The Educator Effectiveness Task Force was established in October, of 2010. Nine members were selected with experience in and knowledge of education policy, administration, and teaching. The Task Force was given the job of coming up with an educator evaluation system based on measures of effectiveness. The Task Force is a way to bring more accountability to the schools and their teachers. According to the Executive Order, its recommendations were to include measures of student achievement; demonstrate practices of effective teachers and leaders; and weights for the various components. “The first step toward driving innovation and excellence in our public schools and expanding opportunity to every New Jersey child is making accountability and performance the foundation of educator evaluations. The most important factor in a child’s education is the effectiveness of their teacher, yet our system is biased away from accountability and measurements of how well instructors are performing or how well children are learning,” said Governor Christie. “If we are to succeed in delivering real educational opportunity to every child in New Jersey and finally closing our achievement gap, we cannot ignore performance or avoid accountability any longer. “
The teacher evaluation focuses on two specific aspects: student achievement and teacher practice. Student achievement will be determined by assessments and other evaluations of student work that will show student growth. The teachers will be evaluated by student performance mostly through state tests and the other half based on classroom observations and other more subjective measures. The next step is to evaluate the principal. They evaluate them on the criteria of: quality of leadership, scores, and their staff.
The New Jersey Educator Effectiveness Task Force Interim Report was released in March of 2011. The Task Force comes from 3 guiding principles: 1. The needs of students are paramount. 2. All children can achieve at the highest level. 3. We believe in the efficiency of the educator. The tasks force expects the best from children no matter where they begin. As long as they are equipped with the right skills they will be okay in this world. Some argue that this statement is not fair. A child’s neighborhood, race, and family income are determining factors and that so much from public schools can be anticipated because of these attributes. The report also highlights that educators have the power to inspire, engage, and widen opportunities for students if equipped with the right skills, knowledge, and temperament and given the appropriate supports.
One of the biggest drawbacks from this report is teacher ratings are inconsistent from year to year, and are easy cases of misclassification. Some students in higher income brackets learn over the summer and are put into educational programs where they see more growth over their peers in the summer. This shows a difference in annual testing data and does not make it a useful tool. There is currently no good solution for this. Teacher evaluations, tenure decisions and dismissal decisions are based on scores that may be influenced by which student a teacher serves discourages teachers to serve students with the greatest needs, disruptive students, or those with disruptive family backgrounds. These factors cannot be measured by variables. Establishing a system where teacher advancement becomes a risk where a teacher’s career can be ended randomly is not the way to go. The Task Force may have the right ideas in mind when trying to improve the educational system. But, their practices can use some work.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
MCREL's 21 Leadership Responsibilities
MCRELS’s 21 Leadership Responsibilities
Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning is the private nonprofit corporation at the center of this particular 30-year study to help improve student achievement through leadership. The study recognizes 21 leadership responsibilities associated with student achievement; however, the 21 areas recognized can also cause a negative impact if they are not practiced and implemented in the appropriate manner. MCREL’s 21 leadership responsibilities are considered critical for educational leaders in improving student achievement; however, the leader needs to be aware of the needs (and more importantly the wants) of all stakeholders in the school system to successfully implement these 21 leadership responsibilities.
The only proper way to introduce this 30-year research study is to begin with the purpose of the study. For all educational leaders, the goal of education is to increase student achievement. Therefore, the study and research set out to identify the factors that directly affected student achievement. After 30 years of research, MCREL identified 21 leadership responsibilities that significantly had an impact on student achievement. Once the study identified these 21 factors, a leadership framework was implemented to assist leaders in the education field to assist teachers, students, parents, and all other stakeholders directly involved with the education community.
Why the push for a Leadership Framework:
For years, it was believed that “instructional leadership” had a direct impact on student achievement; however, this connection did not have a thorough study to support the claim. The idea became yet another mirage to keep educators searching for ways to improve student achievement. Leaders of educational institutions were in the dark due to the lack of substantial evidence to support roles as “instructional leaders.” As stated in the MCREL report Balanced Leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement, the lack of supporting evidence behind the idea of an “instructional leader,” leaders were not provided with practical guidelines for becoming effective leaders; in return, these leaders failed their schools, their staff, their communities, and most importantly their students.
