Why Schools Alone Can’t Close Achievement Gaps

Five Social Disadvantages That Depress Student Performance

This from Leila Morsy and Richard Rothstein at EPI:

That students’ social and economic characteristics shape their cognitive and behavioral outcomes is well established, yet policymakers typically resist accepting that non-school disadvantages necessarily depress outcomes. Rather, they look to better schools and teachers to close achievement gaps, and consistently come up short.

This report describes how social class characteristics plausibly depress achievement and suggests policies to address them. It focuses on five characteristics for purposes of illustration:

• parenting practices that impede children’s intellectual and behavioral development
• single parenthood
• parents’ irregular work schedules
• inadequate access to primary and preventive health care
• exposure to and absorption of lead in the blood.

These are not the only characteristics that depress outcomes, nor are they necessarily the most important. This report makes no judgment about the relative importance of the many adverse influences on child and youth development. Parental unemployment and low wages, housing instability, concentration of disadvantage in segregated neighborhoods, stress, malnutrition, and health problems like asthma are among other harmful characteristics.

Certainly, some children with severe socioeconomic disadvantages achieve at higher levels than typical children without them; a range of outcomes is associated with every characteristic, and descriptions of the impacts of social class characteristics only describe averages, not the performance of any particular child. Likewise, this report does not imply that all lower-social-class families have each of these characteristics. But all have many of them.

Because characteristics of lower-class status overlap and may be interdependent, available data do not permit the isolation of any one. Econometric studies that identify the effect of a particular characteristic by holding others constant are valuable, but no study controls for all, and few control for very many.

For each characteristic reviewed here, this report describes its average incidence by race (black versus white) and socioeconomic status. Data limitations preclude similar descriptions of Hispanics’ characteristics. Where research is available, we then review what is known about the characteristic’s prediction of cognitive (academic performance or IQ, for example) and non-cognitive (behavioral) outcomes. We next review the “plausible pathways” by which the characteristic influences youths’ outcomes—i.e., how these predictions might reflect causality. We conclude by recommending policies to reduce the intensity of these specific disadvantages.

This report’s key findings are as follows:

• Parenting practices that impede children’s intellectual and behavioral development: Lower-social-class parents engage in fewer educationally supportive activities with young children, such as reading aloud or playing cognitively stimulating games. Lower-social-class parents also exert more direct authority and offer children fewer choices in their daily interactions, leaving them less prepared for “critical thinking” when school curricula expect it. Parents’ failure to engage in educationally supportive activities is associated with children’s poorer academic and behavioral outcomes. There are well-validated programs that can offset these effects. High-quality early childhood care and education centers provide intellectually stimulating environments that disadvantaged children may miss at home. Nurse home-visiting services assist disadvantaged mothers with health problems and teach developmentally appropriate parenting skills. High-quality after-school and summer programs that offer cultural and organizational activities are typically attended by middle-class youth, not students from lower-social-class backgrounds.
• Single parenthood: Mothers raising children alone are more likely to be low-income, African American, and less educated. Their children typically have lower test scores, are more likely to drop out of school, and have greater emotional and behavioral difficulties (more delinquency and violence, more school dropout, more suicide). Sex education and school-based health centers that provide long-lasting contraception to teenage girls are important, but they will not be as effective as they have to be if African American men remain poor marriage partners—unable to help support families because of excessive unemployment and discriminatory arrest and incarceration. Full employment as well as labor market and criminal justice reforms that enable fathers to earn middle-class incomes are needed to improve children’s outcomes.
• Parents’ irregular work schedules: Computerized scheduling and the weakening of norms governing employers’ responsibility for employee welfare have combined to produce irregular work schedules for many hourly paid low-wage workers, disproportionately African Americans and the less educated. Unpredictable schedules make it difficult, if not impossible, to place children in high-quality child care centers and to establish regular home routines in which children can thrive. Children of mothers with non-standard schedules have worse verbal and other cognitive skills, mental health, and behavior. New regulatory policies—for example, requiring call-in pay for workers sent home before shifts end—could create incentives for employers to reduce use of “just-in-time” employee scheduling.
• Inadequate access to primary and preventive health care: Minority children and those whose parents are less educated or who live in low-income neighborhoods are less likely to have personal physicians or nurse practitioners, or receive necessary referrals to specialists. No research directly associates physician access with children’s cognitive or non-cognitive outcomes, but a relationship is easy to intuit. Children with limited access are more likely to have routine and preventable illnesses, causing more frequent absences from school. Regulatory changes that support school-based health centers and Medicaid reimbursement changes to create incentives for primary care physicians to locate in low-access neighborhoods could address this.
• Exposure to and absorption of lead in the blood: Children with high blood lead levels are disproportionately low income and African American. Lead reduces cognitive ability (IQ) and causes adverse behavioral outcomes, such as increased violence and other criminal behavior in adolescents and young adults. Although lead was removed from gasoline in the 1970s and 1980s, lead remains on the ground and is frequently stirred up into breathable air. Lead also remains in windows, window frames, the walls of older buildings, and pipes carrying water to residences. Lead cleanup is expensive, but it would result in substantial overall savings in reduced special education placements, reduced criminal behavior, and greater worker productivity from adults with greater cognitive ability.

