Archives for category: NAEP
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Jeb Bush: Don’t Abandon High-Stakes Testing (Except for Voucher Schools)

By dianeravitch
December 2, 2023 //
8

Jeb Bush, a founding father of the corporate reform movement, was governor of Florida from 1999 to 2007. He implemented a regime of high-stakes standardized testing, third grade retention, school report cards, and choice. He vigorously championed charter schools and tried to change the state constitution to allow vouchers for religious schools. Now he is concerned that the legislature might undermine high-stakes testing, so he penned this opinion piece for the Orlando Sentinel bragging about the success of his test-and-punish regime.

Yes, Florida’s fourth-grade NAEP scores are high. But he does not acknowledge that the scores are high because Florida “retains” third-graders who don’t pass the reading test. Holding these kids back artificially inflated the fourth-grade scores. By eighth grade, Florida’s scores are at the national average. Nothing to boast about there. The moral of the story: retention raises test scores by removing from the testing pool the kids who were retained (flunked).

The other curious omission in this article is voucher schools. Jeb is a huge fan of vouchers but voucher schools don’t take any state tests. How does he explain this? He doesn’t.

He wrote:

For more than two decades, Florida has remained committed to educational excellence by ensuring that transparency, accountability and opportunity define our K-12 system. We’ve consistently pushed the envelope, transforming Florida into a national leader. This has not happened by accident.

When I took office, nearly half of Florida’s fourth graders had significant reading deficiencies. Similarly, half of Florida’s fourth graders were significantly below grade level in math. Only half of high school students graduated on time.

In partnership with state lawmakers, we championed the A+ Plan in 1999 based on core principles of high expectations, standardized measurement, a clear and achievable system of accountability, rewards and consequences for performance, effective teaching in the classroom and more choices for families to customize an education for each student.

Today, Florida’s fourth graders rank third in the nation for reading achievement and fourth in the nation for math achievement. Our high school graduation rate is approaching 90%.

This is why it’s concerning that some lawmakers now seem eager to throw out or water down key components of the policies that led our students from the back of the pack to top in the nation.

I understand the goal of the Florida Senate’s recently unveiled deregulation package (Senate bills 7000, 7002and 7004). Cutting red tape and removing outdated regulations is a worthwhile effort.

But this cannot come at the cost of our state and students taking a step backward.

Lawmakers have proposed watering down our third grade literacy policy, removing the backstop of retention and paving the way to reinstate social promotion. Requiring that students objectively demonstrate they are reading successfully before being promoted to fourth grade has been a core part of Florida’s comprehensive early literacy policy — one that research has consistently supported.

This is why it’s concerning that some lawmakers now seem eager to throw out or water down key components of the policies that led our students from the back of the pack to top in the nation.

I understand the goal of the Florida Senate’s recently unveiled deregulation package (Senate bills 7000, 7002and 7004). Cutting red tape and removing outdated regulations is a worthwhile effort.

But this cannot come at the cost of our state and students taking a step backward.

Lawmakers have proposed watering down our third grade literacy policy, removing the backstop of retention and paving the way to reinstate social promotion. Requiring that students objectively demonstrate they are reading successfully before being promoted to fourth grade has been a core part of Florida’s comprehensive early literacy policy — one that research has consistently supported.

Most parents believe their children are reading on grade level even when they are not. Florida’s retention policy raises expectations. We know there are grave later-life outcomes for struggling readers. Lowering expectations by watering down the retention requirement will not help students in third grade or beyond.

Moreover, abandoning the requirement that Florida students pass the tenth grade English Language Arts and Algebra I end-of-course assessments further reduces expectations and hampers Florida’s workforce development efforts. Removing this requirement may aid Florida’s graduation rates, but it will reduce the diploma to nothing more than a participation certificate.

If we expect less, we will get less. This cannot be the future we want for Florida.

Finally, part of the package would turn back recent gains for charter schools to be treated equitably alongside their traditional public school peers. The bill’s proposed changes would make it harder for charter schools to access vacant public school buildings and reduce the share of Title I funds made available to students attending charter schools. This is a step backward.

Maintaining Florida’s system of high expectations, clear accountability and robust choice is as important to our future as anything. We’ve spent two decades establishing, maintaining and building upon these ideals.

Now is not the time for lawmakers to get weak-kneed on policies that have played key roles in contributing to two decades of educational progress.

Jeb Bush was governor of Florida from 1999 to 2007. He is the founder and chair of ExcelinEd, ExcelinEd in Action and the Foundation for Florida’s Future.

Categories Accountability, Bush, Jeb, Charter Schools, Corporate Reform, Education Industry, Extremism, Failure, Literacy, NAEP, Standardized Testing, Vouchers

John Thompson: What Do School Report Cards Mean?

By dianeravitch
November 28, 2023 //
7

John Thompson, historian and retired history teacher, analyzes the use and misuse of Oklahoma’s school report cards.

He writes:

As usual, the 2023 Oklahoma school Report Card prompted headlines about “struggling” students. But counter-intuitively, State Superintendent Ryan Walters stressed the declines during his time in office!?!?

Two tales of the Report Card are being told. As the Tulsa World reports, Walters “claimed that the data was from ‘previous years,’ even though all of the academic achievement indicators are from state tests administered just seven months ago.” Yes, taking office as State Superintendent in January 2023, Walters hasn’t had time to achieve many gains in learning, even if he’d really tried to. But the chaos during 2023, combined with the disruption he’d spread since 2020 as head of the Education Department, provided plenty of time for disruption.

As the Oklahoman reports, Walters cited the greatest decline under his watch, 8th grade reading proficiency which saw “a 5.7 percent decrease,” although “No other grade had more than a 0.4 percent decrease in reading scores, and some others “saw a very small uptick in reading scores.” Walters then promised “we are taking a Back to Basics approach,” which is the opposite of what it takes to increase proficiency.

