The Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything*

*reference here is to Douglas Adams

Yesterday, EdWeek released their annual "Quality Counts" analysis of states on three measures:

• chance for success
• K-12 achievement
• school finance

To be honest, you could read my post on this from last year and get more or less the same result. Not only is Massachusetts leading the nation in achievement and chance for success--and I'd argue that chance for success is a better indicator of what schools actually do--we're still WAY down the bottom on educational equity.

We're 42nd in the nation, to be exact. We also rank below the national average. 

Not entirely surprisingly, this particularly piece did not make the Governor's announcement of the results. Again. 

Now Bruce Baker, whose work I respect enormously, once again raises questions about how EdWeek measures educational funding equity (the post is from 2010; he linked to it this morning by tweet). No one, however, is letting Massachusetts off the hook, and here's why:

@TracyNovick @jerseyjazzman Mass equity (progressiveness is high pov/low pov $ ratio w/various controls) pic.twitter.com/UkWwytXrMI

— Bruce Baker (@SchlFinance101) January 5, 2017

As I've posted in the past about Baker (the professor, not the Governor)'s work,  a foundation formula, backed by a municipal wealth formula, that truly did more highly fund higher need (in both ways: higher need of schools calling for more resources, and more state resources in communities with fewer local resources) would not have the far side of the hill on the right. Between the state not reconsidering the formula and continuing to devote significant resources to minimum increases outside the formula, we're on a down hill slope.

It is thus reassuring to hear, at least from the Senate, that the review commission's work is being taken seriously and taken up this session. The Governor's office, alas, continues to act as though the Commission is news to him, rather than a working group on which he was represented.

The Governor's budget comes out January 25. We'll see then how much he's giving consideration to the conclusions drawn.
I can't say it better than the Commission itself did in closing:

As the Commission’s work draws to a close, the legislature’s work begins. We submit this report to the legislature with full recognition of the continued fiscal challenges of the Commonwealth, and the many competing priorities, and worthwhile goals, that the legislature must balance in crafting the annual state budget. We recognize that recommendations of this scope and size will need to be phased in to be affordable. However, we also note again what was stated at the beginning of this document: that the good work begun by the education reform act of 1993, and the educational progress made since, will be at risk so long as our school systems are fiscally strained by the ongoing failure to substantively reconsider the adequacy of the foundation budget, We therefore urge that the legislature act on these recommendations with a profound sense of the risks and opportunities at stake for our shared prosperity as a state and, as our constitution acknowledges, the critical nature of education to the health of our democracy. We advise a keen sense of the urgency when it comes to addressing the identified funding gaps, and the moral imperative of reducing the remaining achievement gaps.

NSBA Trainers conference on ESSA

I'm in Columbus, OH this week for the National School Boards Association Trainers conference. We're getting an update from the Ohio School Boards Association on the Every Child Succeeds Act. 

updating as we go...
Initial comment "This gives so much power back to the state...all that control...still needs to be developed" Important for school boards to stay involved as states develop their own plans under ESSA

NSBA Conference: ESSA update

updating as we go...
Zola runs policy and advocacy in DC for NSBA
all material is on the app
"we're only about 50% done; we have the law. Now we have to implement"
"be careful what you ask for"
got more local control; our responsibility to do right by this new law

Science and Tech standards: Board of Ed

backup here
You might remember that these were presented last time and basically Peyser rebelled.
Chester thanks Sagan, Peyser, Noyce
"much improved"
won't ask to vote to send them out to comment; intend to come back in October to send out to comment
McKenna: can we get a copy to show changes?
Backed up by Willyard
Chester: can provide with existing standards
McKenna: no, standards provided in spring, and these
Peyser: also had mapping of process

includes state assessment "boundaries"
crosswalks and additions/deletions
also crosses with ELA and math standards
request will be for vote to solicit public comment at October meeting
vote to adopt in January

Noyce: have done a tremendous job of responding to concerns about the way that things were being presented
messages to the field: not "don't assess" but "we're not going to assess"
how the frameworks are going to be presented and supported in the field
will mesh will with ELA and math frameworks

Peyser: hope next weeks are chance to engage with material
"make sure we're covering all our bases"
don't think have changed architecture and purpose
balance between memorization of every detail and step and then there's having sufficient vocabulary as a student to talk about it
getting the balance right

McKenna: asks for material requested shortly after this Board meeting
Sagan asks for it in a week

"But what would we use if we DIDN'T have the tests?"

