New CT commissioner wants to jump ahead of MA on NAEP. Healthy NAEP competition.
New commissioner pitches ways to help bridge education gap
State schools chief has big plans
LINDA CONNER LAMBECK lclambeck@ctpost.com
Connecticut Post Online
Article Last Updated:04/30/2007 10:25:56 AM EDT
HARTFORD — Mark K. McQuillan, Connecticut's new commissioner of education, is unlikely to make many fans among the state's 577,000 public school children.
For one, McQuillan likes the idea of an exit test that would stand between every Connecticut high school student and a diploma.
For another, he wants a longer school day, particularly in urban districts where students have so much catching up to do.
But McQuillan, 58, wants students to know he cares about them and wants to makes some of the changes in the state's public schools that he oversaw across the border in Massachusetts, where he was deputy commissioner of education.
"I've been an advocator my whole life," said McQuillan. "To parents, I would say I can't do this work without them. I see parents as true assets."
McQuillan said the exit test — an idea that surfaces every year in the General Assembly, but has yet to win broad support — is a compelling notion.
Massachusetts has had such a test since 2003. Today, more than 90 percent of its students pass the test by high school graduation.
The longer school day is one idea the new commissioner suggests schools employ to help students make up readiness skills they lack when they begin their school careers.
He points to charter schools as an example.
"Charter schools that are most successful are running extremely traditional, very conventional programs," he said.
The difference is that charter schools extend the school day and year, recognizing that if students don't come to school with benefits of a middle-class upbringing, it has to be made up at school.
On the job since April 16, McQuillan came to Connecticut every Friday since he was appointed in January. He lives in an apartment in Hartford with the anticipation of buying a house once his wife finishes her academic year. She is an elementary principal in Massachusetts and will be looking for a similar position in Connecticut. The couple has three grown children.
McQuillan has yet to visit Bridgeport or Fairfield County, but says it's high on his to-do list.
"I've been trying to get there. I want to meet John [Ramos, the Bridgeport superintendent]. I've heard good things about him," McQuillan said.
Ramos said his first request of the new commissioner will be to help get more money for Bridgeport's schools.
McQuillan said he understands that Bridgeport will be allocated more education aid in the new state budget. With or without new resources, McQuillan said things in Bridgeport and other school districts with wide achievement gaps have to change.
His first weeks on the job have been spent trying to figure out how the Department of Education will reorganize to carry out the federal demand that it become more involved with school districts failing to keep up with No Child Left Behind mandates.
The law requires all students to be proficient in math and reading by 2014. Schools that fail five years in a row to make adequate progress toward that goal face corrective action and state intervention. A number Bridgeport schools are on that path.
McQuillan said intervention doesn't necessarily mean "takeover," rather, the state stepping in to offer more leadership and support.
"Something has to change if it's not working locally," he said. "I think the idea that the state has some magic solution to the problem is a misnomer."
Bridgeport school officials just adopted a new strategic plan they say will help the district improve. All that's missing are the funds to implement the plan, they said. McQuillan said even in the absence of more money, things have to change.
"There are students whose lives are going to be impacted. Every year lost cannot be replaced," he said.
McQuillan said in Massachusetts, failing schools have not been turned around by using a single approach. But there is a common recipe that includes a strong curriculum, faculty, principal, parental involvement and an overall culture of expectations.
Also important, he said, is for school officials to know how to use the data they get from tests to improve instruction. "My job is to accelerate and push to move this along faster," he said.
So far, McQuillan sees the biggest difference between Massachusetts and Connecticut is that here, local control lies more in the hands of school boards than school superintendents. The opposite is true in Massachusetts.
The disparity between wealthy and impoverished communities is also greater in Connecticut.
"Yet there is phenomenal achievement here to draw upon," he said.
He would like nothing more for Connecticut to jump ahead of Massachusetts on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a common yardstick for states that give different achievement tests.
"Absolutely. That's my goal," he said.
Linda Conner Lambeck, who covers regional education issues, can be reached at 330-6218.
April 27, 2007
Orlando Sentinel: Where on Earth can you take a geography class?
WHAT WE'RE LEARNING
Where on Earth can you take a geography class?
Students learn the subject in other countries, but most American public schools don't teach it -- except as part of history and social studies.
Shradhha Sharma
Columbia News Service
April 26, 2007
Ten years ago at a convention in Baltimore, fifth-grade history teacher Lydia Lewis met someone she described as a "bright, college-educated young woman in her 20s." Lewis was busily reviewing her notes for a slide presentation on geography when she felt someone tapping her on the shoulder.
Turning around, she saw the young woman standing there, a quizzical expression on her face. In her hand was a slide depicting a map of the United States. She held it upside down so that Florida was in the north and asked Lewis innocently, "Ma'am, which way does this slide go in?"
"I was completely shocked," Lewis recalls. "But being a teacher, I thought this was one of those teachable moments so I started to explain to her the right way to look at the map. But she simply wasn't interested."
As teachers across the country try to help their students meet test-score standards mandated by law, there is one subject that has been left behind: geography.
Geography extends beyond where rivers are located to how topography affects society. Geography is taught as a standalone subject in schools from Russia to France to India. But in most American public schools, the study of the world is generally buried somewhere in social studies and history. How geography is covered is often left to the discretion of individual schools or teachers -- to the dismay of experts.
"There are a lot of opponents to this style of teaching geography," says Dr. Michal LeVasseur, executive director of the National Council of Geographic Education. "It will eventually be to the detriment of the youngsters in this country."
LeVasseur is not the only one concerned about flagging geography education in an era of globalization. Sens. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., and Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., recently introduced in Congress the Teaching Geography is Fundamental Act.
If passed, the bill would authorize competitive grants through the Department of Education to improve K-12 geography curriculum, teacher training and instructional materials.
Some state boards of education, however, still maintain that the subject is taught adequately. "Geography is one of the strands of the state curriculum standards, so in every grade geography is very much addressed," says Francis Mackl, an instruction specialist in the social studies department of the New York City Department of Education.
Whether she is right, some students just don't care. Michael Calvert, an eighth-grader who attends a public school in Los Angeles, thinks that he doesn't need to study more geography. "We do learn about different places in the world when we study history. Isn't that the same thing?"
Calvert's misunderstanding of the discipline might be related to the way he is taught the subject in school. Michael N. Solem, the educational-affairs director of the Association of American Geographers, says that in addition to being under tremendous pressure to produce good test scores, public school teachers face another problem when it comes to teaching geography. "Most teachers have not studied the subject in college themselves."
His view was echoed by Alexander B. Murphy, a geography professor at the University of Oregon.
"The discipline is not as firmly entrenched in U.S. colleges and universities as subjects such as history, biology and economics," Murphy says. "Geography departments are generally smaller than those of neighboring disciplines, and there are many small colleges, and even some prominent universities, that do not have geography programs."
Among them are Ivy League schools such as Harvard, Yale and Princeton.
"The fact that geography is missing in these institutions, which are quite influential in setting the agenda and produce a lot of people who go on to occupy important positions in government, is a big problem," Murphy says. "Many of the senior echelons of government and other decision-making authorities have no exposure to the discipline, which perhaps explains some of the problems we have had around the world."
Copyright © 2007, Orlando Sentinel Get home delivery - up to 50% off
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get your news on the go by going to www.orlandosentinel.com on your mobile browser.
Where on Earth can you take a geography class?
Students learn the subject in other countries, but most American public schools don't teach it -- except as part of history and social studies.
Shradhha Sharma
Columbia News Service
April 26, 2007
Ten years ago at a convention in Baltimore, fifth-grade history teacher Lydia Lewis met someone she described as a "bright, college-educated young woman in her 20s." Lewis was busily reviewing her notes for a slide presentation on geography when she felt someone tapping her on the shoulder.
Turning around, she saw the young woman standing there, a quizzical expression on her face. In her hand was a slide depicting a map of the United States. She held it upside down so that Florida was in the north and asked Lewis innocently, "Ma'am, which way does this slide go in?"
"I was completely shocked," Lewis recalls. "But being a teacher, I thought this was one of those teachable moments so I started to explain to her the right way to look at the map. But she simply wasn't interested."
As teachers across the country try to help their students meet test-score standards mandated by law, there is one subject that has been left behind: geography.
Geography extends beyond where rivers are located to how topography affects society. Geography is taught as a standalone subject in schools from Russia to France to India. But in most American public schools, the study of the world is generally buried somewhere in social studies and history. How geography is covered is often left to the discretion of individual schools or teachers -- to the dismay of experts.
"There are a lot of opponents to this style of teaching geography," says Dr. Michal LeVasseur, executive director of the National Council of Geographic Education. "It will eventually be to the detriment of the youngsters in this country."
LeVasseur is not the only one concerned about flagging geography education in an era of globalization. Sens. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., and Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., recently introduced in Congress the Teaching Geography is Fundamental Act.
If passed, the bill would authorize competitive grants through the Department of Education to improve K-12 geography curriculum, teacher training and instructional materials.
Some state boards of education, however, still maintain that the subject is taught adequately. "Geography is one of the strands of the state curriculum standards, so in every grade geography is very much addressed," says Francis Mackl, an instruction specialist in the social studies department of the New York City Department of Education.
Whether she is right, some students just don't care. Michael Calvert, an eighth-grader who attends a public school in Los Angeles, thinks that he doesn't need to study more geography. "We do learn about different places in the world when we study history. Isn't that the same thing?"
Calvert's misunderstanding of the discipline might be related to the way he is taught the subject in school. Michael N. Solem, the educational-affairs director of the Association of American Geographers, says that in addition to being under tremendous pressure to produce good test scores, public school teachers face another problem when it comes to teaching geography. "Most teachers have not studied the subject in college themselves."
His view was echoed by Alexander B. Murphy, a geography professor at the University of Oregon.
"The discipline is not as firmly entrenched in U.S. colleges and universities as subjects such as history, biology and economics," Murphy says. "Geography departments are generally smaller than those of neighboring disciplines, and there are many small colleges, and even some prominent universities, that do not have geography programs."
Among them are Ivy League schools such as Harvard, Yale and Princeton.
"The fact that geography is missing in these institutions, which are quite influential in setting the agenda and produce a lot of people who go on to occupy important positions in government, is a big problem," Murphy says. "Many of the senior echelons of government and other decision-making authorities have no exposure to the discipline, which perhaps explains some of the problems we have had around the world."
Copyright © 2007, Orlando Sentinel Get home delivery - up to 50% off
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get your news on the go by going to www.orlandosentinel.com on your mobile browser.
Detroit News: Restore local control of schools
Restore local control of schools
Congress should reform No Child act to return flexibility to education
U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra
We have come a long way since Congress voted 242-174 to prevent the federal government from spending tax dollars on national K-12 testing as proposed by President Bill Clinton in 1998.
In three short years, Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which has become the largest expansion of the federal government into K-12 education since the U.S. Department of Education was created in 1979.
I voted against No Child, but a significant number of my Republican colleagues voted for it. They did so even though it contradicted our belief that local communities require freedom and flexibility to address their diverse local issues and that parents should be empowered to determine how to best educate their children.
One size fits all
For the first time, the federal government was given permission to basically dictate school curriculum by mandating testing, requiring performance and creating sanctions for schools that failed to meet federal standards.
No Child required national testing in math and reading in grades three through eight and once in high school for total of 14 federally mandated tests. Schools that fail to meet Average Yearly Progress -- even if it is caused by a student who might not speak English as a first language, is developmentally disabled or for other reasons -- face having federal funding withheld.
Despite a 41 percent increase in federal funding during the past five years, No Child Left Behind has required more local expenditures to comply with its mandates and has left communities with less flexibility to meet the needs of their children.
The regulatory burden imposed on state and local authorities has forced them to spend an additional $140 million just on paperwork each year. Teachers now teach to the test instead of helping students develop their unique abilities and critical thinking skills. One size now fits all schools across America.
No Child's unintended bias
Other unintended consequences of No Child include "soft discrimination" in which educators are seeking to discourage students who would likely fail tests from attending their schools and teachers encouraging poor-performers to stay home sick on test day. States are also lowering their standards so they meet standards and that sanctions are not imposed.
No Child has had a very limited impact on overall student improvement, but teachers, principals and school administrators will tell you there has been a seismic difference in how they educate children. They now turn for direction to Washington, where faceless bureaucrats at the Department of Education cannot possibly understand the needs in their local communities.
Teachers are requesting that their subjects be covered by No Child because that is where administrators are focusing their resources at the expense of other programs.
Congress will soon consider reauthorizing No Child Left Behind, and current suggestions would expand upon an already bad law. The reauthorization could add science, geography, government, civics, economics, history, physical education, art, as well as two more years of testing in high school, to the No Child testing regime. There is even discussion of establishing teacher pay for local schools through the federal legislation.
We can say goodbye to local control and hello to federal government schools since Washington would control nearly all K-12 core curriculum, testing and accountability, as well as teacher qualifications.
Let states opt out
I have an alternative. It is titled the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (A-PLUS) Act of 2007, a bill that I introduced with 52 co-sponsors to restore local control in education. Under A-PLUS, states -- led by governors and state legislators -- would have the freedom to opt out of No Child Left Behind and reassert their leadership.
States would be required to demonstrate transparent accounting measures and would be held accountable to parents and taxpayers by annually reporting on the academic achievement of schools. Schools would continue to provide data on how all students, regardless of race, income level or learning ability, are not being left behind.
The best approach to meeting local educational needs is to eliminate red tape and the ineffective federal government bureaucracy. Congress needs to provide parents, teachers, school principals and communities with the freedom to chart a new course for local schools designed to best meet local students' needs.
The bottom line is that we need to ask the question: Who will decide the future of our children's education? Faceless bureaucrats in Washington, or parents and local school administrators who know our children's names and needs? My vote is for local control.
U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Holland, is a senior Republican on the House Committee on Education and Labor and a founding member of the Congressional Education Freedom Caucus. E-mail: letters@detnews.com.
No Child reforms
U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Holland, proposes that:
# States be allowed to opt out of the federal No Child Left Behind Act requirements without losing federal money.
# Public schools would still be required annually to report student achievement measurements.
Congress should reform No Child act to return flexibility to education
U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra
We have come a long way since Congress voted 242-174 to prevent the federal government from spending tax dollars on national K-12 testing as proposed by President Bill Clinton in 1998.
In three short years, Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which has become the largest expansion of the federal government into K-12 education since the U.S. Department of Education was created in 1979.
I voted against No Child, but a significant number of my Republican colleagues voted for it. They did so even though it contradicted our belief that local communities require freedom and flexibility to address their diverse local issues and that parents should be empowered to determine how to best educate their children.