Fayette school board narrows field of superintendent candidates to eight

This from the Herald-Leader:

The Fayette County Board of Education has narrowed the field of candidates for Fayette County's next superintendent, interviewing eight candidates via Skype on Wednesday and Friday.

"The quality of the candidates and their depth of experience are truly impressive," board members said in a joint written statement released Friday night. The names were not being released.

School board members have said they would like to find a replacement for Tom Shelton by July. Shelton's resignation was effective in December. Marlene Helm has been serving as interim superintendent.

In the next step for the permanent position, the Lexington-based search firm McNamara Search will continue the process of background and reference checks, the statement said. The work will include education; credential and employment verification, credit reports; legal, driving and criminal records; and interviews of constituents in the communities where the candidates worked.

Candidates will also take several assessments to provide the board with information about behavior, aptitude and cultural competence.

Once that process is complete, the school board will decide how many candidates to bring in for public interviews. Board members said no decisions have been made about the number of public interviews that will be held, but they said they want to begin the interviews during the week of June 22.

There were 57 applicants for the job. The vetting of candidates included 18 hours of review by a six-member Superintendent Screening Committee, which recommended seven potential candidates to the school board. The school board also reviewed the candidates. Under state law, school boards do not have to take the recommendations of screening committees.

Of the 57 total applicants, the district said 49 are male; 32 candidates are white, and 25 are black. Only 15 percent had past or present ties to Kentucky. The district said 29 percent of applicants were currently working in the South, 24 percent were from the East Coast, 31 percent from the Midwest, 13 percent from the West/Southwest and 4 percent did not disclose.

Of the eight candidates the board interviewed via Skype, 6 are men. Five of the candidates are white, and three are black.

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2015/06/13/3898645/field-for-fayette-county-schools.html#storylink=cpy

Fayette schools must face, correct weaknesses

This from the Herald-Leader:

Kentucky Education Commissioner Terry Holliday is turning up the heat on the Fayette County Public Schools at an opportune time.

The board is expected to name a new superintendent next month. State scrutiny will give the district's next chief an unmistakable mandate to eliminate weaknesses in the central administration and school-level leadership.

A state review laid out a long list of concerns about the central office's capacity to lead school turnarounds and close achievement gaps. The next superintendent must shore up these weaknesses or risk a state takeover of FCPS, an outcome no one would relish.

In another welcome move, Holliday is expanding the state's focus in Lexington beyond Bryan Station High, one of 36 schools statewide prioritized for attention because of persistently low achievement and the only Fayette school in that category.

The elementary and middle schools that send youngsters to Bryan Station obviously have a role to play in better preparing students to succeed.

Also, even if Bryan Station suddenly shot to the top of school rankings, Lexington would still suffer from gaping education disparities.

The intense focus on Bryan Station has blurred an inconvenient truth: All of Lexington's high schools, and many of its elementary and middle schools, are shortchanging black and lower income students.

In fact, by some measures, black students are getting better educations at Bryan Station than any of its Lexington counterparts. Bryan Station's black students outscore their counterparts in the district and statewide in Algebra II, English II, U.S. history, writing and reading.

The problem — and it's a big, stubborn one — is that black students as a whole continue to achieve at levels far below those of all students as a whole.

In a letter to school board chairman John Price, Holliday cited as "causes for alarm" disparities in state test scores and other measures between black students and all students at all levels.

The achievement gap yawns even wider for students with limited English proficiency, according to Holliday's letter.