What makes this study so strong?
The MCREL study offers the first comprehensive analysis of school leadership and the direct correlation to student achievement. In other words, the MCREL study truly gives leaders something tangible to work with. Unlike previous theories, the MCREL study gives leaders something they can actually practice. Because of this, leaders now have something that goes beyond theory. As stated in the article Balanced Leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement the MCREL study gives leaders responsibilities, practices, knowledge, strategies, tools, and resources that are needed to be effective leaders. In addition, the study goes beyond what needs to be done, it is about when, how, and why to do the things a leader must do. As a leader, we must understand there will be times we need to push for change; however, we need to also recognize the culture, the tradition, and the values we may disrupt. Leaders need to be aware of the impact their decisions will have on the people in their organizations. Leaders are responsible for supporting their staff and connecting them with each other; in addition, the right tools and training need to be provided in order for everyone involved to succeed. THIS is the idea behind MCREL’s balanced leadership.
The Impact of Leadership:
MCREL keeps it simple. There is no silver bullet here. Even though it is recognized through the study how leaders CAN have an impact on student achievement, it is recognized that this impact can be positive; however, this impact can also be negative if, as leaders, we do NOT focus on the appropriate change. Therefore, MCREL identifies both First order and Second order of change.
First and Second Order of Change:
The idea behind first order change are those changes a leader makes based on existing values, ideas, and knowledge of all stakeholders involved in the school. These changes are NOT seen as dramatic, but as necessity. Conversely, second order changes are seen as those changes that tend to disrupt the norm. With a second order change, it is often difficult for the stakeholders in the school to identify how or whom the change is going to benefit. With second order change, it becomes necessary for all to learn new ideas and practices in order for the change to have a lasting impact. Because of the confusing nature of change, it is often difficult for members of the school community to confuse first and second order change. What one may perceive as a first order change of necessity, another may see it as a second order change, which merely disrupts tradition and only confusing and complex. Therefore, MCREL’s research identifies the importance of leaders knowing more than just what to do, but leaders must also be versed on how and when to implement any change.
What does it all mean?:
The crux of the article Balanced Leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement is that as leaders we need to work on our skill in implementing the 21 leadership responsibilities; however, it is crucial we understand the how and when as much as the what. The study proves through quantitative analysis that leaders DO have a direct impact on student achievement, but it is not some haphazard method. Leaders need to recognize and understand the idea behind the 21 leadership responsibilities in order to see gains. Change needs to occur, and it is imperative leaders recognize whether the change they are implementing is first or second order. This is not a one-size fits all option, so what works for a first order change WILL NOT work for a second order change. In fact, a leader may have a negative impact if the correct responsibility is not properly identified. The study does not claim to be the “silver bullet” to fix leadership; however, it does provide a tool, which may enhance the effectiveness leaders do have on student achievement.
The 21 Leadership Responsibilities Identified:
1. Culture: fosters shared beliefs and a sense of community & cooperation.
2. Order: establishes a set of standard operating procedures and routines.
3. Discipline: protects the teachers from issues and influences that would detract from their teaching time or focus.
4. Resources: provides teachers with materials and professional development for the successful execution of their jobs.
5. Curriculum, instruction, assessment: is directly involved in the design and implementation of curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices.
6. Focus: establishes clear goals and keeps those goals in the forefront of the school’s attention.
7. Knowledge of curriculum¸instruction assessment: is knowledgeable about current curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices.
8. Visibility: has quality contact and interactions with teachers and students.
9. Contingent rewards: recognizes and rewards individual accomplishments
10. Communications: establishes strong lines of communication with teachers and among students
11. Outreach: is an advocate and spokesperson for the school to all stakeholders
12. Input: involves teachers in the design and implementation of important decisions and policies
13. Affirmation: recognizes and celebrates school accomplishments and acknowledges failures.
14. Relationships: demonstrates an awareness of the personal aspects of teachers and staff.
15. Change agent: is willing to and actively challenges the status quo.
16. Optimizer: inspires and leads new challenging innovations
17. Ideals/Beliefs: communicates and operates from strong ideals and beliefs about schooling
18. Monitors/evaluates: monitors the effectiveness of school practices and their impact on student learning
19. Flexibility: adapts his leadership behavior to the needs of the current situation and is comfortable with dissent
20. Situational awareness: is aware of the details and undercurrents in the running of the school and uses this information to address current and potential problems
21. Intellectual Stimulation: ensures that facultyand staff are aware of the most current theories and practices and makes the discussion of these a regular aspect of the school’s culture.
Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning is the private nonprofit corporation at the center of this particular 30-year study to help improve student achievement through leadership. The study recognizes 21 leadership responsibilities associated with student achievement; however, the 21 areas recognized can also cause a negative impact if they are not practiced and implemented in the appropriate manner. MCREL’s 21 leadership responsibilities are considered critical for educational leaders in improving student achievement; however, the leader needs to be aware of the needs (and more importantly the wants) of all stakeholders in the school system to successfully implement these 21 leadership responsibilities.
The only proper way to introduce this 30-year research study is to begin with the purpose of the study. For all educational leaders, the goal of education is to increase student achievement. Therefore, the study and research set out to identify the factors that directly affected student achievement. After 30 years of research, MCREL identified 21 leadership responsibilities that significantly had an impact on student achievement. Once the study identified these 21 factors, a leadership framework was implemented to assist leaders in the education field to assist teachers, students, parents, and all other stakeholders directly involved with the education community.
Why the push for a Leadership Framework:
For years, it was believed that “instructional leadership” had a direct impact on student achievement; however, this connection did not have a thorough study to support the claim. The idea became yet another mirage to keep educators searching for ways to improve student achievement. Leaders of educational institutions were in the dark due to the lack of substantial evidence to support roles as “instructional leaders.” As stated in the MCREL report Balanced Leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement, the lack of supporting evidence behind the idea of an “instructional leader,” leaders were not provided with practical guidelines for becoming effective leaders; in return, these leaders failed their schools, their staff, their communities, and most importantly their students.
What makes this study so strong?
The MCREL study offers the first comprehensive analysis of school leadership and the direct correlation to student achievement. In other words, the MCREL study truly gives leaders something tangible to work with. Unlike previous theories, the MCREL study gives leaders something they can actually practice. Because of this, leaders now have something that goes beyond theory. As stated in the article Balanced Leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement the MCREL study gives leaders responsibilities, practices, knowledge, strategies, tools, and resources that are needed to be effective leaders. In addition, the study goes beyond what needs to be done, it is about when, how, and why to do the things a leader must do. As a leader, we must understand there will be times we need to push for change; however, we need to also recognize the culture, the tradition, and the values we may disrupt. Leaders need to be aware of the impact their decisions will have on the people in their organizations. Leaders are responsible for supporting their staff and connecting them with each other; in addition, the right tools and training need to be provided in order for everyone involved to succeed. THIS is the idea behind MCREL’s balanced leadership.
The Impact of Leadership:
MCREL keeps it simple. There is no silver bullet here. Even though it is recognized through the study how leaders CAN have an impact on student achievement, it is recognized that this impact can be positive; however, this impact can also be negative if, as leaders, we do NOT focus on the appropriate change. Therefore, MCREL identifies both First order and Second order of change.
First and Second Order of Change:
The idea behind first order change are those changes a leader makes based on existing values, ideas, and knowledge of all stakeholders involved in the school. These changes are NOT seen as dramatic, but as necessity. Conversely, second order changes are seen as those changes that tend to disrupt the norm. With a second order change, it is often difficult for the stakeholders in the school to identify how or whom the change is going to benefit. With second order change, it becomes necessary for all to learn new ideas and practices in order for the change to have a lasting impact. Because of the confusing nature of change, it is often difficult for members of the school community to confuse first and second order change. What one may perceive as a first order change of necessity, another may see it as a second order change, which merely disrupts tradition and only confusing and complex. Therefore, MCREL’s research identifies the importance of leaders knowing more than just what to do, but leaders must also be versed on how and when to implement any change.