Yes, authentic assessment is possible. Look at what they're doing at East Side Community High School (and the rest of the New York Performance Standards Consortium):

Tiffany Mungin spent many nervous weeks researching and writing her paper about the Vietnam War. Her high school graduation was on the line. 

Unlike most New York state seniors, who vied for their diplomas by taking the state’s standardized tests, Ms. Mungin had to write a history research paper and an analytic essay in English/language arts. She also had to conduct an original science experiment and undertake an applied-mathematics project in order to graduate. The 18-year-old’s work would have to be evaluated by at least two teachers, and she would have to defend it in formal presentations to panels of educators.

Common Core report from the Research Bureau

Reading the new report out from the Research Bureau on the Common Core, I'd say that I have two issues (which is good, actually!):

• It's a little too eager to buy the party lines on Common Core: it was state generated! it was the result of education policy makers wanting it! the funding had nothing to do with the outcome! ...and so forth. I know there's a wish not to be a conspiracy theorist here, guys, but let's not be too naive, either.
• Very specifically, to issue a report on the Common Core in Massachusetts without mentioning that the first round Race to the Top application did NOT accept the Common Core, and was rejected, while the second round DID accept the Common Core, and got the money, is a big oversight. That, and the teacher evaluation piece, were the only two changes, and it was the two sections the fed was most critical of in the first application. That's not a coincidence; it's also not unconnected to a massive infusion of federal dollars.

EDIT: For more on the report, you can read Steve Foskett's coverage here, which also includes my not-very-dramatic view on the standards and their impact. 

 

Appreciate the change in tone from the Research Bureau, there, though! 

As the tests start hitting the ground

...it's worth reading this EdWeek evaluation of where both testing coalitions are.

What does the Worcester Public Schools' letter to parents about PARCC say?

I have only a hard copy, so I'm typing this. It's late and it's been a long day...all typos are mine.

March 19, 2014

Dear Parent/Guardian:

As you may have heard, Massachusetts is a participating state in the Partnership for Assessment for Readiness for College and Careers, or PARCC, a multi-state project to develop a next-generation, computer-based testing program. The goal of PARCC is to measure student progress toward the state's new academic learning standards in English language arts and mathematics.

Over the next two years, Massachusetts is piloting the PARCC test in schools throughout the state to see how well it measures the state's learning standards and to help determine whether it should replace MCAS, the state's current testing program. I am writing to inform you that your child's class has been selected for participation in an English language arts or mathematics field test between March 24 and April 11.

The purpose of the field test is to allow schools and students to experience the new test before it counts and to allow PARCC developers to ensure that the test questions are fair, on grade level, and measure the intended skills. I would like to assure you that your child will not receive a score or grade based on the PARCC test. Should you choose for your child not to participate in the field test, please notify your child's principal prior to the testing date. Your child's school will be notifying you of the testing dates soon. There will be no academic or disciplinary penalty for not participating, and appropriate accommodations will be provided during testing time.

If you wish to learn more about PARCC, please visit the web site of the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education at http://www.doe.mass.edu/parcc/. If you have additional questions, you may contact Worcester Public Schools' Office of Research and Accountability at WPSORA@worc.k12.ma.us or, as always, ask your child's principal.

Sincerely,
Melinda J. Boone, Ed.D.
Superintendent

New York just backed away from standardized testing, PARCC, and Common Core

...big time.

In a press release issued today, the New York state Board of Regents (their Board of Ed) announced that their full board has adopted several of changes recommended by a working group dealing with the Common Core and new testing regime. Most notably: 

• "The class of 2022 will be the first to face the new higher graduation requirements, 12 years after the adoption of the standards in 2010."
• ... guidance will be issued to districts making clear that the State Education Department (SED) neither requires nor encourages districts to make promotion or placement decisions using student performance on state assessments in grades 3-8, but if districts choose to do so, they should make adjustments to ensure students are not negatively impacted by the Common Core transition and should use multiple measures - not grades 3-8 state assessment results alone."
• "...the Board and SED will support reducing standardized testing by local school districts through "Teaching is the Core" grants that require districts to review their local assessments and eliminate any unnecessary or duplicative assessments"
• "...New York's participation in the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) will be limited to field testing only during the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school years"
• "...an emergency regulation to protect teachers and principals from unfair termination based on 2012-13 and 2013-14 assessment results in districts that did not timely implement the Common Core by providing adequate professional development, guidance on curriculum, or other necessary supports"
• "... the State has delayed the launch of the data dashboards related to inBloom to allow SED to work with legislators to address concerns about data security and third party providers used by the State and districts."
• "...As part of the waiver renewal, SED will ask USDOE to allow students with severe disabilities who are not eligible for alternate assessments to be tested at their instructional level rather than their chronological age level, and allow English Language Learners to be tested in their native language for their first two years of assessments"

All of the above taken directly from the press release. 

Somewhat confused by the parental reaction quoted here; I see some real changes above. 
This is a massive change of tune from the Board of Regents, the group that last year was touting the high rate of student failures as evidence that changes were overdue (rather than too fast). They've essentially turned last year back into a tryout year, admitted that they screwed up last year, postponed implementation of new requirements for graduation, added TWO years of piloting PARCC (that's one more than Massachusetts!), acknowledged that there's too much testing (and put money behind it), pushed off inBloom, and are switching their federal waiver.
That's massive.

Nearly caucus time! 2014 candidates for Governor on education

As much as November feels forever away, it is nearly caucus time for the state races, and so we're due for a look at the education positions of those running for Governor of Massachusetts.
As only the two major parties have caucuses, we'll stick with them, and, as it happens, we can only look at the Democrats, as you'll see in a moment.

From Commissioner Chester's mailbag

...we see that Governor Scott has directed Florida* to become the latest of states that had originally signed up with PARCC that now have dropped out.
Add them to Georgia, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Alabama, Indiana, Pennsylvania...am I missing any?
As of July, the following at affirmed their commitment to field test:

Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Tennessee and the District of Columbia.

That leaves Kentucky as still in but not having affirmed their commitment to field test; all other states that were in as of July that did not affirm--Florida, Indiana, and Oklahoma--since have dropped out of the consortium.

All of which will make Commissioner Chester's update on PARCC tomorrow at the Massachusetts Board of Education meeting that much more interesting!


*There's some question as to who has which power. There's no question of the political winds in Florida, though.

What kind of a test is PARCC (plus NASCAR)

Yes, really.
If you're wondering just how the state of New York decided that all those kids didn't do well on those tests, go read Jersey Jazzman on the Triple Lindy.

Testing, testing

You may have heard that New York, one of the first states to shift their testing to something (possibly) more reflective of the Common Core, released their district and state results yesterday. As expected, scores across the state have dropped precipitously. 
Let me repeat the beginning of that: AS EXPECTED.
New York radically changed the type of test and in many cases what was on the tests the kids were taking this year. Teachers hadn't had much time to prepare kids, and no one really knew what these tests were going to look like once they were out there.
Please take this as a given: when we switch tests, scores are going to drop. They are going to drop hard, they are going to drop fast, and IT IS GOING TO MEAN NOTHING ABOUT WHAT KIDS ARE LEARNING.
Get ready for this now, in any state where your schools are changing types of tests: when the first round comes out, the scores will be lower.
And it will be meaningless.

____________________________________
If you're looking more on what this does and doesn't mean, Diane Ravitch takes apart the "yes men" at the New York Times while pointing out that the NY state ed commissioner doesn't know how the NAEP works,  a principal from elsewhere in the state points out what NY state tests have been like lately and points to mismanagement at the top, the New York State High School Principal of the Year has advice for parents and pushes for sanity to prevail, and the Voorheesville* Central School District superintendent has a thoughtful, down to earth letter of perspective for parents:

Our community is sophisticated enough to recognize a canard when it experiences one.  These tests were intentionally designed to obtain precisely the outcomes that were rendered.  The rationale behind this is to demonstrate that our most successful students are not so much and our least successful students are dreadful.  If you look at the distribution of scores, you see exactly the same distances as any other test.  The only difference is that the distribution has been manipulated to be 30 to 40 percent lower for everybody.  This serves an enormously powerful purpose.  If you establish a baseline this low, the subsequent growth over the next few years will indicate that your plans for elevating the outcomes were necessary.  However, it must be recognized that the test developers control the scaled scores—indeed they have developed a draconian statistical formula that is elaborate, if indecipherable, to determine scaled scores.  I would bet my house on the fact that over the next few years, scores will “improve”—not necessarily student learning, but scores.  They must, because the State accepted millions and millions of dollars to increase student scores and increase graduation rates.  If scores do not improve from this baseline, then those ‘powers that be’ will have a lot of explaining to do to justify having accepted those millions.

(and her letter before that, on the Common Core, is excellent as well. Dr. Snyder, you rock!)

*suburb to the west of Albany. 

Interview with Joan Herman on the new assessments

If you're interested in the new assessment systems, you might take a look at this interview with Joan Herman who is the former director and current senior scientist at the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) at the University of California, Los Angeles, and is advising the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. Lots of interest there, 'though this bit jumped out at me:

From a technical point of view, what do you think are the appropriate and inappropriate uses of these test results?I worry about the results being used in value-added models for teacher evaluation. The results can give us a general barometer of where individual kids are relative to the Common Core standards. I think they will enable us, combined with information on school characteristics, to identify schools that are doing particularly well and those that aren’t. But I worry about making fine-grained distinctions between schools, teachers, and individual kids based on relatively minor differences in scores. Any score is an estimate.

Update from the Board of Ed on PARCC

Chester: state board of ed under MGL 69 sets standards for academic performance and school and district performance
and he runs here through NAEP and MCAS scores
Chester is quite excited that he has moving slides here that have lines that go up...
Graduation rates up, groups with largest gaps making largest gains
"many of our graduates, most of whom do well on the MCAS, end up being placed in non-credit bearing courses"

A bit on PARCC vs SBAC

...particularly with regards to children with special needs being assessed.

Governance and Employee Issues

National Resolution on High Stakes Testing
Boone: speaks of concerns of district vision, direction of accountability
Foley: fan of MCAS testing, if we support this we support it all
content for all students
Monfredo: accountability has helped children across the nation
"We cannot continue to go forward with testing as the end all and be all"

sorry...I can't type and talk..I'll put up the clip tomorrow

Colorio:
knocked on 6000 doors
"stick and tired of all the testing"

O'Connell: Hobson's choice
"is that really working its way to the teachers or are they hearing they don't have a choice?"
reading a split vote

motion to table
passes

David Joyce: on "something that goes between the students and the test"
something to keep their interest, speaks of extracting DNA from a strawberry

With the usual caveats*

...I have to say that Jim Stergios at least captures the conflict of interest, revolving door nature of much of whats going on in the national standards movement.



*including, but not limited to: it's the Pioneer Institute thus: the usual bit about how if the teachers' union likes it, it must be bad; the Mass Frameworks were practically handed down on Mount Sinai; the MCAS is the Best Examination Ever; everyone else is trying to undermine our work...you get the idea.
He had a decent one last month on similar themes.

What those common assessments might look like

There's a good round-up of what we know so far about the new common assessments over at EdWeek.
It may be useful to recall that Massachusetts is a part of the PARCC group.

ESEA is moving

We don't have much on it yet, but it appears that the renewal of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is moving on the Senate side.The Senate bill is comprehensive (unlike the House bills which have taken it piecemeal); it also takes away states having to report to the federal government. As for testing:

The draft would require states to use exams that measure individual student achievement and academic growth, and would leave it up to the states to decide whether the exams would be given once a year or several times a year. Tests are mandated at least once between grades 3 and 5, 6 and 9, and 10 and 12.
States' accountability systems would take into account student scores and high school graduation rates for the preparation of publicly-accessible report cards for each school. Instead of NCLB's specific targets, this version of ESEA would only expect "the continuous improvement of all public schools in the state." If states choose to rate schools by the degree to which student test scores have increased instead of the raw number of students who pass the exams, they would have to report their methodology to the federal government.

Not clear how this will fare in the Senate (there's been a lot of talk about it ahead of time), not to mention the very big gap between this and the way the House is tackling it.