The wisest narrative, illustrated by the Education Watch’s Jennifer Palmer, places the 2023 Report Card within the context of the massive decline of scores due to Covid, and the 2022 report. The 2023 report saw “no big swings in proficiency rates in any of the three tested subjects content,” while noting the overlooked fact that “a score of basic means a student demonstrated foundational knowledge and skills.”

Then Palmer tweeted background information on the differences between what basic means, as opposed to the widely misunderstood grade of proficiency which, I must add, has been misrepresented since the Reagan administration in order to denigrate public education. Oklahoma’s 8th grade reading proficiency grade requires that “students demonstrate mastery over even the most challenging grade-level content and are ready for the next grade, course or level of education.” It requires mastery of grade level skills that include interpretation, evaluation, analysis across multiple texts, and critical thinking. Mastery in requires use of evidence, argumentative response and synthesis of to create “written works for multiple purposes.”

As Palmer tweeted, we need a more nuanced” understanding of “reading.” And “the 8th graders who didn’t score proficient, but are in the ‘basic’ category, can still do all this” and then she linked to the challenging goals that are required for that grade, which include: partial mastery of interpretation, evaluation, analysis across multiple texts, critical thinking, use of evidence, argumentative response and synthesis.

Granted, these definitions are not necessarily the same as the more reliable NAEP scores. But as Jan Resseger explains, the nation’s NAEP proficiency grade “represents A level work, at worst an A-” and, basically, the same applies to Oklahoma’s tests. She asks, “Would you be upset to learn that “only” 40% of 8th graders are at an A level in math and “only” 1/3rd scored an A in reading?”

Ressenger also cites the huge body of research explaining why School Report Cards aren’t a reliable tool for measuring school effectiveness. We need a better understanding why the proficiency has been weaponized against schools, but we also need to master the huge body of research which explains why Report Cards aren’t a fair, reliable, and valid measure of how well schools are performing.

I’ll just cite one of the scholars that Ressenger draws upon. Stanford’s Sean Reardon’s 2022 research explained why “test score gaps may result from unequal opportunities either in or out of school; [but] they are not necessarily the result of differences in school quality, resources, or experience.” Reardon documented:

The socioeconomic profile of a district is a powerful predictor of the average test score performance of students in that district. The most and least socioeconomically advantaged districts have average performance levels more than four grade levels apart. … Achievement gaps are larger in districts where black and Hispanic students attend higher poverty schools than their white peers… and where large racial/ethnic gaps exist in parents’ educational attainment. The size of the gaps has little or no association with average class size, a district’s per capita student spending or charter school enrollment.

And that brings us to chronic absenteeism. As the New York Times reports, across the nation, “nearly 70 percent of the highest poverty schools experienced widespread, chronic absenteeism in the 2021-22 school year,” and “in these schools, about a third or more of the student body was considered chronically absent.” Of course, the Times notes, “Students cannot learn if they are not in school, and they cannot benefit from interventions, such as tutoring, that are supposed to help them make up pandemic losses.”

And Palmer reports:

Across the state, 20% of students were chronically absent last year, a half a percent increase over 2022. Some student groups were even higher: 24% of Hispanic students, 25% of economically disadvantaged and 31% of Black students were chronically absent …” Moreover, excessive absences are more prevalent now than before the pandemic. In 2019, 14% of Oklahoma students were chronically absent.

Tulsa World had previously reported that “About half of the Tulsa high school students are chronically absent” and explained why this complex and serious problem is “showing no signs of improvement.” The World cited the work of Georgetown’s Phyllis Jordan who explained the need to reconnect “what’s going on in the school and what’s going on outside the school.”

On one hand, that is why Patrick Forsyth, a University of Oklahoma professor who had analyzed the state’s A-F report card system, said “using attendance to measure school effectiveness is like using rates of tobacco use to measure hospital effectiveness.” On the other hand, as the Oklahoman reported, the Attendance Works’ Hedy Chang said, chronic absenteeism is an “all-hands-on-deck moment.” She also called on schools to “learn the specific barriers to attendance that their students experience before crafting a response to those unique challenges.”

That gets us back to the tragedy of two tales about what the Report Card means. Sadly, Ryan Walters uses it as one more weapon for disrupting public education. The other side must use these flawed metrics not to punish but for diagnostic purposes.

Categories Education Reform, NAEP, Oklahoma, Standardized Testing

Paul Thomas: Our Perpetual “Crisis in Education” Is Fueled by Unreliable, Invalid Test Scores

By dianeravitch
November 3, 2023 //
10

Paul Thomas of Furman University is a clear-sighted analyst of education policy. He is fearless when it comes to calling out frauds. This post is a good example.

He writes:

“The administrations in charge,” write Gilles Deleuze in Postscript on the Societies of Control, “never cease announcing supposedly necessary reforms: to reform schools, to reform industries, hospitals, the armed forces, prisons” (p. 4).

Deleuze’s generalization about “supposedly necessary reforms” serves as an important entry point into the perpetual education crisis in the US. Since A Nation at Risk, public education has experienced several cycles of crisis that fuel ever-new and ever-different sets of standards and high-stakes testing.

Even more disturbing is that for at least a century, “the administrations in charge” have shouted that US children cannot read—with the current reading crisis also including the gobsmacking additional crisis that teachers of reading do not know how to teach reading.

The gasoline that is routinely tossed on the perpetual fire of education crisis is test scores—state accountability tests, NAEP, SAT, ACT, etc.