One size fits all
For the first time, the federal government was given permission to basically dictate school curriculum by mandating testing, requiring performance and creating sanctions for schools that failed to meet federal standards.
No Child required national testing in math and reading in grades three through eight and once in high school for total of 14 federally mandated tests. Schools that fail to meet Average Yearly Progress -- even if it is caused by a student who might not speak English as a first language, is developmentally disabled or for other reasons -- face having federal funding withheld.
Despite a 41 percent increase in federal funding during the past five years, No Child Left Behind has required more local expenditures to comply with its mandates and has left communities with less flexibility to meet the needs of their children.
The regulatory burden imposed on state and local authorities has forced them to spend an additional $140 million just on paperwork each year. Teachers now teach to the test instead of helping students develop their unique abilities and critical thinking skills. One size now fits all schools across America.
No Child's unintended bias
Other unintended consequences of No Child include "soft discrimination" in which educators are seeking to discourage students who would likely fail tests from attending their schools and teachers encouraging poor-performers to stay home sick on test day. States are also lowering their standards so they meet standards and that sanctions are not imposed.
No Child has had a very limited impact on overall student improvement, but teachers, principals and school administrators will tell you there has been a seismic difference in how they educate children. They now turn for direction to Washington, where faceless bureaucrats at the Department of Education cannot possibly understand the needs in their local communities.
Teachers are requesting that their subjects be covered by No Child because that is where administrators are focusing their resources at the expense of other programs.
Congress will soon consider reauthorizing No Child Left Behind, and current suggestions would expand upon an already bad law. The reauthorization could add science, geography, government, civics, economics, history, physical education, art, as well as two more years of testing in high school, to the No Child testing regime. There is even discussion of establishing teacher pay for local schools through the federal legislation.
We can say goodbye to local control and hello to federal government schools since Washington would control nearly all K-12 core curriculum, testing and accountability, as well as teacher qualifications.
Let states opt out
I have an alternative. It is titled the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (A-PLUS) Act of 2007, a bill that I introduced with 52 co-sponsors to restore local control in education. Under A-PLUS, states -- led by governors and state legislators -- would have the freedom to opt out of No Child Left Behind and reassert their leadership.
States would be required to demonstrate transparent accounting measures and would be held accountable to parents and taxpayers by annually reporting on the academic achievement of schools. Schools would continue to provide data on how all students, regardless of race, income level or learning ability, are not being left behind.
The best approach to meeting local educational needs is to eliminate red tape and the ineffective federal government bureaucracy. Congress needs to provide parents, teachers, school principals and communities with the freedom to chart a new course for local schools designed to best meet local students' needs.
The bottom line is that we need to ask the question: Who will decide the future of our children's education? Faceless bureaucrats in Washington, or parents and local school administrators who know our children's names and needs? My vote is for local control.
U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Holland, is a senior Republican on the House Committee on Education and Labor and a founding member of the Congressional Education Freedom Caucus. E-mail: letters@detnews.com.
No Child reforms
U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Holland, proposes that:
# States be allowed to opt out of the federal No Child Left Behind Act requirements without losing federal money.
# Public schools would still be required annually to report student achievement measurements.
Gadfly Podcast: Orangelos
Discussion about the Gary Phillips NAEP/TIMSS study about 5 minutes in:
http://www.edexcellence.net/Media/GadflyShow042607.mp3
http://www.edexcellence.net/Media/GadflyShow042607.mp3
April 26, 2007
Steal This Education Agenda
Political memo to: Hillary, John(s), Mitt, Barack, Rudy and other '08 aspirants
From: Andrew J. Rotherham and Richard Whitmire
Subject: Why you need to really care about education
Conventional wisdom holds that the Iraq war will be issue No. 1. Yet issues such as education matter, too, because they help voters form a broader, more comprehensive profile of candidates. Remember George W. Bush's 2000 "compassionate conservative" shtick?
Besides, it is a real problem. Even our best suburban school districts are not doing well enough, and urban education is a national scandal. Changing that means challenging both special interests and your own advisers who think you are better off playing it safe.
Why education politics are even worse than you think: Pushing for radical reforms to help poor and minority children in failing schools will get you labeled "conservative," while fighting to preserve a demonstrably failing status quo makes you a great "liberal." Go figure.
But you can't sidestep it. Bill Clinton and President Bush have nationalized education policymaking. So, although it might be a political minefield made worse by yawn-inducing jargon, education has to be on your agenda.
Why you should care: Nullifying the 15- to 20-point advantage Democrats traditionally enjoyed on education was key to "W" making it to the White House. Besides, voters want to make sure you're tough enough to protect them in a dangerous world. You're going to have trouble demonstrating that if you can't even stand up to the National Education Association.
Why you should listen to us: Only a few Washington types bother to sort out the AYPs from the APs (No Child Left Behind's "Adequate Yearly Progress" system for rating schools and the popular Advanced Placement classes for high school students). Much to the dismay of friends and family, we're two of those who do. We visit dangerous schools and digest boring papers so you don't have to.
Our plan: This jargon-free, bipartisan education agenda guarantees you will own the political center and, better yet, be in a position to help kids when you win. Here's how:
Read the rest at: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3567.html
From: Andrew J. Rotherham and Richard Whitmire
Subject: Why you need to really care about education
Conventional wisdom holds that the Iraq war will be issue No. 1. Yet issues such as education matter, too, because they help voters form a broader, more comprehensive profile of candidates. Remember George W. Bush's 2000 "compassionate conservative" shtick?
Besides, it is a real problem. Even our best suburban school districts are not doing well enough, and urban education is a national scandal. Changing that means challenging both special interests and your own advisers who think you are better off playing it safe.
Why education politics are even worse than you think: Pushing for radical reforms to help poor and minority children in failing schools will get you labeled "conservative," while fighting to preserve a demonstrably failing status quo makes you a great "liberal." Go figure.
But you can't sidestep it. Bill Clinton and President Bush have nationalized education policymaking. So, although it might be a political minefield made worse by yawn-inducing jargon, education has to be on your agenda.
Why you should care: Nullifying the 15- to 20-point advantage Democrats traditionally enjoyed on education was key to "W" making it to the White House. Besides, voters want to make sure you're tough enough to protect them in a dangerous world. You're going to have trouble demonstrating that if you can't even stand up to the National Education Association.
Why you should listen to us: Only a few Washington types bother to sort out the AYPs from the APs (No Child Left Behind's "Adequate Yearly Progress" system for rating schools and the popular Advanced Placement classes for high school students). Much to the dismay of friends and family, we're two of those who do. We visit dangerous schools and digest boring papers so you don't have to.
Our plan: This jargon-free, bipartisan education agenda guarantees you will own the political center and, better yet, be in a position to help kids when you win. Here's how:
Read the rest at: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3567.html
April 25, 2007
AFT NCLBlog: What is just right?
A new report confirms what we already know: NAEP’s definition of proficiency is too high, as shown by the fact that only a handful of Asian countries could do better than the U.S. On the other hand, here is general agreement that many states are setting their own proficiency bars too low. The extreme example is Mississippi, where 71 percent fewer are “proficient” on NAEP than on the state assessment. And Mississippi has plenty of company---every state has a gap between the percentage of students deemed proficient on NAEP and the percentage on the state assessment.
So, Goldilocks, what’s a just right standard of proficiency? And what to do about the current inconsistency? The "sunshine and shame" tactic of comparing NAEP results to state standards is getting policymakers' attention now but will get tiresome after years of little or no change. Allowing states to do what they want, including lowering proficiency standards, is equally problematic for a Congress and administration touting an education law that is supposedly built upon high standards and accountability.
I am not sure what "just right" is, but the AFT is recommending what could be a compromise until everyone figures it out: grants to consortia of states to develop common standards, assessments and curricula as a step toward consistency and higher quality.
So, Goldilocks, what’s a just right standard of proficiency? And what to do about the current inconsistency? The "sunshine and shame" tactic of comparing NAEP results to state standards is getting policymakers' attention now but will get tiresome after years of little or no change. Allowing states to do what they want, including lowering proficiency standards, is equally problematic for a Congress and administration touting an education law that is supposedly built upon high standards and accountability.
I am not sure what "just right" is, but the AFT is recommending what could be a compromise until everyone figures it out: grants to consortia of states to develop common standards, assessments and curricula as a step toward consistency and higher quality.
Arizona Star: AZ's test to gauge school performance
Tucson Region
AZ's tests to gauge school performance spur debate, criticism
arizona daily star
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 04.25.2007
PHOENIX — Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne's oft-repeated claim "Arizona students perform above the national average" is being scrutinized by some educators and national policy experts.
The claim was a mainstay of Horne's re-election campaign last year, but his persistent reference to the successful performance of Arizona students is fueling questions about the very national test he's referencing — the TerraNova.
The scrutiny includes questions about the way Arizona administers the exam, how the test questions are chosen and whether students and teachers are simply doing a better job figuring out what's on the test before they take it.
And some point to another exam — the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP — that shows Arizona students performing significantly below the national average.
For example, while the Horne-favored TerraNova test shows Arizona fourth-grade students doing better than 58 percent of students nationally, on the NAEP only 28 percent of Arizona students are considered proficient.
On reading, fourth-graders are in the 52nd percentile compared nationally, according to the TerraNova. But on the NAEP, only 24 percent are proficient.
"The TerraNova scores are implausibly high," says critic Matthew Ladner, vice president of research at the Goldwater Institute, a conservative think tank in Phoenix. "On TerraNova, they're knocking the ball out of the park, and on NAEP they're below average."
But Horne takes the opposite view, saying, "I consider NAEP very unreliable."
Horne points to the fact that the NAEP uses a smaller sample size than TerraNova, the questions aren't necessarily aligned with Arizona's school standards and some states have different rules about testing students who are learning English.
In Arizona, English learners must be tested in English, not their native language.
What's normal?
The TerraNova is what is referred to in the education world as a national norm-reference test.
The testing company — in this case, California-based CTB McGraw-Hill — sets a national "norm" for student performance. Then students in Arizona and elsewhere take the test and are graded against that norm.
Voter-approved Proposition 203, which passed in 2000, requires the state to administer such a test.
NAEP is a standards-based test, where an average score is determined and comparisons are made.
The problem with the TerraNova results, some critics say, is Arizona administers it as part of the AIMS test, a high-stakes exam used to measure school and student performance. Poor performance can result in state and/or federal intervention.
Some questions on the joint text only count for AIMS, some for TerraNova and some for both. Which are which is separated out in the grading.
Because Arizona puts so much emphasis on AIMS, preparation for the test can also influence — and throw off— the Terra, some educators say.
"The kids are just going to be more likely to take those tests seriously," says Jerry D'Agostino, a University of Arizona associate professor of education who specializes in achievement testing.
But Horne argues that because the only AIMS scores that count are for high school students who must pass to graduate, there is no extra pressure on students in lower grades to do well.
The pressure is on the system, not the students.
But Thomas Haladyna, a professor of education at Arizona State University who has helped steer Arizona's testing policies by serving on committees since the 1980s, argues the pressure translates to students. "AIMS is high-stakes," he said.
"I think there are legitimate differences of opinion, but I don't think that's one," said Horne.
Horne also cites the college entrance exams — SAT and ACT — to make the case that Arizona students are doing better than the national average.
But those scores can be misleading, Ladner and others say, since only select, college-bound students take them.
Turning up the heat
Education experts say that the practice of marrying standardized tests with school accountability measures has unintentionally led to a "Lake Wobegon effect," where everyone claims to be above average.
"The really fundamental problem is when all you do is tell people they are accountable for scores on one test, and turn up the heat on that test, you are setting up the opportunity to cut corners," says Daniel Koretz, a professor of education at Harvard University and a leading expert on achievement testing.
In Arizona, some policy experts, including Goldwater's Ladner, have criticized changes made to the AIMS test over the years — changes he and others say made it look like students are doing better but only made the test easier.
Despite the disagreements, most agree Arizona should have a way of measuring students against those in other states.
John Wright, president of the Arizona Education Association, the state's teacher lobby, says the priority should be using tests to identify if students are learning the standards Arizona has set.
"That is not identical state to state," he said.
Horne says the $2.1 million spent every year on administering the TerraNova is money well spent.
But as questions loom, others wonder what the test results are really showing parents, students and educators.
Koretz asks, "Are kids picking up skills that they still have after they leave the school system?"
● Contact reporter Daniel Scarpinato at 307-4339 or dscarpinato@azstarnet.com.
4 Comments on this storyAP: MP3s bring music into delivery room
Hey Siobhan did you send this to your boy Ross?
Published April 24, 2007
MP3s bring music into delivery room
Technology makes it easier for mothers to pick what to listen to during childbirth.
Karen Hawkins
The Associated Press
Music has always been an important part of Destiny Martin's life. So it made sense to bring her first child into the world with song. She even had the perfect one selected: the Beatles' "In My Life."
Published April 24, 2007
MP3s bring music into delivery room
Technology makes it easier for mothers to pick what to listen to during childbirth.
Karen Hawkins
The Associated Press
Music has always been an important part of Destiny Martin's life. So it made sense to bring her first child into the world with song. She even had the perfect one selected: the Beatles' "In My Life."
The mix CD she prepared for her delivery had a similar sampling of loving and peaceful music, from "Seasons of Love" from the Rent soundtrack to "What a Wonderful World" by Louis Armstrong.
So three years later, Martin, 29, still finds it funny that baby Jolie entered the world not to Paul McCartney but to Metallica.
Martin had put the song "Nothing Else Matters" on the CD as a nod to her metal- loving husband, and that's what happened to be playing when their daughter was born. Martin said she finds the song's message appropriate.
"Nothing else matters, that's the whole point," she said. "It never works out like you expect it."
Martin's efforts to usher her child into the world with music, down to having the song selected, are yet another way mothers are customizing their labor and delivery environment. And hospitals are doing their part to accommodate the trend, from piping in music to providing CD players or allowing parents to bring iPod docks and laptops.
Childbirth experts say couples are increasingly making music a part of their births, and the emergence of MP3 players allow them to draw from a wide variety of songs and to even put together playlists for different stages of birth.
Tina Cassidy, author of "Birth: The Surprising History of How We Are Born," (Atlantic Monthly Press, 2006) said it's natural for women to want music around them during labor.
"If you go way back into history, singing was always a part of giving birth," Cassidy said.
In cultures around the world, a birth was traditionally a social time for women, who would gather to offer their support to the mother, including singing hymns and other songs of encouragement, she said. Sometimes the mother would even sing along.