One reason Fayette County has been talking about the achievement gap for decades is there's no quick or easy fix. But we know from other places and some local successes that improvement is attainable. We also know that this race-based inequity in education excludes too many of our fellow citizens from any economic hope.

This should be intolerable in Lexington, where education is the dominant industry and all kinds of resources are available to do better.

Holliday laid out a long list of management weaknesses, including lack of accountability for principals and central administrators, lack of a data system for making decisions about instruction and student achievement, shortcomings in teacher recruitment and professional development, and departments that function in isolation from each other.

The state will help the district develop a plan by December for addressing those and other concerns.
Gains at Bryan Station, which is expected to move out of priority status when this year's scores are released, is evidence that improvement is within reach.

It's critical that the school board hire, and support, a superintendent who has the expertise and will to educate all of Lexington's youngsters.

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2015/06/14/3899719/fayette-schools-must-face-correct.html#storylink=cpy

Students group investigates college transitions, uncovers “tripwires”

Prichard Committee Student Voice Team members identify three major categories of obstacles in report

This from the Lane Report:

Members of the Prichard Committee Student Voice Team released a report outlining results of their year-long investigation into the challenges facing students as they make college transitions after high school. 

Released at the Hugh O’brien Youth Leadership Summit, the report “Uncovering the Tripwires to Postsecondary Success” includes research and insights from interviews conducted with over 200 Kentucky students, parents, teachers, business leaders, policymakers, politicians and researchers.  The investigation focuses on the theme of inequity in the postsecondary transition process.  (Click here to read the full report.)

“As students on the cusp of postsecondary transitions ourselves, we are especially interested in learning what it takes to move successfully from high school to college,” said Gentry Fitch, a recent West Jessamine High School graduate and chair of the investigative team. “Our goals are to raise the level of informed discussion among students and adults and to make sure that those who make policy around postsecondary transitions are hearing from students about how related policies directly affect us.”

In their report, the students identify the three major categories of obstacles, or “tripwires,” to make the point that students often stumble over them before realizing that they even exist. They characterized these categories as: “The Birthright Lottery,” “Veiled College Costs,” and “College and Career Unreadiness.”

The student investigators say they aim to promote a more honest conversation about postsecondary transitions among their peers and their families. Andrew Brennen, a recent graduate of Paul Laurence Dunbar High School in Lexington and current undergraduate at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, said that after a year of research, members of the project team are eager to dispel what they call the “meritocracy myth.”

“When it comes to supporting students to make it to and through college, critical resources like college-advising, financial aid and the availability of programs that help students develop the softer, non-academic skills to succeed are either not adequate or not available to many of the students who need them most.” Brennen said. “While Kentucky does do great things to support some of its students, much more needs to be done to support all of us.”

Members of the Student Voice Team will be traveling the state this summer to promote their work to students and the general public.  They are also communicating via social media and are using the hashtag #CollegeTripwires.

The Prichard Committee Student Voice Team was founded in the fall of 2012 to integrate student voice into education policy making. The initiative is an extension of the Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence, an independent citizens’ advocacy group that works to improve Kentucky schools.

 Members of the Student Voice Team will be using the hashtag #CollegeTripwires to communicate via social media.

Who didn't see this coming?

Majority of schools inflated program review scores

KDE not adjusting inflated scores

This from the Courier-Journal:

The Kentucky Department of Education says schools are overscoring themselves on their program reviews, which account for more than a fifth of a school's overall accountability score.

High-stakes assessment + Human Nature = Home cookin'

"It's human nature," Associate Commissioner Amanda Ellis told the Kentucky Board of Education during its meeting this week. "If there's something you can control ... you want to give yourself the benefit of the doubt."

The department audited programs at eight schools across the state, including Jeffersontown High School, to evaluate the consistency of their self-ratings on their K-3, arts and humanities, practical living and writing programs.

It found that, 63 percent of the time, the school overscored its program.

For instance, a school may have scored its program as proficient in one indicator, while the state audit team deemed it as needing improvement.

Ellis said the audits showed that schools did not understand the process for evaluating their programs. She also noted the audited schools were happy to get feedback on how to improve their scoring processes.

Some board members decried the scoring disparities between the schools and the auditors, with board member Sam Hinkle calling the results "awful" and asking whether there are "any consequences for consistently telling yourself that you're better than you are."

