How many times have you read in a report or in the newspaper that X method or Y school was able to produce an extra 40 days or extra weeks of learning in reading or math?
How do gains in test scores get converted into days or weeks or months?
The answer, according to Gary Rubinstein, is that they don’t. Or they shouldn’t. It is nonsense.
I recently read a Mathematica Policy Research report on the Teacher Incentive Fund (merit pay), which claimed that a 1% increase in test scores was equivalent to an additional three weeks of learning. See here (study snapshot) and here (executive summary) and here (full report).
Performance Bonuses for Educators Led to Small Improvements in
Student Achievement
Educators’ understanding of bonus program improved, but challenges remain
New findings from Mathematica Policy Research show that a federal program providing bonuses to educators based on their performance had a small, positive impact on student achievement. In the first report to describe the effects of pay-for-performance bonuses within the Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) program on student achievement, researchers found that student scores on standardized reading tests rose by 1 percentile point—the equivalent of about three weeks of additional learning. The study also showed similarly positive, but statistically insignificant, improvements in math.
I asked Gary if it made sense to translate a one-point gain into three weeks of learning, and he replied:
Mathematica should stop using that ‘weeks of learning’ metric. They use a calculation that says that average teachers don’t teach very much so that they maybe get the kids to increase their scores from 24 percent passing (if they did not teach anything) to 34 percent in the entire year. So each ‘point’, by that logic, amounts to about a sixth of the year. A teacher with merit pay, then who gets that extra ‘point’ would be teaching 10% more in that year which is an extra three weeks. I wish they would just give the raw score which people could relate to, like there were 50 questions on the test and students of people without merit pay got 25 correct and students of people with merit pay got 26 correct. Then people would be able to put these numbers into perspective and realize that they are not a big deal.

AGGGGGGGGGGH!!!!!!
LikeLike
This posting immediately put me in mind of another that appeared on this same blog more than a year and a half ago. “Thankful for John Ewing.” 5-28-2014.
The owner of this blog references an extremely short article by him entitled “Mathematical Intimidation.” While he deals specifically with VAM, the general points he makes are pertinent to the above posting.
The first two paragraphs:
[start]
Mathematicians occasionally worry about the misuse of their subject. G. H. Hardy famously wrote about mathematics used for war in his autobiography, A Mathematician’s Apology (and solidified his reputation of applied mathematics in doing so). More recently, groups of mathematicians tried to organize a boycott of the Star Wars project on the grounds that it was an abuse of mathematics. And even more recently some fretted about the role of mathematics in the financial meltdown.
But the most common misuse of mathematics is simpler, more pervasive, and (alas) more insidious: mathematics employed as a rhetorical weapon—an intellectual credential to convince the public that an idea or a process is “objective” and hence better than other competing ideas or processes. This is mathematical intimidation. It is especially persuasive because so many people are awed by mathematics and yet do not understand it—a dangerous combination.
[end]
Link: https://dianeravitch.net/2014/05/28/thankful-for-john-ewing/
And I ask the readers of this blog to forgive my trying their patience, but Banesh Hoffman, THE TYRANNY OF TESTING (2003 edition of the 1964 republication of the 1962 original, p. 143) also has something to say about numbers & stats & mathematical intimidation:
[start]
A person who uses statistics does not thereby automatically become a scientist, any more than a person who uses a stethoscope automatically becomes a doctor. Nor is an activity necessarily scientific just because statistics are used in it.
The most important thing to understand about reliance on statistics in a field such as testing is that such reliance warps perspective. The person who holds that subjective judgment and opinion are suspect and decides that only statistics can provide the objectivity and relative certainty that he seeks, begins by unconsciously ignoring, and ends by consciously deriding, whatever can not be given a numerical measure or label. His sense of values becomes distorted. He comes to believe that whatever is non-numerical is inconsequential. He can not serve two masters. If he worships statistics he will simplify, fractionalize, distort and cheapen in order to force things into a numerical mold.
[end]
😎
LikeLike
Since “days of learning” magnifies the significance of relatively small effect sizes, it gets crazy for large effects. For example, I was looking at one CREDO study which said that non-ELL students had over 200 days more learning — in reading — than ELL students, per year. I don’t even know what that is supposed to mean.
LikeLike
Anyone who thinks a 1% increase in math test scores has any meaning whatsoever is mathematically illiterate.
Every standardized math TEST administered since the dawn of NCLB has simply contributed to a 15 year record of abject, abysmal, unmitigated, and undeniable FAILURE.