While all that test data itself may or may not be valuable information for both how well students are learning and how to better serve those students through reform, ultimately all that testing has almost nothing to do with either of those goals; in fact, test data in the US are primarily fuel for that perpetual state of crisis.

Here is the most recent example—2023 ACT scores:

I have noted that reactions and overreactions to NAEP in recent years follow a similar set of problems found in reactions/overreactions to the SAT for many decades; the lessons from those reactions include:

  • Lesson: Populations being tested impact data drawn from tests.
  • Lesson: Ranking by test data must account for population differences among students tested.
  • Lesson: Conclusions drawn from test data must acknowledge purpose of test being used (see Gerald Bracey).

The social media and traditional media responses to 2023 ACT data expose a few more concerns about media, public, and political misunderstanding of test data as well as how “the administrations in charge” depend on manipulating test data to insure the perpetual education crisis.

Many people have confronted the distorting ways in which the ACT data are being displayed; certainly the mainstream graph from Axios above suggests “crisis”; however, by simply modifying the X/Y axes, that same data appear at least less dramatic and possibly not even significant if the issues I list above are carefully considered….

This crisis-of-the-day about the ACT parallels the central problem with NAEP, a test that seems designed to mislead and not inform since NAEP’s “Proficient” feeds a false narrative that a majority of students are not on grade level as readers.

The ACT crisis graph being pushed by mainstream media is less a marker of declining educational quality in the US and more further proof that “the administrations in charge” want and need testing data to justify “supposedly necessary reforms,” testing as gas for the perpetual education crisis fire.

Please open the link to read this excellent analysis in full.

Categories Accountability, Corporate Reform, Disruption, Education Industry, Education Reform, Failure, Hoax, Lies, Literacy, NAEP, Standardized Testing

Arnold Hillman: How to Reform NAEP Scores: A Satire

By dianeravitch
July 15, 2023 //
18

Arnold Hillman is a retired educator who spent his career in Pennsylvania and retired in South Carolina. Bear this in mind when you read his satire. Must be the SC water.

The decline of both reading and math scores on the NAEP national test is a harbinger of a predictive outpouring of solutions to the problem. That has been the standard for the last 100 years of public education. We typically find panaceas to “fix” problems in education.

Here is a very simple one. Until the beginning of the 20th century, education was rather simple- teach reading, writing and arithmetic. On the side you might provide vocational programs. However World War I provided us with a look into the future.

Many of the conscripts in the American army were seen not to be physically fit. That was a danger in a war. There was no part of the constitution that mentions education. The idea of a healthy mind and healthy body was promulgated by none other than John Dewey. World War I was an instigator, and schools took up the mantle.

That’s how things change in education. The nation needed more scientists to combat Russia’s preeminence in space and so Congress passed the National Defense Education Act (NDEA). I know that you are getting the idea now. If you live long enough, you will see even more of these things.

Now, how will the decline in these scores be cured by those with the money to do it. Seems like administrations these days are not in the business of fixing education. You can tell by all ofthe news about investigations, indictments, Russian problems and all sort of other adjuncts to those happenings. So then, who or what will come through to help us climb out of this educational abyss?

Lets try this on for size. How about the Broad Foundation. Let’s give them leave to train all of the school superintendents in the nation. That’s only 13,452 school district superintendents. With all of the resources available to the foundation, this could be accomplished in the wink of an eye (see the movie “I Robot” for a reference).All problems of reading and math will follow the same successes that the Broadies have had in all of the places where they have been installed as superintendents. That’s for sure.

Let then have the voucher folks come up with the plan to take over public schools and do their level best to cherry pick the students that they will help. There will certainly be some unintended consequences, such as massive dropouts, higher crime rates, more unemployment and many other charming things.

These voucher folks have a way with statistics. In their first year of operation, math and reading scores will soar. All students will be on grade level in reading and all of them will be up to fractal geometry, after surpassing the highest scores ever on the NAEP test.

Another challenger will be the charter school folks. All schools could be “charterized” and escape from the silly laws that restrict public schools in their education of kids. Since charters do not have to have all certified teachers, that will be a great advantage. We can then dismiss those pesky teachers who have not been doing a good job anyway.

There would not be any responsibility for those charters to have any parental involvement. Parents or guardians will only know what is going on when their child gets a report card.

Huge management companies will continue to “buy up” these charters and run them for profit. The movement to make these charters non-public has already happened in the Washington state Supreme Court. It has decided that Charter Schools were not, in fact, public schools.

Think of all the improvements that charter schools have made across the country since their inception in Minnesota. We can have a myriad of online charter schools which will definitely improve reading and math scores, especially in kindergarten.

We are fortunate to have a parents group that is very interested in improving education by going onto the nation’s school boards and making things so much better when they are there. Incompetent administrators are fired by the dozens and reading and math scores have already risen as a result of these actions.

The premiere group is called “ Moms for Liberty.” Not sure why there are no Dads included. There must be a Title IX reason. These folks have the kind of enviable clout that gets these students on their way to improving their math and reading scores.

With “Moms for Liberty” in charge, schools will have the advantage of being close to those who lead our country. They are proud to have national figures, some even running for President, who will make sure the schools are doing the right thing.

Then we have a group that includes some very wealthy folks. Some of them are anonymously giving funding and directions to those who were described earlier. They are famously supporters of vouchers, privatization of public schools, charters and the like. They support parent groups like “Moms for Liberty.” Their aims are certainly to help students improve their reading and math scores. We will call them, for better or worse, “ The Billionaire Class.”

With all of these folks helping out, how long do you believe it will take for our youngster’s math and reading scores to soar?