What does it all mean?:
The crux of the article Balanced Leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement is that as leaders we need to work on our skill in implementing the 21 leadership responsibilities; however, it is crucial we understand the how and when as much as the what. The study proves through quantitative analysis that leaders DO have a direct impact on student achievement, but it is not some haphazard method. Leaders need to recognize and understand the idea behind the 21 leadership responsibilities in order to see gains. Change needs to occur, and it is imperative leaders recognize whether the change they are implementing is first or second order. This is not a one-size fits all option, so what works for a first order change WILL NOT work for a second order change. In fact, a leader may have a negative impact if the correct responsibility is not properly identified. The study does not claim to be the “silver bullet” to fix leadership; however, it does provide a tool, which may enhance the effectiveness leaders do have on student achievement.
The 21 Leadership Responsibilities Identified:
1. Culture: fosters shared beliefs and a sense of community & cooperation.
2. Order: establishes a set of standard operating procedures and routines.
3. Discipline: protects the teachers from issues and influences that would detract from their teaching time or focus.
4. Resources: provides teachers with materials and professional development for the successful execution of their jobs.
5. Curriculum, instruction, assessment: is directly involved in the design and implementation of curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices.
6. Focus: establishes clear goals and keeps those goals in the forefront of the school’s attention.
7. Knowledge of curriculum¸instruction assessment: is knowledgeable about current curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices.
8. Visibility: has quality contact and interactions with teachers and students.
9. Contingent rewards: recognizes and rewards individual accomplishments
10. Communications: establishes strong lines of communication with teachers and among students
11. Outreach: is an advocate and spokesperson for the school to all stakeholders
12. Input: involves teachers in the design and implementation of important decisions and policies
13. Affirmation: recognizes and celebrates school accomplishments and acknowledges failures.
14. Relationships: demonstrates an awareness of the personal aspects of teachers and staff.
15. Change agent: is willing to and actively challenges the status quo.
16. Optimizer: inspires and leads new challenging innovations
17. Ideals/Beliefs: communicates and operates from strong ideals and beliefs about schooling
18. Monitors/evaluates: monitors the effectiveness of school practices and their impact on student learning
19. Flexibility: adapts his leadership behavior to the needs of the current situation and is comfortable with dissent
20. Situational awareness: is aware of the details and undercurrents in the running of the school and uses this information to address current and potential problems
21. Intellectual Stimulation: ensures that facultyand staff are aware of the most current theories and practices and makes the discussion of these a regular aspect of the school’s culture.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Many Hats and Many Responsibilities
McREL’s 21 Leadership Responsibilities
McRel has identified 21 leadership responsibilities that are significantly associated with student achievement after analyzing studies conducted over a 30-year period. They have translated the results into a balanced leadership framework, which describes the knowledge, skills, strategies, and tools leaders need to positively impact student achievement. The meta-analysis identified 66 practices principals used to fulfill the 21 responsibilities as well. Principals can benefit from this list because the standards focus on what is essential. This list is a pared-down and more manageable set of standards compared to other frameworks. This type of clarity in the McREL model is useful because it helps principals prioritize the demands of the job by helping them focus first on the responsibilities and practices related with student achievement rather than attempting to fulfill every responsibility that someone deemed important regardless of its impact on learning. This framework provides a way to make a seemingly impossible job more manageable by making clear what is essential as well as what is important to know. When school leaders focus on the “right” school and classroom practices and accurately estimate the magnitude of the change they are leading, their leadership can positively affect student achievement. They must also accurately understand the magnitude of change implied by these efforts. They must be adept at meeting both first and second order changes.
This all sounds simple, however, learning what is essential is clearly easier than doing what is essential. The scope of these responsibilities is what contributes to the perception of the job of the principal as undoable. It seems like an overwhelming task for one individual. The dilemma faced by all principals is assuring that all-important responsibilities are fulfilled while focusing on what is essential to student achievement. As we all know, the principal has to wear many hats: manager, instructor, leader, organizer, collaborator, change agent, etc. Principals alone simply cannot fulfill all of the leadership responsibilities necessary for running a school not to mention maintaining student achievement. One approach to help with this is distributing leadership responsibilities to others, possibly a school-level leadership team. Professional development programs are crucial as well. McREL’s knowledge taxonomy may be a useful tool in this area.
