The
most serious problem with NCLB was its unrealistic expectations for student
achievement under the requirement of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) which
called for 100 percent proficiency in reading and mathematics by 2014. So it
was something of a relief when Kentucky asked for and was granted an NCLB waiver.
Kentucky Education Commissioner Terry Holliday was one of the nation's most
outspoken opponents of AYP and was the first to jump off the bus. Holliday
complained to the Herald-Leader
that AYP was a "wrong" measure because schools are punished if they
fail to reach even one AYP goal. He was correct. With the federal waiver, he earned the
chance to build a better mouse trap.
So
it was a big surprise when we learned that the state of Kentucky would
establish another wrong measure for its new Kentucky Performance Rating for
Educational Progress (K-PREP) tests and the Unbridled Learning Accountability system.
It
was easy to see that almost all schools would fail to meet NCLB requirements. As early as 2003, the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) showed that no state or large
district had anything close to 100% of their students performing at the basic
NAEP achievement level, much less the NAEP proficient level. Schools that
failed to meet AYP were initially categorized as “failing.” But under pressure
from - virtually everywhere - it was recast as “Improvement
Status” which
called for a series of interventions that become more extensive for the lowest
schools. Improvement status schools were
required to write improvement plans that were approved by the state. Thousands
of schools faced demoralizing targets while the political attack on public schools
advanced, and schools funds ebbed away.
As WKU
Public Radio reported, public schools across Kentucky will be scored on a
scale of 1-100 under the new Unbridled Learning Accountability system. The top
90 percent of schools will be labeled Distinguished; Proficient for schools in
the 70-89th percentiles, and Needs Improvement for the remaining schools. Every
year thereafter, 70 percent of Kentucky’s schools will fail to reach
proficiency - not because they failed to improve or reach the proficiency cut
score - but because the system withholds the designation from all but the top
30%.
“I
think there’s a big difference between the ‘Needs Improvement’ category and No
Child Left Behind which labeled these schools as failing", says State
Education Commissioner Terry Holliday. "These schools are not
failing, they just have particular components that they need to work on.”
Holliday
added that the new system raises the bar on student achievement for school
districts by taking into consideration student growth and college and career
readiness. “They will sit down and say where are our priorities to work on and
then they’ll set about writing a plan that involves parents and teachers.” Holliday
said schools in the “Needs Improvement” category will have follow-up reviews
from the Department of Education.
In terms of incentivising schools to produce the outcomes we hope to see for Kentucky school kids, is there really such a difference between AYP and K-PREP?
Richard Innes, education analyst for
the Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy, told Associated
Press reporter Roger Alford that people had lost confidence in the former [Kentucky]
test because many of the students who performed well on it still were ending up
in remedial classes in their first year of college...
Holliday
encouraged educators and parents to consider this year's scores a starting
point for improvement. "Although
more than two-thirds of schools and districts are in the "needs
improvement" category, this is not an indicator of failure,"
Holliday said.
Innis
didn't see it in such a positive light. "I
think Kentucky parents have every right to be concerned at this point,"
he said.
Of course,
Innes is unconcerned by the cut score. His only regret
is that the arbitrary choice of the 70th percentile as the criterion point
isn't higher so that he could declare even more public schools to be failures - and so that
BIPPS could argue further for moving public funds into private hands through vouchers. The
Unbridled Learning Accountability system just handed Innes a bigger hammer, and
he knows how to use it.
As
the Courier-Journal
reported, the new testing system is
a key component of Senate Bill 1, enacted in 2009 by the Kentucky General
Assembly, which mandated a new public school assessment and accountability
program beginning with the 2011-12 school year. The law also called for more
rigorous academic standards, aimed at having students develop a deeper
understanding of concepts, and not just the regurgitation of facts or formulas.
Kentucky
schools responded by adopting Common Core Standards in reading and math, which
are designed to be more rigorous and better aligned with college coursework and
21st-century workplace skills. Kentucky was the first to adopt those standards;
since then, 46 other states have followed suit....
The new standards were first taught last school year, and Kentucky
was the first to test them last spring. Bob Rodosky, director of testing
and accountability for the Jefferson County Public Schools, has called the new
accountability system “very ambitious.”
“The stakes are much higher,” Rodosky said. “People are expecting
much more. And because we were among the first to implement the higher
standards, everyone will be watching us.” The new tests will also be used to
judge schools’ performance on reading and math standards that are mandated by
the federal No Child Left Behind law. The law has come under increasing fire
for holding schools to what some contend are unrealistic expectations. And the
Obama administration has called on Congress to overhaul it.