Today's moms are using music in a variety of ways in the delivery room, bringing everything from meditative tapes to help them relax, to Salt-N-Pepa to help them, literally, "Push It."
Siobhan Mueller, 36, of Arlington, Va., made an iTunes playlist of her favorite mellow comfort songs for the birth of her first child, including a W Hotel CD that conjured memories of a great trip she and her husband had taken.
"I had heard that this whole 'child birth thing' was painful, so I knew that I wanted to be comfortable, and bring as many comfort items as possible," Mueller said.
And a comfortable mother can make for a healthier baby.
"The benefits are that (music) does, in a lot of patients, blunt the stress response, which actually can contribute to some problems during labor, such as decreased blood flow to the fetus," said Dr. Fred Schwartz, an Atlanta physician considered a pioneer in using music as medicine.
Schwartz is the producer of Transitions, a series of CDs that use instrumental music, actual womb sounds and a soothing woman's voice to help infants sleep and women relax during childbirth.
"Music is extremely effective to decrease their discomfort," he said.
Hospitals allowing women to create their own birthing environment is a far cry from the days when women were expected to give birth alone, cut off from their husbands and at the mercy of male doctors, Cassidy said.
"We're so used to controlling every aspect of our lives, and birth is the final frontier of that," Cassidy said. "We go into it with this feeling of control and of keeping the same level of control we have in our work life."
That need to be in control can get moms into trouble, however, especially if they think the birth will go precisely according to their plans. Trying to deliver to a certain song is a sweet idea but highly unlikely, experts said.
"You're cruising for a bruising if you're laying your expectations on everything going by the numbers," said Scott Adler, managing editor of BabyCenter.com.
Cassidy was even more direct.
"At the end of the day, the best laid plans tend to go out the window — along with the iPod," she said.
But as Martin and others have learned, the music fates are not without a sense of humor.
Lua Hancock, 31, of Davie, Fla., was in the midst of having an emergency C-section with her first child when she decided to focus on the music coming from the anesthesiologist's radio to calm her nerves.
The song playing?
"The First Cut is the Deepest" by Sheryl Crow.
"At the time I even saw the humor in it," Hancock said, still chuckling three years later.
"I'm due in May with my second child, and that song will definitely be on (my iPod mix)," she said. "That's my C-section song."
White House: President Bush Encourages the Reauthorization of No Child Left Behind
The return of "soft bigotry of low expectations" and their favorite stat "nine-year-olds have made more progress in five years than in the previous 28 years combined on these tests in reading." Also see NYT coverage
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
April 24, 2007
President Bush Encourages the Reauthorization of No Child Left Behind
Harlem Village Academy Charter School
New York, New York
White House News
Fact Sheet: No Child Left Behind: Keeping America Competitive in the 21st Century
In Focus: Education
2:00 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you for the warm welcome. I appreciate you making a Texan feel right at home here in Harlem. (Laughter.) I have had a remarkable experience here at Harlem Village Academy Charter School.
You know, it's interesting, one of the children said, why here, why did you come here, Mr. President? Of all the schools in the country, why this school? And my answer is because the President has an opportunity to herald excellence, and I have seized that opportunity. I have come to a school where some may say these children can't possibly exceed high standards -- but, in fact, they are. Secondly, I wanted to be nice to the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. (Applause.)
I think any time I can thank a teacher, I need to do so. So for the teachers here, thank you for teaching, for the principals -- (applause.) Interestingly enough, this week is called National Charter School Week -- I mean, next week is called National Charter School Week, so a good way to herald National Charter School Week is come to a charter school, particularly one that's working. I'm a big believer in charter schools. I think charter schools make a lot of sense, whether it be here in Harlem or anywhere else in the United States.
And so a way to express support for a charter school is to come to one that's working and say to people, if you find excellence, you might want to take a look at why; what is it about this school that enables a parent to say I really enjoy sending my child here. Or what is it about this school where a child looks at the President and says, I don't mind being tested, because I know that they're going to help correct problems early, before it's too late. This school is working, and I appreciate you letting me come to talk about not only this school, but also about an important piece of legislation called the No Child Left Behind Act.
Before I do so, I thank Deborah for being what I call an educational entrepreneur. That means that -- (applause.) So I said to Deborah -- you know, I've never met Deborah before, and I said, how did you get involved in this school? She had a personal tragedy, and rather than allowing the personal tragedy to drag her down, she said, I want to make a contribution. And I can't think of a better contribution than to help start a charter school -- as a matter of fact, not only one, but two. I also thought it was interesting, she said, if you're going to be somebody who helps start charter schools and works to make charter schools excellent, that you better be on the front lines of education. So she became the principal of this school.
If you're interested in helping your community -- whether you be an individual, such as a Deborah, or a corporation, for example -- promote school excellence, do something for the community in which you live. A lot of times if you wait for government, things won't happen. She's proven my case. She says, I want to be involved and I want to start some schools. Corporate America needs to take the same interest in local schools if they expect there to be a -- (applause) -- if we expect our country to realize its promise.
Mateo Myers introduces Dr. Kenny and introduces me. Mateo Myers. So I said to a lot of the kids here at this school, how many of you want to go to college? They all rose -- raised their hand. That's a good sign. In other words, this school believes in high expectations and putting in a child's mind the possibilities of achieving a dream.
I appreciate very much Joel Klein. You talk about a guy who has taken on a tough job, and in my judgment, my humble judgment, is doing it with excellence, is Joel Klein. (Applause.) As a result of that endorsement, he may never find work again in New York, but nevertheless -- (laughter.)
See, I love it when somebody heralds that which is working and takes on that which is not working. I like a man who says, the status quo is unacceptable when it's unacceptable, and is willing to do hard work all aimed at making sure every child gets a good education. And we appreciate the standard you've set, and appreciate the example you have shown, Joel.
I want thank Ed Lewis, Chairman of Village Academies. Ed Lewis is a successful businessman who, instead of taking his successes and disappearing, has taken his successes and used that which enabled him to be successful to plow back into a community. And that's an example a lot of other people need to see. (Applause.)
People say to me all the time, what can I do, Mr. President? How can I contribute? Well, if you want to contribute, work on school excellence. I can't think of a better way to contribute to the future of the United States than to promote alternatives if the school systems in your community aren't -- isn't working. In other words, just don't set the status quo if children are not meeting standards. Challenge that status quo, and do something about it.
I appreciate very much Nick Timpone, who is the principal
here at Harlem Village. (Applause.) That's a good sign. Like, I'd be worried about the silence, you know. (Laughter.) It turns out that good schools such as this have good principals, people who work hard, people who -- you know, motivate the teaching staff, people who listen to parents. And I appreciate you very much being at the center of this important school.
Traveling with me today is the Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings. I appreciate you coming, Madam Secretary. (Applause.) Her job is to work with local school districts so that the federal, state, and local relationship is a collaborative relationship that actually works and doesn't get in each other's way. And her job is to implement No Child Left Behind. And I couldn't have picked anybody better to do so.
I want to thank, again, Charlie Rangel. He is the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. (Applause.) You can imagine what it's like traveling in the presidential limousine down Adam Clayton Powell Boulevard hearing Rangel say, I was raised over here, and here's the hotel I worked in when I was a boy. You know, the people in Harlem have got a fantastic Congressman in Charles Rangel. He cares deeply -- (applause.) He can agree with me a few more times, but -- (laughter) -- I don't expect him to. But I do expect him to do what he does, which is work for the good of the country. And I'm really proud to be with you. Thanks for coming, Charlie. (Applause.)
Peter King, Congressman Peter King and Vito Fossella is with us today. Both of these congressmen care about education. (Applause.) I appreciate the members of the New York Charter School community who have taken time to come. I want to thank the Harlem community leaders who have joined us today. Thanks for -- thanks for letting me be here. I particularly want to thank the students for letting me come by to say, hello. I've really enjoyed my trip here, and you've impressed me.
I do want to say something about Virginia Tech, the Virginia Tech community. It's a community that still hurts, and the people in Blacksburg, Virginia, must know that citizens, whether they be in Harlem or anywhere else in the country, still hold those folks in their prayers.
Schools should be places of safety. They should be a sanctuary of learning. And when that sanctuary is violated, the impact is felt all across the country. It's felt in every classroom. And I know -- I know you've worried about such violence here, as a result of the Virginia Tech. And I want to thank the principals and teachers for reacting and helping calm nerves and assure people that this is a place of safety and a sanctuary for learning.
I have asked people in my administration to travel around the country, to listen to folks at the state and local level to determine what lessons can be learned from the Virginia Tech horror. Margaret Spellings is going to be a part of this team, as is the Justice Department, Health and Human Services. We, of course, will provide whatever assistance we can to Virginia Tech; but we also want to be a part of a review of broader questions that have been raised.
And so they're going to travel the country. They're going to talk with mental health experts and educators and state and local officials, and come back and summarize what they have learned, and we'll share the summaries of what they've learned, all in the hopes of learning lessons from a horrible moment. It was -- it's a tough time down there.
I want to talk about schools, and I want to talk about educational excellence for every single child. And I want to emphasize that in my remarks, my hopes of the public school systems in every state and every community excel. That's our goal. The public school systems have provided great opportunities for a lot of Americans. One of the great assets of the United States of America is a public school system that works. (Applause.)
I also believe that parental involvement is an important aspect of having a public school system that works, and I like the fact that charter schools encourage parental involvement. (Applause.) I like to be able to sit with parents and say, I have chose school for my child -- chosen the school for my child -- I could use a little extra help. (Laughter.)
Isn't that an interesting concept? I made the choice to send my child here. That has got a nice ring to it, as far as I'm concerned. I appreciate the fact that the teachers involve the parents in the child's education. There's a lot of information flows that take place between the parent and the child, and the child and the teacher. I appreciate the fact that teachers give parents their cell phone numbers. I think that's an important way to make sure parents are involved in the education of their children.
I appreciate the fact that folks here set high standards. I know this isn't all that profound, but when you set low standards you get bad results. I used to call it the soft bigotry of low expectations. You kind of say, well, certain people can't learn, therefore let's make sure the standards are low. This school challenges that soft bigotry and insists upon high standards. And guess what? That's what parents want. Parents want their children challenged. Parents believe that high standards are good for their children.
I appreciate the fact that people go to school here from 7:30 a.m. until 5:45 p.m. (Applause.) That's innovation. That means somebody here is saying, I'm going to adjust the time the children go to school so that we can achieve high standards. I like the idea of schools having flexibility to meet the needs of their parents and their children. Maybe some schools around the country couldn't have that kind of innovation because the rules and the process say, well, you can't adjust that way. What I like are schools that focus on results, and then adjust the process to meet the results.
I appreciate the fact that parents choose this school because it's safe. That's what parents want -- they want safety for their children. I met with Vanessa Freeman; her daughter, Krystal, goes to this school. She was struggling at her old school. The teacher said she was acting up in class in the old school. In other words, the parent, Vanessa, recognized there was a problem and -- my mother probably got a few of those calls, too -- (laughter) -- but, anyway, Vanessa transferred Krystal here to the Harlem Village Academy. She's learning algebra. She said her math teacher -- her math teacher says her progress has given her goose bumps.
In other words, something has changed here at this school. In other words, there is progress being made because the parent had an option to choose something different when the other school wasn't working. It's a powerful catalyst for reform, by the way, to give people those options. That's why I'm a strong supporter of the charter school movement, I appreciate providing different options.
I want you to know that it is a national objective, an important national goal to make sure every child realizes his or her full potential. And that is the whole philosophy behind the No Child Left Behind Act. You know, when we put our mind to it, actually Republicans and Democrats can work together -- we did so to get this important piece of legislation passed.
The philosophy behind the bill is this: When the federal government spends money, we should expect results. And by the way, when the state spends money, it ought to expect results, too. Instead of just spending money and hoping for the best, the core philosophy of the No Child Left Behind says, we'll spend money and we expect you to measure and we expect you to post your scores and we expect you to meet standards. Because if you don't, you're failing in your obligation to educate every child.
Now, if you believe certain children can't learn, then you shouldn't measure. In other words, if you think that, well, it's just a hopeless exercise, let's just move kids through the school system, then that makes sense not to measure -- why would you -- why waste the time. I believe every child can learn, and therefore I believe every school should measure in return for federal money. And then put the scores up early.
I'll tell you why: I want the parents to be involved with education. And one way you're involved with education is you're able to compare the test scores of your school to your neighborhood school. It's an interesting way to determine whether or not high standards are being met. In some cases a parent will say, this is the greatest school possible, and, yet, when the test scores get posted the reality comes home.
Secondly, I don't see how you can solve problems unless you measure problems. How do you know whether a child needs extra help in reading unless you measure? In other words, the accountability system is step one of a diagnostic process that ends up making sure that each child gets the help that's needed to meet standards, high standards. And so the No Child Left Behind Act, a simple way of describing it says if you set high standards, we'll give you money, but we expect you to meet those standards. And if not, there ought to be different options for the parents.
I appreciate the results of this school. In other words, it's interesting, isn't it, that the President can come and say you've got good results here -- because you measure. Teachers use the assessment to see what concepts students are mastering, and which concepts ought to be continued and which concepts ought to be dropped. The data from this school that you -- as a result of measurement helps teachers tailor their lesson plans to the specific needs of the child. Isn't that interesting? The education system tailoring the needs to fit the -- tailor the curriculum to fit the needs of the child? That may sound simple, but it's an unusual concept for a lot of schools.
The school has a rapid response accountability system. In other words, you don't measure once and just kind of hope for the best for the remainder of the year -- you track student progress closely from week to week. When student struggle, they receive one-on-one tutoring during the school day. If a child struggles, there is extra help on a Saturday, hence, No Child Left Behind. As opposed to the old system, where you just shuffled children through and hope for the best at the end, this school measures on a regular basis to make sure that we're dealing not with guesswork, but with results.
I appreciate the fact that this school opened in the fall of 2003. I want you to hear this statistic: During the first year, less than 20 percent of the 5th graders could meet state standards in math, only 20 percent -- (applause) -- wait a minute, that's nothing to applaud for. (Laughter.) That's, like, pitiful. Last year, 96 percent of the students -- (applause) -- from the same class were meeting state standards. One of the students was Kevin Smith. His mother says that when Kevin came to the Harlem Village Academy in 2003, he struggled. And now, she says, "He can do it with his eyes closed." That's a math student right there. (Laughter.) Deborah Kenny says, "Our school proves that children can achieve grade level even when they start behind." And that's the spirit.