FAILURE to . . .
significantly improve test scores
FAILURE to . .
close the ‘learning gap’
FAILURE to . .
provide resources to struggling schools
FAILURE to . .
restore school funding
FAILURE to . .
increase graduation rates
FAILURE to . .
increase educational opportunities
FAILURE to . .
enrich K to 12 curricula
FAILURE to . .
improve pedagogy
FAILURE to . .
decrease class sizes
FAILURE to . .
attract highly qualified teachers
FAILURE to . .
develop college readiness
FAILURE to . .
develop career readiness
FAILURE to . .
develop critical thinking skills
FAILURE to . .
increase content knowledge
FAILURE to . .
provide multiple pathways for student success
FAILURE to . . .
address the effects of generational poverty, family dysfunction, and childhood stress on learning
FAILURE of . . .
reformers to admit their own FAILED policies
LikeLike
THE FAULT is that the media actually puts this idiocy out there…but then they know how to create myths..say it often, print it and people convert it to to fact.
http://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/Why-Urban-Legends-Get-Told-in-Sci_Tech-People_Study_Threat_Urban-Legends-160108-521.html
LikeLike
TEST-BASED REFORM FAILURE should be our only narrative at this point. They have no counter-argument; no evidence to disprove this claim. Testing children into oblivion has been an EPIC FAIL in every single state. And yes it is the fault of the media for promoting so many ridiculously false memes.
LikeLike
The narrative that must be out there now, I about learning, how to recognize it when it happens; performance assessment, and effort -based learning WAS the research in the nineties that disappeared.
Yes, we know what failed. Isn’t it time that all of you teachers, got together and with ONE voice, told the ignorant public what works!
Isn’t it time the voice of the real teacher RISES to the task of explaining to the public WITTT what it takes to teach, to motivate performance… and it ain’t the promise of a good grade on a test!
I said this on a post here recently — It is all about LEARNING, not teaching, and it begins with motivation and incentive to practice… DOING math, PLAYING A violin or piano or flute, surfing, speaking, writing, reading THINKING (analyzing an doctoring predicting… ALL SKILLS take practice and effort, and when the skills mastered it is VISIBLE. Effort pays off, and performance is easy to spot.
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT depends on a genuine evaluation of performance– not of memory on a test.
Everyone knows this. “Their” narrative embedded in the NCLB act, and spread by Duncan subverted the national conversation! ENOUGH!
http://www.perdaily.com/2011/08/subverting-the-national-conversation-a.html
Endless chatter about how bad the tests are, offers no solution, either!
It will leave all children behind the rest of the world, especially in countries that value their professionals and know what learning looks like. The EIC* rant about ‘ teachers’ & ‘teaching’ rather than on LEARNING must end, and it is UP TO YOU TEACHERS AND PARENTS. * https://greatschoolwars.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/eic-oct_11.pdf
Learning must become the narrative, when the conversation about TEACHING & TESTING ends, and then IT IS UP TO YOU, who are teaching now, to ORGANIZE AND TO DEMAND that conversation BE ENABLED.
Here is a look at the theory of EFFORT-BASED learning by the woman who brought it to Harvard. http://ramsey.spps.org/uploads/polv3_3.pdf
Pew funded the research on learning. I know… I was the NYC cohort for the real standards FOR LEARNING… http://www.opednews.com/author/author40790.html
I know…you never heard of it… .I explained it on my last post here. Scroll down and find it. https://dianeravitch.net/2016/01/15/florida-testing-and-accountability-system-is-in-disarray/
Learning is not ‘intangible’ or measurable as reader, Dienne, suggested in a post
I am just saying… it is time to stop talking about how and why the tests stink, and show parents and the public what you PROFESSIONALS KNOW… what you need IN ORDER TO REALLY enable REAL LEARNING in your room…because REAL TEACHING is what YOU DO!
LikeLike
RageAgainstTheTestocracy: a quibble…
My powers of succinctness fail me far too often. I keep wanting to rewrite your well-chosen words as TEST-BASED REFORM MANDATED & PREDICTABLE FAILURE as well as FORCED & PREDICTABLE EPIC FAIL.
Not just shoved down people’s throats [not such a figurative expression given the vomit bags that are standard with standardized tests] but designed and pre-tested to ensure certain pass/fail rates.
Thank you for your comments.
😎
LikeLike
LEARNING as a narrative is way too vague. Way too nebulous. It simply will not resonate with the general public, politicians, or the media.
The narrative has to simple, accurate, and indefensible.
15 YEARS of FAILURE should be the mantra. Its a talking point that will resonate with parents because they are living it.
As much as I hate to admit we need to use the Trump approach to rhetoric.
Make American Schools Great Again!
STOP FAILED TESTING POLICIES.
LikeLike
My dear. Vague?
Dianne said something to this effect, on an earlier blog, and I answered it at length there. Scroll and read it… There is nothing vague about what I am proposing.
VAGUE: A five year study in 12 districts with the findings on what works in 20,000 classrooms, PUBLISHED in clear as a bell FORMAT SITS ON MY DESK!
Vague? Here are the standards that show what works with examples… for LANGUAGE ARTS
FOR MATHEMATICS .and more.
I figure each volume cost 100 bucks, and were distributed to ALL THE DISTRICTS AND TEACHERS… NOW THERE’S A PENNY OR TWO…wasted, when it was not pitched to the public by the media which is OWNED by the folks who were ready to PITCH TESTING AND BAD TEACHERS!
I have them all, when they were distributed in NYC to District 2.
I have NEVER SEEN THEM AGAIN!
SO TYPICAL OF ANYTHING IN EDUCATION THAT IS PROVEN TO WORK WITH REAL RESEARCH…only the magic elixirs : No evidence required (like the tests and the NCLB act) ever are shown to a public which cannot grasp the complexity of LEARNING let alone teaching.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Magic-Elixir-No-Evidence-by-Susan-Lee-Schwartz-130312-433.html
There was a LESS THAN VAGUE account of how NYC participated in the research for PRINCIPLES OF LEARNING featured In The American Educator.
IT NEVER REACHED THE general PUBLIC.
It could have been presented coheretnly TO THE PUBLIC…but Pearson and friends like Gates, already had PLANS…and the media is theirs!
The EVIDENCE OR WHAT WORKED was in the hands of the tools folks who came into all the classrooms of the cohorts… (of which I was one).THEY” being the LRDC –the Ph’d arm of the University of Pittsburgh)
They had films they took of REAL TEACHERS enabling LEARNING.
Here is what it takes.
Here is what it looks like when kids are motivated and engaged by a professional who knows contemn COLD, but also the psychology of the brain…the way doctors know medicine AND how the body works!!!!
The public might have seen a promo till this
“Here is what LEARNING LOOKS LIKE are these things present in YOUR school?”
Instead Duncan and the EIC https://greatschoolwars.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/eic-oct_11.pdf put out all that EASY TO UNDERSTAND bullcrap about testing.
… and the advocates of teachers were mute. Yeah, the unions put out feel-good pros to support your teachers…but they could have produced the FINDINGS OF REAL RESEARCH and presented images and documentaries to explain HOW NOT TO BE FOOLED BY fancy technology and false claims about TEACHERS.
NOW, it is time for the advocates of teachers and children (YOU) to get out there and produce films and PROMOS that SHOW THE FOLKS what real teachers do.
If “yawl’ keep complaining about the testing… NOTHING WILL CHANGE because the billionaires control the media and the airwaves and OUR 21st century citizens WANT TO SEE IMAGES.
They have stopped listening to all the NOISE, the static of pundits who steered them wrong, who cannot be trusted.
The Image rules.
And new images are out there. A series about TEACHERS IS BEING AIRED now,
Wanna bet that these images are BAD FOR US, and show how bad we are!
I am looking for a documentarian, a filmmaker to help me.
I want to go into my ‘TREASURE ROOM’ to film what is theee…
*all the work of the kids dis. It knocked out Harvard when they saw it and chose me to study!
* the curriculum that the NATIONAL STANDARDS STUDIED, and sent around the nation, and featured in their seminars. NOT vague films and summaries of how the WORK WERE indicators of the STANDARDS.
* all the rubrics and standards that resulted.
* the awards I got, and the book offers and…
Je Suis teacher.
I can UN-vague it!
http://www.opednews.com/author/author40790.html
If teachers believe that talking about how learning takes place is TOO vague, then nothing will change.
Hey, what if all of us who work to get Bernie elected, believed as so many said “oh, he has no chance.”
YOU can UN -vague it.
LikeLike
Oh dear. Rage, and anger resonates?
Well, my dear, here in NY state, Governor Cuomo..you know that Mongrel that for all of last year spoke endlessly about tying teachers to the tests, and using the tests for 50% of their evaluation — has put out a video. — all feel good, about how the common core and all that testing is bad, and now we need to turn our attention to learning.
He gets it. It is time to change the conversation… and I am ready with the words that will do that, because I spent 2 years with the national standards research teams as they explained what to sa so that ORDINARY people(i.e. not teachers) can recognize learning when it is in front of their eyes, and not be fooled by bulletin boards or technology or boasting and lies by administration.
I beg to differ dear colleague… but yes, we have to be sure that the tests are buried!
LikeLike
This gives me a good idea. We should subtract the number of testing days from the total school calendar to calculate the real number of learning days. People would be appalled.
LikeLike
learning day? Try learning hours.
Under NCLB/CCSS/ADWP middle school math teachers would be lucky to have 80 hours of instructional time, per 20+ students, prior to testing. I wonder how many working adults are pulling off miracles in two weeks of full time work.
LikeLike
More mathematical voodoo, hiding the obvious lack of any real meaning behind the numbers and creating a deceptive picture.
LikeLike
This absurd metric called “days of learning” is circulated by The Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University (among others). CREDO is known for promoting charter schools and for using some dubious statistical maneuvers to prove charter schools produce higher test scores than “traditional” public schools. And example of their work with the “days on learning metric” can be found on page 5 Table 1 at http://urbancharters.stanford.edu
The “days of learning” metric has been invented by a multistep process that begins by misrepresenting gains in test scores as if these numbers had some truly amazing relationship to education and human development. Drop everything else and just look at these scores! No. Not the scores after all, but the “growth” scores thrust into a formula and pushed through that formula so they are now expressed in standard deviations.
Next step: Translate these standard deviations of growth measures into “gains in days of learning.” CREDO’s chart indicates that .01 standard deviation (s.d.) equals 7.2 days of learning; .05 s.d. equals 36 days; .10 = 72 days; and so on with .30 s.d. equal to 216 days of learning.
“Days of learning “ is a complete statistical fiction. It is not linked to any actual data or truth telling even about average days of instruction and that is not the same as days of learning. The wishful thinking of statisticians cannot make days of instruction = days of learning. Never mind the facts of the matter.
What is missing from this statistical fiction? You have no information on what counts as a school year. You have no information about the actual or average length of a school day. You have no knowledge of the length of a school day by grade level. You have no information on the duration of time allocated to instruction in the particular subject of interest (usually math or reading) during a day, or if instructional time is the same for all students. You have no information on the absentee rates or recent enrollments and departures from school—so-called missing data.
You are asked to assume that there is NO difference between allocated time for teaching and increments in learning measured by tests. You have to assume that teachers do nothing except teach to the test and such instruction made all of the difference all of the time for every student.
The economists who conjured this nonsense participate in a studied indifference to the actualities in schools and some rudimentary ideas about the difference between numbers and what the numbers are supposed to represent. For some reason I could not fathom, the transformations of “growth expressed in standard deviations” into “days of learning” are derived from scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, circa 2000. That information is miles away from the CREDO study, never mentioned.
Who conjured and pushed this absurdity into discussions of education as if these “fictional days” are super significant?
The CREDO report credits an article by Stanford Economist Eric Hanusheck (promoter of VAM since 1971), Harvard political scientist Paul E. Peterson (promoter of vouchers), and University of Munich economist Ludger Woessmann, a serial collaborator with Eric Hanusheck.
(Eric A. Hanusheck, Paul E. Peterson, and Lugar Woessmann. “Is the US Catching UP? International and State Trends in Student Achievement. Education Next, Vol. 123, No. 4, Fall 2012.”)
I have been commenting for some time about the “econometric turn” in education, with research from economists given far more credibility than it often deserves. This is one example. Another is the persistent use of “value added” measures of teacher performance as if an objective gold standard, especially in tandem with one-size-fits all teacher observation checklists and student surveys.
For the CREDO study see http://urbancharters.stanford.edu
For an informed critique of this study see http://tinyurl.com/mbse6m7
LikeLike
Psychometric alchemy at its most preposterous. Makes me wonder what would happen if a kid dares to kiss her test score?
Why do economists stick their noses into the education business? Because the media lets them. Studies like this should never see the light of day.
LikeLike
Are you new to this blog. That question has been answered here long ago.
You know they own the media.
Click to access eic-oct_11.pdf
LikeLike
Calculating weeks of additional learning from testing scores is only slightly more bogus than the aggregation of all those transition minutes and translating them into additional instructional/learning time. So John walks in the door and picks up an assignment to do while the teacher completes those initial admin tasks. That warmup is to provide a segue into the body of the class where the teacher goes through the plan for the day or SWBAT before immediately jumping into the first scripted learning task. Transitions to new activities are carefully orchestrated to make use of every instructional minute. Wrap up activities include an exit slip activity that John must complete before leaving the classroom for his next class. And an added bonus can be incorporated in the plan: those warmups and exit slips, if carefully engineered can be used as data points as part of John’s formative testing. Just think of the wonderfulness of completely engineered instruction. No messy impromptu interaction!
LikeLike
Does anyone believe this measurement? The specificity of it always seemed ludicrous to me. Aren’t they putting an enormous amount of faith in the accuracy of the standardized test?
They don’t even claim this level of accuracy in health measures in medicine. Every physician I have ever gone goes out of his or her way to use a range and allow some room for error with giving me a test result, but these people can confidently translate 1% increase in test scores to “15 days learning” (if 3 weeks in school =15 days)? \
LikeLike
Snake oil and silver bullets have universal appeal to all but the well informed. Every aspect of the test-based reform movement has tapped into the desire for quick and painless fixes:
Common Core standards.
PARCC/SBAC tests
Charters and vouchers
Personalized learning programs
Chromebooks/Laptops
TFA
Union crushing
The truth of the matter is that political and public will have failed public education. Not the other way around.
LikeLike