I liked this paragraph.
"For the group, black women with children in Minneapolis or St. Paul schools, educators in training or alumni themselves, testing is tantamount to a civil rights issue: the results of the tests give parents and administrators the chance to compare student progress against school districts around America, and provide a goldmine of information about the achievement gap that has consumed inner-city schools and minority students."
Thoughts?
31 comments:
I think we ask too much from testing, using it as we do to evaluate both teachers and students. It can't really do both effectively at the same time. That said, sure we need tests to tell us how we are doing.
==Hiram
I can understand why certain groups would OPPOSE testing; it shows the schools up for the failures they are. That's supposed to be the dirty big secret.
Not only should testing continue, but we ought to be imposing the penalties on failing schools that were part of the original legislation.
Testing over the long term shows that schools are improving. But comparisons are difficult. For one thing the tests themselves are changed, undermining our ability to meaningfully compare results. And as the article slightly glosses over, the most widely used state tests are local not national, making it more difficult to directly and meaningfully compare one state's results with another's. NAEP tests are better for that, but not all kids take those tests.
--Hiram
OK, testing has its difficulties, but when the white kids in one school score twice as well as the black kids on the identical test, the school is doing something wrong. When the kids in one school radically outperform another school in the same district, on the same test, that school is doing something wrong, or at least should be doing what the better-performing school is doing right.
And test scores are climbing VERY slowly, if at all, and certainly far more slowly than the amount spent on education. The system is broken.
"when the white kids in one school score twice as well as the black kids on the identical test, the school is doing something wrong"
That seems to be a strange leap of logic to me... I think you are saying...
If a school is successful with many types of children of all races and some children do not learn, it must be the schools fault.
Where again does personal responsibility for ones own success and that of their children fit into the picture?
Do you really want to say that government entitities are accountable for the success of individual citizens?
Not what I said at all. We break these tests down by white/black/hispanic and FRL/non-FRL and ESL/non-ESL all because of NCLB. So when we see these radical gaps between these various demographies in a given school, we must ask the school to do better. The "gap" is not acceptable, especially when the school gets MORE money (per the state formula) to close that gap.
And when we see the same demographic cohort doing much better in one school than another, on the same test, despite "compensatory aid" flowing to both schools equally, how can it NOT be the fault of the school, someplace in its system? Maybe one school has all "bad" teachers, I don't know, and I don't particularly care other than that somebody needs to find out WHY and fix it. Or let the kids go elsewhere; THAT is the Civil Rights issue. Kids shouldn't be imprisoned in failing schools and actively denied an education.
Making gold from lead...
It still sounds like you want to hold the "public schools" accountable for the failure of individual citizens.
I do hope that some day they find a formula for turning questionable students from questionable parents into highly motivated, successful and academically capable citizens.
I am thinking that the horse needs to want to drink first.
And it seems you still want to simply toss away any child that doesn't come from a desirable demographic while holding the schools entirely blameless. It would be vastly different if the schools were trying new approaches and making the effort to bring these disadvantaged kids forward, but falling short. But I don't see that happening. The schools have to do their part FIRST. After that we'll figure out what to do about the trivial amount of their disadvantages the schools cannot overcome.
If you have not seen the schools trying new things, you have not been in the schools lately.
There are new policies, equipment, curriculum, methods, etc being tried constantly.
Now where did you get the strange idea that I hold the schools blameless? I am pro-NCLB, pro-AYP, pro-PDCA, pro-performance based comp & job security, etc.
I would just prefer to fix the problem rather than to jump to a different system with a whole new set of problems.
I was in the school yesterday. There are some schools making some great strides, but they are the schools that tend to be far ahead of the others already. There are a few others that have innovated but they tend to be charters or privates, and whatever they are doing benefits only those students lucky enough (maybe they win a lottery) to escape the public school, which does NOT adopt those improved technologies. That is obvious because they continue, year after year after year, to fail.
I am convinced that the only thing which will produce radical change in results is radical change in how public education is delivered, with a strong accountability for results and minimal constraints on methodology.
As always, please give us specific examples of the schools who are making some great strides...
The school I was in Tuesday. Name withheld for privacy reasons. You KNOW there are other examples, though perhaps few have been /recent/ turnarounds. As I've said before, if the schools knew how to and wanted to do better, they would have done so long ago. I can only conclude that they willfully refuse to do so.