We can see that No Child Left Behind is working nationwide. There's an achievement gap in America that better be closed if we want America to remain the leader of the world. It is unacceptable to me and it should be unacceptable to people across the country we have an achievement gap in America. (Applause.)
It's amazing what happens, though, when you measure. The percentage of New York City 4th graders meeting state standards in reading has increased by more than 12 percent over five years. The percentage of 4th graders doing math at grade level has increased by 19 points. Congratulations, Joel, for holding people to account. (Applause.) I know, people say, I don't like to test, you're testing too much. I don't see how you can solve problems unless you diagnose the problems. I don't see how you can meet high standards unless you test.
I appreciate the fact that nationwide, nine-year-olds have made more progress in five years than in the previous 28 years combined on these tests in reading. How about that? In other words, we're beginning to make progress early. The pipeline is beginning to be full of little readers that are competent readers. And the fundamental question is, what do we do in junior high and high school? Do we keep the progress going, or do we fall off when it comes to holding people to account?
I believe strongly that we ought to bring the same standards to high school that we've had in elementary -- one through eight, or three through eight. That's what I believe. I believe if you want to make sure a high school diploma means something, you better have high accountability in high schools. We want the high school diploma to say, this person is ready to compete in a world in which the graduates are going to be competing with Chinese or Indian workers. In other words, it matters what happens now in our schools, more so than ever before.
And so part of the initiative to make sure that we continue to set high standards is to bring these standards to high school. I believe strongly that we ought to -- the federal government has a role in expanding advanced placement courses all across the United States of America. I'm a big believer in AP. I think AP holds people to account, and challenges people to realize their full potential.
We've got an effort right now to encourage 30,000 math and science professionals to become part-time teachers. Why would you encourage math and science professionals? Because if you've got the capability of competing globally in math and science, you're going to be getting a good job, is why. It's a practical application of U.S. resources to encourage 30,000 math and science professionals to enter classrooms to encourage people to be interested in math and science.
You know, I met a math teacher here. The man went to Harvard -- now, we're not going to hold that against him, but nevertheless -- (laughter) -- he's out there somewhere. (Laughter.) He's teaching math. He'd been doing a lot of things, and he's teaching math right here at this important charter school, because he understands the importance of teaching a child math, in terms of that child being able to find good work and be a productive citizen in this challenging 21st century.
Here are some ways we can improve the No Child Left Behind Act. My funding request has money for underperforming schools, when you recognize there's failure and these schools need help. I'm a strong believer in making sure that money follows children. And so when we find a child failing in meeting high standards, there ought to be extra tutorial money for that child. In other words, the measurement system not only helps determine who's falling behind, but it helps determine whether or not that child ought to get extra money now, early, before it's too late. That's been an integral part of No Child Left Behind. It's going to be a significant part of No Child Left Behind as we go forward.
I believe strongly that we've got to make sure that we -- if a school just won't change and continues to fail, that principals ought to be given additional staffing freedom. In other words, there ought to be flexibility -- more flexibility as opposed to less flexibility when a school fails.
I think we ought to empower mayors and other elected officials to take a more active hand in improving their schools. If you find failure, it's important to do something differently. And one way to do so is to encourage more power in the hands of our mayors to break through bureaucratic logjams that are preventing people from achieving educational excellence.
And we ought to make it easier for officials to reorganize failing schools into charter schools. We just cannot allow the status quo to exist when we find failure.
Another way we can help is to encourage our nation's best teachers to take jobs in some of the toughest neighborhoods. And so we proposed increasing the investment in the Teacher Incentive Fund to nearly $200 million next year. In other words, there's a way for the federal government to encourage teachers to take on jobs that are important jobs, and making sure that every child gets a good education with a good teacher. The fund rewards teachers who defy low expectations. It provides incentives for people to come into districts all around the United States to challenge the softy bigotry that I was talking about.
Third, parents of students in underperforming schools must have better choices. You find your child stuck in a school that won't teach and won't change, you ought to have a different option. I can't think of a better way to get somebody's attention that we're tired of mediocrity than to give a parent an option. I think there's a better -- no better way to send a signal that folks are tired of mediocrity when it comes to our classrooms than say to a parent, you should have a different opportunity for your child, whether it be a charter school -- (applause) -- or a better performing public school.
In Washington, D.C., we did an interesting -- made an interesting initiative, and that is, is that we provided scholarship money for poor students to go to any school they wanted. I like that idea. I think it makes a lot of sense. You know, we have Pell grants for poor students to go to college. I think we ought to have federal taxpayer's money to go to poor parents so they can choose a different type of school if they're dissatisfied with the school their child is going to. And so I would strongly urge Congress to reauthorize and refund the D.C. School Choice Program, and take a good look at our program that intends to expand that program.
I do want to congratulate Governor Spitzer and Mayor Bloomberg for working with the Chancellor here to increase the number of charter schools here in New York. I appreciate the fact that they're taking a bold initiative. As I understand, they want to double the number of charter schools available for the students here in New York, and that's a good thing. You know, Margaret is going to help you, to the extent that she can. (Applause.)
So now we're in the process of rewriting this bill -- reauthorizing it. Here's my attitude about this: one, Congress shouldn't weaken the bill. It's working. The No Child Left Behind Act is working. These test scores are on the rise. Accountability makes a significant difference in educational excellence.
And so therefore, when Republicans and Democrats take a look at this bill, I strongly urge them to not weaken the bill, not to backslide, not to say, accountability isn't that important. It is important. We'll work with the school districts on flexibility when it comes to the accountability system. And I mean that there are certain ways that we can make this -- the accountability system actually work better than it's worked in the past.
But we will not allow this good piece of legislation to be weakened. And if you're a parent, you should insist that the No Child Left Behind Act remain a strong accountability tool so that every child in this country gets a good education. I'll reach out to both Republicans and Democrats again. Last time I signed the bill, I was on the stage with one of Charlie's good friends and colleagues, Congressman George Miller from California, Ted Kennedy, and two Republican colleagues of theirs. And it was -- we worked well together.
And so my pledge is that I will continue to reach out and work with the new leadership of the Congress, all aimed at making sure this piece of legislation goes forward, and making sure it's funded, so that we can say, once again, we've got law in place that will enable us to give every child as good an education as possible so that not one child, not one, is left behind in our country.
It's such an honor to be here. I love coming to a place where people defy expectations. (Applause.) I love coming to a place where you said, we're going to try to do something in a different way, that the status quo is not acceptable, so here we go. I love being with educational entrepreneurs, good principals, strong teachers, caring parents, and students who are going to be leading this nation in the 21st century.
God bless. (Applause)
END 2:29 P.M. EDT
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
April 24, 2007
President Bush Encourages the Reauthorization of No Child Left Behind
Harlem Village Academy Charter School
New York, New York
White House News
Fact Sheet: No Child Left Behind: Keeping America Competitive in the 21st Century
In Focus: Education
2:00 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you for the warm welcome. I appreciate you making a Texan feel right at home here in Harlem. (Laughter.) I have had a remarkable experience here at Harlem Village Academy Charter School.
You know, it's interesting, one of the children said, why here, why did you come here, Mr. President? Of all the schools in the country, why this school? And my answer is because the President has an opportunity to herald excellence, and I have seized that opportunity. I have come to a school where some may say these children can't possibly exceed high standards -- but, in fact, they are. Secondly, I wanted to be nice to the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. (Applause.)
I think any time I can thank a teacher, I need to do so. So for the teachers here, thank you for teaching, for the principals -- (applause.) Interestingly enough, this week is called National Charter School Week -- I mean, next week is called National Charter School Week, so a good way to herald National Charter School Week is come to a charter school, particularly one that's working. I'm a big believer in charter schools. I think charter schools make a lot of sense, whether it be here in Harlem or anywhere else in the United States.
And so a way to express support for a charter school is to come to one that's working and say to people, if you find excellence, you might want to take a look at why; what is it about this school that enables a parent to say I really enjoy sending my child here. Or what is it about this school where a child looks at the President and says, I don't mind being tested, because I know that they're going to help correct problems early, before it's too late. This school is working, and I appreciate you letting me come to talk about not only this school, but also about an important piece of legislation called the No Child Left Behind Act.
Before I do so, I thank Deborah for being what I call an educational entrepreneur. That means that -- (applause.) So I said to Deborah -- you know, I've never met Deborah before, and I said, how did you get involved in this school? She had a personal tragedy, and rather than allowing the personal tragedy to drag her down, she said, I want to make a contribution. And I can't think of a better contribution than to help start a charter school -- as a matter of fact, not only one, but two. I also thought it was interesting, she said, if you're going to be somebody who helps start charter schools and works to make charter schools excellent, that you better be on the front lines of education. So she became the principal of this school.
If you're interested in helping your community -- whether you be an individual, such as a Deborah, or a corporation, for example -- promote school excellence, do something for the community in which you live. A lot of times if you wait for government, things won't happen. She's proven my case. She says, I want to be involved and I want to start some schools. Corporate America needs to take the same interest in local schools if they expect there to be a -- (applause) -- if we expect our country to realize its promise.
Mateo Myers introduces Dr. Kenny and introduces me. Mateo Myers. So I said to a lot of the kids here at this school, how many of you want to go to college? They all rose -- raised their hand. That's a good sign. In other words, this school believes in high expectations and putting in a child's mind the possibilities of achieving a dream.
I appreciate very much Joel Klein. You talk about a guy who has taken on a tough job, and in my judgment, my humble judgment, is doing it with excellence, is Joel Klein. (Applause.) As a result of that endorsement, he may never find work again in New York, but nevertheless -- (laughter.)
See, I love it when somebody heralds that which is working and takes on that which is not working. I like a man who says, the status quo is unacceptable when it's unacceptable, and is willing to do hard work all aimed at making sure every child gets a good education. And we appreciate the standard you've set, and appreciate the example you have shown, Joel.
I want thank Ed Lewis, Chairman of Village Academies. Ed Lewis is a successful businessman who, instead of taking his successes and disappearing, has taken his successes and used that which enabled him to be successful to plow back into a community. And that's an example a lot of other people need to see. (Applause.)
People say to me all the time, what can I do, Mr. President? How can I contribute? Well, if you want to contribute, work on school excellence. I can't think of a better way to contribute to the future of the United States than to promote alternatives if the school systems in your community aren't -- isn't working. In other words, just don't set the status quo if children are not meeting standards. Challenge that status quo, and do something about it.
I appreciate very much Nick Timpone, who is the principal
here at Harlem Village. (Applause.) That's a good sign. Like, I'd be worried about the silence, you know. (Laughter.) It turns out that good schools such as this have good principals, people who work hard, people who -- you know, motivate the teaching staff, people who listen to parents. And I appreciate you very much being at the center of this important school.
Traveling with me today is the Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings. I appreciate you coming, Madam Secretary. (Applause.) Her job is to work with local school districts so that the federal, state, and local relationship is a collaborative relationship that actually works and doesn't get in each other's way. And her job is to implement No Child Left Behind. And I couldn't have picked anybody better to do so.
I want to thank, again, Charlie Rangel. He is the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. (Applause.) You can imagine what it's like traveling in the presidential limousine down Adam Clayton Powell Boulevard hearing Rangel say, I was raised over here, and here's the hotel I worked in when I was a boy. You know, the people in Harlem have got a fantastic Congressman in Charles Rangel. He cares deeply -- (applause.) He can agree with me a few more times, but -- (laughter) -- I don't expect him to. But I do expect him to do what he does, which is work for the good of the country. And I'm really proud to be with you. Thanks for coming, Charlie. (Applause.)
Peter King, Congressman Peter King and Vito Fossella is with us today. Both of these congressmen care about education. (Applause.) I appreciate the members of the New York Charter School community who have taken time to come. I want to thank the Harlem community leaders who have joined us today. Thanks for -- thanks for letting me be here. I particularly want to thank the students for letting me come by to say, hello. I've really enjoyed my trip here, and you've impressed me.
I do want to say something about Virginia Tech, the Virginia Tech community. It's a community that still hurts, and the people in Blacksburg, Virginia, must know that citizens, whether they be in Harlem or anywhere else in the country, still hold those folks in their prayers.
Schools should be places of safety. They should be a sanctuary of learning. And when that sanctuary is violated, the impact is felt all across the country. It's felt in every classroom. And I know -- I know you've worried about such violence here, as a result of the Virginia Tech. And I want to thank the principals and teachers for reacting and helping calm nerves and assure people that this is a place of safety and a sanctuary for learning.
I have asked people in my administration to travel around the country, to listen to folks at the state and local level to determine what lessons can be learned from the Virginia Tech horror. Margaret Spellings is going to be a part of this team, as is the Justice Department, Health and Human Services. We, of course, will provide whatever assistance we can to Virginia Tech; but we also want to be a part of a review of broader questions that have been raised.
And so they're going to travel the country. They're going to talk with mental health experts and educators and state and local officials, and come back and summarize what they have learned, and we'll share the summaries of what they've learned, all in the hopes of learning lessons from a horrible moment. It was -- it's a tough time down there.
I want to talk about schools, and I want to talk about educational excellence for every single child. And I want to emphasize that in my remarks, my hopes of the public school systems in every state and every community excel. That's our goal. The public school systems have provided great opportunities for a lot of Americans. One of the great assets of the United States of America is a public school system that works. (Applause.)
I also believe that parental involvement is an important aspect of having a public school system that works, and I like the fact that charter schools encourage parental involvement. (Applause.) I like to be able to sit with parents and say, I have chose school for my child -- chosen the school for my child -- I could use a little extra help. (Laughter.)
Isn't that an interesting concept? I made the choice to send my child here. That has got a nice ring to it, as far as I'm concerned. I appreciate the fact that the teachers involve the parents in the child's education. There's a lot of information flows that take place between the parent and the child, and the child and the teacher. I appreciate the fact that teachers give parents their cell phone numbers. I think that's an important way to make sure parents are involved in the education of their children.
I appreciate the fact that folks here set high standards. I know this isn't all that profound, but when you set low standards you get bad results. I used to call it the soft bigotry of low expectations. You kind of say, well, certain people can't learn, therefore let's make sure the standards are low. This school challenges that soft bigotry and insists upon high standards. And guess what? That's what parents want. Parents want their children challenged. Parents believe that high standards are good for their children.
I appreciate the fact that people go to school here from 7:30 a.m. until 5:45 p.m. (Applause.) That's innovation. That means somebody here is saying, I'm going to adjust the time the children go to school so that we can achieve high standards. I like the idea of schools having flexibility to meet the needs of their parents and their children. Maybe some schools around the country couldn't have that kind of innovation because the rules and the process say, well, you can't adjust that way. What I like are schools that focus on results, and then adjust the process to meet the results.
I appreciate the fact that parents choose this school because it's safe. That's what parents want -- they want safety for their children. I met with Vanessa Freeman; her daughter, Krystal, goes to this school. She was struggling at her old school. The teacher said she was acting up in class in the old school. In other words, the parent, Vanessa, recognized there was a problem and -- my mother probably got a few of those calls, too -- (laughter) -- but, anyway, Vanessa transferred Krystal here to the Harlem Village Academy. She's learning algebra. She said her math teacher -- her math teacher says her progress has given her goose bumps.
In other words, something has changed here at this school. In other words, there is progress being made because the parent had an option to choose something different when the other school wasn't working. It's a powerful catalyst for reform, by the way, to give people those options. That's why I'm a strong supporter of the charter school movement, I appreciate providing different options.
I want you to know that it is a national objective, an important national goal to make sure every child realizes his or her full potential. And that is the whole philosophy behind the No Child Left Behind Act. You know, when we put our mind to it, actually Republicans and Democrats can work together -- we did so to get this important piece of legislation passed.
The philosophy behind the bill is this: When the federal government spends money, we should expect results. And by the way, when the state spends money, it ought to expect results, too. Instead of just spending money and hoping for the best, the core philosophy of the No Child Left Behind says, we'll spend money and we expect you to measure and we expect you to post your scores and we expect you to meet standards. Because if you don't, you're failing in your obligation to educate every child.
Now, if you believe certain children can't learn, then you shouldn't measure. In other words, if you think that, well, it's just a hopeless exercise, let's just move kids through the school system, then that makes sense not to measure -- why would you -- why waste the time. I believe every child can learn, and therefore I believe every school should measure in return for federal money. And then put the scores up early.
I'll tell you why: I want the parents to be involved with education. And one way you're involved with education is you're able to compare the test scores of your school to your neighborhood school. It's an interesting way to determine whether or not high standards are being met. In some cases a parent will say, this is the greatest school possible, and, yet, when the test scores get posted the reality comes home.
Secondly, I don't see how you can solve problems unless you measure problems. How do you know whether a child needs extra help in reading unless you measure? In other words, the accountability system is step one of a diagnostic process that ends up making sure that each child gets the help that's needed to meet standards, high standards. And so the No Child Left Behind Act, a simple way of describing it says if you set high standards, we'll give you money, but we expect you to meet those standards. And if not, there ought to be different options for the parents.
I appreciate the results of this school. In other words, it's interesting, isn't it, that the President can come and say you've got good results here -- because you measure. Teachers use the assessment to see what concepts students are mastering, and which concepts ought to be continued and which concepts ought to be dropped. The data from this school that you -- as a result of measurement helps teachers tailor their lesson plans to the specific needs of the child. Isn't that interesting? The education system tailoring the needs to fit the -- tailor the curriculum to fit the needs of the child? That may sound simple, but it's an unusual concept for a lot of schools.
The school has a rapid response accountability system. In other words, you don't measure once and just kind of hope for the best for the remainder of the year -- you track student progress closely from week to week. When student struggle, they receive one-on-one tutoring during the school day. If a child struggles, there is extra help on a Saturday, hence, No Child Left Behind. As opposed to the old system, where you just shuffled children through and hope for the best at the end, this school measures on a regular basis to make sure that we're dealing not with guesswork, but with results.
I appreciate the fact that this school opened in the fall of 2003. I want you to hear this statistic: During the first year, less than 20 percent of the 5th graders could meet state standards in math, only 20 percent -- (applause) -- wait a minute, that's nothing to applaud for. (Laughter.) That's, like, pitiful. Last year, 96 percent of the students -- (applause) -- from the same class were meeting state standards. One of the students was Kevin Smith. His mother says that when Kevin came to the Harlem Village Academy in 2003, he struggled. And now, she says, "He can do it with his eyes closed." That's a math student right there. (Laughter.) Deborah Kenny says, "Our school proves that children can achieve grade level even when they start behind." And that's the spirit.
We can see that No Child Left Behind is working nationwide. There's an achievement gap in America that better be closed if we want America to remain the leader of the world. It is unacceptable to me and it should be unacceptable to people across the country we have an achievement gap in America. (Applause.)
It's amazing what happens, though, when you measure. The percentage of New York City 4th graders meeting state standards in reading has increased by more than 12 percent over five years. The percentage of 4th graders doing math at grade level has increased by 19 points. Congratulations, Joel, for holding people to account. (Applause.) I know, people say, I don't like to test, you're testing too much. I don't see how you can solve problems unless you diagnose the problems. I don't see how you can meet high standards unless you test.
I appreciate the fact that nationwide, nine-year-olds have made more progress in five years than in the previous 28 years combined on these tests in reading. How about that? In other words, we're beginning to make progress early. The pipeline is beginning to be full of little readers that are competent readers. And the fundamental question is, what do we do in junior high and high school? Do we keep the progress going, or do we fall off when it comes to holding people to account?
I believe strongly that we ought to bring the same standards to high school that we've had in elementary -- one through eight, or three through eight. That's what I believe. I believe if you want to make sure a high school diploma means something, you better have high accountability in high schools. We want the high school diploma to say, this person is ready to compete in a world in which the graduates are going to be competing with Chinese or Indian workers. In other words, it matters what happens now in our schools, more so than ever before.
And so part of the initiative to make sure that we continue to set high standards is to bring these standards to high school. I believe strongly that we ought to -- the federal government has a role in expanding advanced placement courses all across the United States of America. I'm a big believer in AP. I think AP holds people to account, and challenges people to realize their full potential.
We've got an effort right now to encourage 30,000 math and science professionals to become part-time teachers. Why would you encourage math and science professionals? Because if you've got the capability of competing globally in math and science, you're going to be getting a good job, is why. It's a practical application of U.S. resources to encourage 30,000 math and science professionals to enter classrooms to encourage people to be interested in math and science.
You know, I met a math teacher here. The man went to Harvard -- now, we're not going to hold that against him, but nevertheless -- (laughter) -- he's out there somewhere. (Laughter.) He's teaching math. He'd been doing a lot of things, and he's teaching math right here at this important charter school, because he understands the importance of teaching a child math, in terms of that child being able to find good work and be a productive citizen in this challenging 21st century.
Here are some ways we can improve the No Child Left Behind Act. My funding request has money for underperforming schools, when you recognize there's failure and these schools need help. I'm a strong believer in making sure that money follows children. And so when we find a child failing in meeting high standards, there ought to be extra tutorial money for that child. In other words, the measurement system not only helps determine who's falling behind, but it helps determine whether or not that child ought to get extra money now, early, before it's too late. That's been an integral part of No Child Left Behind. It's going to be a significant part of No Child Left Behind as we go forward.
I believe strongly that we've got to make sure that we -- if a school just won't change and continues to fail, that principals ought to be given additional staffing freedom. In other words, there ought to be flexibility -- more flexibility as opposed to less flexibility when a school fails.
I think we ought to empower mayors and other elected officials to take a more active hand in improving their schools. If you find failure, it's important to do something differently. And one way to do so is to encourage more power in the hands of our mayors to break through bureaucratic logjams that are preventing people from achieving educational excellence.
And we ought to make it easier for officials to reorganize failing schools into charter schools. We just cannot allow the status quo to exist when we find failure.
Another way we can help is to encourage our nation's best teachers to take jobs in some of the toughest neighborhoods. And so we proposed increasing the investment in the Teacher Incentive Fund to nearly $200 million next year. In other words, there's a way for the federal government to encourage teachers to take on jobs that are important jobs, and making sure that every child gets a good education with a good teacher. The fund rewards teachers who defy low expectations. It provides incentives for people to come into districts all around the United States to challenge the softy bigotry that I was talking about.
Third, parents of students in underperforming schools must have better choices. You find your child stuck in a school that won't teach and won't change, you ought to have a different option. I can't think of a better way to get somebody's attention that we're tired of mediocrity than to give a parent an option. I think there's a better -- no better way to send a signal that folks are tired of mediocrity when it comes to our classrooms than say to a parent, you should have a different opportunity for your child, whether it be a charter school -- (applause) -- or a better performing public school.
In Washington, D.C., we did an interesting -- made an interesting initiative, and that is, is that we provided scholarship money for poor students to go to any school they wanted. I like that idea. I think it makes a lot of sense. You know, we have Pell grants for poor students to go to college. I think we ought to have federal taxpayer's money to go to poor parents so they can choose a different type of school if they're dissatisfied with the school their child is going to. And so I would strongly urge Congress to reauthorize and refund the D.C. School Choice Program, and take a good look at our program that intends to expand that program.
I do want to congratulate Governor Spitzer and Mayor Bloomberg for working with the Chancellor here to increase the number of charter schools here in New York. I appreciate the fact that they're taking a bold initiative. As I understand, they want to double the number of charter schools available for the students here in New York, and that's a good thing. You know, Margaret is going to help you, to the extent that she can. (Applause.)
So now we're in the process of rewriting this bill -- reauthorizing it. Here's my attitude about this: one, Congress shouldn't weaken the bill. It's working. The No Child Left Behind Act is working. These test scores are on the rise. Accountability makes a significant difference in educational excellence.
And so therefore, when Republicans and Democrats take a look at this bill, I strongly urge them to not weaken the bill, not to backslide, not to say, accountability isn't that important. It is important. We'll work with the school districts on flexibility when it comes to the accountability system. And I mean that there are certain ways that we can make this -- the accountability system actually work better than it's worked in the past.
But we will not allow this good piece of legislation to be weakened. And if you're a parent, you should insist that the No Child Left Behind Act remain a strong accountability tool so that every child in this country gets a good education. I'll reach out to both Republicans and Democrats again. Last time I signed the bill, I was on the stage with one of Charlie's good friends and colleagues, Congressman George Miller from California, Ted Kennedy, and two Republican colleagues of theirs. And it was -- we worked well together.
And so my pledge is that I will continue to reach out and work with the new leadership of the Congress, all aimed at making sure this piece of legislation goes forward, and making sure it's funded, so that we can say, once again, we've got law in place that will enable us to give every child as good an education as possible so that not one child, not one, is left behind in our country.
It's such an honor to be here. I love coming to a place where people defy expectations. (Applause.) I love coming to a place where you said, we're going to try to do something in a different way, that the status quo is not acceptable, so here we go. I love being with educational entrepreneurs, good principals, strong teachers, caring parents, and students who are going to be leading this nation in the 21st century.
God bless. (Applause)
END 2:29 P.M. EDT
Ed Week: State Lawmakers Weigh in on National Standards
State Lawmakers Weigh in on National Standards
Supporters of national standards have found a fresh carrot to dangle before state legislators, who usually resist any federal reach into their business: more flexibility in implementing the federal No Child Left Behind Act, in exchange for embracing 50-state academic standards.
And the Denver-based National Conference of State Legislatures, which debated the issue of national standards at its spring meeting in Washington, was working to hammer out a stand on the issue as it prepared to adjourn its annual spring forum here late last week.
The way to fix problems with the NCLB law, which is up for renewal this year, is with a “grand bargain,” Michael J. Petrilli, a vice president with the Washington-based Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, told legislators at a panel discussion April 19. “We should have clear national standards and expectations and, in return, we should have serious flexibility for states.”
To spark action among legislators on the issue of national standards, the NCSL’s education committee featured a debate among Mr. Petrilli, a supporter, David Shreve, an NCSL education policy expert, who urged legislators to resist national standards, and Bruce Hunter, the associate executive director of public policy for the Arlington, Va.-based American Association of School Administrators, whose group is split on the issue.
The topic was divisive enough that at the NCSL’s fall forum last year in San Antonio, the education committee debated whether to even have this debate. But legislators, who have long complained about federal micromanagement in states through NCLB, seemed open to the idea of Mr. Petrilli’s bargain. And while many would be unlikely to support standards developed and enforced by the federal government, a number of those at last week’s session were open to a more collaborative, voluntary effort among states.
The 5-year-old federal law requires annual testing of students in reading and math in grades 3-8 and once in high school, with a goal for all students to reach proficiency by 2014. Schools that don’t show progress face an escalating set of consequences. The federal law has sparked debate over whether a national set of academic standards, which would apply to all states, is needed.
Some education policymakers are alarmed at the discrepancy between student achievement as determined by state-level tests and the results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP. Many states report much lower proficiency rates on NAEP than on their state exams, suggesting that state standards may be too lax or have been weakened under the pressure of NCLB. ("Not All Agree on Meaning of NCLB Proficiency," April 18, 2007.)
That discrepancy “renders the No Child Left Behind identifications meaningless, and it does build the argument that there should be consistent standards,” said Sen. Jim Argue of Arkansas, a Democrat and the chairman of his chamber’s education committee.
Standards ‘Too High’
But NAEP shouldn’t be the driver behind national standards, said Mr. Hunter of the administrators’ group.
“NAEP standards are simply too high,” he told legislators during the debate. “It may be [that] state standards and tests are weak, but does that argue for national standards?”
Even his group can’t decide. When the AASA’s executive committee met in January to discuss the issue of national standards, it evenly split on the issue and didn’t take a stance.
Legislators were split, too, after last week’s debate.
Sen. Cynthia Nava, a Democrat from New Mexico, said she doesn’t think national standards will necessarily lead to improved student achievement and a narrowing of the achievement gaps between different demographic groups of students, which she said is the ultimate goal.
Such standards “aren’t the answer. It’s how you highly train teachers to implement those standards,” said Sen. Nava, who is the chairwoman of her chamber’s education committee.
California Assembly member Betty Karnette, a 31-year retired teacher from Los Angeles, questioned whether one set of standards would be too rigid to meet the varied needs of students in Long Beach, Calif., and rural Michigan. And South Dakota Rep. Bill Thompson, a 33-year retired teacher, wondered if test scores on a national exam would eventually replace a high school diploma, prompting some students to test out early and miss other important parts of the school experience.
Sen. Argue, of Arkansas, countered that there’s a practical and budgetary reason to consider national standards and testing.
“We spend millions in test development, inventories of questions, consultants, testing companies,” he said. “If the 50 states were working cooperatively together, we’d be saving a ton of money.”
Mr. Shreve, who advises the legislators as one of the NCSL’s education policy experts, offered the strongest opposition to national standards. The problem with NCLB isn’t a lack of national standards, he argued, but the law itself. States may be relaxing their academic standards and broadening what it means for students to achieve proficiency because they’re under pressure to make adequate yearly progress, or AYP, he said.