Categories Billionaires, Broad Foundation, Corporate Reform, Education Reform, Humor, Innovation, NAEP, Standardized Testing

Gene V. Glass: The Sky Truly Is Falling, Somewhere

By dianeravitch
July 13, 2023 //
35

Perhaps you saw the story in the New York Times a few days ago, lamenting that American students were not making up the ground they lost academically during the pandemic. This was presented as a full-blown crisis. The period from March 2020 to the fall of 2022 included many disruptions: family members died or were very sick, teachers and other school staff died or were very sick, many schools closed, many adopted online classes, normal life came to an end for more than two years, affecting family life and mental health.

When I read the panicked discussion in the New York Times, based on a study by NWEA, a major standardized testing company, I reached out to one of the wisest people I know and asked him to discuss the issues. That’s Gene V. Glass, one of the nation’s eminent education researchers. He wrote the following commentary for the blog.

He wrote:

The New York Times is worried — no, it’s panic-stricken.

Jeremiah — the weeping prophet of the Torah — was a veritable Pollyanna compared to today’s policy wonks and political animals when it comes to delivering bad news.

Journalists — like the New York Times education reporter Sarah Mervosh — envision the half-dozen NAEP score point loss from 2019 to 2022 to result in fewer students accepted to college with a resulting lifetime loss of $70,000 income. Does anyone seriously entertain the possibility that colleges will forego the tuition & fees payments of students who scored 5 points lower in the eighth grade on the NAEP test? Nor did anyone weep in 1990 when the scores were 30 points lower and lifetime incomes were doing just fine, thank you?

Three weeks ago, Dana Goldstein reported, again in the New York Times, that on the October 2022 administration of the NAEP test, the 13-year-olds scored an average of 256 in reading – down 4 pints — and 271 in math — down 9 points — from the averages in 2019. What happened between 2019 and 2022? The COVID pandemic, of course.

Conjuring up the causes of NAEP fluctuations has grown into a widespread academic game since the NAEP Governing Board decided to call some scores “Advanced” and other scores “Basic” — euphemisms for “Excellent!” and “My, my; we have a problem here.” When the U.S. History NAEP scores dropped 9 points from 2014 to 2022, no one panicked, or even cared apparently. The Civics NAEP score never wavered more than 1 or 2 points between 1998 and 2022; the average was 150 in 1998 and 150 again in 2022, never rising above 153. Again, a big nothing, though arguably the nation needs better citizens than it needs better calculators.

NAEP scores jump around for all sorts of reasons, mostly a host of very small reasons that are impossible to unravel. Readers can exercise their own analytic muscles puzzling over NAEP scores. Reading scores were already declining from 2017 to 2019 before the pandemic. In 2019, NAEP Mathematics scores increased at grade 4, but decreased at grade 8 compared to 2017. Moreover, the percent of 13-year-olds taking algebra declined from 34 percent in 2012 to 24 percent today. I don’t disapprove of such a decline; I merely advance it as one of a number of reasons why NAEP scores might be wiggling from time to time. And even bigger forces are afoot.

A couple dozen Red states are experiencing a mass migration of middle-class and upper-class white students to private and charter schools, all driven with barely a whimper by crypto-privatization backers. It would be remarkable for NAEP scores to hold steady under these circumstances alone. Arizona’s universal school voucher program is expected to cost the taxpayers $900 million for the 2023-24 year, more than ten times initial estimates. Three-quarters of the initial voucher applicants are students already in charter, private, and parochial schools. The U.S. percentage of white K-12 students in public schools is projected to decline by 20% between 2010 and 2030.

But the occasion of the COVID pandemic has become a good excuse for policy analysts to propose their favorite solution to the crisis, indeed a “manufactured crisis” in the words of my friend and colleague David Berliner who introduced the term in 1995. Experts have offered no fewer than a dozen emergency measures needed for the nation’s recovery. Nine of these follow: 1. Smaller classes; 2. Tutoring; 3. Extending the school year; 4. Adding a fifth year of high school; 5. Focused funding on minority students; 6. Focusing on math, not reading; 7. Full-time summer school; 8. Increased teacher pay; 9. Focusing on students’ mental health. A fifth year of high school?! Seriously? Now I’m in favor of most of these things, except focusing on math. How about Civics?

Some seem to favor no solution at all. A leitmotif of the NYT article is that the federal government’s billions of dollars in pandemic emergency aid to schools were misspent. The trouble is, less will be heard of any of these “solutions” after NAEP scores wiggle up a couple of points in the next testing.

The ravages of the pandemic were caused by a White House of Dunces. Incompetence cost the nation 1.1 million lives, two or three times more than the irreducible number. It will never happen again — at least not with COVID. The stewardship of all children’s education is a responsibility of every citizen, regardless of the next year’s tweak in NAEP scores. Put that on NAEP’s next Civics test.

Gene V Glass

Emeritus Regents’ Professor

Arizona State University

 

The New York Times is worried — no, it’s panic-stricken. https://shorturl.at/mtI15

 

Jeremiah — the weeping prophet of the Torah — was a veritable Pollyanna compared to today’s policy wonks and political animals when it comes to delivering bad news. 

 

Journalists — like the New York Times education reporter Sarah Mervosh — envision the half-dozen NAEP score point loss from 2019 to 2022 to result in fewer students accepted to college with a resulting lifetime loss of $70,000 income. Does anyone seriously entertain the possibility that colleges will forego the tuition & fees payments of students who scored 5 points lower in the eighth grade on the NAEP test? Nor did anyone weep in 1990 when the scores were 30 points lower and lifetime incomes were doing just fine, thank you? 

 

Three weeks ago, Dana Goldstein reported, again in the New York Times, that on the October 2022 administration of the NAEP test,  the 13-year-olds scored an average of 256 in reading – down 4 pints —  and 271 in math — down 9 points — from the averages in 2019. https://shorturl.at/DFHZ5  What happened between 2019 and 2022? The COVID pandemic, of course. 