Every school that I have researched over the years that has posted better results than the Public Schools has had the benefit of controlling the students who attend.
This has either been passive through requiring parents to apply or active by having families interview and sign contracts.
And of course HCZ has these benefits + strong social, parent and early ed programs.
Most of the charters that except everyone yield similar or worse results than their neighboring Publics. Though as we discussed earlier, that could be in part due to the funding differential.
So it would be interesting to analyze the demographics, policies and results of this mystery school that you will not name.
No, I think my point is made. I said before that the school I saw making surprising improvement was already advantaged or even highly advantaged. That doesn't help those schools where the kids are disadvantaged, and where the schools do not offer anything to address those disadvantages. Unfortunately, I don't know that the schools with the most disadvantaged students can learn much from schools with the most advantaged students, either. They have to learn to deal (far differently, I would guess) with the students they have, to MAKE them advantaged educationally. In too many schools I'm not seeing the effort. It sounds like "the soft bigotry of low expectations," doesn't it?
And I would offer an "excuse," if you wish to call it such, for why charter schools that "except [sic] everybody" may fare no better than nearby publics. Funding is one, certainly, but I think the bigger one is that kids arrive at the charter school after years of "damage" in the public schools, not to mention having limited flexibility in adapting curriculum, etc. Moreover, the kids whose parents see their kids most damaged in the PS setting are the ones likely to move them to a charter, so it's sort of a "reverse skimming" that takes place.
And you haven't accounted for places like the DC Opportunity Scholarship schools, where a lottery determines which kids succeed in school (which they do), and which kids remain trapped in the PS system. Now, does that not horrify you? It does me. A kid shouldn't have to win a lottery to get a good education. What do you suppose would happen to the DC public schools, for example, if they simply gave that Opportunity to everybody?
Washington OSP Link
I kind of think I have, but let's walk through it. The good news is that the comparison data did compare only people who applied for the program. Then it compared the results of those who got in to those who did not. This makes sense and yes apparently the OSP kids did better.
So there are 2 likely reasons for the variation, and I have no way to say which is the actual cause.
1. The kids who got into OSP were surrounded by peers and their parents who valued education enough to apply. It is kind of like going to the Wayzata district, almost everyone involved values an excellent education and is willing to work hard for it. Whereas the kids who did not get in and went to their local public school were surrounded by peers and their parents who did not necessarily value education and academic achievement. No wonder the OSP kids would do better, they left all the troublemakers behind.
2. OSP had some different methods or worked more hours, therefore the OSP kids did better.
My review of RDale and Mpls schools indicate that though #2 is important, #1 is the primary causal factor. In every school I have studied, success is related to how focused the student body and their parents are on behaving and learning.
What you overlooked about DC was that the kids who "got in" did so by LOTTERY from your "those that applied" (fortunate) group, and still did better than those who did NOT win the lottery. This tells me that, at minimum, there is a difference in the effectiveness of the schools. You want to argue that this is strictly a matter of the attitude of the collective student body, and that this attitude is a matter of demographics, and therefore immutable. I argue that attitudes are (or should be) set by the schools, not by individuals. And those schools teaching and expecting good attitudes and learning behaviors succeed where those standardized on the soft bigotry of low expectations do not.
Further analysis of the DC data shows that those who do not get the Opportunity until high school fare little if any better than those in public school. That makes sense, because a kid that reads at a third grade level won't fare well in 9th grade, regardless of how good the school may be, and it is almost too late to correct that without tremendous effort. Likewise, I think it somewhat unfair to compare schools until we have tried their "new approach" for 12 years rather than 2 or 3, and why it is all important that we change NOW, before we fill the pipeline with more failure. It may not benefit the older kids much, but let's at least stop the damage.
" It is kind of like going to the Wayzata district, ..."
Exactly! And those who can afford to move to a home "near good schools" will do so. So why do we actively deny people who can NOT afford it the same good education for their kids?
The primary reason for kids doing well in Wayzata is the student and parent body served.
The same reason the Magnets and ZLE in RDale have better educational results.
"The primary reason for kids doing well in Wayzata is the student and parent body served."
Where is your evidence? And why do you continue to insist that schools would do better with more money, when these schools spend less?
Food for Thought.
Teacher Problem?
"So to this extent we are sort of still training teachers for classrooms of the past."
True, but it isn't that hard to change with the right OJT. And we aren't even expecting our teachers to "know stuff." That's why the DFL dropped the mandate that teachers pass a test in the subjects they teach; they couldn't.
"And, while we’re at it, maybe we should also raise teacher salaries?"
Great idea, but let's do the math to try to answer the question. Take an average class size, as they claim in my district, of 23 students. The district spends roughly $13,000 per student. Therefore, average teacher "share" of the spending is $299,000/year. The average teacher makes $76,000/year in pay and benefits. WHERE did the other $223,000, which COULD have maybe enticed a better teacher into the classroom, go? And if the teacher is already above average, why are they getting below-average pay?
I suppose if all the money went to the classroom, you would be correct.
RDale Budget
That's an excellent report. So, let's use your numbers. Total enrollment divided by class size says you should have about 500 teachers. Take the total staff salaries and divide by 500 and you get $250,000 each. That's some very rich teachers. Or is it? What happened to the idea that 70% of the budget ought to go to the classroom? Or that the guideline in any service business is that about 60-70% of expense is in the direct cost of employees?
I think I like Page 16 the best.
Your logic would make sense if there were not other personnel costs incurred in caring for and teaching children. And even more costs incurred in serving children in poor neighborhoods.
Here are a few:
- Transportation personnel
- Janitorial personnel
- Security personnel
- Psychologists, Counselors
- Substance abuse personnel
- Info Tech personnel
- Supervisory personnel
- Compliance and reporting
- Accountants / Lawyers
- Logistics personnel
- Food service personnel
- Special Needs personnel
- Educ Asst's: Playground, one on one special needs kids, lunch room, etc.
- Librarians
- Front office personnel
- Nurses
I believe the last time I heard, ~80% of RDale's funds went to personnel costs.
And part of the reason that the cost of education is so high in poor neighborhoods is because they need to pay more for:
- Security personnel
- Multi-lingual personnel
- Personnel to manage their high student change rate. (high mobility of students)
- Psychologists, Counselors
- Substance abuse personnel
- Compliance and reporting
- Special Needs personnel
- Educ Asst's: Playground, one on one special needs kids, lunch room, etc.
It is, of course, a proper consideration, but does the District actually break out these costs on a per-pupil basis, so that we could figure out how much a teacher SHOULD be earning? I find it very difficult to believe that for every $75,000 teacher, we have 2-1/3 ADDITIONAL highly-paid professionals allocated to each.
As fine a job as the District has done in presenting this financial information, the numbers still do NOT make sense; you can't get the math to be consistent.
I agree that the presentation could be different, however see pg 17. ~$125M of $151M or ~80% goes to salaries and benefits.
Here is an interesting presentation regarding how the district is working to engage and help the community.
Yes, that's a very service-centric business. Many well-run service businesses only reduce overhead to about 30-35%, so 20% is very good.
But it still makes the point that the "professional service" provided is that of teaching, yet the bulk of the money spent is NOT going to the calculated number of teachers. Now, if the District is fudging their pupil/teacher ratios, as they have been known to do, and they really have 2-3 times as many teachers on the payroll as their P:T ratios indicate, that's another way the numbers can NOT add up. That's the trouble with even the very best display of accounting-- it tells you WHAT but not WHY. Why are our legal fees so high? Why do we need all these seemingly-idle teachers?
Closer to the topic: if these schools cannot illustrate or do not even know where the money is being spent and why, how can they possibly target their resources effectively, to improve outcomes?
I looked at your presentation, which I didn't think I would properly appreciate, and didn't. It seems like so much the public schools do, couched in "eduspeak." It is full of high-sounding phrases and good intentions, but what does it really MEAN or DO? It seems very process oriented, rather than results-oriented. Normally I would consider the first the prerequisite of the second, but that presupposes some obvious, deliberate and effective causation. I don't see it, and unless this program is somehow radically different from similar initiatives in public schools all around, I suspect results will be largely pass unnoticed.
One of those community outreach partnerships helps pack and distribute food so the children do not go hungry during the weekend. This is at the school(s) with really really poor families.
I am thinking those children take notice. Though those little things may not be too noticeable to you.
By the way, the budget reports students / teacher and special ed professionals per student.
So, do the calculations hold up, or do we have 1000 extra teachers, or a missing $175,000 each?
Post a Comment