“Empowering the federal government to do this is a recipe for disaster. Any administration would be tempted to expand oversight to steer money and policy,” said Mr. Shreve, pointing to problems discovered with the Reading First program. “Let’s fix NCLB before we initiate a discussion of national and federal standards.”
But Mr. Petrilli stressed that the federal government would not give up its role in education. “The public thinks education is a national priority,” he said.
Vol. 26, Issue 34, Pages 20,22
House passes legislation to increase math and science teachers
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House approved legislation Tuesday intended to boost the number of highly qualified math and science teachers in U.S. schools.
The bill, which passed 389-22, would authorize more than $600 million through 2012 for scholarships and stipends for college students studying math and science in preparation for teaching careers. They could receive annual scholarships of $10,000 if they commit to teaching elementary or secondary pupils upon graduation.
The bill also would provide enhanced training for current math and science teachers. They could attend summer programs at universities or receive financial aid to pursue master's degrees. It would establish a national panel to identify math and science teaching materials that have proven effective.
Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tennessee, who chairs the House Committee on Science and Technology, said the bill's provisions were drawn from a 2005 report by the National Academy of Sciences about foreign competition facing the U.S. labor force.
"That report told us that now is the time to take bold steps to ensure that our children are prepared for the jobs of the future and that our nation can continue to compete in the global economy," Gordon said.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-California, called the House bill a win-win. "The kids are going to benefit," he said. "The schools are going to benefit. The country is going to benefit."
Recent results from a federal test -- the National Assessment of Educational Progress -- found 29 percent of students in grades four and eight scoring at the proficient level or better in science. Only 18 percent of 12th-graders were proficient or better in science.
Recently released 12th-grade math scores showed about one-fourth of seniors to be proficient or better in math.
The House also voted 397-20 Tuesday to approve a bill that would provide grants worth $80,000 a year to scientists and engineering researchers in the early stages of their careers.
The Senate is debating a measure this week that would increase training for math and science teachers and prepare them to teach Advanced Placement courses. The bill would boost funding for scientific research at several federal agencies.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The bill, which passed 389-22, would authorize more than $600 million through 2012 for scholarships and stipends for college students studying math and science in preparation for teaching careers. They could receive annual scholarships of $10,000 if they commit to teaching elementary or secondary pupils upon graduation.
The bill also would provide enhanced training for current math and science teachers. They could attend summer programs at universities or receive financial aid to pursue master's degrees. It would establish a national panel to identify math and science teaching materials that have proven effective.
Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tennessee, who chairs the House Committee on Science and Technology, said the bill's provisions were drawn from a 2005 report by the National Academy of Sciences about foreign competition facing the U.S. labor force.
"That report told us that now is the time to take bold steps to ensure that our children are prepared for the jobs of the future and that our nation can continue to compete in the global economy," Gordon said.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-California, called the House bill a win-win. "The kids are going to benefit," he said. "The schools are going to benefit. The country is going to benefit."
Recent results from a federal test -- the National Assessment of Educational Progress -- found 29 percent of students in grades four and eight scoring at the proficient level or better in science. Only 18 percent of 12th-graders were proficient or better in science.
Recently released 12th-grade math scores showed about one-fourth of seniors to be proficient or better in math.
The House also voted 397-20 Tuesday to approve a bill that would provide grants worth $80,000 a year to scientists and engineering researchers in the early stages of their careers.
The Senate is debating a measure this week that would increase training for math and science teachers and prepare them to teach Advanced Placement courses. The bill would boost funding for scientific research at several federal agencies.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
April 24, 2007
EdWeek: Most Nations Fall Short of NAEP Proficiency, Analysis Finds
The Gary Phillips report...
Most Nations Fall Short of NAEP Proficiency, Analysis Finds
By Debra Viadero
Outside of a handful of Asian nations, the typical 8th grader in many foreign countries would not meet “proficient” levels on U.S. tests of mathematics and science, according to a reanalysis of international achievement data being published today. Then again, the study also shows, neither do most American students.
Scheduled to be posted today on the Web site of the American Institutes for Research, a Washington-based research organization, the new analysis comes from AIR’s chief scientist, Gary W. Phillips. Mr. Phillips’ idea was to statistically “link” scores from two well-known testing programs: the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, or TIMSS, which is given every few years to students in more than three dozen countries, and the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a congressionally mandated program known as the “nation’s report card.”
Global Comparisons
A study designed to predict how other countries would fare on U.S. mathematics and science tests found that the typical 8th grader in most places, including the United States, would score at the “basic” level or below on the National Assessment of Educational Progress math test.
“I wanted to re-express the TIMSS results in terms of a set of standards that U.S. policymakers would be familiar with,” said Mr. Phillips, who was acting commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics, the data-gathering arm of the U.S. Education Department, from 1999 to 2002. “It’s a lot like looking at world poverty levels. It’s impossible to get your head around it until you get a common metric.”
Begun in 1969, the NAEP testing program uses three levels to gauge student achievement: basic, which denotes partial mastery of the academic material; proficient, for solid academic performance; and advanced, to describe superior achievement. Students who reach none of those levels are described as performing below basic.
For most countries, including the United States, 8th graders typically score at levels considered basic on the U.S. NAEP tests. On the math test, 22 of 46 countries were projected to achieve that status; in science, the number was 20 of 38.
However, another large group of nations, most of them located in Africa and the Middle East, would achieve at “below basic” levels on NAEP’s 8th grade math and science exams, according to the analysis.
Interpretations Mixed
Although Mr. Phillips saw his study as primarily a methodological test, some experts said the findings could shed some light on current debates over whether U.S. policymakers have set the right achievement levels for the NAEP program.
“My conclusion is that we need to take a good look at where all the cut points are for defining basic skills or proficiency,” said Tom Loveless, the director of the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution, a Washington-based research organization.
However, Chester E. Finn, the president of another Washington think tank, the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, drew the opposite conclusion from Mr. Phillips’ results. “If you have normal students from normal public schools in normal countries and more than half of them are reaching proficient levels, then we have set exactly the right target that everybody should aim for,” said Mr. Finn, who once sat on the governing board that sets policy for the federal testing program.
Mr. Loveless and other experts, though, also warned about reading too much into the findings since the two tests cover different content. But Mr. Phillips said the coverage areas, though not exact, are similar enough to make his comparisons worthwhile.
To arrive at his results, Mr. Phillips drew on earlier studies that analyzed results for two national samples of U.S. students—one of which took TIMSS tests in 1999 and another that took NAEP tests in 2000—to find statistical relationships for predicting how scores on one test could predict how well students perform on the other one. The purpose of that earlier study was to determine how students in particular U.S. states would have performed on the international tests. Mr. Phillips used essentially the same process and extended it so that he could estimate how students taking the international tests in 2003 would fare on the U.S. exams.
He acknowledged, though, that the method may have some drawbacks, one of which is that the statistics on which the calculations are drawn are based on U.S. students, because they took both the NAEP and TIMSS tests. In the other countries included in the study, students only took the international tests.
Vol. 26, Issue Web only
Most Nations Fall Short of NAEP Proficiency, Analysis Finds
By Debra Viadero
Outside of a handful of Asian nations, the typical 8th grader in many foreign countries would not meet “proficient” levels on U.S. tests of mathematics and science, according to a reanalysis of international achievement data being published today. Then again, the study also shows, neither do most American students.
Scheduled to be posted today on the Web site of the American Institutes for Research, a Washington-based research organization, the new analysis comes from AIR’s chief scientist, Gary W. Phillips. Mr. Phillips’ idea was to statistically “link” scores from two well-known testing programs: the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, or TIMSS, which is given every few years to students in more than three dozen countries, and the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a congressionally mandated program known as the “nation’s report card.”
Global Comparisons
A study designed to predict how other countries would fare on U.S. mathematics and science tests found that the typical 8th grader in most places, including the United States, would score at the “basic” level or below on the National Assessment of Educational Progress math test.
“I wanted to re-express the TIMSS results in terms of a set of standards that U.S. policymakers would be familiar with,” said Mr. Phillips, who was acting commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics, the data-gathering arm of the U.S. Education Department, from 1999 to 2002. “It’s a lot like looking at world poverty levels. It’s impossible to get your head around it until you get a common metric.”
Begun in 1969, the NAEP testing program uses three levels to gauge student achievement: basic, which denotes partial mastery of the academic material; proficient, for solid academic performance; and advanced, to describe superior achievement. Students who reach none of those levels are described as performing below basic.
For most countries, including the United States, 8th graders typically score at levels considered basic on the U.S. NAEP tests. On the math test, 22 of 46 countries were projected to achieve that status; in science, the number was 20 of 38.
However, another large group of nations, most of them located in Africa and the Middle East, would achieve at “below basic” levels on NAEP’s 8th grade math and science exams, according to the analysis.
Interpretations Mixed
Although Mr. Phillips saw his study as primarily a methodological test, some experts said the findings could shed some light on current debates over whether U.S. policymakers have set the right achievement levels for the NAEP program.
“My conclusion is that we need to take a good look at where all the cut points are for defining basic skills or proficiency,” said Tom Loveless, the director of the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution, a Washington-based research organization.
However, Chester E. Finn, the president of another Washington think tank, the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, drew the opposite conclusion from Mr. Phillips’ results. “If you have normal students from normal public schools in normal countries and more than half of them are reaching proficient levels, then we have set exactly the right target that everybody should aim for,” said Mr. Finn, who once sat on the governing board that sets policy for the federal testing program.
Mr. Loveless and other experts, though, also warned about reading too much into the findings since the two tests cover different content. But Mr. Phillips said the coverage areas, though not exact, are similar enough to make his comparisons worthwhile.
To arrive at his results, Mr. Phillips drew on earlier studies that analyzed results for two national samples of U.S. students—one of which took TIMSS tests in 1999 and another that took NAEP tests in 2000—to find statistical relationships for predicting how scores on one test could predict how well students perform on the other one. The purpose of that earlier study was to determine how students in particular U.S. states would have performed on the international tests. Mr. Phillips used essentially the same process and extended it so that he could estimate how students taking the international tests in 2003 would fare on the U.S. exams.
He acknowledged, though, that the method may have some drawbacks, one of which is that the statistics on which the calculations are drawn are based on U.S. students, because they took both the NAEP and TIMSS tests. In the other countries included in the study, students only took the international tests.
Vol. 26, Issue Web only
Washington Post - "Test of Wills"
Test of Wills
Virginia may have backed down in a showdown over the No Child Left Behind Act, but there's no loser.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007; Page A20
FAIRFAX COUNTY and other Virginia school districts blinked in their game of chicken with the federal government over the No Child Left Behind Act. It was the right thing to do. Continued confrontation over the issue of how to test students who speak limited English would only have hurt students.
After months of vowing to defy the national testing rules -- even if it meant a loss of federal funds -- local officials last week backed down. As reported by The Post's Maria Glod, the educators rather grudgingly said they would accede to the federal requirement that students with limited English be tested on grade-level core subject matter as well as their English skills.
It's clear that the threat of millions in federal dollars being withheld, which would have affected entire districts, is what changed their minds -- despite the rather sanctimonious claim that they wouldn't sacrifice their principles, or the interests of children, to money. The argument of local officials is that it's wrong to give students who are just starting to learn English the same test that is given to those who are fluent in the language. Certainly, children should be given appropriate tests. But by not testing these students with rigor, Virginia gave them short shrift. Indeed, if there were inappropriate tests, Virginia had only itself to blame.
Throughout the high-profile dispute, which became a proxy for every complaint with No Child Left Behind, the U.S. Education Department was unfairly portrayed as rigid and unreasonable. The department, which sometimes has been too lenient in enforcing its mandates, was right to insist that Virginia obey the law. After all, this requirement has been in place since 1994, predating No Child Left Behind. Moreover, the law makes sense. Students who are learning to speak English should be held to the same standards as their English-speaking counterparts. If schools are not held accountable for the job they do with these students, the students become invisible and are overlooked. How else to explain that 56 percent of students classified as "English-learning" in grades 6 to 12 were actually born in the United States? The implication of that figure, drawn from a 2005 study by the Urban Institute, is that the children passed through elementary grades in the United States and still did not become proficient in English.
The school systems that have had the most success with their English-learners have done so not by excusing them from work but by mentoring them, pushing them and testing them. Certainly, there is an argument to be made that some of the tests in use are not up to the task. One good outcome of the recent dispute was to draw attention to this issue. Congress, as it debates the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, would do well to consider developing a national model to assess the skills of these children with particular needs.
Virginia may have backed down in a showdown over the No Child Left Behind Act, but there's no loser.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007; Page A20
FAIRFAX COUNTY and other Virginia school districts blinked in their game of chicken with the federal government over the No Child Left Behind Act. It was the right thing to do. Continued confrontation over the issue of how to test students who speak limited English would only have hurt students.
After months of vowing to defy the national testing rules -- even if it meant a loss of federal funds -- local officials last week backed down. As reported by The Post's Maria Glod, the educators rather grudgingly said they would accede to the federal requirement that students with limited English be tested on grade-level core subject matter as well as their English skills.
It's clear that the threat of millions in federal dollars being withheld, which would have affected entire districts, is what changed their minds -- despite the rather sanctimonious claim that they wouldn't sacrifice their principles, or the interests of children, to money. The argument of local officials is that it's wrong to give students who are just starting to learn English the same test that is given to those who are fluent in the language. Certainly, children should be given appropriate tests. But by not testing these students with rigor, Virginia gave them short shrift. Indeed, if there were inappropriate tests, Virginia had only itself to blame.
Throughout the high-profile dispute, which became a proxy for every complaint with No Child Left Behind, the U.S. Education Department was unfairly portrayed as rigid and unreasonable. The department, which sometimes has been too lenient in enforcing its mandates, was right to insist that Virginia obey the law. After all, this requirement has been in place since 1994, predating No Child Left Behind. Moreover, the law makes sense. Students who are learning to speak English should be held to the same standards as their English-speaking counterparts. If schools are not held accountable for the job they do with these students, the students become invisible and are overlooked. How else to explain that 56 percent of students classified as "English-learning" in grades 6 to 12 were actually born in the United States? The implication of that figure, drawn from a 2005 study by the Urban Institute, is that the children passed through elementary grades in the United States and still did not become proficient in English.
The school systems that have had the most success with their English-learners have done so not by excusing them from work but by mentoring them, pushing them and testing them. Certainly, there is an argument to be made that some of the tests in use are not up to the task. One good outcome of the recent dispute was to draw attention to this issue. Congress, as it debates the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, would do well to consider developing a national model to assess the skills of these children with particular needs.
Ed Week: Accountability, or Mastery?
Published in Print: April 25, 2007
Commentary
Accountability, or Mastery?
The assessment trade-off that could change the landscape of reform.
There is general agreement in American public education that the conventional high school is badly broken and in need of a complete overhaul. Some even argue that it is obsolete and should be replaced with new models of secondary education.
Overwhelming evidence of institutional failure has triggered this almost universal alarm, and educators and policymakers have tried to solve the problem in a number of ways: by breaking bigger schools into smaller “academies” or creating “schools within schools”; by instituting a senior-year or culminating project; by raising standards, increasing rigor, and adding Advanced Placement courses; and by adopting high-stakes tests that students must pass to graduate. Positive results have been negligible.
But now, two states—New Hampshire and Rhode Island— are pioneering a promising “new” approach to redesigning high schools by instituting performance-based or competency-based assessments that link content to skills and use multiple measures (not just a statewide standardized test) to evaluate students’ proficiency.
The dominant school improvement strategy of standards-based accountability stresses academic content and standardized tests. Performance assessment combines content with skills, and requires students to carry out tasks to demonstrate mastery of both. The tasks generally fall into three categories—performance, portfolios, and projects—and are designed to encourage students to think and to solve problems through hands-on activities. To demonstrate mastery, students may, for example, perform a musical recital, make a significant oral presentation, write a major essay, or submit a portfolio of cumulative work from different disciplines. The point is that students must produce evidence that shows they understand the content and can apply it in real-world situations.
Read the rest here:April 23, 2007
Va. Schools Yield, Yet May Shape 'No Child'
By Maria Glod Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 23, 2007; Page B01
Faced with the possible loss of millions of dollars in federal aid, Northern Virginia school systems have acquiesced reluctantly to federal requirements for testing children with limited English skills. But the dispute between local educators and federal regulators could influence the rewriting of the No Child Left Behind law.
Educators in Fairfax, Arlington and Loudoun counties backed away last week from threats to defy a federal order to use grade-level reading tests for thousands of English learners in elementary and middle schools. Only immigrant students in U.S. schools for less than a year are exempt from the mandate.
Federal officials say the grade-level exams are needed to show how well students are learning and to rate school performance. Local educators say the reading tests, which could include questions about poetry, metaphors or hyperboles, are unfair to students who are only beginning to grasp the nuances of a language.
Fairfax County School Board member Stuart D. Gibson (Hunter Mill) said he continues to believe it is wrong to administer tests that will pose major obstacles for beginning language learners. But, he said, if Fairfax schools had lost $17 million in federal aid -- a figure the U.S. Education Department brandished during the dispute -- it could have meant cuts in valuable programs.
"The children are being set up to fail by the U.S. Department of Education," Gibson said. "My dad used to talk about the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules. They have the gold."
Virginia educators failed to convince federal education officials but said they will push their case with lawmakers who are considering renewal of the five-year-old law. Although questions about how to measure the progress of English-language learners have long been debated, the Virginia dispute heightened focus on the issue at a key moment on Capitol Hill.
"This has driven home to the Hill that this is a problem that needs to be addressed," said John F. Jennings, president and chief executive of the D.C.-based Center on Education Policy. "Both the House and Senate are looking at particular amendments. It's a formative time."
Reginald Felton, director of federal relations for the National School Boards Association, said educators nationwide have become increasingly concerned about assessing students with limited English skills because the stakes are rising. Schools must raise scores across the board as they move toward the law's goal of proficiency in reading and math for all children by 2014.
The law calls for math and reading tests for students in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school. It requires schools to improve scores over time. Subgroups of students -- including ethnic minorities, disabled students and those learning English -- also must make adequate progress every year for a school to make the grade. Schools that don't meet annual goals face sanctions up to possible management shake-ups or state intervention.
English learners pose an especially tough challenge because their ranks are in constant flux. Each year, many students enter schools speaking little or no English, while students who have mastered the language shed the label "limited English proficient." That churn means that schools are continually starting over with this group of students. To help ease the burden on schools, federal rules allow students to be counted in the limited-English testing group for two years after they've mastered the language.
Federal officials also cite the testing exemption for students in the country for less than a year as evidence of their flexibility in enforcement. They note that the District and most states, including Maryland, have complied with the testing rules. U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings accused Virginia of "dragging its feet" in a February letter published in The Washington Post after the Fairfax School Board and others passed resolutions threatening defiance of the testing mandate. She noted that English-language learners are a fast-growing sector of students. "If we want them to learn with their peers and achieve the American dream, we have to pick up the pace," she wrote.
In July 2006, the Government Accountability Office, an arm of Congress, issued a report on reading and math tests for English learners. It found that experts "expressed concerns about whether all states are assessing these students in a valid and reliable manner." The Education Department is teaming with states to create better tests.
Now that local educators have conceded the fight, some in Fairfax and elsewhere worry their schools will be labeled as failing because some limited-English students will struggle on tests. Across Virginia, about 10,200 such students were at the center of the dispute, about half of them in Fairfax.
"Fairfax is still confronted with the reality that once we go through this exercise to accommodate the U.S. Department of Education, the system is still going to have 5,000 kids who have a test in front of them, and perhaps 10 percent can take it," said Fairfax School Board member Phillip A. Niedzielski-Eichner (Providence). "How is it helpful to have them take a test that is not valid?"
Virginia schools previously had tested how well these students were learning to become proficient in English. This spring, the Fairfax system and others will give the students tougher grade-level exams but give them bilingual dictionaries and other accommodations, if needed.
In Fairfax and across Virginia, educators will follow the federal rules. But they said they will tell students they can stop taking a test if the material appears to be too difficult. A memo from the Virginia Department of Education on Thursday said students can "indicate to the test examiner either verbally, or non-verbally by shaking his/her head 'no' . . . that he or she is not able to complete any more items."
"Kids will have the test before them," Fairfax Superintendent Jack D. Dale said. "What we're giving them is the freedom to say, 'I can no longer continue.' We want to do the humane thing." Testing begins next month.
By Maria Glod Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 23, 2007; Page B01
Faced with the possible loss of millions of dollars in federal aid, Northern Virginia school systems have acquiesced reluctantly to federal requirements for testing children with limited English skills. But the dispute between local educators and federal regulators could influence the rewriting of the No Child Left Behind law.
Educators in Fairfax, Arlington and Loudoun counties backed away last week from threats to defy a federal order to use grade-level reading tests for thousands of English learners in elementary and middle schools. Only immigrant students in U.S. schools for less than a year are exempt from the mandate.
Federal officials say the grade-level exams are needed to show how well students are learning and to rate school performance. Local educators say the reading tests, which could include questions about poetry, metaphors or hyperboles, are unfair to students who are only beginning to grasp the nuances of a language.
Fairfax County School Board member Stuart D. Gibson (Hunter Mill) said he continues to believe it is wrong to administer tests that will pose major obstacles for beginning language learners. But, he said, if Fairfax schools had lost $17 million in federal aid -- a figure the U.S. Education Department brandished during the dispute -- it could have meant cuts in valuable programs.
"The children are being set up to fail by the U.S. Department of Education," Gibson said. "My dad used to talk about the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules. They have the gold."
Virginia educators failed to convince federal education officials but said they will push their case with lawmakers who are considering renewal of the five-year-old law. Although questions about how to measure the progress of English-language learners have long been debated, the Virginia dispute heightened focus on the issue at a key moment on Capitol Hill.
"This has driven home to the Hill that this is a problem that needs to be addressed," said John F. Jennings, president and chief executive of the D.C.-based Center on Education Policy. "Both the House and Senate are looking at particular amendments. It's a formative time."
Reginald Felton, director of federal relations for the National School Boards Association, said educators nationwide have become increasingly concerned about assessing students with limited English skills because the stakes are rising. Schools must raise scores across the board as they move toward the law's goal of proficiency in reading and math for all children by 2014.
The law calls for math and reading tests for students in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school. It requires schools to improve scores over time. Subgroups of students -- including ethnic minorities, disabled students and those learning English -- also must make adequate progress every year for a school to make the grade. Schools that don't meet annual goals face sanctions up to possible management shake-ups or state intervention.
English learners pose an especially tough challenge because their ranks are in constant flux. Each year, many students enter schools speaking little or no English, while students who have mastered the language shed the label "limited English proficient." That churn means that schools are continually starting over with this group of students. To help ease the burden on schools, federal rules allow students to be counted in the limited-English testing group for two years after they've mastered the language.
Federal officials also cite the testing exemption for students in the country for less than a year as evidence of their flexibility in enforcement. They note that the District and most states, including Maryland, have complied with the testing rules. U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings accused Virginia of "dragging its feet" in a February letter published in The Washington Post after the Fairfax School Board and others passed resolutions threatening defiance of the testing mandate. She noted that English-language learners are a fast-growing sector of students. "If we want them to learn with their peers and achieve the American dream, we have to pick up the pace," she wrote.
In July 2006, the Government Accountability Office, an arm of Congress, issued a report on reading and math tests for English learners. It found that experts "expressed concerns about whether all states are assessing these students in a valid and reliable manner." The Education Department is teaming with states to create better tests.
Now that local educators have conceded the fight, some in Fairfax and elsewhere worry their schools will be labeled as failing because some limited-English students will struggle on tests. Across Virginia, about 10,200 such students were at the center of the dispute, about half of them in Fairfax.
"Fairfax is still confronted with the reality that once we go through this exercise to accommodate the U.S. Department of Education, the system is still going to have 5,000 kids who have a test in front of them, and perhaps 10 percent can take it," said Fairfax School Board member Phillip A. Niedzielski-Eichner (Providence). "How is it helpful to have them take a test that is not valid?"
Virginia schools previously had tested how well these students were learning to become proficient in English. This spring, the Fairfax system and others will give the students tougher grade-level exams but give them bilingual dictionaries and other accommodations, if needed.
In Fairfax and across Virginia, educators will follow the federal rules. But they said they will tell students they can stop taking a test if the material appears to be too difficult. A memo from the Virginia Department of Education on Thursday said students can "indicate to the test examiner either verbally, or non-verbally by shaking his/her head 'no' . . . that he or she is not able to complete any more items."
"Kids will have the test before them," Fairfax Superintendent Jack D. Dale said. "What we're giving them is the freedom to say, 'I can no longer continue.' We want to do the humane thing." Testing begins next month.
April 19, 2007
EdWeek: Policy Push Redefining High School
Policy Push Redefining High School
State activities surge, but college readiness elusive.
By Lynn Olson
State activities to better prepare high school students for the demands of work and college spiked noticeably in the past year, according to a 50-state survey to be released this week.
A dozen states report aligning their academic standards for high schools with the expectations for college success, up from just five a year ago. Twenty-seven more states report that they are engaged in such activities.
Thirteen states now require students to complete a college-preparatory curriculum to earn a diploma; another 16 plan to adopt such requirements. And nearly every state reports that it has or is working on a data system to track the progress of individual students from preschool through college.
‘Real-World Demands’
“There’s been awareness building in a variety of ways for the need to have more rigorous expectations for high school graduation that really reflect the real-world demands students are going to face when they leave,” said Michael Cohen, the president of the Washington-based Achieve, which conducted the survey this past fall.
More here:http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/04/18/33achieve.h26.html
State activities surge, but college readiness elusive.
By Lynn Olson
State activities to better prepare high school students for the demands of work and college spiked noticeably in the past year, according to a 50-state survey to be released this week.
A dozen states report aligning their academic standards for high schools with the expectations for college success, up from just five a year ago. Twenty-seven more states report that they are engaged in such activities.
Thirteen states now require students to complete a college-preparatory curriculum to earn a diploma; another 16 plan to adopt such requirements. And nearly every state reports that it has or is working on a data system to track the progress of individual students from preschool through college.
‘Real-World Demands’
“There’s been awareness building in a variety of ways for the need to have more rigorous expectations for high school graduation that really reflect the real-world demands students are going to face when they leave,” said Michael Cohen, the president of the Washington-based Achieve, which conducted the survey this past fall.
More here:http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/04/18/33achieve.h26.html
EdWeek: Gaps in Proficiency Levels on State Tests And NAEP Found to Grow
Gaps in Proficiency Levels on State Tests And NAEP Found to Grow
By Lynn Olson
Chicago
Far greater shares of students are proficient on state reading and mathematics tests than on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, and those gaps have grown to unprecedented levels since the federal No Child Left Behind Act became law in 2002, a study released last week concludes.
The study by Policy Analysis for California Education, a nonprofit research group based at the University of California, Berkeley, was released here April 10 during the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
The researchers compiled state and federal testing results for the period 1992 to 2006 from 12 states: Arkansas, California, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, and Washington.
In all but two states—Arkansas and Massachusetts—the disparity between the share of students proficient on state reading tests and on NAEP, a congressionally mandated program that tests a representative sample of students in every state, grew or remained the same from 2002 to 2006. A similar widening occurred between state and federal gauges of math performance in eight of 12 states.
Those findings call into question whether the state-reported gains are real or illusory, according to the researchers.
“State leaders are under enormous pressure to show that students are making progress,” said Bruce Fuller, a professor of education and public policy at Berkeley who led the study. “So, they are finding inventive ways of showing higher test scores.”
Under the federal law, states must give reading and math tests annually in grades 3-8 and at least once in high school. Schools and districts that do not meet annual targets for the percentage of students who score proficient on those exams face an escalating series of federal sanctions, with the target rising to 100 percent proficiency in 2013-14.
Critics have suggested that, rather than raising academic standards, the law is encouraging states to lower the bar for passing state tests or otherwise adjust their definition of “proficiency” downward in order to avoid identifying too many schools as missing their targets.
more here: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/04/18/33aeradata.h26.html
By Lynn Olson
Chicago
Far greater shares of students are proficient on state reading and mathematics tests than on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, and those gaps have grown to unprecedented levels since the federal No Child Left Behind Act became law in 2002, a study released last week concludes.
The study by Policy Analysis for California Education, a nonprofit research group based at the University of California, Berkeley, was released here April 10 during the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
The researchers compiled state and federal testing results for the period 1992 to 2006 from 12 states: Arkansas, California, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, and Washington.
In all but two states—Arkansas and Massachusetts—the disparity between the share of students proficient on state reading tests and on NAEP, a congressionally mandated program that tests a representative sample of students in every state, grew or remained the same from 2002 to 2006. A similar widening occurred between state and federal gauges of math performance in eight of 12 states.
Those findings call into question whether the state-reported gains are real or illusory, according to the researchers.
“State leaders are under enormous pressure to show that students are making progress,” said Bruce Fuller, a professor of education and public policy at Berkeley who led the study. “So, they are finding inventive ways of showing higher test scores.”
Under the federal law, states must give reading and math tests annually in grades 3-8 and at least once in high school. Schools and districts that do not meet annual targets for the percentage of students who score proficient on those exams face an escalating series of federal sanctions, with the target rising to 100 percent proficiency in 2013-14.
Critics have suggested that, rather than raising academic standards, the law is encouraging states to lower the bar for passing state tests or otherwise adjust their definition of “proficiency” downward in order to avoid identifying too many schools as missing their targets.
more here: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/04/18/33aeradata.h26.html
Council of the Great City Schools: New Report
 | Beating the Odds VII, An Analysis of Student Performance and Achievement Gaps on State Assessments, Results from the 2005-2006 School Year This seventh edition of Beating the Odds gives the nation another look at how inner-city schools are performing on the academic goals and standards set by the states. Publication date: April 2007 |
EdWeek: Not All Agree on Meaning of NCLB Proficiency
Not All Agree on Meaning of NCLB Proficiency
By David J. Hoff
The goal of the No Child Left Behind Act is simply stated: All children should be proficient in reading and mathematics by the end of the 2013-14 school year. But more than five years after the law was enacted, it remains unclear what “proficient” means.
Because the federal law gives the states the power to define proficiency, there are 50 different definitions of the term. And policymakers are sending mixed messages about how to judge the rigor of each state’s standards.
Some experts criticize the states for not matching the proficiency levels in the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP. U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings and others suggest the goal should reflect grade-level expectations.
“It sounds good, and we think we know what it means,” Laura S. Hamilton, a senior behavioral scientist for the RAND Corp., said of the proficiency goal. “In reality, it’s almost meaningless.”
Still, Secretary Spellings, Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., and other leading federal policymakers say that universal academic proficiency is one of the most important principles in the law and should be retained as Congress works to reauthorize the NCLB legislation this year. Many endorse adding science to the list of subjects students should be expected to master by the 2013-14 deadline.
“The goal of all children being able to read, do math, and do science at grade level is the right goal to keep our eye on even as we make adjustments in how we get there,” said Aaron K. Albright, the press secretary for Democrats on for the House Education and Labor Committee, of which Rep. Miller is the chairman. “Nothing is more important to our country than providing each and every child with a first-rate, world-class education.”
As Congress considers changes to the law, it will have to address the question of what it means to be proficient and who will write that definition.
State or National?
When Congress passed the No Child Left Behind measure in late 2001, it relied on a long-standing policy of not directing states or school districts on what to teach or how to teach it. The law gives states the authority to set their own subject-matter standards and to define what it means for students to demonstrate they are proficient, using assessments linked to those standards.
The Bush administration says it remains committed to honoring states’ authority to set their own standards and define proficiency as they see fit.
“It’s important for there to be a sense of buy-in and commitment” from states, said Kerri L. Briggs, the Department of Education’s acting assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education and President Bush’s nominee for that post.
But many researchers and other critical observers of the proficiency provisions suggest that states haven’t set challenging standards under the law, especially compared with NAEP. The national assessment tests a representative sample of 4th, 8th, and 12th graders in every state, and it reports the percentage of students who score at the basic, proficient, and advanced levels.
Last week, a research group released a study suggesting that states may have lowered their definitions of proficiency since NCLB was enacted in 2002.
In a study comparing state test scores with NAEP results, the research group Policy Analysis for California Education found a widening gap between students rated as proficient on the national assessment and those at the same level on state tests. Of the 12 states studied, that gap grew larger over the past five years in 10 states, according to the study released last week by PACE, which is based at the University of California, Berkeley.
The gap between NAEP and state-test proficiency levels averaged 41 percentage points in the 47 states that gave 4th grade reading tests in 2005, according to an analysis by the Editorial Projects in Education Research Center. The difference was 71 percentage points in Mississippi, and 61 points in both Georgia and Alabama.
Advocates of national academic standards argue that because of such disparities, Congress should set up a process that would establish national standards and tests that states would be able to adopt, knowing that they met a national definition of proficiency.
“The time has come to think beyond this tradition of state dominion … and come up with some national standards and a national assessment,” said Lindsay Clare Matsumura, an assistant professor of education at the University of Pittsburgh.
The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, a Washington think tank, and the Aspen Institute’s Commission on No Child Left Behind propose using NAEP test questions and definitions of proficiency as the basis for any national standards and tests.
“Almost everyone recognizes that NAEP captures what children should be proficient in or at least have a basic understanding of,” said Roy E. Barnes, a Democratic former governor of Georgia and a co-chairman of the bipartisan Aspen Institute commission, which issued extensive recommendations for reauthorizing the federal education law in February.
NAEP’s Flaws
The Aspen Institute panel suggests that national standards and tests be designed around NAEP’s achievement levels. Those standards and tests would be models that states could adopt for accountability purposes under the NCLB law. If states chose to keep their own standards and tests, they would have to submit them to an independent national panel that would compare their rigor with that of NAEP.
In Congress, Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., has introduced a bill that would establish national standards in mathematics and science based on NAEP. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., has a separate proposal that would require states to compare their own standards against the NAEP’s standards. Sen. Kennedy is the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and Sen. Dodd is a senior member of the panel.
Most testing experts and researchers say that NAEP shouldn’t be used to create a universal definition of proficiency.
NAEP “wasn’t designed for the purpose we want now, which is accountability,” said James W. Pellegrino, a professor of cognitive psychology and education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. “What we want to do is establish what we consider proficiency to be.”
Overall, NAEP standards appear to be ambitious. In the 2005 exam given to 4th graders, for example, 31 percent ranked as proficient or above in reading, and 36 percent scored at that level in mathematics.
Given how students perform on NAEP, other researchers say that the national assessment would produce an overly ambitious definition of proficiency if it were used as the basis for national standards or tests.
In a paper last fall, Richard Rothstein, a research associate at the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington-based research organization, estimated that students in countries that score highest on international assessments don’t ensure all their students meet NAEP’s proficiency levels.
In Singapore, 25 percent of 8th graders would not have ranked as proficient under NAEP’s standards, according to Mr. Rothstein’s analysis of the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. Singapore was the highest-scoring country on the TIMMS test.
NAEP scores also contradict other assessments’ results, Mr. Rothstein said.
In 2000, NAEP reported that 1.5 percent of high school seniors scored at its advanced level in math. By comparison, 2.7 percent of the members of that year’s high school graduating classes earned college credit for calculus based on their performance on Advanced Placement exams.
But supporters of NAEP say that its proficiency levels are an appropriate goal for all students.
“That sounds like an excuse for low expectations,” said Mr. Barnes, the former Georgia governor. “It may be unpleasant [to set a high standard], but it’s necessary.”
Real-World Standards
Other advocates of a different conception of proficiency have called for defining proficiency based on whether students are prepared for either college or the workforce.
Under such proposals, states would define what it means for a student to be ready for college or a career by the end of high school. From there, the states would work to set definitions for proficiency for each grade level leading up to high school to make sure students were on track to meet the high school standards. State officials would set their own goals, working with business leaders and higher education officials.
“The goal ought to be that young people should graduate high school ready for college or the workplace,” said Sandy Kress, a former White House adviser to President Bush on the NCLB law and a lobbyist based in Austin, Texas. Mr. Kress represents the Business Coalition for Student Achievement, a group made up of national business groups and corporate executives that is calling for standards linked to college and workplace readiness.
Read more here: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/04/18/33proficient.h26.html?levelId=2300&rale2=KQE5d7nM%2FXAYPsVRXwnFWYRqIIX2bhy1%2BKNA5buLAWGoKt77XHI2terRpWBSgktLCXMT9GhM0Fd5%0AIaVBl5GMO4ODVl3yDkSb1nuI1h1nm00bG8UMgOitEFboRy8zQyHPASRokBka0THyWRxs8ye%2BhbTm%0A
By David J. Hoff
The goal of the No Child Left Behind Act is simply stated: All children should be proficient in reading and mathematics by the end of the 2013-14 school year. But more than five years after the law was enacted, it remains unclear what “proficient” means.
Because the federal law gives the states the power to define proficiency, there are 50 different definitions of the term. And policymakers are sending mixed messages about how to judge the rigor of each state’s standards.
Some experts criticize the states for not matching the proficiency levels in the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP. U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings and others suggest the goal should reflect grade-level expectations.
“It sounds good, and we think we know what it means,” Laura S. Hamilton, a senior behavioral scientist for the RAND Corp., said of the proficiency goal. “In reality, it’s almost meaningless.”
Still, Secretary Spellings, Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., and other leading federal policymakers say that universal academic proficiency is one of the most important principles in the law and should be retained as Congress works to reauthorize the NCLB legislation this year. Many endorse adding science to the list of subjects students should be expected to master by the 2013-14 deadline.
“The goal of all children being able to read, do math, and do science at grade level is the right goal to keep our eye on even as we make adjustments in how we get there,” said Aaron K. Albright, the press secretary for Democrats on for the House Education and Labor Committee, of which Rep. Miller is the chairman. “Nothing is more important to our country than providing each and every child with a first-rate, world-class education.”
As Congress considers changes to the law, it will have to address the question of what it means to be proficient and who will write that definition.
State or National?
When Congress passed the No Child Left Behind measure in late 2001, it relied on a long-standing policy of not directing states or school districts on what to teach or how to teach it. The law gives states the authority to set their own subject-matter standards and to define what it means for students to demonstrate they are proficient, using assessments linked to those standards.
The Bush administration says it remains committed to honoring states’ authority to set their own standards and define proficiency as they see fit.
“It’s important for there to be a sense of buy-in and commitment” from states, said Kerri L. Briggs, the Department of Education’s acting assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education and President Bush’s nominee for that post.
But many researchers and other critical observers of the proficiency provisions suggest that states haven’t set challenging standards under the law, especially compared with NAEP. The national assessment tests a representative sample of 4th, 8th, and 12th graders in every state, and it reports the percentage of students who score at the basic, proficient, and advanced levels.
Last week, a research group released a study suggesting that states may have lowered their definitions of proficiency since NCLB was enacted in 2002.
In a study comparing state test scores with NAEP results, the research group Policy Analysis for California Education found a widening gap between students rated as proficient on the national assessment and those at the same level on state tests. Of the 12 states studied, that gap grew larger over the past five years in 10 states, according to the study released last week by PACE, which is based at the University of California, Berkeley.
The gap between NAEP and state-test proficiency levels averaged 41 percentage points in the 47 states that gave 4th grade reading tests in 2005, according to an analysis by the Editorial Projects in Education Research Center. The difference was 71 percentage points in Mississippi, and 61 points in both Georgia and Alabama.
Advocates of national academic standards argue that because of such disparities, Congress should set up a process that would establish national standards and tests that states would be able to adopt, knowing that they met a national definition of proficiency.
“The time has come to think beyond this tradition of state dominion … and come up with some national standards and a national assessment,” said Lindsay Clare Matsumura, an assistant professor of education at the University of Pittsburgh.
The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, a Washington think tank, and the Aspen Institute’s Commission on No Child Left Behind propose using NAEP test questions and definitions of proficiency as the basis for any national standards and tests.
“Almost everyone recognizes that NAEP captures what children should be proficient in or at least have a basic understanding of,” said Roy E. Barnes, a Democratic former governor of Georgia and a co-chairman of the bipartisan Aspen Institute commission, which issued extensive recommendations for reauthorizing the federal education law in February.
NAEP’s Flaws
The Aspen Institute panel suggests that national standards and tests be designed around NAEP’s achievement levels. Those standards and tests would be models that states could adopt for accountability purposes under the NCLB law. If states chose to keep their own standards and tests, they would have to submit them to an independent national panel that would compare their rigor with that of NAEP.
In Congress, Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., has introduced a bill that would establish national standards in mathematics and science based on NAEP. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., has a separate proposal that would require states to compare their own standards against the NAEP’s standards. Sen. Kennedy is the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and Sen. Dodd is a senior member of the panel.
Most testing experts and researchers say that NAEP shouldn’t be used to create a universal definition of proficiency.
NAEP “wasn’t designed for the purpose we want now, which is accountability,” said James W. Pellegrino, a professor of cognitive psychology and education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. “What we want to do is establish what we consider proficiency to be.”
Overall, NAEP standards appear to be ambitious. In the 2005 exam given to 4th graders, for example, 31 percent ranked as proficient or above in reading, and 36 percent scored at that level in mathematics.
Given how students perform on NAEP, other researchers say that the national assessment would produce an overly ambitious definition of proficiency if it were used as the basis for national standards or tests.
In a paper last fall, Richard Rothstein, a research associate at the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington-based research organization, estimated that students in countries that score highest on international assessments don’t ensure all their students meet NAEP’s proficiency levels.
In Singapore, 25 percent of 8th graders would not have ranked as proficient under NAEP’s standards, according to Mr. Rothstein’s analysis of the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. Singapore was the highest-scoring country on the TIMMS test.
NAEP scores also contradict other assessments’ results, Mr. Rothstein said.
In 2000, NAEP reported that 1.5 percent of high school seniors scored at its advanced level in math. By comparison, 2.7 percent of the members of that year’s high school graduating classes earned college credit for calculus based on their performance on Advanced Placement exams.
But supporters of NAEP say that its proficiency levels are an appropriate goal for all students.
“That sounds like an excuse for low expectations,” said Mr. Barnes, the former Georgia governor. “It may be unpleasant [to set a high standard], but it’s necessary.”
Real-World Standards
Other advocates of a different conception of proficiency have called for defining proficiency based on whether students are prepared for either college or the workforce.
Under such proposals, states would define what it means for a student to be ready for college or a career by the end of high school. From there, the states would work to set definitions for proficiency for each grade level leading up to high school to make sure students were on track to meet the high school standards. State officials would set their own goals, working with business leaders and higher education officials.
“The goal ought to be that young people should graduate high school ready for college or the workplace,” said Sandy Kress, a former White House adviser to President Bush on the NCLB law and a lobbyist based in Austin, Texas. Mr. Kress represents the Business Coalition for Student Achievement, a group made up of national business groups and corporate executives that is calling for standards linked to college and workplace readiness.
Read more here: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/04/18/33proficient.h26.html?levelId=2300&rale2=KQE5d7nM%2FXAYPsVRXwnFWYRqIIX2bhy1%2BKNA5buLAWGoKt77XHI2terRpWBSgktLCXMT9GhM0Fd5%0AIaVBl5GMO4ODVl3yDkSb1nuI1h1nm00bG8UMgOitEFboRy8zQyHPASRokBka0THyWRxs8ye%2BhbTm%0A
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