 

Conjuring up the causes of NAEP fluctuations has grown into a widespread academic game since the NAEP Governing Board decided to call some scores “Advanced” and other scores “Basic”  — euphemisms for “Excellent!” and “My, my; we have a problem here.”  When the U.S. History NAEP scores dropped 9 points from 2014 to 2022, no one panicked, or even cared apparently. And the Civics NAEP score never wavered more than 1 or 2 points between 1998 and 2022; the average was 150 in 1998 and 150 again in 2022, never rising above 153. Again, a big nothing, though arguably the nation needs better citizens than it needs better calculators.  

 

NAEP scores jump around for all sorts of reasons, mostly a host of very small reasons that are impossible to unravel. Readers can exercise their own analytic muscles puzzling over NAEP scores at www.nationsreportcard.gov. Reading scores were already declining from 2017 to 2019 before the pandemic. In 2019, NAEP Mathematics scores increased at grade 4, but decreased at grade 8 compared to 2017. Moreover, the percent of 13-year-olds taking algebra declined from 34 percent in 2012 to 24 percent today. I don’t disapprove of such a decline; I merely advance it as one of a number of reasons why NAEP scores might be wiggling from time to time. And even bigger forces are afoot. 

 

A couple dozen Red states are experiencing a mass migration of middle-class and upper-class white students to private and charter schools, all driven with barely a whimper by crypto-privatization backers. It would be remarkable for NAEP scores to hold steady under these circumstances alone. Arizona’s universal school voucher program is expected to cost the taxpayers $900 million for the 2023-24 year, more than ten times initial estimates. Three-quarters of the initial voucher applicants are students already in charter, private, and parochial schools. The U.S. percentage of white K-12 students in public schools is projected to decline by 20% between 2010 and 2030. 

 

But the occasion of the COVID pandemic has become a good excuse for policy analysts to propose their favorite solution to the crisis, indeed a “manufactured crisis” in the words of my friend and colleague David Berliner who introduced the term in 1995. Experts have offered no fewer than a dozen emergency measures needed for the nation’s recovery. Nine of these follow: 1. Smaller classes; 2. Tutoring; 3. Extending the school year; 4. Adding a fifth year of high school;  5. Focused funding on minority students; 6. Focusing on math, not reading; 7. Full-time summer school;  8. Increased teacher pay; 9. Focusing on students’ mental health. A fifth year of high school?! Seriously? Now I’m in favor of most of these things, except focusing on math. How about Civics? 

 

Some seem to favor no solution at all. A leitmotif of the NYT article is that the federal government’s billions of dollars in pandemic emergency aid to schools were misspent. The trouble is, less will be heard of any of these “solutioins” after NAEP scores wiggle up a couple of points in the next testing. 

   

The ravages of the pandemic were caused by a White House of Dunces. Incompetence cost the nation 1.1 million lives, two or three times more than the irreducible number. It will never happen again — at least not with COVID. The stewardship of all children’s education is a responsibility of every citizen, regardless of the next year’s tweak in NAEP scores. Put that on NAEP’s next Civics test.

 

Gene V Glass

Emeritus Regents’ Professor

Arizona State University

Categories Disruption, Health, NAEP, Standardized Testing

The Onion Explains the Test Questions That Stump Students Today

By dianeravitch
July 1, 2023 //
18

We can always count on The Inion to find the funny side of the news.

Here are the test questions that show how far behind American students are.

Categories Education Reform, Humor, NAEP

John Thompson: The Misinterpretation of NAEP Data

By dianeravitch
June 27, 2023 //
69

John Thompson writes here about the negative consequences of shallow reporting on NAEP data. Reporters are sensitive to whether scores are up or down, but tend to ignore contextual factors that may play a role in student performance.

He writes:

Despite the problems with education metrics, the decline in the nation’s 2022 math and reading scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test is worrisome – if we look at the big picture. 

As Diane Ravitch explained, the decline in scores during the pandemic was a “duh” moment. Rather than publishing panicky headlines, these predictable drops in scores should be seen in the broader context of the decade of declines which followed the implementation of rushed and simplistic corporate school reforms. And, as we should have done previously, we must acknowledge what reformers should have previously understood – meaningful increases in learning require inter-connected, holistic team efforts, as opposed to metric-driven instructional shortcuts.    

And we should also listen to Peggy Carr, commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), which administers the tests. “The new data, she said, ‘reinforces the fact that recovery is going to take some time.” Carr and other experts also warn that the “academic decline is part of a broader picture that includes worsening school climate and student mental health.”

For example, “Oklahoma NAEP results reflect pandemic-fueled decline in math and reading scores.” Eighth grade reading in Oklahoma (which reopened schools more quickly than most states) declined by 7 points, compared to a three-point average national decline. Our Eighth grade math scores declined by 12 points, compared to a nationwide decline of eight points. And the state’s and the nation’s “plunge” in history scores has been worse.

But the story behind those numbers is complicated. So, before we can understand the mixed messages of short- and long-term NAEP findings, we how they have often been misrepresented by the non-education press.

Chalkbeat properly quoted Peggy Carr, “There is nothing in this data that tells us there is a measurable difference between states and districts based solely on how long schools were closed.” And Education Week appropriately explained that all but the top-performing students saw declines, but the biggest drops were for the lowest-performing students, who were more likely to have parents who were “essential workers” who were disproportionately exposed to Covid, who were more likely to live in multi-generational households, and had the least access to medical care. Moreover, it further explained, “Reading scores for students in cities (where schools tended to be slower to reopen) stayed constant, as did reading scores for students in the West of the country.”

