Archives for the month of: May, 2013

High school rankings by popular media usually take into account how many students take AP exams. Some high schools push students to take AP courses whether or not they are prepared, just to satisfy the rankings. But are the AP courses an appropriate measure of high quality?

A few of the nation’s top private and public high schools have dropped the AP courses, on the belief that their teachers created better courses than the AP. See here and here .

A reader responded to an earlier post about the Tucson BASIS charter schools by questioning the value of AP courses and tests:

“Here is the essence of what Tim Steller wrote about BASIS-Tuscon: “the Basis schools require students to take eight AP courses before graduation, take six AP tests and pass at least one…That naturally helps Basis place high in the U.S. News rankings” And, it is ALL about the rankings. And the College Board’s Advanced Placement program (which Diane neglected to mention).

Steller adds this important point in his article about BASIS, made by an education consultant: “AP has pulled the wool over people’s eyes across the nation…”

Actually, it’s the College Board that has “pulled the wool over people’s eyes.” About AP, to be sure. But also about the SAT and PSAT, and Accuplacer, the placement test used by more than 60 percent of community colleges. They’re all mostly worthless, more hype than reality.

Consider the Advanced Placement program, pushed shamelessly buy the College Board, and by Jay Mathews at The Washington Post (Mathews started the Challenge Index, a ranking of high schools based on the number of AP tests they give).

A 2002 National Research Council study of AP courses and tests found them to be a “mile wide and an inch deep” and inconsistent with research-based principles of learning.

A 2004 study by Geiser and Santelices found that “the best predictor of both first- and second-year college grades” is unweighted high school grade point average, and a high school grade point average “weighted with a full bonus point for AP…is invariably the worst predictor of college performance.”

A 2005 study (Klopfenstein and Thomas) found AP students “…generally no more likely than non-AP students to return to school for a second year or to have higher first semester grades.” Moreover, the authors wrote that “close inspection of the [College Board] studies cited reveals that the existing evidence regarding the benefits of AP experience is questionable,” and “AP courses are not a necessary component of a rigorous curriculum.”

A 2006 MIT faculty report noted ““there is ‘a growing body of research’ that students who earn top AP scores and place out of institute introductory courses end up having ‘difficulty’ when taking the next course.”

Two years prior, Harvard “conducted a study that found students who are allowed to skip introductory courses because they have passed a supposedly equivalent AP course do worse in subsequent courses than students who took the introductory courses at Harvard” (Seebach, 2004).

Dartmouth found that high scores on AP psychology tests do NOT translate into college readiness for the next-level course. Indeed, students admit that ““You’re not trying to get educated; you’re trying to look good;” and, “”The focus is on the test and not necessarily on the fundamental knowledge of the material.”

Students know that AP is far more about gaming the college acceptance process than it is learning.

In The ToolBox Revisited (2006), Adelman wrote about those who had misstated his original ToolBox (1999) work: “With the exception of Klopfenstein and Thomas (2005), a spate of recent reports and commentaries on the Advanced Placement program claim that the original ToolBox demonstrated the unique power of AP course work in explaining bachelor’s degree completion. To put it gently, this is a misreading.”

Ademan goes on to say that “Advanced Placement has almost no bearing on entering postsecondary education,” and when examining and statistically quantifying the factors that relate to bachelor’s degree completion, Advanced Placement does NOT “reach the threshold level of significance.”

The 2010 book “AP: A Critical Examination” noted that “Students see AP courses on their transcripts as the ticket ensuring entry into the college of their choice,” yet, “there is a shortage of evidence about the efficacy, cost, and value of these programs.” And this: AP has become “the juggernaut of American high school education,” but “ the research evidence on its value is minimal.”

As Geiser (2007) notes, “systematic differences in student motivation, academic preparation, family background and high-school quality account for much of the observed difference in college outcomes between AP and non-AP students.” College Board-funded studies do not control well for these student characteristics (even the College Board concedes that “interest and motivation” are keys to “success in any course”).

Klopfenstein and Thomas (2010) find that when these demographic characteristics are controlled for, the claims made for AP disappear.

Yet, the myths –– especially about AP, the SAT and PSAT –– endure.

Meanwhile, the College Board is promoting the Common Core and says it has “aligned” (cough, wink) its products with it. And people believe it. Stopping corporate-style “reform and the Common Core is easier said than done. Parents, students and educators are going to have to remove the wool from over their eyes. And that means abandoning blind belief in the College Board and the products it peddles.”

The Teachers College community is divided about the institution’s decision to honor Merryl Tisch, chancellor of the New York Board of Regents. Tisch has made her mark as a champion of high-stakes testing and charter schools.

Professor Celia Oyler wrote the following message to her graduate students:

“An Open Letter to Graduating Master’s Students in the Elementary and Secondary Inclusive Education Programs

I will not be attending convocation this year as I am on parental leave. I know if I were attending I would not be able to remain silent while Merryl Tisch is given a TC Medal of Honor. Her actions while Chair of the New York State Board of Regents have wrought incredible damage upon our noble profession.

Merryl Tisch has ushered through the Board of Regents many policies with which I vehemently disagree; these include: decoupling teacher certification and master’s degrees from university-based teacher education (approving Relay Graduate School of Education); allowing InBloom to collect and sell private data on each K-12 student in New York State schools; and requiring all school districts to tie teacher evaluation to Value Added Measures based on student test scores. There are numerous problems with using student test scores to evaluate teachers (Value Added Measures). See here, here and here to start.

Despite these well-documented concerns, Teachers College’s initial press release indicated that TC was awarding Merryl Tisch this honorary degree because of her efforts to establish this system of teacher evaluation. To be honest with you all, when I first read the press release, I sobbed. My chagrin is shared by many. For instance, read New York State Principal of the Year (2013) and TC grad Carol Burris’s comment about Merryl Tisch on Diane Ravitch’s blog posting about the Tisch award.

If I were at the graduation convocation, I would wear a sign on the back of my robe. It would probably say, “USING STUDENT TEST SCORES TO RATE TEACHERS DISHONORS US”. Some people are suggesting that students and faculty could turn their backs when Tisch is talking; other people have the idea to hold up signs. In any case, I know that I couldn’t be silent. I would feel complicit; my silence would be condoning the award. I would make sure to sit next to a colleague or two or three who would also agree to take an action with me.

I cannot sit silently while teachers across this country are being viciously attacked and demeaned by the junk science of VAM. For instance: A district in Florida fired A Teacher of the Year based on her VAM. In Los Angeles, a well-loved community-minded teacher committed suicide after his VAM scores were published in the newspaper and he was ranked as one of the lowest teachers in the district; he specialized in welcoming children who spoke little English.

When I was a child, I voraciously read all the books I could find about the Underground Railroad, the Abolitionist Movement, the anti-Nazi movement (including the White Rose Society), the Civil Rights Movement. As a teacher I often included a focus on the South African anti-apartheid movement. For as long as I can remember, I have asked myself, “Would I have stood up?” “Would I have had the courage to defend the side of freedom and justice?”

There are activists in the educational community and TC alumni who are debating whether to call for a protest of the Merryl Tisch award at your graduation. While there are different opinions on this topic, they are all asking if there will be a protest from the graduating students. They realize that you are entering teaching at a very difficult time and they admire your courage. They are hoping that as beginning teachers you can find small ways to protect both the children and our profession by protesting the horrible anti-child and anti-teacher policies pushed through with Race to the Top funding. They hope you are entering the field of education knowing we need to fight courageously for an education that is based on children’s individual needs and does not try to reduce them to test scores; that you want to teach subjects even if they are not on the tests, such as the arts, music, drama, science investigations, and social studies inquiries. I have assured them you are visionary and courageous and that you see urban communities of color as full of multicultural resources and assets to be cultivated rather than as sinkholes of deficits that need to be corrected into middle class mainstream discourses as measured by the tests.

My heart is beating as I type these words, as I know that public education is under an organized assault by corporate reformers who seek to script your curricula and make you teach to their tests. These corporate reformers—The New Schools Venture Fund, the Gates Foundation; the Broad Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation, and so on—seem to have nearly unlimited funds.

What we have on our side is our vision for a different kind of education: one that supports children to dance and sing and debate and play and create and dream and make art and design projects that show their ideas about how to make the world a better place. What we have on our side is our belief in humanity, relationships, solidarity, diversity, democracy, freedom, justice, and equality. I know that none of you entered our teacher education program with the mere goal of helping children score well on a standardized test. You entered teaching to touch the hearts and minds of children, and to listen to and value their stories. And to tell them through your words and your actions, “I see you, I expect huge successes from you, and I love you.”

Please walk with dignity into St John the Divine, no matter what you choose to do or not do about Merryl Tisch. And always remember that no Value Added Score can EVER measure how much value you have added to a child’s life.”

With love,
Celia Oyler

Forgive all the acronyms but that is the way that headlines work.

The School Superintendents Association wrote a strong letter to Senator Tom Harkin about the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the basic federal legislation for elementary and secondary education, which is currently known as No Child Left Behind.

NCLB is generally recognized to be a disaster. The best evidence of its failure is the ever louder cries for “reform.” If NCLB had worked, why would we need more and more reforming, using the same failed methods?

AASA does not have kind words for Race to the Top and urges Congress not to codify it into law.

The AASA clears away the legislative debris, recognizes the over-reach of the federal Department of Education, recommends the removal of the claptrap associated with NCLB, and urges the restoration of a healthy federalism, with a balance of powers among federal, state, and local authorities.

A welcome dose of reality.

Governor Rick Snyder found it in his heart or his budget to let the children of Buena Vista go to school again. The schools were closed for a week after the district went bankrupt. The state has a constitutional duty to provide public education to its children.

Governor Snyder has given billions of dollars in corporate tax breaks.

The Chicago Teachers Union announced that it will file federal civil rights lawsuits on behalf of public school parents to block the closing of 53 elementary schools.

The template for closing schools and opening schools was Chicago’s reform plan called Renaissance 2010; it was created by Arne Duncan and Mayor Daley in 2004. The plan then was to close the 60 lowest-performing schools and replace them with 100 new schools. When 2010 arrived, the Chicago Tribune reviewed the results of Renaissance 2010 and declared it a failure. Did the plan need more time? It was Duncan and Daley who picked the target date.

The Tribune article said:

“Six years after Mayor Richard Daley launched a bold initiative to close down and remake failing schools, Renaissance 2010 has done little to improve the educational performance of the city’s school system, according to a Tribune analysis of 2009 state test data.

“The moribund test scores follow other less than enthusiastic findings about Renaissance 2010 — that displaced students ended up mostly in other low performing schools and that mass closings led to youth violence as rival gang members ended up in the same classrooms. Together, they suggest the initiative hasn’t lived up to its promise by this, its target year.

“Scores from the elementary schools created under Renaissance 2010 are nearly identical to the city average, and scores at the remade high schools are below the already abysmal city average, the analysis found.”

Now Rahm Emanuel intends to close another 53 schools, working from the same script as Renaissance 2010. Indeed, the whole nation is now stuck with Renaissance 2010.

Does evidence matter?

 

This comment came from a teacher in Los Angeles:

I (UTLA member) just wrote to UTLA leadership about their totally inane “dual endorsement” in the current school board election, and suggesting that they change it to a full endorsement of Monica Ratliff. I will post my letter below. If any UTLA members reading this agree, please express your sentiment to UTLA leadership also.

—————————

Dear UTLA Board of Directors (and other UTLA officers),

I have been a teacher (and UTLA member) in LAUSD since 2002. Thank you for your work on our behalf.

The composition of the LAUSD school board can make a lot of difference to both the quality of education in the district, as well as our rights as teachers, etc. It is good and correct that UTLA gets involved in school board races, makes endorsements, etc. Most of your endorsements make sense. (For instance, supporting Zimmer in the recent primary, and opposing Monica Garcia.)

However, I must honestly say, that I am totally befuddled by your current dual endorsement (for the same seat) in the current school board election of May 21. IMO that dual endorsement makes no sense at all, is a total waste of member’s union dues and/or PACE contributions (if either or both are being used in the race), is not at all helpful to the future of the district, and appears so inane, that it could only give UTLA a negative reputation.

First of all, it makes no sense to endorse both candidates in a two-way race, in which only one can win. One endorsement cancels out the other. (Did you hear of anyone endorsing both Obama and Romney in the 2012 presidential election? Endorse both Bush and Gore in 2000? I did not. That would not have made any sense, and neither does your dual endorsement.) Is UTLA member money being used to support both candidates, so that they can run negative ads against each other? Just imagine! (If any member money, whether dues or PACE, is being used to support both candidates running against each other, that is a very irresponsible waste of member’s money, and certainly will not encourage people to join PACE.) If you cannot make up your mind who to support in a two-way race, then the thing to do is to be neutral, to support neither. You cannot support both candidates in a two way race. That is simply ridiculous, I don’t know how else to put it.

That said, I don’t know why you would be undecided. The choice in the race seems very clear, just as clear as Zimmer vs Anderson in the primary, with the same forces at work. There should be no doubt who UTLA should support.

On the one hand there is a candidate who is a teacher and UTLA member, who seems to have many good ideas about education, Monica Ratliff. She is fully endorsed by the new PAC of Diane Ravitch, “Network for Public Education” , as their first endorsement. (Please read about that endorsement here.) (I would suggest too, that UTLA recommend to its membership to join and contribute to Diane Ravitch’s PAC, to help fight off the big money coming in from the likes of Bloomberg, Gates, Broad, etc.)

The other candidate, Antonio Sanchez, is a lawyer with no background in education. He is heavily supported by the exact same coalition that threw big money behind Kate Anderson and Monica Garcia in the primary, led by the likes of Michelle Rhee, Bloomberg, Gates, Broad, etc., as well as our nemesis John Deasy. They are now putting that same kind of money behind Sanchez. They must have a reason for doing so. He must have promised something to them in return for that kind of support. Please read this article about a $350,000 donation to Sanchez from Bloomberg, via Villaraigosa’s school PAC.) (In case anyone reading cannot access that article in the LA Times, I will paste the article at the bottom of this e-mail.)

There really should be no question who UTLA and teachers should support in this race—a teacher, on our side, and the side of the children of the district, supported by Diane Ravitch, or a lawyer heavily supported by our enemies, John Deasy and the corporate “reformers” who are destroying education in this country.

The make-up of the new LAUSD school board can make a lot of difference in what transpires in this district in upcoming years. UTLA has had a positive influence on the process in the past, supporting candidates like Bennett Kayser and Steve Zimmer, and opposing the likes of Monica Garcia. UTLA could really make a difference this time too, by immediately ending the totally absurd “dual endorsement”, and throwing its full weight and influence behind Monica Ratliff. There is only just over a week left in the race. Please make that change today, and do what is right to try to positively influence the future of LAUSD.

———————
Note: in looking at my letter as pasted in above, I see that ont only formatting such as bold and italic has been lost., but the hyperlinks as well. So I will paste the links below.

Diane’s new PAC (I hope that all readers here join, as I have):
http://www.networkforpubliceducation.org/

Her endorsement of Monica Ratliff in the current LAUSD school board race:
http://www.networkforpubliceducation.org/2013/05/our-first-endorsement-monica-ratliff-a-teacher-for-los-angeles-school-board/

LA Times article about big money from the corporate “reformers” going to Sanchez:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-school-board-money-20130425,0,6967603.story

(if anyone reading wants to read the LA times article but has trouble accessing it, let me know in a response here, and I will paste the text in a follow-up post.)

Pasi Sahlberg, the great expert on education in Finland, here examines the founding myths of the corporate reform movement.

Reformers search for the teacher who can generate high test scores. They like the idea that teachers compete for rewards tied to scores. Sahlberg points out that a school is a team, not a competitive individual sport. Teachers must work together towards common goal.

Another fallacy is the “no excuses” claim that great teachers overcome all obstacles. Sahlberg reminds us that the influence of the family and student motivation is far greater than the efforts of teachers in determining outcomes.

A corollary to this fallacy is the belief that three or four great teachers in a row eliminates all social and economic disadvantage.

Sahlberg maintains that teacher education requires high standards and even standardization to produce highly skilled teachers. Once the pipeline is improved, teachers should have a high degree of personal autonomy. He notes that there is no Teach for Finland. All teachers go through a highly selective process and are well educated and prepared for their profession.

All in all, a great post.

Send it to your legislators and leaders.

A new report reviews the advent of online courses for community college students.

It was prepared by the Community College Research Center at Teachers College, Columbia University.

Online courses are popular because they seem to be a way to take courses at home, whenever it is convenient.

This is especially valuable for community college students because they are adults with multiple responsibilities.

What are the results?

Community college students who take online courses perform worse and persist less than those who take face-to-face classes.

This is the conclusion in the study:

“CCRC’s studies suggest that community college students who choose to take courses online are less likely to complete and perform well in those courses. The results also suggest that online courses may exacerbate already persistent achievement gaps between student subgroups.”

Online courses are not for everyone. They may actually be demotivating because of the lack of a personal relationship with an instructor. Once again, the hype is greater than the reality.

A reader describes the situation in Fort Wayne, Indiana, a community with good public schools:

“Further to the point about GREAT home-grown administrators, Fort Wayne Community Schools has another bit of good news today: Two genuinely abysmal local charter schools lost their certification and their appeal today!

http://www.wane.com/dpp/news/education/two-fort-wayne-schools-lose-charter-contracts

(These are the folks who won’t scoop up one of our empty school buildings for $1/year, an available option that our ever-so-friendly state legislature mandates. Instead, these folks BUY real estate and buildings, and then LEASE…from themselves!! That way, about $3 of every $4 they get in public funding….goes right past the school books and into THEIR real estate books!!

http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20110417/EDIT/304179965/1147/EDIT07

but we digress!

Today’s news would be really TREMENDOUS news, except that with Indiana’s ridiculously nihilistic Republican legislature, even Fort Wayne’s excellent locally controlled and locally administered public school system is NEVER more than the stroke of a pen away from some cataclysmic new “education initiative” (read “voucher expansion”).

Just the other day we learned that Carpe Diem – who wants to open a new cubicle farm “school” within a block of one of our best high schools, failed to get enough applicants to go into business…errr…operation next year. So, Carpet Bombing…errrr…Carpe Diem announced that they’d skip opening next year and go for a 2014 opening!

But, you say, their application – which got a rubber-stamp approval from Indiana’s charter approval board – was for a 2013 opening, even despite that their public hearing was a full house of public education supporters who ALL spoke against approval for Carpet Bombing our public schools. But alas – the board skipped the “hearing” part of their public hearing, and approved the application anyway, and NOW – the Carpe Diem people have taken upon themselves to unilaterally revise and extend their “approval” beyond what they plainly are limited to. Some people (mainly, our tremendously passionate FWCS school board president, Mark GiaQuinta, and all the informed citizens, parents, and stakeholders in FWCS) think that it is plainly OUTRAGEOUS that these Carpet Baggers can just swoop in, rewrite the rules and the laws to suit themselves, and scoop as much money as they possibly can out of the public education system before the lights come on or clock runs out (or even beyond that point, with their friends in the state capital)

EduShyster gets great tips!

In this post, she describes a dating service that matches teachers with just the right charter school.

What will they think of next?