of education at Stanford University, former president of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chair of the National Research Council's Board on Testing and Assessment, and a former chair of the committee on methodology of the National Assessment Governing Board.
Helen F. Ladd is Professor of Public Policy and Economics at Duke University and President-Elect of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.
Robert L. Linn is a distinguished professor emeritus at the University of Colorado, and has served as president of the National Council on Measurement in Education and of the American Educational Research Association, and as chair of the National Research Council's Board on Testing and Assessment.
Diane Ravitch is a research professor at New York University and historian of American education.
Richard Rothstein is a research associate of the Economic Policy Institute.
Richard J. Shavelson is a professor of education (emeritus) at Stanford University and former president of the American Educational Research Association.
Lorrie A. Shepard is dean and professor, School of Education, University of Colorado at Boulder, a former president of the American Educational Research Association, and the immediate past president of the National Academy of Education.
If you've received this from a friend and would like to subscribe,
visit http://www.epi.org/signup.
If you wish to unsubscribe yourself from EPI mailings,
visit http://www.epi.org/unsubscribe.
Questions? Contact newsletter@epi.org.
Economic Policy Institute
1333 H Street, NW
Suite 300, East Tower
Washington, D.C. 20005
Copyright © 2010 Economic Policy Institute. All rights reserved.
I just did.
Angela
NEWS FROM THE EDUCATION PROGRAM
October 22, 2010
Dear Colleague:
It is encouraging that there has been increased attention paid to improving the educational achievement of students, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. However, it is unfortunate that much of the new policy discussion has focused on the mistaken belief that educational outcomes can be significantly improved by heavy reliance upon students' scores on standardized tests in mathematics and reading to evaluate, reward, and remove the teachers of these tested students. We have recently co-authored a paper, Problems With the Use of Student Test Scores to Evaluate Teachers, which shows that even the most sophisticated use of test scores, called value added modeling (VAM), is a flawed and inaccurate way to judge whether teachers are effective or ineffective.
Adopting an invalid teacher evaluation system and tying it to rewards and sanctions is likely to lead to inaccurate personnel decisions, while also demoralizing teachers. Such a flawed system could lead talented teachers to avoid high-needs students and schools, or to leave the profession entirely, and discourage potentially effective teachers from pursuing careers in education. Moreover, heavy reliance on basic math and reading scores to evaluate teachers will further narrow and over-simplify the curriculum to focus only on the subjects, topics, and formats that are tested. We believe that the evidence shows that educational outcomes will suffer if policymakers establish systems of teacher evaluation, tenure and pay which rely heavily on student test scores.
We are writing to invite you to sign a statement opposing this approach by going to http://www.epi-data.org/education/. We have posted the statement and listed resource material that provides the research basis for the statement. We also urge you to encourage others to sign the statement. We will publish the signatories on the EPI website and elsewhere.
If you agree with our approach, please add your signature to this statement as soon as possible to ensure that your name is included among the signers. The deadline for signatures is November 19, 2010.
We hope you will join with us in this very important effort to improve the educational outcomes of students, especially disadvantaged students who will be most harmed by these misguided policies.
Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
Eva L. Baker
Paul E. Barton
Linda Darling-Hammond
Edward Haertel
Helen F. Ladd
Robert L. Linn
Diane Ravitch
Richard Rothstein
Richard J. Shavelson
Lorrie A. Shepard
Eva L. Baker is professor of education at UCLA, co-director of the National Center for Evaluation Standards and Student Testing (CRESST) and co-chaired the committee to revise testing standards of the American Psychological Association, the American Educational Research Association, and the National Council on Measurement in Education.
Paul E. Barton is the former director of the Policy Information Center of the Educational Testing Service and associate director of the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Linda Darling-Hammond is a professor of education at Stanford University, former president of the American Educational Research Association and a member of the National Academy of Education.
Edward Haertel is a professor of education at Stanford University, former president of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chair of the National Research Council's Board on Testing and Assessment, and a former chair of the committee on methodology of the National Assessment Governing Board.
Helen F. Ladd is Professor of Public Policy and Economics at Duke University and President-Elect of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.
Robert L. Linn is a distinguished professor emeritus at the University of Colorado, and has served as president of the National Council on Measurement in Education and of the American Educational Research Association, and as chair of the National Research Council's Board on Testing and Assessment.
Diane Ravitch is a research professor at New York University and historian of American education.
Richard Rothstein is a research associate of the Economic Policy Institute.
Richard J. Shavelson is a professor of education (emeritus) at Stanford University and former president of the American Educational Research Association.
Lorrie A. Shepard is dean and professor, School of Education, University of Colorado at Boulder, a former president of the American Educational Research Association, and the immediate past president of the National Academy of Education.
If you've received this from a friend and would like to subscribe,
visit http://www.epi.org/signup.
If you wish to unsubscribe yourself from EPI mailings,
visit http://www.epi.org/unsubscribe.
Questions? Contact newsletter@epi.org.
Economic Policy Institute
1333 H Street, NW
Suite 300, East Tower
Washington, D.C. 20005
Copyright © 2010 Economic Policy Institute. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)