Yes, Covid closures led to an unprecedented decline in test scores, but many commentators should look more deeply at public relations spin dating back to the Reagan administration that inappropriately used NAEP test scores when arguing that public schools are broken. They stressed low levels of “proficiency” claiming that it correlated with grade level. And Jan Resseger explained:

A common error among journalists, critics, and pundits who misunderstand the achievement levels of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). “Proficient” on NAEP is not grade level. “Proficient” on NAEP represents A level work, at worst an A-. Would you be upset to learn that “only” 40% of 8th graders are at A level in math and “only” 1/3 scored an A in reading?

On the other hand, the admittedly unprecedented (but expected) fall in NAEP scores during Covid followed a decade of stagnating or declining NAEP scores. Moreover, the recent release of falling history scores should lead to an open discussion about why the U.S. History scores have declined by 9% since 2014.

And Chalkbeat stresses the need for conversations about the last two years, when “nearly every state has considered a bill that would limit how teachers can discuss racism and sexism in their classrooms, and 18 states have bans or other restrictions in place, according to a tracker compiled by Education Week.”  For reasons I explain later, I’m especially impressed with its recommendation regarding the need for “weaving the (historical) material into other places in their (classrooms’) schedule.”

I began teaching History at John Marshall H.S. in the early 1990s during the crack and gangs crisis and after the standardized testing of the 1980s peaked. For the next 1-1/2 decades, outcomes improved at Marshall and in the nation as a whole. Marshall had serious problems, but I couldn’t believe how many great teachers it had. We had the autonomy necessary to teach in a holistic inter-connected, cross-disciplinary manner. When I saw students carrying copies of Ralph Ellison’s The Invisible Man, I had the freedom to deviate from the curriculum schedule, and teach about Ellison’s childhood in Oklahoma City, and how it informed his novel. We took fieldtrips to the Capitol, and had regular classroom visits by legislators and local leaders. And we watched excellent programs on OETA (which our Gov. Kevin Stitt recently tried to defund.).

Rather than teach to the test, I’d post the day’s State Standards, and History in the News topic. Students would drop by before class to peek at the day’s History in the News question. They quickly learned how to “weave” historical narratives into contemporary issues. 

Marshall improved more than any other OKCPS neighborhood high school until the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001’s and Race to the Top’s test-driven mandates became dominant. By the time I retired in 2010, my students who came from the poorest neighborhoods complained that they had been robbed of an education. When guest teaching up to 2020, I saw young teachers who wanted to offer culturally meaningful instruction but it was hard for educators and students to do something that they rarely saw in a 21st century classroom.

Getting back to the type of solutions discussed in Chalkbeat and Education Week, Education Watch’s Jennifer Palmer wrote a hopeful piece about a pilot program at F.D. Moon Middle School. It uses “a social studies curriculum built on encouraging students to engage in civil discourse and celebrate American ideals while also examining darker chapters of history.” The program was created by iCivics, founded by retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Its U.S. History curriculum is “based on the Roadmap to Educating for American Democracy, a joint project with iCivics, Harvard, Tufts and Arizona State universities.”

Palmer witnessed the energy displayed by Beatrice Mitchell’s 8th grade social studies class. All of them “passed the U.S. naturalization test, a new graduation requirement starting this school year.” This stands in contrast to a recent survey which “found just 1 in 3 adults can pass the exam … Oklahoma’s passing rate was even lower at 1 in 4 adults.”

It is unclear whether this nonpartisan program will clash with the Oklahoma Board of Education’s special report on “diversity, equity and inclusion programs at the request of State Superintendent Ryan Walters.” As Palmer noted, “Walters, a former history teacher, claimed such programs are ‘Marxist at its core.’” At any rate, it’s not just history that must be woven into other subjects. If we hope to teach critical thinking and 21st century skills, schools must abandon their test-driven silos, and teach students to be independent thinkers who listen, and learn how to learn. And, holistic instruction must be restored, as one part of serving each whole child. A first step, however, should be the non-education press shifting from alarmist headlines to meaningful solutions reported in the education press.

Categories Accountability, Democracy, History, Media, NAEP, Oklahoma, Standardized Testing

NAEP Scores Show Effects of Pandemic: Duh.

By dianeravitch
June 22, 2023 //
125

The release of the NAEP Long-Term Trend data yesterday set off the usual hysterical reaction. The scores fell as a consequence of the pandemic, when most kids did not get in-school instruction.

These are not secrets but they bear repeating:

*Students don’t learn what is tested when they are not in school for long periods of time.

*Learning online is inferior to learning in-person from a qualified teacher.

*It’s better to lose points on a test than to risk serious illness or death or infecting a family member or teacher or other member of the school staff.

During the depths of the pandemic, no one knew for sure whether it was better to keep schools open or closed. A superintendent in Florida—Rocky Hanna of Leon County— was threatened with loss of his license after he closed the schools, following the death of a third-grader from COVID. Teachers died of COVID. Some children lived with elderly grandparents at risk of getting COVID. Which matters most: lives or test scores?

Whatever was lost can be regained if students have good instruction and stability.

It is not surprising that test scores went down after a once-in-a-century pandemic.

This is not a “Sputnik moment.”

The Washington Post reported, under a ridiculous scare headline “National test scores plunge, with still no sign of pandemic recovery” (Patience needed!):

National test scores plummeted for 13-year-olds, according to new data that shows the single largest drop in math in 50 years and no signs of academic recovery following the disruptions of the pandemic.

Student scores plunged nine points in math and four points in reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), often regarded as the nation’s report card. The release Wednesday reflected testing in fall 2022, comparing it to the same period in 2019, before the pandemic began.