Kentucky is one of 34 states that have been granted a waiver from
No Child Left Behind, allowing it to use its own system to determine whether
its schools are making sufficient progress. The law requires states to use a
single accountability system for public schools to determine whether all
students, as well as individual subgroups of students, are making progress
toward meeting state academic content standards.
When
Danville Superintendent Carmen Coleman gave the Herald-Leader
something less than a full-throated endorsement of
the system, we're sure the Commissioner was disappointed. Coleman said that while
she supports higher standards, “this system is extremely confusing.
We've gone from a system that allowed as many to achieve as possible. This
system won't allow that. I believe this is going to be devastating for some
schools and districts."
Holliday
worried that stories like the one KSN&C
posted on Sunday would present a “completely inaccurate portrayal” of the new
system. KSN&C is concerned with accuracy and asked KDE to let us know what facts
we got wrong. We will pass along whatever response we receive.
We
really want to be fair here. We know that Kentucky has a lot at stake in its
effort to implement the new K-PREP tests. We are also aware (and support) that the feds
required high standards, and that the state had to set cut scores to define the
various accountability categories. Further, we are very glad to hear that those
cut scores will not be moving. (The single most frustrating and unproductive
period of assessment I ever lived through was the 6 or 7 years of the KIRIS
test. The schools lacked a curriculum or a stable target, and it was terrible.)
Today’s
principals need a way to rally the troops. They need to know that the entire school
system (state and local) is fully invested in their success. The teachers have
to be shown a meaningful (directly connected to student success) and attainable
goal. All schools that meet the proficiency requirements ought to receive the hard-earned designation without also having to do so at the expense of any other schools.
We
agree that – theoretically - every school in the state has the opportunity to
exceed the proficiency cut score. But it is also true that a full two-thirds of
the schools will be prevented from achieving a designation of proficiency. The
state’s use of percentiles to rank the schools each year and withhold the
designation of proficient from all but the top 30% of schools will be perceived
by many as unfair.
Unfortunately,
this system will create winners and losers - mostly losers - and it’s not that hard
to foresee negative long-term outcomes for many teachers and students – all too
similar to No Child Left Behind.
Will
that be devastating for some? Yes, we suspect so - especially for those who
care deeply and personally about their work in the schools. Coleman had it
about right. It’s not just about numbers. It is about respecting the hard work we have asked teachers to do and encouraging their success - not hammering the schools into submission. There
are reasons why so many promising young teachers are leaving the field.
In
the Unbridled Learning Accountability system, what needs to be unbridled is the measure that constitutes
proficiency, and the schools that will be short-changed as a result.
3 comments:
Gap score is a screwed up way of looking at a school. The fewer at risk kids you the more disproportionate the percentage is in relationship to school effectiveness and the more inaccurate. How can you reasonably compare gap kids of Oldham County and Owsley County with the same weight in a collective school score?
GAP is one of the most over hyped elements in education reform. From a racial point of view is blantant racist stereotyping. We are to assume that all hispanics, african americans and native americans are all automatically the same academically disadvantages? I know that is not a popular view point, but really, if you are raising both the lower and higher performers in any grouping from some GAP baseline do you honestly expect to accelerate ELL or special needs students to perform at the same level as your highest performing kids. Its ridiculous both in practice and theory to lump kids into these identified pools instead of simply dealing with them as individuals. Why don't we look at single parent families or student households with less HS education or less as at risk groups? It just political cherry picking. Wasn't that long ago that KDE only recognized african americans as the only at risk minority.
Just teach all kids well and quit creating these artificial comparisons
Why not create the same mixture of students in each school? That way the mix,ability,minority,socioeconomic etc is the same percentage in each school. Then all schools should have the same score.
I think the point which the first contributor is making is that if you are going to rank schools there is going to be limited reliability in the GAP component.
Assume you were comparing two schools each theoretically with 400 assessed students and one school had 75% free and reduced lunch and another had 25% free and reduced lunch. Further, if both schools have roughly equal numbers of non duplicated special education, LEP and minority, then one school's score is going to be based on the performance of 100 students where as another is going to have 300 as its representative group (basically most of the student body). Seems like schools with low GAP populations are having 1/3 of their score being based on a very small percentage of their total school population.
Post a Comment