As Harvard scholar Richard Elmore states in the McREL working paper; knowing the right thing to do is the central problem of school improvement. Holding schools accountable for their performance depends on having people in schools with the knowledge, skill, and judgment to make the improvements that will increase student performance. Administrators today face the tough task of moving their students forward in academic achievement, while many communities are challenged by poverty and the breakdown of the American family. Yet the standards and assessments have changed, increasing the pressure to succeed. Both knowledge and skills are crucial to this profession. McREL’s framework is a tool to help us achieve success.
In summary, McREL’s balanced leadership framework is the most comprehensive, rigorous, and useful integration of research and theory into a practical format available to education leaders today. It is a tool to help leaders to improve student achievement within their schools.
McREL’s 21 Leadership Responsibilities
1. Culture: Fosters shared beliefs and a sense of community and cooperation.
2. Order: Establishes a set of standard operating procedures and routines.
3. Discipline: Protects teachers from issues and influences that would detract from their teaching time and focus.
4. Resources: Provides teachers with materials and professional development necessary for the successful execution of their jobs.
5. Curriculum, instruction, and assessment: Is directly involved in the design and implementation of curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices.
6. Focus: Establishes clear goals and keeps those goals in the forefront of the school's attention.
7. Knowledge of curriculum, instruction, assessment: Is knowledgeable about current curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices.
8. Visibility: Has quality contact and interactions with teachers and students.
9. Contingent Rewards: Recognizes and rewards individual accomplishments.
10. Communication: Establishes strong lines of communication with teachers and among students.
11. Outreach: Is an advocate and spokesperson for the school to all stakeholders.
12. Input: Involves teachers in the design and implementation of important decisions and policies.
13. Affirmation: Recognizes and celebrates school accomplishments and acknowledges failures.
14. Relationship: Demonstrates an awareness of the personal aspects of teachers and staff.
15. Change agent: Is willing to and actively challenges the status quo.
16. Optimizer: Inspires and leads new and challenging innovations.
17. Ideals/beliefs: Communicates and operates from strong ideals and beliefs about schooling.
18. Monitors/evaluates: Monitors the effectiveness of school practices and their impact on student learning.
19. Flexibility: Adapts leadership behaviors to the needs of the current situation and is comfortable with dissent.
20. Situational awareness: Is aware of the details and undercurrents in the running of the school and uses this information to address current and potential problems.
21. Intellectual stimulation: Ensures that faculty and staff are aware of the most current theories and practices and makes the discussion of these a regular aspect of the school culture.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Core Content Standards (Cons)
As a nation, we are unifying our educational system and coming together with our state standards. Core Content Standards are bringing together the states that have adopted them so that, as a country, we can educate our children with the same curriculum across grades, across states. While this sounds great for people that move from state to state, there are some cons that go along with this unified curriculum plan.
If states adopt these Core Content Standards, we are giving control to the federal government of our education. In history, we have fought between church and state, but now there will no longer be that “state” component. We will be allowing the educational system to be governed by one group. By doing this, we are restricting teachers on adding their individual creativity and inventiveness through their lessons. In a way, we will be robbing educators on their individuality to implement uniqueness. With the federal government having control, more people will be trying to agree on standards and curriculum than just the state government. With this many people, are there ever going to be agreements among them? The more hands in the pot, the harder it is to come to conclusions together.
The CCS are for Kindergarten through twelfth grades, but what about pre-K? Preschool is the basis for the rest of our grades, and this is where they have that chance to learn to socialize, play, and explore. If we add rigor to these preschool children, when can kids just be kids? Some of the standards for the elementary grades are asking too much from the students. Children eight and nine years old are going to be expected “describe the relationship between a series of historical events, scientific ideas or concepts, or steps in technical procedures in a text using language that pertains to time, sequence, and cause/effect”, as per the Language Arts CCS. I am not quite sure I know what they are asking of these third graders. Are some of the standards too strong and even unrealistic? Will there be an increase in referrals to special services if we are not getting our students to these levels? How are we prepared financially as a country to support those services?
However, states like Massachusetts and California are saying that the CCS are “lower” than their state standards. These states are essentially going backwards in their education if they are lowering them. Why would these states adopt? Money! The incentive for these states to adopt is the “Race for the Top” which had a monetary reward for states that adopted the content standards this year. They will be sharing 3.4 billion dollars, but where’s the incentive to participate and implement these curriculum standards if certain states aren’t getting a piece of money? Those states that aren’t awarded could potentially cause the CCS to look badly for the students and teachers when test score results appear. It’s not necessarily the standards, but rather the lack of money as an incentive for participating after they have adopted the Core Standards.
Finally, there is currently little research for these standards. There is little research from pilot programs and schools that have implemented these standards for their effectiveness on education. If we don’t know or have research-based evidence that shows direct success, then how do we know they are for the best interest for our students? In our attempt to complete school reform in so many ways, let’s hope this is not a three-year wasted plan.
If states adopt these Core Content Standards, we are giving control to the federal government of our education. In history, we have fought between church and state, but now there will no longer be that “state” component. We will be allowing the educational system to be governed by one group. By doing this, we are restricting teachers on adding their individual creativity and inventiveness through their lessons. In a way, we will be robbing educators on their individuality to implement uniqueness. With the federal government having control, more people will be trying to agree on standards and curriculum than just the state government. With this many people, are there ever going to be agreements among them? The more hands in the pot, the harder it is to come to conclusions together.
The CCS are for Kindergarten through twelfth grades, but what about pre-K? Preschool is the basis for the rest of our grades, and this is where they have that chance to learn to socialize, play, and explore. If we add rigor to these preschool children, when can kids just be kids? Some of the standards for the elementary grades are asking too much from the students. Children eight and nine years old are going to be expected “describe the relationship between a series of historical events, scientific ideas or concepts, or steps in technical procedures in a text using language that pertains to time, sequence, and cause/effect”, as per the Language Arts CCS. I am not quite sure I know what they are asking of these third graders. Are some of the standards too strong and even unrealistic? Will there be an increase in referrals to special services if we are not getting our students to these levels? How are we prepared financially as a country to support those services?
However, states like Massachusetts and California are saying that the CCS are “lower” than their state standards. These states are essentially going backwards in their education if they are lowering them. Why would these states adopt? Money! The incentive for these states to adopt is the “Race for the Top” which had a monetary reward for states that adopted the content standards this year. They will be sharing 3.4 billion dollars, but where’s the incentive to participate and implement these curriculum standards if certain states aren’t getting a piece of money? Those states that aren’t awarded could potentially cause the CCS to look badly for the students and teachers when test score results appear. It’s not necessarily the standards, but rather the lack of money as an incentive for participating after they have adopted the Core Standards.
Finally, there is currently little research for these standards. There is little research from pilot programs and schools that have implemented these standards for their effectiveness on education. If we don’t know or have research-based evidence that shows direct success, then how do we know they are for the best interest for our students? In our attempt to complete school reform in so many ways, let’s hope this is not a three-year wasted plan.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
NAEP
What is NAEP?
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is the only nationally representative and continuing assessment of what American students know and can do in various academic subjects. This is a congressionally mandated project of the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics. NAEP surveys have been conducted on a national sample basis since 1969 in reading, mathematics, writing, science, and other elementary and secondary school subjects. Its background information was limited to gender, race, ethnicity, and literacy materials in the home.
The United States Congress created the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) in 1988 to formulate policy for NAEP. Among the Board’s responsibilities are determining the content of NAEP and designing the assessment methodology. The Board has final authority on this. The Governing Board is a bipartisan group of 26 members that includes governors, state legislators, local and state school officials, educators, business representatives, and members of the general public. The NAEP assessment operations are carried out with assistance from contractors.
Since the 1980s, the array of non-cognitive questions expanded greatly. These now include not only race, ethnicity, gender, but also socio-economic status, parents highest level of education, type of school, disability, limited English proficiency, and since 2003, participation in Title I eligibility. They were used first to define a more extensive array of sub-groups of the student population. A second reason for collecting non-cognitive information is to inform educational policy by describing the contexts for learning, sometimes called opportunities to learn (Mullis, 2002). Broadly, this involves the content specified in the curriculum, whether and how that content is actually taught, students’ propensity to learn, as well as home and school factors that can enhance learning.
The primary purpose of NAEP is to provide fair and accurate information on student achievement. Its primary audience is the American public. The Governing Board believes that in serving its purpose and audience well, NAEP can contribute to educational research.
NAEP’s report is known as “The Nation’s Report Card”. This report card is designed to give a general picture of the levels of knowledge and skill among students nationwide or in a particular state. The scores of individual students and schools are not released; instead it provides results on achievement in academic assessments measuring the achievement of students on a broad range of content. The representative samples for each state reports on 4th, 8th, and 12th grades. The achievements are reported in two ways, scale scores and achievement levels. The NAEP scale score results provide a numeric summary of what students know and can do in a particular subject matter. Achievement levels categorize student achievements as below basic, basic, proficient, and advanced using ranges of performance established for each group. The report card also gives information on non-cognitive factors, descriptive information from students, teachers, and school administrators about demographic characteristics (race, ethnicity, gender…) and the educational process. In addition, supplemental reports that focus on particular aspects of the background data collected may be prepared. For example, this report presents data on teacher qualifications, socioeconomic status, computer usage, hours spent watching television, reading habits, and other demographic and school information that can be used to determine factors affecting achievement. In all cases, NAEP reports published by the National Center for Education Statistics must not state conclusions as to cause and effect relationships and avoid simplistic presentations that imply best practice.
All the materials generated by NAEP are accessible to be used as models for designing assessments or revising curricula. The National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) grants members of the educational community to use NAEP data. To accomplish this, since the 1994 assessment, all reports and data have been placed on the World Wide Web. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard.
The results reported on the last report show big discrepancies between NAEP results and the student’s performance on the test given by individual states. State results indicated that more students are proficient than the NAEP results. The controversy is clear supporters of NAEP said that the states tests are too easy. State officials’ says the NAEP’s achievement levels are too high and difficult for the average student to reach.
Dr. Dorothy Realdine, Director of Mathematics and Science at the Bridgeton Public School system said “The lack of motivation when students take the NAEP test plays a big part in the results. Because the results have no consequences, students do not put as much effort in the state test.”
To summarize, I think the NAEP has played an important role in establishing all the later initiatives: No Child Left Behind NCLB-2002, Benchmarking for Success-2008, Race to the Top-2009, and reform NCLB-2011. By no means should be the only measurement tool, however because they have been actively accumulating data we should not ignore those results. As the United States becomes more competitive in the global economy, I strongly believe we would need to embrace the NCLB and accept that it is not going anywhere. The five steps established by the National Governors Association; (1) developing international benchmarking, (2) aligning textbooks and materials, (3) improving standards for educators, (4) evaluation of student performance, and (5) measure student achievement to global standards are the way to build a globally competitive education system. NAEP is there and will continue doing its mandate, to provide fair and accurate information on student achievement to the American public.
References:
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
http://www.achieve.org/BenchmarkingforSuccess
Year Round Schools: Lifestyle vs. Learning
As with most issues related to school reform the research on this topic varies depending on the source. The idea of year round schools is also referred to as a balanced schedule. The concept behind year round schools is that of eliminating the traditional school calendar of 10 months with a cumulative 2 month break to a balanced calendar where the breaks are equally distributed throughout the year. Some of these models’ calendars vary although all models eliminate the two-month summer vacation. Some models also include an extended school day. Another interesting piece of information is that in year round schools there are a similar number of instructional days as traditional school calendars.
In the year 2008, nearly 2.5 million pupils were enrolled in a year round school. By the year 2012, education groups estimate that more than 5 million students could be going to school
year-round which is about 10 percent of all children that are enrolled in American public school. Some states that have many of their schools now on a balanced schedule are Arkansas, Arizona,
California, Colorado, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia.
Those that promote year round schools argue that society can't keep saying to schools' have every kid perform better' when we don't have them in school throughout the year. It is a challenge to “cram” the required curricula into a 9-10 month time period. Trying to meet AYP is challenging enough but the year round school model is believed to increase student’s performance which helps to meet the requirements of NCLB. Also, from a global competition perspective, our students spend less time in school than other countries like China and India.
It is also believed that the traditional school calendar puts our low income students in
an unfair disadvantage compared to the privileged students due to the two-month summer vacation. The privileged students are able to experience academic camps and/or tutoring over the summer months which increases their reading, math and spelling skills. The low income students do not receive those same opportunities, which in return does not allow them to increase their academic abilities and for the majority they actually lose skills over the summer
months. There was also a great deal of research on the negative impact of the two-month summer break for our English as Second Language students. These students are taught in English for 9-10 months but then spend their summer around their family who speak in their native language. So, it is believed that when these students come back in the fall that they
require a great deal of review of the English language.
All of the research supporting year round schools believes that it increases student achievement, reduces learning loss and new learning occurs quicker because there is less time spent reviewing. The balanced schedule is believed to give the students some kind of relief with a break and then the students come back more invigorated. Research supports that it decreases the dropout rate of students at the high school level. It is believed to prevent student and teacher burnout and reduce the amount of absences from staff and students. The core principles of year round schools are that it allows for maintenance of what a student has already learned and then improvement by adding new learning and increasing student achievement.
Bridget B. Potts
Class Size
Class size reduction has been discussed for many years, but recently, with the passage of NCLB in 2000, this initiative has become even more of a priority (Education Week). While many educators and professionals believe that decreasing class size is of great importance, others believe that reducing class size involves more negative outcomes than benefits. The positive outcomes of reducing class size include: lower retention rates, increases in students’ grades, higher wages when students enter the workforce, and an increase in the amount of students attending college. The negative consequences of class size reduction include: requiring teachers to learn how to educate students differently, the high cost involved in creating smaller classes, and the lack of space in the school building for more classrooms.
There are many positive outcomes for students who are educated in classrooms with fewer students. These students are more likely to earn more in adulthood, have a 401K, and are more likely in general to stay in school and continue on to a college education (Education Week). Additionally, students in smaller classes are less likely to be retained and are more likely to earn higher grades (GreatSchools). One particular study, the STAR experiment, which was implemented in Tennessee, found that reducing the class size by about 7 students led to an increase in students’ achievement by about 3 months beyond their peers and this success was still significant four years later (Whitehurst, 2011). The gains in smaller classes have the most impact on poor and African American students (Education Week). Since there exists an achievement gap that puts African American and poor students at the bottom as compared to other students, perhaps reducing class size could help reduce this deficit.
While there are many positive outcomes of reducing class size, there are also negative consequences. Since teachers have become accustomed to teaching larger classes, they have developed more of a lecture style of teaching. When class sizes are reduced, teachers will have to change the way they teach and provide more individual attention and interaction (Education Week). This could entail more professional development courses for both administrators and teachers, which not only cost money, but take time away from instruction. In general, reducing class size costs money and takes funding away from other educational needs (Education Week, Great Schools). However, some researchers believe that this reduction is cost-effective because of the gains in wages later in students’ lives (Education Week). Additionally, when lowering class size, districts would be required to hire more teachers to teach more classes, which could result in hiring underqualified teachers in order to save the district money (Education Week). One study found that while smaller classes are beneficial, the effectiveness of the teacher matters more than how large the class is (Rotherman, 2011). While there may not be enough teachers, there may also not be enough space in the building for classrooms, which results in students learning in closets (Education Week). Finally, while class size is seen as important in America, with an average of 25 students per class, other high-achieving countries have larger class sizes. For example, Japan has a class size average of 33 and South Korea has 36 students on average per class. Perhaps, according to these researchers, it may be more effective to expand the school day or year than to reduce class size.
Overall, while class size reduction has some proven benefits, there are also some negative consequences. Even though educational gains from smaller class sizes extend into adulthood, the cost of implementing these programs may outweigh these gains. Ultimately, more research is needed on the topic in order to investigate whether the positives outweigh the negatives.
References
Class Size. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/class-size/
How important is class size?. GreatSchools. Retrieved from http://www.greatschools.org/find-a-school/defining-your-ideal/174-class-size.gs
Rotherman, A.J. (2011). Time Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2056571,00.html
Whitehurst, G.J., Chingos, M.M. (2011). Class size: What research says and what it means for state policy. Brookings. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2011/0511_class_size_whitehurst_chingos.aspx
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)