“These results show that there are troubling gaps in the basic skills of these students,” said Peggy G. Carr, commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), which administers the tests. The new data, she said, “reinforces the fact that recovery is going to take some time.”

The average math score is now the same as it was in 1990, while the average reading score is the same as it was in 2004.

Hardest hit were the lowest-performing students. In math, their scores showed declines of 12 to 14 points, while their highest-performing peers fell just six points. The pattern for reading was similar, with lowest performers seeing twice the decline of the highest ones.

Students from all regions of the country and of all races and ethnicities lost ground in math. Reading was more split. Scores dropped for Black, multiracial and White students. But Hispanic, Asian, American Indian and Alaska Native students were described as “not measurably different.”

Most of those tested were 10 years old, in fourth or fifth grade, at the onset of the pandemic. They were in seventh or eighth grade as they took the tests.

Will politicians whip up a panicked response and demand more of what is already failing, like charter schools, vouchers, high-stakes testing, and Cybercharters? or will they invest in reduced class sizes and higher teacher pay?

Categories Education Reform, Health, Hope, NAEP, Science, Standardized Testing

Nancy Bailey: Third Grade Retention Is a Terrible Idea

By dianeravitch
June 3, 2023 //
19

Yesterday I reviewed Nicholas Kristof’s enthusiastic endorsement of Mississippi’s reading program, which has raised test scores in fourth grade without reducing class size, spending more on education, or reducing child poverty. Kristof seems to believe that the so-called “science of reading,” allied with third grade retention and pre-school is the no-cost silver bullet to change American education. It should certainly appeal to those who don’t want to raise taxes or reduce economic inequality. The one study cited by Kristof in support of third grade retention was funded by Jeb Bush’s foundation; Florida enacted third grade retention and saw its fourth grade scores rise (but not scores in eighth grade).

Kristoff quoted a study that reached favorable conclusions about the efficacy of third-grade retention. He said that 9% of third-graders in Mississippi had been held back. I said that might be sufficient to explain the impressive fourth grade scores on NAEP: eliminate the lowest-scoring kids and scores go up.

Nancy Bailey, retired teacher, summarizes some of the research on third-grade retention: it’s bad.

She writes:

How can anyone who claims the Science of Reading is real think it’s OK to retain a third-grade child based on one test or for any reason?

If ever evidence or science existed involving education, understanding the rottenness of retention would be it. Yet some of the same people who believe using phonics (and more) is the one-size-fits-all scientific reading miracle seem fine with retention.

This is a crack in the glass for SoR science because it makes it look political. Retaining third graders because of a test may drive parents to leave public schools.

Children are devastated by retention. Once a child is retained, it changes their world. In Student Ratings of Stressful Experiences at Home and School, Anderson, Jimerson, and Whipple (2008) found that it rated high with various stressors.

Across grade levels, those events rated as most stressful by children were: losing a parent, academic retention, going blind, getting caught in theft, wetting in class, a poor report card, having an operation, parental fighting, and being sent to the principal.

When a child is kept back, they are more likely to be more physically developed in middle school than their peers. This certainly causes a child to rethink school and want to drop out.

In 2001, that’s right, 2001, Shane R. Jimerson’s Meta-analysis of Grade Retention Research: Implications for Practice in the 21st Century summarized studies of a previously published literature review about retention between 1990 and 1999, comparing this research with studies about retention done in the 1970s and 1980s.

Jimerson concludes:

In isolation, neither social promotion nor grade retention will solve our nation’s educational ills nor facilitate the academic success of children. Instead attention must be directed toward alternative remedial strategies. Researchers, educators, administrators, and legislators should commit to implement and investigate specific remedial intervention strategies designed to facilitate socioemotional adjustment and educational achievement of our nation’s youth.

Some SoR enthusiasts say if children had been given evidence-based instruction with phonics, no child would need to be retained. But even if this were true, why would they be on board for retention today when science is more confident of the problems with retention, especially third-grade retention based on one test, than the SoR?

It’s hard to believe Floridians ever permitted retention, since its researchers identified its harmfulness years ago. Many students have been retained in third grade throughout the years.

It’s perplexing to see legislators in other states endorsing it, like it’s a good thing, when the research about it is clear. It’s good that Michigan will no longer do it, but many other states continue to practice grade retention.

Furman professor Paul Thomas, who has written extensively about the SoR, describes retention here and presents a map showing the states currently subscribing to holding third graders back.

The same promoters of the SoR seem to love retention and are trying to connect it to Mississippi, where they appear to have higher test results in fourth grade.

The promoters of third-grade retention seem connected to former Governor Jeb Bush, who, for some strange reason, hitched his education star to third-grade retention based on a test. How sad that he didn’t promote lowering class sizes in K-3rd grade instead.

Categories Cruelty, Education Industry, Ethics, Failure, Florida, Literacy, Mississippi, NAEP

Nicholas Kristof Does Not Know How to Fix Education

By dianeravitch
June 2, 2023 //
136

Nicholas Kristof is a columnist who is terrific on many issues but consistently wrong when he writes about education. As far back as 2009, I criticized Kristoff for a column in which he called American education “our greatest national shame,” citing Eric Hanushek’s since-discredited work on teachers (the best get students to produce high test scores, bad teachers don’t). Peter Greene took Kristoff to task in 2015 for being an educational tourist, making quick visits and issuing pronouncements that are wrong. I also chastised him in 2017 for endorsing for-profit schools in Africa.

Now, he has outdone all of his previous gaffes. He has discovered the amazing, miraculous, astonishing transformation of Mississippi.

Based on the impressive rise of 4th grade reading scores on NAEP, Kristof proclaims that Mississippi has lessons for the nation.