Ellis said the state will work with schools to improve their programs and their reviews. It is planning to pick 24 schools this fall for program review audits.

Jeffersontown Principal Marty Pollio commended the audit team's efforts but added he felt that, overall, his school was doing an accurate job scoring its programs and disputed any innuendo that his school was trying to inflate scores.

Of 13 indicators that the audit team examined, it agreed with Jeffersontown on nine of them, Pollio said. He said that the team told him it agreed with the school's rating on three of the remaining four, but said it needed more evidence.

"We were pretty close to accurate," Pollio said. "It's our first time through this. People on the committee really tried to honestly assess where we are. We're still proud of our results."

Pollio added that the audit helped his school recognize areas where it could improve its review process. "I think everyone wants to give an honest assessment of programs," he said.

The legislature-mandated program reviews are designed to help schools improve programs like arts that don't lend themselves well to paper-and-pencil tests. Teams within the school are supposed to do the reviews.

Last year, for the first time, some of the program reviews factored into schools' 2013-2014 state accountability scores, with the scores on those reviews counting for more than a fifth of a school's overall score. This year, as last year, the program reviews will account for 23 percent of the overall score.

As some had predicted, the results of those 2013-2014 program reviews were generally high. Indeed, the majority of schools in Jefferson County rated their programs as proficient or better.

Some in Kentucky said they were not surprised by the high scores or the auditors' findings that schools had overscored themselves.

"What else do you think would happen when those scores are used to hold schools and staff accountable?" Richard Innes, an education analyst for the Bluegrass Institute, a free-market think tank, said in a blog post about the board meeting.

Department staff said no scores were changed as the result of this audit.

However, Ellis said that if schools' scores are "extremely inflated again after they already received an audit, then to me that's an automatic red flag to send them on for a possible testing violation."

FCPS teachers generally more positive about teaching conditions

Despite significant administrative turmoil at the district level, FCPS TELL Survey data show teachers to be slightly more positive about teaching and learning in the schools than in 2013. The only notable exception is that fewer faculty members believe that the district is making efforts to minimize the amount of routine paperwork teachers are required to do.

FCPS DATA

Fayette Co. (TELL KY 2015) (89.42% responded) Fayette County (TELL KY 2013) (97.68% responded)		Fayette Co. TELL KY 2015	Fayette County TELL KY 2013
Time
Q2.1	Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements about the use of time in your school.
	a. Class sizes are reasonable such that teachers have the time available to meet the needs of all students.	57.9%	55.0%
	b. Teachers have time available to collaborate with colleagues.	69.2%	69.7%
	c. Teachers are allowed to focus on educating students with minimal interruptions	68.5%	64.1%
	d. The non-instructional time provided for teachers in my school is sufficient.	63.4%	63.4%
	e. Efforts are made to minimize the amount of routine paperwork teachers are required to do.	53.8%	58.6%
	f. Teachers have sufficient instructional time to meet the needs of all students.	65.5%	60.4%
	g. Teachers are protected from duties that interfere with their essential role of educating students.	69.7%	69.3%
Facilities and Resources
Q3.1	Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements about your school facilities and resources.
	b. Teachers have sufficient access to instructional technology, including computers, printers, software and internet access.	80.8%	80.3%
	d. Teachers have access to reliable communication technology, including phones, faxes and email.	97.3%	94.9%
	e. Teachers have sufficient access to office equipment and supplies such as copy machines, paper, pens, etc.	79.2%	82.5%
	f. Teachers have sufficient access to a broad range of professional support personnel.	83.1%	83.5%
	g. The school environment is clean and well maintained.	88.5%	84.9%
	h. Teachers have adequate space to work productively.	87.6%	82.3%
	i. The physical environment of classrooms in this school supports teaching and learning.	89.7%	86.4%
	j. The reliability and speed of Internet connections in this school are sufficient to support instructional practices.	85.3%	74.1%
Community Support and Involvement
Q4.1	Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements about community support and involvement in your school.
	a. Parents/guardians are influential decision makers in this school.	70.8%	69.6%
	b. This school maintains clear, two-way communication with the community.	87.9%	85.6%
	c. This school does a good job of encouraging parent/guardian involvement.	88.8%	87.8%
	d. Teachers provide parents/guardians with useful information about student learning.	95.0%	93.9%
	e. Parents/guardians know what is going on in this school.	84.0%	81.9%
	f. Parents/guardians support teachers, contributing to their success with students.	73.4%	70.4%
	g. Community members support teachers, contributing to their success with students.	81.0%	78.1%
	h. The community we serve is supportive of this school.	82.4%	81.2%
Managing Student Conduct
Q5.1	Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements about managing student conduct in your school.
	a. Students at this school understand expectations for their conduct.	85.5%	84.6%
	b. Students at this school follow rules of conduct.	70.8%	66.2%
	c. Policies and procedures about student conduct are clearly understood by the faculty.	79.1%	78.7%
	d. School administrators consistently enforce rules for student conduct.	67.8%	65.6%
	e. School administrators support teachers' efforts to maintain discipline in the classroom.	78.1%	76.5%
	f. Teachers consistently enforce rules for student conduct.	75.0%	74.2%
	g. The faculty work in a school environment that is safe.	89.5%	88.5%
Teacher Leadership
Q6.1	Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements about teacher leadership in your school.
	a. Teachers are recognized as educational experts.	83.2%	81.5%
	b. Teachers are trusted to make sound professional decisions about instruction.	83.1%	80.8%
	c. Teachers are relied upon to make decisions about educational issues.	81.8%	80.0%
	d. Teachers are encouraged to participate in school leadership roles.	88.0%	86.1%
	e. The faculty has an effective process for making group decisions to solve problems.	70.0%	70.5%
	f. In this school we take steps to solve problems.	79.2%	78.2%
	g. Teachers are effective leaders in this school.	84.0%	82.4%
Q6.5	Teachers have an appropriate level of influence on decision making in this school.	65.4%	64.0%
School Leadership
Q7.1	Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements about school leadership in your school.
	a. The faculty and leadership have a shared vision.	75.9%	76.0%
	b. There is an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect in this school.	68.6%	66.4%
	c. Teachers feel comfortable raising issues and concerns that are important to them.	67.3%	64.9%
	d. The school leadership consistently supports teachers.	74.9%	72.0%
	e. Teachers are held to high professional standards for delivering instruction.	92.2%	91.3%
	f. The school leadership facilitates using data to improve student learning.	91.2%	91.3%
	g. Teacher performance is assessed objectively.	87.1%	84.1%
	h. Teachers receive feedback that can help them improve teaching.	86.1%	79.0%
	i. The procedures for teacher evaluation are consistent.	84.5%	83.5%
	j. The school improvement team provides effective leadership at this school.	79.6%	77.1%
	k. The faculty are recognized for accomplishments.	83.1%	83.4%
Q7.3	The school leadership makes a sustained effort to address teacher concerns about:
	a. Leadership issues	74.1%	72.8%
	b. Facilities and resources	86.1%	84.0%
	c. The use of time in my school	76.3%	74.6%
	d. Professional development	82.2%	80.8%
	e. Teacher leadership	82.4%	80.3%
	f. Community support and involvement	86.5%	83.9%
	g. Managing student conduct	75.5%	73.2%
	h. Instructional practices and support	86.7%	84.7%
	i. New teacher support	80.7%	79.4%
Professional Development
Q8.1	Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with statements about professional development in your school.
	a. Sufficient resources are available for professional development in my school.	74.3%	71.3%
	b. An appropriate amount of time is provided for professional development.	78.4%	78.2%
	c. Professional development offerings are data driven.	80.7%	78.9%
	d. Professional learning opportunities are aligned with the school’s improvement plan.	90.7%	88.4%
	e. Professional development is differentiated to meet the needs of individual teachers.	65.9%	59.1%
	g. Professional development deepens teachers' content knowledge.	77.6%	74.4%
	h. Teachers have sufficient training to fully utilize instructional technology.	71.2%	67.9%
	i. Teachers are encouraged to reflect on their own practice.	95.4%	86.1%
	j. In this school, follow up is provided from professional development.	69.1%	60.8%
	k. Professional development provides ongoing opportunities for teachers to work with colleagues to refine teaching practices.	75.7%	72.7%
	l. Professional development is evaluated and results are communicated to teachers.	62.3%	53.8%
	m. Professional development enhances teachers' ability to implement instructional strategies that meet diverse student learning needs.	82.8%	81.2%
	n. Professional development enhances teachers' abilities to improve student learning.	86.4%	84.3%
Instructional Practices and Support
Q9.1	Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements about instructional practices and support in your school.
	a. State assessment data are available in time to impact instructional practices.	60.9%	56.4%
	b. Local assessment data are available in time to impact instructional practices.	84.7%	82.4%
	c. Teachers use assessment data to inform their instruction.	93.0%	90.0%
	d. Teachers work in professional learning communities to develop and align instructional practices.	88.1%	86.7%
	e. Provided supports (i.e. instructional coaching, professional learning communities, etc.) translate to improvements in instructional practices by teachers.	83.0%	80.7%
	f. Teachers are encouraged to try new things to improve instruction.	92.4%	90.3%
	g. Teachers are assigned classes that maximize their likelihood of success with students.	68.5%	65.6%
	h. Teachers have autonomy to make decisions about instructional delivery (i.e. pacing, materials and pedagogy).	81.2%	79.1%
	i. The curriculum taught in this school is aligned with Kentucky Core Academic Standards.	97.9%	96.1%
Overall
Q10.6	Overall, my school is a good place to work and learn.	83.7%	80.9%

This from KDE via FCPS:

Overall, Kentucky educators are more positive about teaching and learning conditions in their schools than they were in 2013, according to results from the latest Teaching, Empowering, Leading and Learning (TELL) Kentucky Survey presented to the Kentucky Board of Education.

This year a record 89.3 percent – almost 45,000 – of eligible school-based certified educators responded to the anonymous biennial survey, which was first given in 2011. The survey includes topics such as time, school leadership, teacher leadership, facilities and resources, professional development, community engagement and support, instructional practices and support, student conduct, and new teacher support. In addition, principals were surveyed about supports they receive from their school district. Research by the New Teacher Center has demonstrated these are essential elements of student achievement and teacher retention.

Statewide, Kentucky has seen continuous improvement in each area. In the 2015 survey, schools made the greatest improvements to areas with the least positive conditions in 2013:

• The amount of routine paperwork teachers are required to do is minimized.
• Professional development is evaluated, and the results are communicated to teachers.
• Class sizes are reasonable such that teachers have the time available to meet the needs of all students.
• State assessment data are available in time to impact instructional practices.
• Professional development is differentiated to meet the needs of individual teachers.
• Teachers have an appropriate level of influence in decision making in the school.

While time saw the most growth of any of the areas since 2013, it remained the least positively viewed area in the survey.

Since 2011, the Kentucky Department of Education and coalition partners have been actively working to improve school conditions using TELL Kentucky Survey data. Examples of resulting policies include:

• The new Professional Growth and Effectiveness System (PGES) incorporates use of the TELL data as a required component of the evaluation tool being developed to assess administrator effectiveness.
• The Consolidated District Improvement Plan (CDIP) and the Consolidated School Improvement Plan (CSIP) require the use of TELL data.
• The Kentucky Learning Forward initiative used 2011 TELL data when examining policy recommendations impacting the use of teachers’ time and continued opportunities for teachers to collaborate.

In addition, after a previous survey indicated technology in the schools was an issue, KDE requested and received an increase in technology funding to address the reliability and speed of Internet connections in local schools. As a result, there was an improvement in the number of positive responses on 2015 TELL Survey technology questions.

About 95 percent of surveyed schools (1,339 of 1,409) met or exceeded the 50 percent response rate threshold required to receive an individual school-level data report. All the results, including a statewide summary, are posted at www.tellkentucky.org.

Inequitable school funding called ‘one of the sleeper civil rights issues of our time’

This from the Washington Post:

Funding for public education in most states is inadequate and inequitable, creating a huge obstacle for the nation’s growing number of poor children as they try to overcome their circumstances, according to a set of reports released Monday by civil rights groups.

Students in the nation’s highest-spending state (New York) receive about $12,000 more each year than students in the lowest-spending state (Idaho), according to the reports, and in most states school districts in wealthy areas spend as much or more per pupil than districts with high concentrations of poverty.

In addition, many states were spending less on education in 2012 than they were in 2008, relative to their overall economic productivity, according to the reports.The two reports – the Education Law Center’s fourth annual report card on school finance and a companion piece co-authored with the Leadership Conference Education Fund – are meant to help galvanize policymakers and activists to take on longstanding school funding disparities.

“School funding decisions are one of the sleeper civil rights issues of our time,” said Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and Leadership Conference Education Fund. “The evidence from across the country is clear and compelling: Our nation must dramatically change the way that educational resources are distributed so that there is true equity in America’s classrooms.”

Henderson pointed to a little-known 1973 Supreme Court case as one reason for why inequitable funding has been such a difficult problem for activists to tackle.

In San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, justices ruled that it was legal to base state school funding formulas on local property taxes, even though doing so resulted in unequal resources. The court also ruled that there is no federal constitutional right to an education.

Henderson called the decision a “triumph of states’ rights over human rights,” and said in the long term he wants to see that decision overturned. In the short term, he said, activists need to put pressure on states.

In 2012, just 15 states had school funding systems that funnel more resources to students in poor districts than those in affluent districts, according to the Education Law Center’s analysis.

The remaining states either devote the same funding to the poorest and richest districts, or they send more to districts serving the most affluent students than they send to districts serving the poorest children. Many students in the poorest districts come to school hungry, are in need of health care or lack a stable home life. Such children generally are considered more expensive to educate.

The reports argue that the growing number of poor children and the increasing segregation of impoverished children makes school funding a more urgent issue than ever. Children from low-income families are now the majority in U.S. public schools, according to the Southern Education Foundation.

The four states with the most progressive school finance systems – South Dakota, Delaware, Minnesota and New Jersey – provided their poorest districts with between 30 percent and 38 percent more money per pupil than their most affluent districts, according to the report.

Contrast that with Nevada, which regularly scrapes bottom in state-by-state comparisons of academic performance: In the Silver State, the poorest districts got just 48 cents for every dollar that went to the wealthiest districts.

Nevada legislators this year recognized the disparities, passing a measure to direct more funds to schools serving high concentrations of poor students and students with special needs.
The difference between the school finance system in Nevada and some of its neighboring states is clear in “fairness profiles” that are part of the Education Law Center’s report card.

 

In Nevada, high-poverty school districts receive considerably less funding than low-poverty districts. Source: “Is School Funding Fair? A National Report Card,” by the Education Law Center

The fairness profiles are line graphs that show both the level of per-pupil funding in each state and the distribution of that funding. Flat lines, such as for Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico, mean that funding is the same for all districts regardless of poverty level; a line that angles down, such as Nevada’s, means that the system is regressive, i.e. poorer school districts get less per-pupil funding.

A line that angles up — such as Delaware and New Jersey, below — means that the system is progressive, i.e. poorer school districts get more per-pupil funding.

Source: “Is School Funding Fair?” by the Education Law Center

A few states, such as Utah, have progressive school finance systems but spend so little on average that they still aren’t doing enough, the report argues.

       Source: “Is School Funding Fair?” by the Education Law Center

The “fairness profiles” are based on the Education Law Center’s analysis of federal data from 2012. Some states have made school funding changes since then, while others — such as Pennsylvania, one of the most inequitable in the nation — are considering policy overhauls.

Most of the nation could afford to spend more on education, the report argues, pointing to the falling level of “effort” on education spending in most states. Effort is defined in the report as the ratio of state and local education spending to economic productivity – or the state’s gross domestic product.

In all but four states – West Virginia, Illinois, Wyoming and Connecticut – the level of effort fell between 2008 and 2012. Florida saw the biggest decrease, with its effort declining by 25 percent, but many states saw significant decreases during that time period.

Source: “Is School Funding Fair?” by the Education Law Center

One of the key challenges for education activists seeking more money has always been the lack of a direct connection between taxpayer investment and student achievement. The Education Law Center does not confront that issue in a comprehensive way in its report, but it provides snapshots: state rankings for preschool enrollment, pupil-to-teacher ratio and teacher wage competitiveness.

Legislators OK $117 K contract for Education Commissioner search

This from cn/2:

A legislative panel has approved a $117,000 contract for a Florida-based firm to identify the state’s next education commissioner.

The Government Contract Review Committee unanimously voted Tuesday to proceed with a contract between the Kentucky Department of Education and Greenwood/Asher & Associates, which was hired in May following the retirement of Commissioner Terry Holliday.

Holliday announced in April his decision to step down effective Aug. 30, and Associate Commissioner Hiren Desai said the board hopes to name a replacement by then. If not, a hire will be made by December at the latest, he said.

Greenwood/Asher’s contract calls for $70,000 in base pay plus additional expenses such as candidate searches and background checks, Desai said.

“They get reimbursed up to $10,000 for travel,” he said, noting Greenwood/Asher will conduct another search at no cost if the newly hired commissioner leaves within a year. “We reimburse them for up to $15,000 for candidates’ travel, and then up to $22,000, and that’s just an up-to amount, for background searches and other expenses associated with the search.”

Sen. Max Wise, co-chairman of the review panel, asked whether any Kentucky firms submitted bids for the contract, but Desai said none did. Greenwood/Asher has worked extensively in Kentucky, conducting past searches for the two most recent University of Kentucky presidents, Northern Kentucky University and the Kentucky Community and Technical College System, Desai said. What’s more, he said Greenwood/Asher identified Holliday as a potential commissioner for KDE when he was hired in 2009.

“If I remember correctly they’ve done about 270 searches in the last three years nationally, and they’ve done about 20 in Kentucky in the last five years,” Desai said.

With a short timeframe to work, Desai said the state education board may elect to identify 10 potential candidates before winnowing the field to three and hiring a replacement. In 2009, the panel found 10 potential candidates, narrowed that list to five, then identified a final three before hiring Holliday, he said.

Reformy Testing Rift Intensifies

This from Morning Education:

Education Trust President Kati Haycock weighed in Thursday on the debate over whether annual tests serve the interests of the civil rights community, saying National Center on Education and the Economy President and CEO Marc Tucker’s recent thoughts [http://bit.ly/1HAn4rL] on the subject were “breathtaking in their arrogance.”

Kati Haycock

Tucker argued, among other things, that the current accountability system dumbs down the curriculum and leads to excessive test prep especially for poor and minority students. And he thinks civil rights groups like the NAACP and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights should reconsider their strong pro-accountability position.

Haycock disagrees with Tucker’s stance — and his tone. “We work with — and have learned from — [civil rights] leaders and organizations on many issues over many years. And while they may or may not decide to call him out on his accusations, I will. Because even a white girl can recognize that this is yet another example of the patronizing attitudes displayed by so many white education ‘leaders’ when anybody from the black, brown or Native communities that have been shortchanged in education for so long DARES to disagree,” Haycock wrote in a blog post: http://bit.ly/1H5z6xl.

Marc Tucker

Tucker told Morning Education that Haycock is “just plain wrong.” The civil rights community is not as united on testing as many think it is, he said, citing a recent op-ed [http://bit.ly/1BKzpI3]. “I actually laughed when I saw it, to tell you the truth,” Tucker said. “What’s important to me here is not overriding the civil rights community, but persuading people in it that they have misread the situation.”

Ky. backsliding on higher-ed progress

This from the H-L Editorial Board:

As gubernatorial hopefuls Matt Bevin and Jack Conway crisscross the state promising to create jobs, they should be asked this at every stop: How would they revive the progress Kentucky had been making in graduating young people from college?

Almost every state cut funding for higher education after the 2008 economic collapse. But few have slashed as deeply as Kentucky, where state revenue chronically falls short of need, largely because an antiquated tax system is in desperate need of reform.

While others have been restoring higher-ed funding, Kentucky is still cutting — $179 per student in 2014-15, the most of any state, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

It shows.

After the 1997 Higher Education Reform Act infused colleges and universities with new funding and purpose, they achieved dramatic results. From 2000 to 2009, Kentucky ranked first for growth in four-year graduation rates, second for associate degree attainment and third for growth in three-year graduation rates from community colleges.

After cuts of $178 million over the last six years, we're stalling out: The state's pace of improvement fell to 41st, 24th and 44th respectively in the three categories.

Both analyses by the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems were commissioned by Kentucky's Council on Postsecondary Education.

Since 2008, tuition nationally and in Kentucky has soared by an average of 28 percent while real median income fell.

Student debt has climbed. But the value of federal Pell Grants, the largest source of need-based financial aid, has fallen. The maximum aid grant now covers roughly 30 percent of the average cost of a four-year public college, the lowest share in 40 years, according to the Washington-based center.

This eroding support for educating Americans is economic suicide in a competitive world.

Meanwhile, Kentucky struggles to catch up at home. Our college attainment rate is about 28 percent versus a 33 percent U.S. average.

Kentucky is still increasing college graduates, but undergraduate enrollment fell last year by 2.5 percent. The largest decline was among community college students, those most affected by tuition increases and declining financial aid.

Kentucky cannot compete for good jobs without a better educated populace. Remind your would-be governors of that at every turn.