With an all-out effort over the past decade to get all children to read by the end of third grade and by extensive reliance on research and metrics, Mississippi has shown that it is possible to raise standards even in a state ranked dead last in the country in child poverty and hunger and second highest in teen births.

In the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a series of nationwide tests better known as NAEP, Mississippi has moved from near the bottom to the middle for most of the exams — and near the top when adjusted for demographics. Among just children in poverty, Mississippi fourth graders now are tied for best performers in the nation in NAEP reading tests and rank second in math.

Its success wasn’t because of smaller classes. That would cost money.

It wasn’t because of increased funding.

It wasn’t because Mississippi reduced child poverty.

It wasn’t because of desegregation.

It was because Mississippi embraced the “science of reading,” strict discipline, relentlessly focusing on test scores, and using behavioral methods that sound akin to a “no excuses” charter school.

In 2000, Mississippi received a gift of $100 million from a Mississippi-born tech entrepreneur to launch a statewide reading initiative. In 2013, the legislature invested in full-day pre-K, where children got a start on letters, numbers, and sounds.

The 2013 legislation also enacted third-grade retention. Any child who didn’t pass the third-grade reading test was retained. Most researchers think retention is a terrible, humiliating policy. But Kristof assures readers that failing students get a second chance to pass. 9% of students in third grade flunked. He considers this policy to be a great success, inspiring third graders to try harder, citing a study funded by Jeb Bush’s foundation (Florida also practices third grade retention, which lifts its fourth grade reading scores on NAEP).

Kristof writes:

“Mississippi is a huge success story and very exciting,” David Deming, a Harvard economist and education expert, told me. What’s so significant, he said, is that while Mississippi hasn’t overcome poverty or racism, it still manages to get kids to read and excel.

“You cannot use poverty as an excuse. That’s the most important lesson,” Deming added. “It’s so important, I want to shout it from the mountaintop.” What Mississippi teaches, he said, is that “we shouldn’t be giving up on children.”

The lessons: it’s okay to forget about poverty; forget about segregation; forget about funding. Rely on “the science of reading” and third-grade retention. It’s cheap to follow Mississippi’s lead, which Kristof considers an advantage.

But!

Kristof minimizes Mississippi’s eighth-grade scores on NAEP. He writes: “One challenge is that while Mississippi has made enormous gains in early grades, the improvement has been more modest in eighth-grade NAEP scores.”

That’s an understatement.

Eighth grade reading scores in Mississippi have gone up over the past two decades, but scores went up everywhere. In the latest national assessment (NAEP), 37 states had scores higher than those of Mississippi on the NAEP eighth grade reading test. Only one state (New Mexico) was lower. The other 13 were tied. In Mississippi, 25% of the state’s students in 2019 (pre-pandemic) were at or above proficient, compared to 20% in 2003. Nationally, in 2019, 29% of students were at or above proficient*.

In 2019, 42 states and jurisdictions outperformed Mississippi in percentage of students at or above proficient in eighth grade math, eight were tied, and only two scored below Mississippi. 24% were at or above proficient in 2019, a big increase over 2009 when it was 15%. But Mississippi still lags the national average, because scores were rising in other states.

Has Mississippi made progress in the past decade? Yes. Is it a model for the nation? No. When impressive fourth grade scores are followed by not-so-impressive scores in eighth grade, it suggests that the fourth grade scores were anti Oakley boosted by holding back the 9% who were the least successful readers. A neat trick but not an upfront way to measure progress.

It seems fairly obvious that the big gains in NAEP in fourth grade were fueled by the policy of holding back third graders. Jeb Bush boasted of the “Florida Miracle,” which was based on the same strategy: juice up fourth grade scores by holding back the lowest performing third graders.

In 2019, fourth graders in Florida scored 7th in reading and 5th in math on NAEP, by scale scores. However, Florida’s eighth grade scores, like those of Mississippi, are middling, compared to other states. Florida eighth graders ranked #35 in eighth grade math. In eighth grade reading, 21 states and jurisdictions ranked higher than Florida, 21 are not significantly different, and 10 were below Florida.

Florida’s eighth grade reading scores have been flat since 2009; so have its its eighth grade math scores. Florida is a state that has gamed the system. Mississippi is following its lead.

Mississippi has made progress, to be sure. But it is not a national model. Not yet.

What’s worrisome about this article is that Kristof asserts that poverty doesn’t matter (it does); funding doesn’t matter (it does); class size doesn’t matter (it does). In his account, states that want to improve test scores can do it without raising teachers’ salaries, without upgrading buildings, without spending a nickel to improve the conditions of the schools or the well-being of children. Children who are hungry, lack medical care, and are homeless or ill-housed are not likely to learn as well as those who have advantages.

Does this explain why so many rightwingers love “the science of reading”? Publishers are rolling out new programs. Education can be reformed in the cheap. Can’t expect taxpayers to foot the bill, can you?

Kristof’s fundamental error is his determination to find miracles, silver bullets, solutions that fix everything. He did it again.

The U.S. Department of Education appends this disclaimer to every NAEP publication.

*NAEP achievement levels are performance standards that describe what students should know and be able to do. Results are reported as percentages of students performing at or above three achievement levels (NAEP Basic, NAEP Proficient, andNAEP Advanced). Students performing at or above the NAEP Proficient level on NAEP assessments demonstrate solid academic performance and competency over challenging subject matter. It should be noted that the NAEP Proficient achievement level does not represent grade level proficiency as determined by other assessment standards (e.g., state or district assessments). NAEP achievement levels are to be used on a trial basis and should be interpreted and used with caution. Find out more about the NAEP reading achievement levels.

Categories Accountability, Class size, Early Childhood Education, Education Reform, Fake, Florida, Literacy, Mississippi, NAEP
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »