Tag Archives: Test-Based Accountability

The California Context: CA Policymakers and Educators Shift from Test-and-Punish to Build-and-Support

Photo Credit: Lukasz Stefanski / Shutterstock.com

The California Context
California Policymakers and Educators Shift from Test-and-Punish to Build-and-Support

by Bill Honig

California, under the leadership of Governor Jerry Brown, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson, Michael Kirst, president of the State Board of Education, and the legislature, and backed by almost the entire educational establishment and advocacy groups in the state, including the teacher unions, has embraced the long-range and comprehensive Build-and-Support strategy. California’s approach is based on valid, reliable school improvement research and patterned after the practices and policies of high-performing states such as Massachusetts. All California stakeholders agree that educational performance in the state must improve substantially and that it will take 10–15 years of concerted effort to successfully implement the more demanding instructional program envisioned by the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The specifics of the California strategy follow.

Ensuring Adequate Funding Levels

Early in his term, Governor Brown sponsored Proposition 30, a tax increase initiative that temporarily raised income tax rates on top earners and provided for a ¼-cent sales tax increase. It passed. Those funds and the economic recovery in the state allowed the governor, working with the state legislature, to increase per-pupil funding for K–12 by about 40% during his first term. The hefty increase was designed to make up for the precipitous drop in support caused by the recession. The governor and the legislature also revamped the educational funding system under the Local Control Funding Program (LCFP). It now gives districts more flexibility in how to manage their funds and to provide additional resources for high-risk students.

Adopting a Rigorous, Standards-Based Liberal Arts Curriculum

After widespread discussions, the State Board of Education (SBE) in California approved the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), the English Language Arts (ELA) Standards, and the English Language Development (ELD) Standards. The later two were both later integrated into the ELA/ELD Framework. It also signed on to the CCSS-aligned Smarter Balanced Assessment Program (SBAC). California policymakers were careful to emphasize that the primary purpose of the assessments was to feed back information to improve instruction, not for high-stakes consequences. At the same time, they eliminated a cluster of existing state tests. The SBE, backed by the political establishment, postponed testing until the new SBAC tests were ready and refused to submit to federal pressure requiring that testing be tied to teacher evaluations. The state legislature also gave the SBE two years to devise a new accountability system.

Delivering High-Quality Instruction

Recognizing the need for additional support, the SBE authorized the development of frameworks to advise teachers and districts on how best to translate the standards into curriculum and instruction, deliver effective professional development, build collaborative teams, and adopt instructional materials consistent with the standards.

Useful California Content Frameworks and Support Documents

These frameworks have been widely supported in the state. The California Department of Education, county offices, districts, educational organizations, newly created networks of schools and districts, and especially the state teacher unions have been aggressively pursuing the implementation of the more active and deeper instruction envisioned by the CCSS. The California Teachers Association has been in the forefront of standards implementation efforts and has formed partnerships with Stanford and other educational entities to that end.

In 2012, State Superintendent Tom Torlakson formed a prestigious commission chaired by Linda Darling-Hammond and Chris Steinhauser. Darling-Hammond is one of the most respected school improvement researchers in the country, and Steinhauser is superintendent of the Long Beach Unified School District, which was designated one of the top school districts in the world. The commission produced Greatness by Design, a superb policy document that provides the blueprint for a Build-and-Support strategy in the state. In 2015, it followed up with A Blueprint for Great Schools: Version 2.0. These documents have had a major influence on practice in California, as has the expert advice of Michael Fullan.

In addition, the governor and the legislature invested almost $2 billion specifically for supporting the CCSS implementation and associated curricular and assessment changes and another $500 million for similar purposes in the 2015 budget. That latest allocation also included attracting, training, inducting, and supporting new teachers as one of the primary goals of the item, consistent with the recommendations of Greatness by Design, although there is still much to be done to revitalize the teaching profession.

Creating Useful and Fair Accountability Systems

In California, political and educational leaders proposed and the legislature enacted a plan to develop a new assessment and accountability system using multiple measures of student performance. The primary goal of the new system is to feed back information that will support local improvement efforts and not to punish schools and teachers. State leaders also created a new entity, the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence, to support and review the CCSS and LCFP implementation and organize site visits and support for struggling schools.

Most districts have been hard at work on the day-to-day business of implementing the Common Core State Standards. In addition, two effective networks of districts have been collaborating on the CCSS implementation. One network, CORE Districts, is composed of some of the largest districts in the state; the other is the California Collaborative on District Reform. CORE Districts obtained a federal waiver to develop its own broader assessment system (although it had to agree to test-based teacher evaluation, which each district will soon be able to ignore under the new Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).

Engaging Stakeholders

A potent informal network funded by foundation support, the Consortium for the Implementation of the Common Core State Standards, was formed with representatives from major educational and government entities, districts, county education offices, teacher groups, the research community, higher education, and advocacy groups. It has helped on such key issues as implementation planning, coordinating the work of support providers, communication, technology, understanding the state mathematics and ELA/ELD frameworks, accountability, and new teacher policies. Its first publication, Leadership Planning Guide California, was intended to assist districts and schools in addressing the implementation of the CCSS. In 2015, the consortium produced user-friendly summaries of the math and ELA/ELD frameworks.

Resisting High-Stakes Testing

Moreover, almost every educational group has joined the political and educational leadership and the legislature to successfully resist federal demands for excessive high-stakes testing and accountability and not-ready-for-prime-time student and teacher evaluation schemes. The one exception has been the CORE Districts, which sought a waiver from severe No Child Left Behind (NCLB) penalties and were forced to accept test-driven teacher evaluation as the price for the waiver. Many of the districts are now struggling with implementing those evaluations, which have caused disharmony within the districts. In addition, although many in management continue to support such measures as test-driven teacher evaluation, their numbers are decreasing in the face of the Build-and-Support agenda being promoted by educational leaders across the state. Finally, the presidents and chancellors of the four higher education segments all signed a letter pledging support for the Common Core State Standards.

A brief summary of California’s approach is available in a slide presentation by Michael Kirst and an article in CALmatters, “A Stanford Professor’s High-Stakes Plan to Save California Schools.” See also Jeff Bryant’s 2015 interview of me in Salon and his follow-up article on California as a potential role model for the country. Lastly, see Charles Kerchner’s blog post, “Can the ‘California Way’ Turn Around Underperforming Schools?”

How California Avoided the Push-Back Against the Common Core

There is widespread backing for Common Core in the state thanks to these efforts, particularly the tempered rolling out of the CCSS, the postponing of testing and accountability to allow time for implementation, and the divorcing of accountability from evaluations. The resistance to the CCSS that has erupted in other states from abrupt implementation and tying the standards themselves to high-stakes accountability has not occurred in California. The study Leveraging the Common Core to Support College and Career Readiness in California reports finding widespread excitement among high school teachers for the promise of the more active instruction offered by the CCSS.

In 2015, a poll by Children Now found 67% support among the general public in California for the CCSS. Interestingly, if respondents were asked only about the ideas behind the standards, without mentioning the name Common Core, support rose to between 85% and 93%. The findings were similar for parents who had children in public schools, and for those employed in the education field, 82% expressed support for the standards.

Build-and-Support Is Working in California

In 2013, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan praised a few cherry-picked states that had followed the administration’s proposed reforms and improved their National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results. Duncan failed to mention the larger number of states that had also implemented the policies but did not grow and experienced lackluster results overall. In a glaring case of omission, Duncan never acknowledged California’s reform efforts, which, although resisting many of the federal reform policies, topped the nation in growth in eighth-grade scores.

That trend has continued. From 2009 to 2015, California was first in growth, along with Washington, DC, in eighth-grade scaled reading score growth—up six points from 2009 compared to the national growth rate of one point. California was among the four-highest states in eighth-grade growth in mathematics—up five points from 2009 compared to a national decline of one point. California did not fare as well on NAEP fourth-grade scores. They have remained low with flat growth, mirroring the rest of the nation.

Added note: 2017 NAEP results have accelerated this trend, though there is still much work to do.

NAEP 8^th and 4^th Grade Reading and Math Average Scaled Score Growth for 2009-2017  California has the most second language students, the most diversity, and high levels of low income children compared to other states. Top growth scores nationally for 8^th grade reading, 4^th grade reading, 8^th grade math. Weak growth for 4^th grade math.  

Reading: 8^th grade: First in the nation. California growth +10 and now within 2 points of the national average. National growth +3 https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2017/#states/scores?grade=8

4^th grade: Tied for 2^nd nationally California growth +6  and now within 6 points of the national average. National growth +1 https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2017/#states/scores?grade=4 

Math: 8^th grade: Tied for 2nd nationally. California growth +6, Now within 5 points of the national average. National growth 0. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/math_2017/#states/scores?grade=8

  4^th grade: Tied for 15^th in growth +1. 7 points behind nationally. National growth 0. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/math_2017/#states/scores?grade=4 

Gaps have actually narrowed in the state. White student scores have not grown as fast as Hispanic and Black children.
Some subgroup info: 
 Hispanic growth scores for reading 2009-2017; 8^th grade reading +10; 4^th grade reading +8
  Black: 8^th grade +7; 4^th grade -1!!!.
   Hispanic growth scores for math: 8^th grade +6; 4^th grade +4
   Black: 8^th grade +5; 4^th grade +1 

Two California Urban Districts under the Federal Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA) program showed top gains in NAEP. 

LA: 8^th grade reading average score growth 2009-2017. +11.  1^st in nation. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2017/#/districts/scores?grade=8
       4^th grade reading: +10;  1st in nation (Tied DC)

       8^th grade math:  +8 (Tied for 3^rd)
       4^th grade math: +1 (Not good—tied for 7^th)

San Diego

        8^th grade reading: +10. (2^nd nationally after LA) https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/math_2017/#districts/scores?grade=8
        4^th grade reading: +9.  (tied for 2nd nationally)
        8^th grade math:  +3 (tied for 7^th)
        4^th grade math +1 (tied for 7^th)
 

Another set of data from the Urban Institute app which adjusts NAEP scores for language, poverty, race, and special ed. And whether the adjustments are accurate or not,  comparisons using the same standards are legit. http://apps.urban.org/features/naep/  
One caveat is that the intervals on the ranks are still being scaled which might change 
rank growth somewhat but the overall picture will remain very similar. 

I took off the age control but let the others stay. (If you look at the website be sure to refresh after looking at math to allow you to click from math to reading and when you do remember to put off the age control) These data are ranks based on average scores, and if you mouse over the state it shows the growth in rankings. It is apparent that California has made large jumps in rankings this year from the past few years. (Florida has not grown as much but is at the top or near the top nationally in all the rankings—whether from state policy or district independent efforts needs to be determined)

In 8^th grade reading we are now 14^th in the country up from the low 40’s as recently as 2013. In 4th grade reading we are 19^th in the country up from the high 30’s in 2015.

In 8^th grade math we are 22^nd up from the low 40’s as recently as 2013.In 4^th grade math (our weakest area where we need to undertake considerable work) we are 37th up from the low 40’s in 2011 and 2015.

Some confirmation is provided by our most recent state testing, the SBAC. 11^th grade reading scores. 60% now reach the “proficient” level—a level consistent with 4yr college work and the NAEP proficiency level which compares favorably to the other SBAC states that are much less diverse. To me, getting 60% of our diverse students to that level is impressive and a tribute to the hard work of our educational practitioners and policy direction. On the other hand, the state is much weaker in SBAC math performance at 11^th grade (although improving) and math will be a major area of subsequent improvement efforts.

In addition, from 2010 to 2015, the Golden State improved its high school graduation from 74.7 to 82.3, an increase of 7.6 points, which is significantly greater than the improvement in the national rate. Despite having one of the most diverse student bodies in the nation, the state graduation rate is now higher than the national average. California Latino and African-American students progressed even faster. The rate of Latinos has increased 15% since 2010 to 78.5%; African-American students increased 11% to 70.8. Finally, in 2015, 43.4% of graduates completed all the necessary coursework to meet the minimum admissions requirements for the University of California and the California State University systems, a substantial jump from the 36.3% meeting the requirements in 2010.

Even though California scores have been increasing on NAEP, at least at the eighth-grade level, student achievement must improve substantially in the next decade. The first Smarter Balanced assessments based on the Common Core State Standards were given in 2015 and formed the base year for determining growth rates and improvements.

Preliminarily, SBAC reported four levels—standard exceeded, standard met, standard nearly met, and standard not met. It is important to understand what “standard” means. It was established to be comparable to the NAEP proficiency standards, which predict success in a four-year college credit-bearing course. Massachusetts, whose students score among those in the top countries worldwide, is the only state in which just over 50% of its students score proficient on NAEP.

The number of students in California meeting or exceeding the standard on the SBAC test at 11th grade is one indication of how many students are being adequately prepared for both four-year colleges and community colleges where students transfer to four-year colleges after two years or to one of the more demanding career tech pathways.

The 2015 scores in the 11th grade were decent in English language arts—58% of students reached the four-year college-bound level. The scores were low in mathematics—only 28% reached or exceeded the college-bound standard. This may be due to the shift in instruction called for by the CCSS or the greater language demands of the math test, or the test may have been too dependent on Intermediate algebra, which is not appropriate for many career paths. Researchers are currently examining the discrepancy between student performance in math and reading.

At elementary and middle grades, the percentage of students meeting the on-track to a four-year college standard was generally in the mid-30% in math and mid-40% in reading. The achievement gaps between low-income children or children of color and their higher-income or Caucasian peers increased from previous tests. This is most likely due to the fact that the new SBAC assesses deeper learning and provides a more accurate picture of actual performance.

Meeting the Challenges of Diversity and Underfunding

California has one of the most diverse groups of K–12 students in the nation: 54% Hispanic/Latino; 25% white; 12% Asian, Pacific Islander, or Filipino; 6% African-American; 3% mixed race; and 0.6% Native American. Its English-language learner (ELL) population is 25%, the largest in the nation. The states with the next largest ELL populations are Texas with 15%, Florida with 10%, and New York with 9%. Our state also ranks high in poverty levels.

Importantly, California spends significantly less per pupil than other states. In 2014–2015, it ranked 42nd after adjusting for cost of living, and it is significantly behind other states in additional support measures that affect school quality as well.

Yet, compared to the 12 other states that took the SBAC, California ranked in the middle of 11th-grade scores for both reading and math. None of the other states are as diverse. In the lower grades, however, California was either at the bottom or near the bottom. Unquestionably, much work is to be done in the state, but the Build-and-Support policy framework being pursued offers the best chance of substantial improvement during the next decade.

Career Tech Pathways

Many of us in California have one major problem with the Common Core State Standards, which is how the SBAC standards were set and how the CCSS in general are portrayed in the media. Although the literature maintains that the goal is “career and college readiness,” as I explained above, the high school standards are actually primarily aimed at preparing students for four-year colleges or alternative career paths that demand the highest educational levels. This is particularly true of third-year high school courses in mathematics.

Many have questioned whether intermediate algebra (made more demanding by Common Core Standards) is an appropriate course for those preparing to be dental hygienists or to be trained in precision manufacturing. For those tech/prep students, rigorous substitutes such as statistics and quantitative reasoning or embedding these subjects in career tech application courses seems to be a better alternative. In fact, many states have pursued this direction. For example, Texas just recently changed its requirements.

The Charles A. Dana Center in Texas recently examined 34 career paths—from accounting to visual communication—to determine which math skills were needed. Most careers only demanded the use of the math learned through eighth grade that can be applied in complex and unique situations. See also “Programs of Study & Mathematics Alignment” on the Dana Center’s website. It presents an analysis of the mathematical demands for nursing, communications, criminal justice, and social work.

Currently, about 40% of students nationally reach the levels needed for succeeding in a credit-bearing four-year college course. We should definitely be trying to increase that number, and the Common Core State Standards are valuable for that goal. Yet even for the college bound some flexibility is warranted. The University of California’s Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools (BOARS) establishes the courses that count for college admission, and the state university and community college systems follow its lead. Recently the BOARS committee approved some substitutions for intermediate algebra http://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/committees/boars/documents/BOARSStatementonStatway.pdf and the community colleges are considering changes along these lines.

But that still leaves a large number of students who could profit from rigorous tech-prep pathways yet are usually neglected in a system that is primarily geared for the four-year college bound. California has lagged behind some other states showing leadership in developing these pathways such as Illinois, but it is now devoting resources and attention to this problem.

Robert Schwartz, of Harvard University’s Graduate School of Education, has been one of the major national proponents of improving the pathways for the non–four-year college bound. See his Pathways to Prosperity: Meeting the Challenge of Preparing Young Americans for the 21st Century and Career Pathways: A Route to Upward Mobility, a paper he coauthored with Nancy Hoffman. The Thomas B. Fordham Institute also has been promoting alternative pathways. See the papers and video presentations from its Education for Upward Mobility Conference that are devoted to the issue. David Conley and Linda Darling-Hammond have also been champions of this approach. See the handouts on the California Department of Education web page that summarize their work. For a California perspective, see Career Technical Education Pathways Initiative, and for a national perspective, see The State of Career Technical Education. See also the fall 2014 online issue of American Educator, which is devoted to this topic.

Pamela Burdman has authored three excellent reports on mathematics college placement issues in California sponsored by the Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) as well as a short article on the inaccuracies of college placement exams. A compendium of research from a conference on this subject can be found at a LearningWorks conference on the future of college math placement. The conference focused on three main issues:

Are there alternative paths to college other than the usual mathematics sequence that ends in intermediate algebra such as statistics or quantitative reasoning?
Is relying on a placement test an accurate and fair way to force students into remedial classes based on Algebra 2, which many will not pass. Are there better alternatives? Placement tests provide only a tiny percentage improvement on the predictions generated by merely relying on transcripts but do result in high levels of misplacement.
Are there more successful ways to teach the remedial classes?

In 2016, a major report by the Center for Community College Student Engagement made similar points about the deficiencies in our system of remediation, and a summary of the research demonstrates the defects of community college placement exams that 87% of community college students are forced to take.

Some extremely effective groups have been formed to support alternatives for the college bound and programs that offer rigorous preparation for the tech/prep bound. Among them are Linked Learning and ConnectEd. See also the High Tech High charter organization, which is devoted to school/career integration with an emphasis on project-based learning, and the many career academies that over the past two decades have been providing successful career preparation in important fields such as health, business, and manufacturing.

California has invested one-and-a-half-billion dollars in collaborative tech/prep grants aimed at two-year community college pathways to careers or four-year colleges or apprenticeships. This has been accomplished under the leadership of Governor Brown and the state legislature, with the full support of State Superintendent of Public Education Tom Torlakson. The investments have been made over the past few years and are slated to continue for the next few years.

Although some civil rights advocates are reluctant to support the premise that it is an unattainable goal for all students to become prepared for four-year institutions of higher learning, we are doing a disservice to many youngsters by only concentrating on that pathway. Many students who could succeed in a rigorous alternative route will falter under a four-year college prep sequence. These substitute pathways are a far cry from the old vocational education, which often became a dumping ground for low-performing students and devolved into tracking for minority and low-income students. One policy goal should be to maximize the number of students who qualify, attend, and graduate from four-year colleges, but we should also attend to the needs of those students who could profit from a rigorous tech/prep pathway.

The jury is still out on whether our large, diverse state will successfully implement the ambitious instructional program envisioned by the Common Core Standards over the next decade by following a Build-and-Support approach. So far, so good.

Recent Developments

7/30/2016. Michael Petrilli has edited a just-released book Education for Upward Mobility (2016). This work contains essays under three headings. First, Transcending Poverty through Education, Work, and Personal Responsibility which includes chapters on the “Success Sequence” (graduate high-school, obtain a full-time job, and wait to have children until 21), tech-prep pathways, certification, and apprenticeship. Second, Multiple Pathways in High School: Tracking Revisited? which includes chapters on small schools of choice, college-prep high schools for the poor, and high-quality career and technical education. Finally, there is a section, The Early Years with chapters on the importance of the first five years, the centrality of knowledge acquisition in the elementary years, and issues of tracking in middle schools. Many of these authors support the main points in the article above.

7/30/2016 Two reports from the Education Commission of the States on what states require for early reading. California doesn’t do as much as many other states. Although our ELA/ELD framework is solid, we are missing some of the other infrastructure. http://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-k-3-quality/; http://www.ecs.org/companion-report-50-state-comparison-k-3-quality/

Reference Notes

Adopting a Rigorous, Standards-Based Liberal Arts Curriculum
Fensterwald, J. (2015, Jun 22). State Board Gets Extra Year to Create Measures of School Progress. http://edsource.org/2015/state-board-gets-extra-year-to-create-measures-of-school-progress/818666

Delivering High-Quality Instruction
Fensterwald, J. (2014, Dec 1). CTA Launches Large-Scale Teacher Training. http://edsource.org/2014/cta-launches-large-scale-teacher-training/70687#.VLg-31fF9D9

Tom Torlakson’s Task Force on Educator Excellence. (2012, Sep 17). Greatness by Design: Supporting Outstanding Teaching to Sustain a Golden State. California Department of Education. http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/ee.asp

Blueprint 2.0 Planning Team. (2015, Jul 27). A Blueprint for Great Schools: Version 2.0. State Superintendent of Public Instruction. California Department of Education. http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/bp/bp2contents.asp

Fullan, M. (2015, Jan). A Golden Opportunity: The California Collaborative for Educational Excellence as a Force for Positive Change. http://www.michaelfullan.ca/california-release-a-golden-opportunity/

Mead, S., Aldeman, C., Chuong, C., & Obbard, J. (2015, Jul 28). Rethinking Teacher Preparation: Empowering Local Schools to Solve California’s Teacher Shortage and Better Develop Teachers. http://bellwethereducation.org/publication/Rethinking_Teacher_Prep_California See also Ellison, K., & Fensterwald, J. (2015, Jul 14). California’s Dwindling Teacher Supply Rattling Districts’ Nerves. http://edsource.org/2015/californias-dwindling-teacher-supply-rattling-districts-nerves/82805

Creating Useful and Fair Accountability Systems
CORE Districts. http://coredistricts.org/

California Collaborative on District Reform. http://cacollaborative.org/topics/district-collaboration

Engaging Stakeholders
Consortium for the Implementation of the Common Core State Standards. (2013, Oct). Leadership Planning Guide California: Common Core State Standards and Assessments Implementation. California County Superintendents Educational Service Association. http://ccsesa.org/ccsesa-common-core-leadership-planning-guide-now-available/

Yakes, C., & Sprague, M. (2015). Executive Summary: Mathematics Framework for California Public Schools: K–12. California Department of Education. http://www.scoe.net/castandards/

Slowik, H Y., & Brynelson, N. (2015). Executive Summary: English Language Arts/English Language Development Framework for California Public Schools: K–12. California Department of Education. http://www.scoe.net/castandards/Pages/default.aspx

Gewertz, C. (2014, Sep 4). California Higher Education Systems Pledge Common-Core Support. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2014/09/california_higher_education_sy.html

Resisting High-Stakes Testing
Kirst, M. W. (2015, Jul). California Education Policy Overview 2015. Education Policy Fellowship Program. http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/epfp.iel.org/resource/resmgr/AERA_IEL/Final_MK_IEL-AERA_July_2015_.pdf

Lin, J. (2016, Jun 4). A Stanford Professor’s High-Stakes Plan to Save California Schools. https://calmatters.org/articles/a-stanford-professor-disrupts-california-schools/

Bryant, J. (2015, Apr 14). Common Core Consequences: What Currently Passes for “Reform” Has Caused Considerable Collateral damage to Schools and Teachers. http://www.salon.com/2015/04/14/common_core_consequences_what_currently_passes_for_reform_has_caused_considerable_collateral_damage_to_schools_and_teachers/

Bryant, J. (2015, Apr 23). An Alternative to Failed Education “Reform,” If We Want One. http://educationopportunitynetwork.org/an-alternative-to-failed-education-reform-if-we-want-one/

Kerchner, C.T. (2016, Jun 6). Can the “California Way” Turn Around Underperforming Schools? http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/on_california/2016/06/can_the_california_way_turn_around_underperforming_schools.html

How California Avoided the Push-Back Against the Common Core
Freedberg, L. (2016, Jan 10). Common Core: New York Stumbles, California Advances on Common Core Implementation. http://edsource.org/2016/new-york-stumbles-california-advances-on-common-core-implementation/92986

Venezia, A., & Lewis, J. (2015, Aug). Leveraging the Common Core to Support College and Career Readiness in California. Education Insights Center. California State University, Sacramento. http://edinsightscenter.org/Publications/ctl/ArticleView/mid/421/articleId/1007/Leveraging-the-Common-Core-for-College-and-Career-Readiness-in-California

Children Now. (2015, Apr 20). New California Poll Shows Strong Support for Common Core and Its Approach. http://www.childrennow.org/about-us/press-releases/new-california-poll-shows-strong-support-common-core-and-its-approach/

Build-and-Support Is Working in California
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). NAEP State Profiles. U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/?utm_source=Michael%27s+daily+email%2C+Oct.+28%2C+2015&utm_campaign=Daily_4-24-15&utm_medium=email

Leal, F. (2016, May 17). California’s Graduation, Dropout Rates Improve for the Sixth Straight Year. http://edsource.org/2016/californias-graduation-dropout-rates-improve-for-the-sixth-straight-year/564357?utm_source=May+18+digest+Jane&utm_campaign=Daily+email&utm_medium=email

Blume, H. (2015, Sep 11). Achievement Gaps Widen for California’s Black and Latino students. Los Angeles Times. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-achievement-gaps-widen-20150911-story.html

Meeting the Challenges of Diversity and Underfunding
Lucile Packard Foundation for Children’s Health. Public School Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity. http://www.kidsdata.org/topic/36/publicschoolenrollment-race/table – fmt=451&loc=2,127,347,1763,331,348,336,1&tf=84&ch=7,11,621,85,10,72,9,73&sortColumnId=0&sortType=asc

Federal Education Budget Project. (2012, Mar 28). Student Poverty Rate. http://febp.newamerica.net/k12/rankings/cenpov

Kerchener, C. T. (2015, Nov 23). Tax Proposals Would Lift California’s Low School Funding. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/on_california/2015/11/tax_proposals_would_lift_californias_low_school_funding.html

Kaplan, J. (2015, Nov). California’s Support for K-12 Education Ranks Low by Almost Any Measure. http://calbudgetcenter.org/?s=fact+K-12

Smarter Balance Results by State: 2014–2015.http://edsource.org/smarter-balanced-results/state.html and McCrea, D. (2015, Nov. 20). Personal letter to author.

Career Tech Pathways
Schulzke, E. (2015, Dec 12). How Much Math Do College-Bound Students Really Need? http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865643586/As-math-standards-nudge-upward-is-it-time-for-a-national-dialogue-on-how-much-math-high-schoolers.html

Fechter, J. (2014, Jan 31). State Nixes Algebra 2 for Most Students, Offers Other Math Options. http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/education/article/State-nixes-Algebra-2-for-most-students-offers-5194326.php

The Charles A. Dana Center. (2013, Jul). What Students Need to Know: Mathematics Concept Inventories for Community College Workforce Education Programs. The University of Texas at Austin. http://www.utdanacenter.org/higher-education/higher-education-resources/policy-resources/programs-of-study-mathematics-alignment/

The Charles A. Dana Center. Programs of Study & Mathematics Alignment. The University of Texas at Austin. http://www.utdanacenter.org/higher-education/higher-education-resources/policy-resources/programs-of-study-mathematics-alignment/

UC Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools. (2015, Jan 16). Statement on Approval of Statway. University of California. http://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/committees/boars/documents/BOARSStatementonStatway.pdf See also UC Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools. (2013, Jul). Statement on Basic Math for All Admitted UC Students. http://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/committees/boars/BOARSStatementonMathforAllStudentsJuly2013.pdf

Walton, I. (2013, Jun). Alternatives to Traditional Intermediate Algebra. Academic Senate for California Community Colleges. http://www.asccc.org/content/alternatives-traditional-intermediate-algebra

Symonds, W. C., Schwartz, R., & Ferguson, R. F. (2011). Pathways to Prosperity: Meeting the Challenge of Preparing Young Americans for the 21st Century. Cambridge, MA: Pathways to Prosperity Project, Harvard University Graduate School of Education. https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/4740480

Schwartz, R., & Hoffman, N. (2014, Dec 2). Career Pathways: A Route to Upward Mobility. edex.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Schwartz-Hoffman%20Paper-KLM%20(1).pdf

Thomas B. Fordham Institute. (2014, Dec 2). Education for Upward Mobility. http://edexcellence.net/publications/education-for-upward-mobility The papers from this conference have been published in a 2015 book edited by Michael Petrilli, Education for Upward Mobility, and a second video conference on the book was held in 2016. http://edexcellence.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=628bd73f1e90c900ee5ef4166&id=7894a573bc&e=ebbe04a807

California Department of Education. PSAA Meeting Webcast Archive 2014. Meeting Handouts. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/pa/psaawebcastarchive14.asp#dec2014handouts

California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2013, Aug). Career Technical Education Pathways Initiative. http://californiacommunitycolleges.cccco.edu/Portals/0/reportsTB/REPORT_CTEPathwaysInitiative_082613_FINAL.pdf

Advance CTE. The State of Career Technical Education. http://www.careertech.org/state-CTE

American Federation of Teachers. (2014, Fall). American Educator. http://www.aft.org/ae/fall2014

Burdman, P. (2015). Publications. Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE). http://edpolicyinca.org/authors/pamela-burdman

Burdman, P. (2015, Nov 5). Math Placement Tests Deserve More Scrutiny. http://edsource.org/2015/math-placement-tests-deserve-more-scrutiny/90132?utm_source=Nov.+6+newsletter+John&utm_campaign=Daily+email&utm_medium=email

Learning Works. (2015, Nov 10). Testing and Beyond: A Summit on the Future of College Math Placement. http://www.learningworksca.org/testing-and-beyond-conference-nov-10th-2015-oakland-california/

Center for Community College Student Engagement. (2016). Expectations Meet Reality: The Underprepared Student and Community Colleges. The University of Texas at Austin, College of Education, Department of Educational Administration, Program in Higher Education Leadership. http://www.ccsse.org/nr2016/

Belfield, C., & Crosta, P. M. (2012, Feb). Predicting Success in College: The Importance of Placement Tests and High School Transcripts. Columbia University Teachers College Community College Research Center. http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/publications/predicting-success-placement-tests-transcripts.html

Linked Learning Alliance. http://www.linkedlearning.org/

The California Center for College and Career (ConnectEd). www.connectedcalifornia.org

High Tech High. www.hightechhigh.org

Leal, F. (2016, Jan 26). $1.5 Billion Helping Career Pathways Take Off in California’s High Schools. http://edsource.org/2016/1-5-billion-helping-career-pathways-take-off-in-californias-high-schools/93950

How Top Performers Build-and-Support: Provide an Engaging Broad-Based Liberal Arts Curriculum

Leave a reply

How Top Performers Build-and-Support
Provide an Engaging Broad-Based Liberal Arts Curriculum

by Bill Honig

A major component of every successful educational improvement effort is addressing the issue of what will be taught. Specifically, world-class educational performers provide all students with a challenging and engaging broad liberal arts curriculum—precisely the type of curriculum envisioned by the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), which have been adopted by more than 40 states. Many conventional reformers have supported the CCSS, seeing them as a mechanism for their high-stakes accountability agenda. Their position has been to establish national standards, assess performance against those standards, and attach consequences to low performance—the Test-and-Punish approach. I stand with a vast number of educators who, while rejecting an emphasis on test-based accountability, support the CCSS and the promise they hold for improving curriculum and instruction. The standards are consistent with what our most knowledgeable teachers and researchers have been advocating for years.

Why the Common Core State Standards Are So Important

The California Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for English Language Arts & Literacy (which almost identical to the national Common Core Standards) and the state’s framework explicating them (listed below) are based on the deeper learning that is taking place in our best schools and classrooms—reading, writing, and discussing literature and complex text and ideas; synthesizing those texts and ideas to construct arguments; reading widely; and mastering core academic content in history, science, civics, and humanities to enhance comprehension and better understand the world.

Deeper learning entails mastering more complex thinking and applying twenty-first-century skills. Deeper learning also produces higher learning. For a scholarly treatment of the concept of deeper learning, see the work of Maggie Lampert, the Learning Deeply blog, and Jal Mehta and Sarah Fine.

Mehta and Fine define the term this way:

There is no consensus on exactly how to define deeper learning. For example, it has often been described as the integration of academic, inter-, and intrapersonal skills and knowledge. Recent research findings strongly suggest that in order to succeed in college, careers, and all aspects of adult life, young people require more than just a command of academic content. They also need to be able to solve complex real world problems, collaborate, communicate effectively, monitor and direct their own learning, and develop an academic mindset.

Among many cognitive psychologists, however, deep learning—or what they might call learning for understanding—refers to the ability to transfer knowledge. The idea is that knowledge becomes deeper when one can use it not only to address a problem in the context in which it has been taught, but also to understand or explain something in a different but related context. Rather than seeing isolated facts, deep learners see patterns and connections because they understand the underlying structures of what they’re exploring.

The authors of this paper suggest that deeper learning requires the ability to transfer knowledge, and more. It often emerges at the intersection of mastery (knowledge of substantive content, including the ability to transfer), identity (driven by relevance to the learner), and creativity (the ability to act or make something from the knowledge).

However one defines it, though, deeper learning poses a multipronged challenge to current classroom practice and educational systems. It will require a major increase in the cognitive demand of the tasks that most students, particularly in high-poverty schools, are asked to complete.

The Common Core State Standards and the frameworks explicating them envision a substantial instructional shift to this type of enriched learning. (These frameworks are discussed in greater depth later in this article.)

I caught a glimpse of the future back in 1985, when I was California superintendent of public instruction and visited a seventh-grade classroom in Santa Barbara. The students were presenting research papers on college-level questions such as “What effect did the Galileo trial have on scientific investigation in southern and northern Europe?” I was amazed as teams of students presented their papers and then engaged in a sophisticated discussion with the rest of the class. Almost every student contributed. Discussants were serious, used sophisticated language, asked perceptive questions, and responded appropriately to what was being said. Afterward, when I met with their superb teacher, Naomi Johnson, it became apparent how much work had gone into creating the conditions that allowed the students to successfully participate in such an erudite academic discussion. She assured me that these advanced behaviors and abilities were also the result of several years of sustained learning in previous grades and tremendous efforts by the entire faculty at the middle school to assure that each class reinforced the skills students need to conduct research and actively contribute to academic discussions.

The Common Core State Standards for Mathematics are also internationally benchmarked—reflecting what math educators have been recommending: go deeper into fewer topics, incorporate practices such as modeling, discussion both in class and with peers, problem solving, and a greater emphasis on procedural skills, conceptual understanding, and application to increasingly complex situations. Both sets of standards, English language arts (ELA) and mathematics, build on existing best practices but demand significant changes in instruction. In addition, California combined the ELA Common Core Standards with state-adopted English Language Development (ELD) standards to create a framework that integrates both sets of standards, the ELA/ELD Framework.

The recently developed Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) offer similar pedagogical approaches in science, combining content and practices. These science standards have also been adopted by numerous states.

Similar documents have been developed to create national standards for history-social science such as the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards. In addition, many states have drafted and implemented their own standards for history-social science. The importance of science and history-social science content is also emphasized in Common Core’s ELA and mathematics standards.

Why Support the Common Core State Standards?

Most teachers in California are excited by the educational promise of providing an active, engaging curriculum, as called for in the new standards. They have long believed in and have expressed a strong interest in bringing the ideas to fruition. One of the most exciting aspects of the CCSS is that they incorporate the complex instructional expertise and practices that make up effective teaching. This means that implementing the CCSS can become the catalyst for every school to address each of the crucial components of effective instruction. It has been shown that failure in any one component affects successful practice and outcomes. Moreover, the shift to the more complex and active instruction envisioned by the CCSS requires schools to build collaborative teams and provide the support needed for continuous improvement in individual teacher and school performance. Each school can decide how to tailor its implementation strategy based on the needs of its staff. Depending on the teacher or school program, some proficiencies will become second nature while others may need constant attention. For more on the topic of effective teaching, see the companion article Provide High-Quality Instruction. For more about team building, see the companion article Build Teams and Focus on Continuous Improvement.

I know that the CCSS are controversial and that many people strongly object to various aspects of the standards. Some concerns do not relate to the standards themselves but to unwarranted classroom practices and misguided implementation policies. Examples include over-scripted instruction, assigning inappropriate activities to kindergarteners, or abuses at the state level such as New York State’s decision to arbitrarily set cut levels so high that huge numbers of students failed the tests. Criticisms of the standards are often based on a misinterpretation or misreading of what they actually say. For example, many people decry the devaluation of literature, basing their objections on the standards’ recommendation that 70% of high school reading materials should be informational text. However, a closer reading of the language in the standards reveals that the 70% refers to all high school reading, which means there would still be plenty of time in English classrooms for a full literature program. At the same time, incorporating some powerful essays, biographies, and nonfiction books such as The Double Helix into the English curriculum promotes the deeper learning educators seek.

I should mention that not all of my fellow Build-and-Support advocates believe in the value of the CCSS, as I do. In addition to opposing the Test-and-Punish approach, “market-based reform efforts,” privatization of schools, and corporate overreach, Anthony Cody, Diane Ravitch, and a few other respected thought leaders reject the Common Core State Standards themselves. They think the standards are so entwined with high-stakes accountability that they are unsalvageable and not educationally warranted or legitimate. I disagree on both counts. Diane graciously allowed me to plead my case on her blog. I began my post with “Common Core Standards, YES. High-stakes Testing, Rewards and Punishments, and Market-based Reforms, NO. The California Story.” My comments engendered quite the discussion.

For an intelligent critique of the Common Core State Standards, see also Thomas Newkirk’s Postscript: Speaking Back to the Common Core. California made a concerted effort to address many of his criticisms in its adoption of the Common Core Standards, in the frameworks based on them, and in its implementation strategies, which divorced the Common Core rollout from test-driven high-stakes accountability. For more on this topic, see the companion articles in The California Context.

The Crucial Role of Content Frameworks

In California and other states, content frameworks translate the CCSS into guides for curriculum, instruction, professional development, and adoption of materials. They are critical in turning the standards into a workable curriculum. Ideally, the effort of schools across this country to implement a curriculum that reflects the content frameworks aligned with the CCSS or other comparably ambitious standards can be the centerpiece of an alternative Build-and-Support reform movement. The key is to detach implementation of the Common Core Standards from the high-stakes, test-based punitive measures too often linked with them. This is what California and a few other states have done.

Useful California Content Frameworks and Support Documents

The Common Core State Standards Are Not a Curriculum

Before I discuss the California mathematics and ELA/ELD standards as examples of the complexity of curriculum and the discipline-based instruction proposed, one clarification is needed. The most successful districts spend time, effort, and thought in translating standards into a coherent and sequenced curriculum and thus avoid the trap of thinking that standards alone will improve educational performance.

The CCSS delineate what students should master, but they are not a curriculum. Jumping from the standards to create lesson plans misses the crucial middle step of developing a sequenced, coherent curriculum. Creating a local curricular framework for the district or utilizing one from the state informs the sequence and breadth of instruction. Developing this “scope & sequence” is complex. And without it, implementation of the CCSS is destined to fail.

For example, one of the seventh-grade math standards is to use proportional thinking and percentage to solve problems such as “If $50 is 20% of your total funds, how much do you have?” The standard does not say how much instructional time should be invested in helping students master the requisite skills (actually quite a lot) nor does it list which strategies will be effective, recommend a progression of learning, or explain how instruction should correlate with previous units.

The same is true of Common Core’s ELA & Literacy Standards. They stress the need for a coherent curriculum and a systematic buildup of knowledge through broadly defined literature and the disciplines. But the standards do not specify the actual content that should be used to reach those goals.

Unfortunately, many districts have not undertaken this crucial work. The Common Core State Standards Implementation Survey surveyed 818 districts in California, which represent 83% of state public school enrollment. In late 2013, only about one-third of the districts had created a scope and sequence for the CCSS in either English-language arts or mathematics for at least some grades. More than one-third of the districts reported that this work is planned “for the future,” and about one-quarter reported that they are not planning to engage in this work at all. At the same time, only about half the districts were creating units or lessons, or aligning existing units or lessons with the new standards. The situation has improved since 2013, but many districts still have not adopted a coherent standards-based curriculum including essential materials.

Resources for Developing a Coherent Scope & Sequence

First, existing framework documents such as the one developed by California provide essential advice on how to structure the curriculum, including the order in which standards should be taught; how much time should be spent on each standard; how a standard fits in the larger context of the grade-to-grade buildup of knowledge; strategies for instruction, intervention, and assessment; links to resources; and illuminating vignettes. Teachers need this broader context to maximize the effect of adopted or available materials.

Second, many proprietary core reading and math programs offer a well-constructed scope & sequence. Among them are those adopted in California in mathematics and in ELA/ELD. Some open-source education materials also have sound scope and sequences. All materials have undergone extensive reviews and have translated the CCSS and state frameworks into a serviceable curriculum for teachers. The programs also allow flexibility so that our best teachers and districts can enhance their materials with a variety of open-source educational materials such as those listed by ISKME—a mix-and-match strategy. Also see a network of states devoted to sharing open-source material.

Third, many of the nation’s best districts have developed their own scope and sequences, although many still incorporate basal texts in many disciplines based on their criteria. For example, Long Beach’s scope and sequence documents provide a comprehensive “blueprint” for strategically sequencing and operationalizing the grade level/course standards in ELA and mathematics. The critical attributes of each document are units laid out in sequence by theme/title; an indication of how much time to spend on each unit; a narrative description of each unit explaining its focus and purpose; a description of the standards to be assessed for each unit; an assessment narrative detailing the formative assessment strategies and practices included in each unit so teachers can monitor how well the students are learning; a notation of formative assessment lessons to be included in each unit during the second half of the unit with time allowed for reteach/review; an explanation of the structure and purpose of the interim or end-of-unit assessment; a list of item types that may be included, along with the rationale; and finally the reading-level range of the texts used in each ELA unit. Long Beach provides very detailed advice. Other districts may wish to offer more general guidelines.

Fourth, many websites offer progressions and scope and sequences for instruction such as Achieve the Core and Illustrative Mathematics. A November 2013 report by Hanover Research contained an exhaustive list of Common Core curricular resources and planning tools that are used by various states. Another list of resources is available at the California Department of Education (CDE) website, and a national open resources list aligned to the Common Core can be found at OER Commons. Finally, an online Internet tool for California educator collaboration and resource sharing, My Digital Chalkboard, contains supporting links and resources. Many states have also produced curricular planning guides. For example, the Colorado Department of Education has posted its own guide (Colorado’s District Sample Curriculum Project), as has New York. Many district scope and sequence efforts and units of instruction for standards implementation are available at the CDE, California County Superintendents Educational Services Association (CCSESA), and county office of education websites. Most districts are willing to share their work.

The Role of Core Basal Programs

One question that is troubling educators is how much they should rely on traditional prepackaged, comprehensive basal programs. With the availability of online and open-source materials, some people are predicting the demise of these programs. We are not quite there yet. Textbooks can be very useful in certain instructional areas, if they are part of a broader curricular approach and supplemented by digital or niche resources. For example, in addition to oral language development and reading books aloud, teaching beginning reading in English requires an organized, systematic presentation of letter/sound correspondences, progressing from the easier to the more difficult. Children need practice reading “decodable text,” or material that follows the letter/sound correspondences they have been taught. Designing such materials is complex, time consuming, and usually better left to knowledgeable sources.

Many textbooks have become too hefty—emphasizing coverage of content over depth. The new CCSS and corresponding frameworks propose deep learning, in which students learn how to read, evaluate, and create a range of multimedia. This requires differently designed materials. For example, Asian math textbooks are thinner and organized around challenging questions. In the US, publishers are creating hybrid programs that use both print and digital supporting materials. The recently adopted ELA/ELD materials in California are of high quality and reflect the values of the Common Core State Standards and California’s 2014 English Language Arts/English Language Development Framework.

While relying only on traditional basal programs would be a mistake and deprive teachers of engaging, effective options, refusing to take advantage of some organized materials would limit and diminish instruction for most teachers. The vast majority of teachers resist demands that they develop a full curriculum on their own—they have neither the time, expertise, nor inclination. Striking the proper balance with a mix-and-match strategy offers the best approach.

Unfortunately, reformers have neglected the crucial role of curriculum and instructional materials in improving educational performance. Linda Diamond, one of finest reading educators in the country, uses the metaphor of a three-legged stool. Teacher’s content and pedagogical knowledge of a strong, liberal arts curriculum is the first leg. Excellent instructional materials are the second leg. Doctors need the best tools, and so do teachers. Effective teams, support structures, and leadership are the third leg.

Improved Mathematics Instruction

As an example of the Common Core’s consistency with powerful research, the mathematics standards aim for deep content understanding—both procedural and conceptual—and the ability to apply such knowledge in increasingly complex situations. Instruction envisions a more interactive classroom that marries content with practice standards such as asking yourself if the answer makes sense, modeling, questioning, and explaining.

While delving into each discipline in detail is not the purview of this article, I will attempt to provide the flavor of the changes in each discipline. As an example of an instructional shift in mathematics, Jo Boaler proposes that students work on provocative questions. In What’s Math Got to Do With It?, she provides this example for third graders: “How would you solve 15 times 6 without pencil and paper?” This type of question stimulates a deeper understanding of the number system before students learn the algorithm and become procedurally fluent. Students can work in groups or individually to develop multiple ways of solving the problem and report back to the class for discussion of the pros and cons of each approach, all of which advance number sense.

Students might come up with these ideas: 6 times 10 and then add 6 times 5; 2 x 15, 3 times; 6 times 30 and divide by 2; 5 times 6, 3 times, and so on. Boaler challenges sixth graders with this math problem: A man on a diet can only eat ¼ of a pound of turkey a day. The market only sells packages of three slices, which is ⅓ of a pound. What fraction of the three slices can he eat? This question takes some thought, and there are several ways to solve it. (Spoiler hint: How many slices in a pound?) Or, a large cube that is painted on the outside that comprises smaller cubes of equal size, 10 by 10 by 10. How many cubes have one side painted, two sides, and three? Professor Boaler has collected scores of these engaging questions on her website. A steady diet of working on such problems produces deeper understanding and problem-solving abilities. For more on this topic, see “Not a Math Person: How to Remove Obstacles to Learning Math.”

I would add another example. Most adults have difficulty with proportional thinking, especially percentage. Many try to solve problems by rote application of the cross-multiplication rule, which is complex, prone to error, and precludes thinking about the underlying relationships. If you give students a problem such as “2 is to 3 as what is to 9?” (in the form of a 2-inch-high stick casting a 3-inch shadow, and a tree casting a 9-foot shadow—what is the height of the tree?) and ask them to figure out as many ways to solve it as they can, they will develop a deeper understanding of proportional relationships. Students could approach the problem as:

2 is ⅔ of 3, so what number is ⅔ of 9?, or conversely
3 is 1½ times 2, so 9 is 1½ times what number?, or
9 is 3 times 3, so what number is 3 times 2?, or
the standard cross-multiplication procedure 2:3=x:9, so set up the equation 2/3=x/9, solve by cross-multiplying: 3x = 2 x 9 or 3x=18, 18 ÷ 3 = x, which leaves x alone and the answer is 6.

All of these methods work; each develops an understanding of proportional relationships. Outside the classroom no one proficient in mathematics would use the more complicated formulae in this situation. Instead, they would think about what is being asked and use one of the simpler relationships to determine the answer. Vignettes demonstrating examples of active classroom instruction are included in the California mathematics framework, and videos and grade-level content are available from numerous sites.

I know some people will question this approach, asking “Why waste all this time: Why not just teach students the most efficient procedure first?” Eventually, they need to learn to be automatic with a procedure so they can think about new material, but initially the opportunity to struggle with a question, to think about the relationships and concepts, and to communicate and listen to ideas is too beneficial to miss. Ask the Japanese who have perfected this method and lead the world in math performance. Often, learning to rely exclusively on applying a rule or procedure precludes deeper thinking about the problem: Which procedure makes the most sense?; which data is important or superfluous?; and does the solution comply with a reasonable estimate? Of course, some procedures just need to be eventually memorized such as multiplication facts. This is what the California Mathematics Framework advocates, although even in this case, there are proven strategies and patterns to facilitate the effort.

Jo Boaler argues that the way math has been taught in the US as a set of rules to apply—show a procedure, work a problem in front of the class, have students practice and do homework, and then test—is ineffective for many students. They forget the steps, plug in the wrong numbers to the formula, and don’t know which procedures to use when they encounter a more complex problem, which is key to being able to use numbers. Classroom instruction usually masks this point by making it obvious which procedure to apply (a student will know that all of the day’s problems are about multiplying fractions). For many students, when they encounter a problem without the clue they are stumped. Instead the CCSS standards of content and practice emphasize conceptual understanding in addition to procedural knowledge and application. Finally, a steady diet of a rigid instructional routine—get the answer by following the rules—alienates many students.

Facility with percentage provides a perfect illustration of the problem. Percentage is probably one of the most useful mathematical tools in everyday life. Yet only about 45% of the US population can use percentage effectively. Sal Khan has commented that Khan Academy collects data from millions of people around the world. They have discovered that percentage problems rank among the most difficult for large numbers of adults. This finding was explained years ago by Parker and Leinhardt in a 90-page article entitled “Percentage: A Privileged Proportion.”

According to these and later researchers such as Susan Lamon, fourth graders are better at solving percentage problems than sixth graders. Since they have not been taught the algorithm, they think creatively using benchmarks. For example, when asked “What is 60% of 40?,” fourth graders think: “I know 50% of 40 is 20, and 10% is 4, so it must be 24.” Many students in later grades stop thinking and just attempt to apply a rule. (Witness the difficulty people have with tipping 15%.)

What is hard about percentage is that the tool is actually shorthand for conceptually complex relationships and meanings tied to a 100th scale, which was historically developed over thousands of years. The key issue is determining the base for comparison and the ability to flexibly shift bases. For example, imagine that your boss tells you that owing to financial difficulties, she has to cut your monthly salary of $1,000 by 10% for one month, but she will raise it 10% after the month is over. You won’t be back to your previous level because the first base for the cut is $1,000, while the second base for the increase is $900. Or, a more common situation: The graduation rate in your school is 50% and increases to 60%. Is that a 10% increase or 20%? It is both, depending on what you are attempting to communicate. Ten percent more than 50% is a 10% increase compared to 100% (entire student body)—a standard way of evaluating schools, but the pool of graduates (represented by 50%) rose 20% (10/50). Tricky.

In middle grades, solving percentage problems is usually taught procedurally in a few lessons using the cross-multiplication rule. This results in massive failure rates. On assessments, significant numbers of eighth graders could not answer the question “What is 100% of 8?” If five to six weeks of class time are invested with heavy language mediation and numerous examples of comparing this to that and that to this, about 95% of students will become proficient in using percentage. This is an example of the CCSS approach—fewer topics taught more in depth.

Many students want to know why a procedure works and desire to tackle more complex problems using the practices delineated in the new standards. Direct instruction definitely has its place, and many successful teachers use it predominately and still manage to encourage deeper student thinking. But for most practitioners, posing complex questions and providing open-ended tasks should be added to their teaching routines. The California mathematics framework calls for teachers to determine a proper balance between direct instruction and more engaging activities.

What is mathematically most useful for the vast majority of people is the ability to figure out how to set up a problem and decide which data are relevant and which procedures to use—a skill that is developed through practice by encountering large numbers of problems and completing activities that require thinking. This idea was brought home to me when I was participating in a review of potential test questions for the CCSS-aligned Smarter Balanced assessments. At my table was Mike Kirst, president of the California State Board of Education and a professor from Stanford. Also present was the then chair of the University of California’s Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools (BOARS) committee who was an engineering professor at one of the UC campuses. We were given several questions to rank for difficulty. The one we all agreed was the hardest required only adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing but was challenging to think through, set up, and decide which procedures and practices to use and when.

The math used by most adults except for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) occupations is the application of math learned through eighth grade such as fractions, rates, proportions, and percentage applied to complex or unique situations. Also important is the ability to reason quantitatively such as reading charts and extrapolating data. Andrew Hacker maintains that that ability is missing from most secondary math courses.

A 2016 study from OECD sheds some interesting light on strategies that help low-performing math students. The authors found that students don’t necessarily hate math but have high levels of anxiety. Extracurricular activities, which don’t need to be math based, help. A major finding is that the right amount of homework is crucial. Six hours of math homework a week reduces the odds of becoming a low performer—a whopping 70% compared to those doing little or no homework. Beyond six hours, homework becomes stressful and further results stall. Finally, in a controversial finding, in the US and a few other countries, ability grouping actually increased performance of struggling students.

For an in-depth analysis of implementation issues, see the reports produced by the Math in Common (MIC) network, which is devoted to the successful execution of the California Common Core State Standards in Mathematics. Owing to the complexity of this more demanding math instruction, many districts are shifting to have upper-elementary math taught by math specialists.

More Comprehensive and Engaging Language Arts

Reading, writing, discussing, and analyzing text in a more active manner are hallmarks of the English Language Arts (ELA) Standards. The California ELA/ELD Framework integrates two sets of standards: state Common Core English Language Arts (ELA) Standards and state English Language Development (ELD) Standards.

Following is a short excerpt from a 2014 summary of the ELA/ELD Framework authored by JoAnn Isken, Carol Jago, and me, which explains the ideas behind the framework:

The outer ring of the graphic identifies the overarching goals of ELA/ELD literacy and instruction. By the time California’s students complete high school, they should have developed readiness for college, career, and we added civic life; attained the capacities of literate individuals; become broadly literate; and acquired the skills for living and learning in the twenty-first century.

California has grounded the framework in these broader purposes of the language arts. We want students to be able to understand complex text and ideas as well as reason, analyze, persuade, and problem solve. We also wish them to encounter a rich liberal arts education—learning about the world, civic life, and the human heart, being well read, and helping them reach their potential. We would like our youngsters to encounter a significant representation of the best classic and contemporary literature including novels, biographies, essays and plays as well as coherent content informational text in science, history, and the humanities. We would like them to experience the joy of reading engrossing stories and fascinating material.

So the ELA/ELD framework is about two main thrusts: First, attention to the totality of what students read both on their own in independent reading and in school in their liberal arts disciplines (including literature) during their school years, and second, the analytical, reasoning and literacy skills necessary to comprehend and apply knowledge gleaned from a variety of text structures. Both ideas are stressed in the multi-state Common Core ELA standards. To this end, the framework also recommends an organized independent reading program for each student to supplement what is read in school and provides advice on how to implement such a strategy in Chapter 2.

The developers of the ELD standards made a crucial decision from the start. They designed the standards to aid the large number of English-language learners (ELLs) in mastering the CCSS, which greatly facilitated the integration of the two sets of standards. They organized the ELD standards around five overarching themes—foundational skills, language, written and oral expression, content knowledge, and meaning-making strategies such as drawing inferences and making connections. The integrated ELA/ELD Framework adopted this architecture. All five themes work together to develop student comprehension.

The first strand is foundational skills. To understand the ideas in a text, the reader needs to automatically recognize almost all the words. For words already in the reader’s speaking vocabulary, that is the role of foundational skills—to teach them a process for becoming automatic with a growing number of words. Foundational skills address how to teach them these skills and include phonics, word attack skills (learning how to sound out new words, handle multisyllabic words, and recognize word structures such as prefixes, suffixes, and roots), and fluency instruction (the rationale and more details are covered in the companion articles The California Context). The foundational skills in the California framework are summarized in an extremely well-written white paper by Hallie Yopp, one of the authors of the framework.

For a useful compendium on research-based reading instruction and strategies, see Honig, Diamond, and Gutlohn’s Teaching Reading Sourcebook, Updated 2nd Edition and its companion book Assessing Reading: Multiple Measures, 2nd Edition. Both books were produced by the Consortium on Reaching Excellence (CORE), where I am president. The Sourcebook was one of only 10 publications endorsed by the National Council on Teacher Quality to cover beginning reading adequately. Of the 10, it was the fourth most used publication for preservice teachers.

In 2015, Louise Spear-Swerling wrote The Power of RTI and Reading Profiles and David Kilpatrick wrote Essentials of Assessing, Preventing, and Overcoming Reading Difficulties. Along with the Sourcebook, these two books are among the best research-based books on how to teach children to read. They also explain some current misguided reading approaches that are still in widespread use. The companion article How the California Reading Wars Got Resolved: A Personal Story goes into further detail on the issue of the importance of foundational skills.

The second theme, language, deals with the crucial topic of vocabulary, text structure and syntax, and academic language—all critical to understanding text. Academic texts in English contain a large number of words that appear infrequently but are essential to understanding. To successfully complete high school, students need to understand approximately 65,000 words, although some words are members of the same word family. Consequently, from the outset, there must be a rich vocabulary development strand coupled with an extensive independent reading program. This is particularly crucial for the large numbers of low-income or ELL students who start school knowing far fewer words than their middle-class and English-speaking peers. For a valuable resource, see CORE’s Vocabulary Handbook and Word Intelligence, which is a vocabulary program for middle-grade students. In addition, as material and sentence structure become more complex and demanding in upper elementary, students must learn to handle challenging elements such as complex sentences with multiple dependent clauses. Finally, different disciplines such as history and science organize information in different ways and students need help in navigating these varied text structures.

The third theme enhances comprehension by concentrating on a student’s ability to express ideas in writing and speaking. This strand also includes spelling and writing conventions such as grammar. Often, until you have tried to explain something, you really don’t know it.

The fourth theme deals with the vital role content knowledge plays in comprehension and the importance of a systematic buildup of disciplinary and cultural knowledge through organized class work and independent reading. See the vast work on this subject at Core Knowledge and Liana Heitin’s blog “For Reading, Knowledge Matters More Than Strategies, Some Experts Say.” See also Vicki Cobb’s article “Why Reading to Learn Is Seldom Taught.”

And, finally, meaning making addresses the meta-cognitive skills of self-monitoring, drawing inferences, and thinking about what is being read.

Similar to math, English-language arts shifts to a more active instructional program including book discussions, projects, research, and making arguments and taking positions both in writing and speaking.

History, Civics, Economics, Geography, Humanities, and the Fine Arts

Changes in history/social science instruction follow a similar pattern as math and English language arts. The new California History-Social Science Framework and the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards encourage a more active curriculum. For example, in sixth grade, instead of marching through the growth of empires in Egypt, the Fertile Crescent, India, China, Africa, and Mesoamerica, teams of students may be assigned a particular area. Groups then investigate the history of their area, report to the class, and discuss the similarities and differences. Or, a teacher may pose the question: “Why did the Industrial Revolution start in England?” As in the other subject areas, understanding a combination of factual, conceptual, and historical processes seems the best mix, supported by powerful motivational content such as stories, narratives, historical fiction, biographies, projects, and performances.

Science

Similar to the other disciplines, the new Next Generation Science Standards and the new California Science Framework elucidating them stress the marriage of content in physics, chemistry, life, and earth sciences, including health; evolution and human origins; practices such as modeling, explaining, and observing; active investigations and hypotheses generation; understanding historical science; the incorporation of larger cross-cutting themes such as energy; and motivational efforts such as biographies of leading scientists and stories of the fight to conquer various diseases. For a wonderful compilation of engaging and motivating stories of scientists, see Joy Hakim’s Science Stories: Proof That Informative Can Be Engaging.

Other Crucial Student Learning

Similarly, teachers need to know the latest research and best practice related to how students learn and retain knowledge. Many of the works cited above will help. In addition, I recommend:

Building Blocks for Learning: A Framework for Comprehensive Student Development
How Children Succeed: Grit, Curiosity, and the Hidden Power of Character, which discusses the importance of personal and relational skills
Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning, which covers the importance of self-monitoring and self-testing strategies
Mindset, which explains the importance of students believing that effort will lead to their success
Teacher and Student Evaluation: Moving Beyond the Failure of School Reform
Visible Learning for Teachers: Maximizing Impact on Learning, which reviews the research on which strategies produce the largest effect size such as just-in-time intervention and actively involving students in the educational process

Practitioners should know where to go to obtain answers to key questions that arise from their efforts to improve instruction. High on the educational agenda should be making pedagogical wisdom available in a usable format to the professional learning teams at each site. School teams could then adapt those ideas to their individual students.

This article has dealt with the what of teaching and learning—the curriculum. See also the companion article, Provide High-Quality Instruction, which explores how teachers can best deliver that curriculum in the classroom.

BBS Companion Articles

How Top Performers Build-and-Support
Ground Efforts on Unassailable Research
Provide High-Quality Instruction
Build Teams and Focus on Continuous Improvement
The California Context
California Policymakers and Educators Shift from Test-and-Punish to Build-and-Support
How the California Reading Wars Got Resolved: A Personal Story

Reference Notes

Why the Common Core State Standards Are So Important
Bitter, C., & Loney, E. (2015, Aug). Deeper Learning: Improving Student Outcomes for College, Career, and Civic Life. http://educationpolicy.air.org/publications/deeper-learning-improving-student-outcomes-college-career-and-civic-life

Lampert, M. (2015). Deeper Teaching. Students at the Center: Deeper Learning Research Series. Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future. http://www.studentsatthecenter.org/topics/deeper-teaching

Amarillas, M. (2016, Feb 4). Deeper Learning, Metacognition and Presentations of Learning. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/learning_deeply/2016/02/deeper_learning_metacognition_and_presentations_of_learning.html?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campdfaign=learningdeeply

Mehta, J., & Fine, S. (2015, Dec). The Why, What, Were, and How of Deeper Learning in American Secondary Schools. Jobs for the Future. http://www.jff.org/publications/why-what-where-and-how-deeper-learning-american-secondary-schools

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. http://www.nextgenscience.org/

Heitin, L. (2016, Feb 23). Curriculum Matters: Eight Things to Know About the Next Generation Science Standards. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2016/02/next_generation_science_standards_8_things_to_know.html?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=curriculummatters

California Department of Education (CDE). (2013). Next Generation Science Standards for California Public Schools: K–12. http://www.cde.ca.gov/pd/ca/sc/ngssstandards.asp

National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). (2013). College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards: Guidance for Enhancing the Rigor of K–12 Civics, Economics, Geography, and History. Silver Spring, MD: NCSS. http://www.socialstudies.org/c3

California State Board of Education. Content Standards. http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/

Why Support the Common Core State Standards?
Ravitch, D. (2014, Jan 7). Bill Honig: Why California Likes the Common Core. http://dianeravitch.net/2014/01/07/bill-honig-why-california-likes-the-common-core-standards/

Newkirk, T. (2013). Postscript: Speaking Back to the Common Core. https://www.heinemann.com/shared/onlineresources/E02123/Newkirk_Speaking_Back_to_the_Common_Core.pdf

The Common Core State Standards Are Not a Curriculum
Honig, B. (2014, Jan 29). Coherent and Sequenced Curriculum Key to Implementing Common Core Standards. http://edsource.org/2014/coherent-and-sequenced-curriculum-key-to-implementing-common-core-standards/56704 See also Tucker, M. (2016, Feb 11). Building a Powerful State Instructional System for All Students. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/top_performers/2016/02/building_a_powerful_state_instructional_system_for_all_students.html

California County Superintendents Educational Services Association (CCSEA). (2013). Common Core State Standards Implementation Survey: Statewide Summary of Results. http://ccsesa.org/common-core-implementation-california-status-report/

Resources for Developing a Coherent Scope & Sequence
California Department of Education. (2014, Jan 15). 2014 Mathematics Adoption. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/im/sbeadopted2014mathprgms.asp

California Department of Education. (2015, Nov 4). 2015 ELA/ELD Adoption. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/rl/im/sbeadoptedelaeldprogs.asp

OER Services. http://www.iskme.org/services/oer-support

Zubrzycki, J. (2026, Feb 26). 13 States Join Federal Open Resource Initiative. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2016/02/open_educational_resources.html?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=curriculummatters

Long Beach Unified School District. Scope and Sequence Documents. http://www.lbusd.k12.ca.us/Departments/Curriculum/ELA/curriculum_docs.cfm

Achieve the Core. www.achievethecore.org

Illustrative Mathematics. https://www.illustrativemathematics.org/

Hanover Research. (2013, Nov). Final Report–Common Core Implementation Tools. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1009965-commoncore-implementationtools-gates1113.html

California Department of Education. All Curriculum Frameworks. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/allfwks.asp

OER Commons. https://www.oercommons.org/

My Digital Chalkboard. https://www.mydigitalchalkboard.org

Colorado Department of Education. Colorado’s District Sample Curriculum Project: Introduction. https://www.cde.state.co.us/standardsandinstruction/samplecurriculumproject

New York State Education Department. New York State Learning Standards and Core Curriculum. http://www.p12.nysed.gov/ciai/cores.html

California Department of Education. http://www.cde.ca.gov/

California County Superintendents Educational Services Association. http://ccsesa.org/

The Role of Core Basal Programs
Dobo, N. (2015, Nov 4). The Federal Government Urges K–12 Schools to Try Open Educational Resources. http://hechingerreport.org/the-federal-government-urges-k-12-schools-to-try-open-educational-resources/

California Department of Education. (2015). English Language Arts/English Language Development Framework for California Public Schools: K–12. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/rl/cf/elaeldfrmwrksbeadopted.asp

Boser, U. (2015, Oct 14). The Hidden Value of Curriculum Reform: Do States and Districts Receive the Most Bang for Their Curriculum Buck? https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2015/10/14/122810/the-hidden-value-of-curriculum-reform/

Consortium on Reaching Excellence (CORE). The CORE Approach to Building and Sustaining Lasting Academic Excellence. https://www.corelearn.com/About-Us/Our-Approach.html

Improved Mathematics Instruction
Boaler, J. (2015). What’s Math Got to Do With It? How Teachers and Parents Can Transform Mathematics Learning and Inspire Success. New York: Penguin Books.

YouCubed. https://www.youcubed.org/

Schwartz, K. (2015, Nov 30). “Not a Math Person”: How to Remove Obstacles to Learning Math. http://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2015/11/30/not-a-math-person-how-to-remove-obstacles-to-learning-math/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+kqed%2FnHAK+%28MindShift%29

Heitin, L. (2015, Aug 13). Common Core’s Focus on Concepts Is Key to Improving Math Education, Report Says. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2015/08/common_cores_focus_on_concepts_key_to_improving_math_education.html?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=curriculummatters

Parker, M., & Leinhardt, G. (1995). Percent: A Privileged Proportion. Review of Educational Research Winter 65. http://rer.sagepub.com/content/65/4/421.abstract

Hacker, A. (2016, Feb 27). The Wrong Way to Teach Math. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/opinion/sunday/the-wrong-way-to-teach-math.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

Cuban, L. (2016, Mar 10). The Wrong Way to Teach Math (Andrew Hacker). https://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2016/03/10/the-wrong-way-to-teach-math-andrew-hacker/

Heitin, L. (2016, Feb 11). What We Know About Struggling Math Students According to PISA Results. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2016/02/what_we_know_about_students_who_struggle_international_math_test.html?r=1820170230&utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=curriculummatters See also OECD. (2016, Feb 10). Low-Performing Students: Why They Fall Behind and How to Help Them Succeed. http://www.oecd.org/edu/low-performing-students-9789264250246-en.htm

WestEd. Math in Common Evaluation. https://www.wested.org/project/math-in-common-evaluation/ See also Fong, T., Perry, R., Reade, F., Klarin, B., & Jaquet, K. (2016, Jan). Many Pathways to Student Success in Mathematics: Middle and High School Math Course Sequences and Placement Decisions in Math in Common Districts. https://www.wested.org/resources/many-pathways-to-student-success-in-mathematics/ and Perry, R, Finkelstein, N., Seago N., Heredia, A., Sobolew-Shubin, S., & Carroll, C. (2016, Jul). Taking Stock of Common Core Math Implementation: Supporting Teachers to Shift Instruction Insights from the Math in Common 2015 Baseline Survey of Teachers and Administrators. https://www.wested.org/resources/taking-stock-common-core-math-implementation/ and Flaherty Jr., J., Sobolew-Shubin, A., Heredia, A., Chen-Gaddini, M., Klarin, B., & Finkelstein, N. (2016, Sep 26). Under Construction: Benchmark Assessments and Common Core Math Implementation in Grades K–8. https://www.wested.org/resources/under-construction-benchmark-assessments-and-common-core-math-implementation-in-grades-k-8/ and Perry, R. R., Seago, N., Burr, E., Broek, M., Finkelstein, N. (2015, Jan 26). Classroom Observations: Documenting Shifts in Instruction for Districtwide Improvement. https://www.wested.org/resources/documenting-shifts-in-instruction/

Disare M. (2016, Feb 16). 75 Schools Will Overhaul Math Teaching, a Move Fariña Says Will Reduce Inequity. http://ny.chalkbeat.org/2016/02/16/75-schools-will-overhaul-math-teaching-a-move-farina-says-will-reduce-inequity/#.VsYgQ4-cE2w

More Comprehensive and Engaging Language Arts
Isken, J. A., Honig, B., & Jago, C. (2014, Nov 15). California’s Recently Adopted English Language Arts/English Language Development Framework: Translating the Common Core State Standards to a Coherent and Sequenced Curriculum for All Students. California Department of Education. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/rl/cf/resourceselaeld2016.asp

Yopp, H. (2015). Resource Guide to the Foundational Skills of the California Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects. California Department of Education. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/rl/cf/documents/foundskillswhitepaper.pdf – search=Yopp 2015 Resource guide&view=FitH&pagemode=none

Honig, B., Diamond, L., & Gutlohn, L. (2013). Teaching Reading Sourcebook, Updated Second Edition. Novato, CA: Arena Press. http://www.corelearn.com/Products/Publications/

Diamond, L., & Thorsnes, B. J. (Eds.). (2008). Assessing Reading: Multiple Measures. 2nd Edition. Novato, CA: Arena Press. http://www.corelearn.com/Products/Publications/

Consortium on Reaching Excellence (CORE). http://www.corelearn.com/

National Council on Teacher Quality. (2014). Standard 2: Early Reading. What Consumers Need to Know About Teacher Preparation. http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/Teacher_Prep_Review_2014_Std2

Spear-Swerling, L. (2015). The Power of RTI and Reading Profiles: A Blueprint for Solving Reading Problems. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Kilpatrick, D. (2015). Essentials of Assessing, Preventing, and Overcoming Reading Difficulties. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Diamond, L. & Gutlohn, L. (2006). Vocabulary Handbook. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. http://www.corelearn.com/Products/Publications/

CORE. Word Intelligence. http://www.corelearn.com/word-intelligence.html

Core Knowledge. www.coreknowledge.org

Heitin, L. (2015, Oct 29). For Reading, Knowledge Matters More Than Strategies, Some Experts Say. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2015/10/for_reading_knowledge_matters_more_than_strategies.html?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=curriculummatters

Cobb, V. (2015, Jul 21). Why Reading to Learn Is Seldom Taught. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vicki-cobb/why-reading-to-learn-is-s_b_7841040.html

History, Civics, Economics, Geography, Humanities, and the Fine Arts
National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). (2013). College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards. http://www.socialstudies.org/c3

Science
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. http://www.nextgenscience.org/

Hansel, L. (2015, Aug 27). Joy Hakim’s Science Stories: Proof that Informative Can Be Engaging. http://blog.coreknowledge.org/2015/08/27/joy-hakims-science-stories-proof-that-informative-can-be-engaging/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheCoreKnowledgeBlog+%28The+Core+Knowledge+Blog%29

Other Crucial Student Learning
Stafford-Brizard, K. (2016). Building Blocks for Learning: A Framework for Comprehensive Student Development. Turnaround for Children. http://www.turnaroundusa.org/what-we-do/tools/

Tough, P. (2013). How Children Succeed: Grit, Curiosity, and the Hidden Power of Character. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Brown, P. C., Roediger, H. L., III, & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York: Random House.

Lavigne, A. L., & Good, T. L. (2014). Teacher and Student Evaluation: Moving Beyond the Failure of School Reform. New York: Routledge.

Hattie, J. (2012). Visible Learning for Teachers: Maximizing Impact on Learning. New York and London: Routledge.

Why Conventional School “Reforms” Have Failed: Four Nostrums of Conventional School Reform

Leave a reply

Why Conventional School “Reforms” Have Failed
Four Nostrums of Conventional School Reform

by Bill Honig

The reform movement has failed to produce results overall, and reputable evaluations have shown that individual reform measures also proved to be ineffective. Turnaround schools, charter schools, incentive schemes, or test-based school and teacher accountability have had either nonexistent or trivial effects. In his book Visible Learning, John Hattie writes that even when reforms produced small gains, they fall far below the improvements brought about by validated initiatives. In this article, I examine four other nostrums of reform.

Major Problems with Teach for America (TFA)

Teach for America (TFA) attracts bright, motivated graduates from our top colleges who agree to teach in public or charter schools for two years. They receive just five weeks of training and then are thrown into schools to sink or swim. Not surprisingly, many flounder and, at the end of their two-year commitment, leave the classroom in large numbers. By the end of five years, large numbers have left teaching. You cannot build a profession on a two-year commitment with minimal training.

Gary Rubenstein is a former TFA teacher. For a devastating, ongoing critique of TFA’s practices, see his blog. In another alumni critique, Andrew Gerst offers suggestions for improvement based on the Aspire charter management organization training model. Aspire has a one-year internship, which results in large numbers of neophytes performing well in their second year and staying in the profession. Both critics claim that TFA is unwilling to spend its considerable profits to fix flagrant deficiencies. Many former TFA teachers, now dissident apostates, have written about major flaws with the program. See also an interview with Daniel Katz who recommends that his students not consider Teach for America. The organization has been addressing some of these issues. TFA has a small pilot that requires a longer commitment and provides an initial year’s internship, is beginning to invest more heavily in first year coaching, and is allowing local TFA regions to institute changes in the model.

One of Rubinstein’s most powerful points is that although many TFA teachers leave at the end of two years, some stay in education and wind up as unseasoned principals and superintendents. Despite the teachers’ limited backgrounds in education and minimal experience, good political connections enable them to move into these important positions. Many of these young TFA veterans prove to be disasters as administrators. In part, this is due to their unwillingness to learn from competent educators and their ignorance of educational best practice. Of course, it did not help matters that they often were cast as knights in shining armor coming to save inept over-the-hill educators.

Mathematica conducted an evaluation of a small number of high school TFA teachers and found essentially no advantage in hiring them. The analysis found no difference in reading scores and only a negligible difference in math. A recent report on elementary TFA teachers also found no effects and revealed that most were planning to leave the profession quickly. In addition, their view of the training received had fallen compared to that of participants in previous years. For a critical review of the report, see Vasquez Heilig’s blog.

Barbara Veltri is a former TFA trainer. She wrote a disparaging analysis of TFA’s practices claiming, among other deficiencies, that a large number of TFA teachers are especially ill equipped to teach math. Katie Osgood adds to the discussion by describing how TFA’s heavy indoctrination of teachers hampers their classroom effectiveness. The hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the program and its infrastructure could have been invested in supporting new teachers who wanted to make education a career and who were willing to get the proper training. Finally, Julian Heilig and Jameson Brewer have produced several podcasts titled Truth for America detailing the shortcomings of TFA by former TFA teachers.

Teach for America has turned into a massive financial enterprise—with assets worth nearly $500 million and managers earning absurdly high salaries. In 2013, its two co-CEOs received $382,000 and $342,000, respectively, and TFA founder Wendy Kopp received $156,000 for an eight-hour workweek during that same year. TFA obtains large federal and state grants as well as funding from conservative foundations that seem eager to replace competent experienced teachers with cheap raw recruits. For providing these low-cost replacements, TFA charges districts a hefty sum. In 2013, it received grants of $74 million in “government grants” and charged districts an additional $32 million in “service fees.” Not bad for a supposedly charitable nonprofit organization staffed by raw recruits, many of whom will be gone in two years. Fortunately, the word is getting out about TFA. Its enrollments are down, and districts are starting to eliminate the program.

In 1969 I was part of a similar federally funded project called Teacher Corps, which truly was a solid program. Our cycle had 40 people from different walks of life and different ethnic/racial backgrounds. We were 10 African-Americans, 10 Asian-Americans, 10 Hispanics, and 10 whites. The major difference between Teacher Corps and Teach for America’s program was that we did not limit our commitment to two years, and a respected school of education at San Francisco State University managed the program. We were given extensive training, not only in the summer before we started as interns, but for one full year after that. The education I received both at the college and on-site in the schools was excellent. No sink or swim. The Aspire charter school network has a similar internship program as do some of our best performing public school districts.

In promoting itself, Teach for America has used rhetoric closely aligned with the narrative used by some of the more extreme members of the “reform movement.” Its leaders have the unfortunate habit of claiming that public schools and teachers are inept and have nothing of value to teach TFA, and that only its recruits can save America’s failing schools. This is how the organization attempts to energize and motivate its trainees—by tearing down the existing structure. We got some of that in Teacher Corps, but were very quickly disabused of this arrogant attitude when it turned out that our supervising teachers in the schools actually knew what they were doing. We learned a great deal from them.

Many Teach for America teachers who chose to stay in education have become stellar professionals. Many others have left under duress after two years or to take more lucrative jobs in the corporate sector. But it is absolutely indefensible to build up your own organization by castigating public schools, allowing your teachers to replace qualified veteran teachers because they are cheaper, and allying yourself with extreme reformers who are bent on privatizing public education.

How About Merit Pay?

Merit pay sounds like a good idea. Pay our best teachers more and teachers will strive harder and stay in the profession longer. Unfortunately, just about every study has found that merit pay does not improve student or teacher performance. A few evaluations have reported gains from merit pay, but the increases were negligible. Merit pay schemes cause considerable collateral damage by forcing teachers to compete against each other, instead of encouraging and rewarding team-building and collaboration. Often merit pay proposals also use ill-conceived mechanisms for determining who gets rewarded. The result is that a significant number of deserving teachers get overlooked, while low-performing teachers get rewarded. Ironically, the extra money is not what motivates most teachers; they would rather be part of an effective group effort.

At any rate, there is a much better way to reward our best teachers and keep them in the profession—career ladders. Let our most proficient educators earn more money, but we should require them to mentor existing or new teachers and take on instructional development or leadership roles in addition to their classroom duties. They would earn more pay, but instead of merit pay’s something-for-nothing approach, they would contribute their talents to the continuous improvement efforts at the school. See the report written by Catherine F. Natale and her colleagues, Creating Sustainable Teacher Career Pathways: A 21st Century Imperative. Why pay our best teachers stipends without receiving additional help from them? Most teachers strongly oppose merit pay, but few have objections to paying our best practitioners for taking on additional responsibilities. In fact, there is already a strong precedent for career ladder strategies. In secondary schools, department chairs receive a stipend when assuming additional duties.

Is Test-Based Retention Effective?

Similar problems occur when test results have high-stakes consequences for students. Comparable to using test performance for teacher evaluations and merit pay, single application tests should not be used to decide whether a third grader gets promoted to fourth. As discussed in the companion article Have High-Stakes Testing and Privatization Been Effective?, performance on a standardized test isn’t sufficiently accurate, and there are much better ways to determine student progress. It might be acceptable to use the information from once-a-year test results as one piece of data (albeit a very weak source of information) to ascertain what a student knows and to fashion appropriate instruction or intervention. But relying primarily on a broad-scale assessment to determine a high-stakes decision such as promotion is especially dangerous and unfair.

Many states that have adopted retention schemes offer students alternative methods to avoid being retained. Even so, holding students back is still an unsound policy. Sadly, many districts have lately been forced to adopt retention policies under state legislation authored by conservative governors and legislatures, many of whom are at the beck and call of the right-wing American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). These harsh legislative mandates were passed under the guise of ending “social promotion.” This flies in the face of 30 years of research that has shown this strategy does not work and causes substantial harm to those children held back. These policies are tantamount to educational malpractice—research condemns them as academically, emotionally, and socially harmful to the student retained and to the class he or she is placed in. Retention is also very expensive—costing about $11,000 per student for one additional year of schooling. The money could be spent on far more effective approaches. See also David Berliner and Gene Glass’s 50 Myths & Lies That Threaten America’s Public Schools and the Education Week article “Should 3rd Grade Be the Pivot Point for Early Reading?” Thankfully, some states are now retreating from such an ill-advised policy after witnessing its disastrous results. However, Nevada just adopted a retention scheme.

This valid and reliable research has found that when compared to the performance of students who are held back, the performance, graduation rates, and emotional health of similar struggling students who are promoted are all appreciably higher. The retention strategy often is based on noneducators’ unsound assumption that first-, second-, and third-grade students fail because they are not trying hard enough, and if they are held back or threatened with retention, they will exert more effort. The fact is that these students do not lack motivation. I have yet to encounter a child who doesn’t possess an intense desire to learn how to read. But I have witnessed the pain caused to youngsters who are separated from classmates and made to feel like failures because of misguided policies.

Two reports that studied retention found improvement in performance in later years. But, as critics of the reports and the report writers themselves point out, what the studies actually showed was that intensive intervention will lower failure rates. They never compared intensive intervention for comparable students not held back with intensive intervention and retention, which of course is the issue.

Virtually all cases of reading failure stem from a deficiency in initial reading instruction and the lack of proper intervention, even in kindergarten. There really is no excuse for not implementing the powerful knowledge about how to teach youngsters to read. Successful reading instruction and timely intervention will teach almost every student to read, and for those still having problems, support in the next grades will be much more fruitful than retaining those students. In addition, most retention plans concentrate policy on the third grade, which is several years too late. For a review of this research covering best first teaching practices and timely intervention, see the white paper on foundational skills in the California ELA/ELD framework and an article by Linnea Ehri summarizing what is known about beginning reading. Struggling students should not pay the price for a school’s failure to provide evidence-based instruction and early intervention. See also David Kilpatrick’s Essentials of Assessing, Preventing, and Overcoming Reading Difficulties and Louise Spear-Swerling’s The Power of RTI and Reading Profiles: A Blueprint for Solving Reading Problems.

Further, all too often the retained student encounters the same instruction in the new class that the student received previously, thus producing little improvement. Then too, placing a resentful, older, and usually male student in a third-grade class when he is chronologically and socially ready for fourth grade, isolated from friends, and labeled a failure is a recipe for a problem-plagued year.

Forced retention of elementary students is a cruel and mean-spirited policy. What is frustrating for educators is that this politically imposed “solution” to reading difficulties hardly ever helps struggling students but does cause tremendous damage to those children and the school. It is another example of a highly touted “reform” that ignores a compelling body of research, adopts a simple but wrong solution to a complex problem, fails to pursue what does work, and then blames the victim.

How destructive this “reform” could be was brought home to me personally a decade ago. I will never forget the poignant conversation I had with a retained first grader. I was at the park with my three-year-old granddaughter, Annika. While she was playing, I struck up a conversation with a boy who was amazingly skillful on the monkey bars and who turned out to be quite engaging—overall, a great kid. In the course of our chat, I asked him how old he was (since he was so physically coordinated) and what grade he was in. He was old enough for second grade but had been retained in first. This was his previous teacher’s recommendation as the best approach for helping his struggles with reading. All of a sudden, these strong emotions emerged as he started to talk about being held back, his sadness over being cut off from his friends, his anger at what had been done to him and not knowing why they did it, and his sense of personal failure.

All this surfaced during a 15-minute conversation. I did talk to his grandparents who were with him at the park and counseled them to raise the issue with the parents, but they seemed reluctant to challenge the teacher or the school on the issue. What has never left me was how mature and outgoing this child was—even while suffering from a profound sadness from what had happened to him. And I was struck by how the people in the system, while thinking they were doing something helpful, had in fact caused him tremendous humiliation and anguish for naught by following such a benighted policy. What also bothered me enormously was that he was made to pay for the school’s mistakes. The school did not know how best to teach him to read, did not have support systems in place to help him other than holding him back, and placed misguided faith in the efficacy of retention. It reminded me of the doctors hundreds of years ago who caused patients substantial harm by bleeding them, under the mistaken belief that such a practice was beneficial.

A similar heartbreaking story unfolded for thousands of children in Mississippi who were held back when the governor sponsored legislation for strict retention but never funded support for early intervention.

Is Technology Innovation Key to School Improvement?

Many reform advocates tout technology as a critical disruptive element that will enable schools to perform better at less cost. Many opponents of conventional market-driven reform strategies initially worried that the movement to incorporate more technology in schools or to replace teachers with computers was just a ploy to sell unneeded devices or an invitation to corporate America to privatize education by replacing public schools with low-cost corporate schools. The experience in many states gives credence to these concerns. The terrible results from virtual charter schools, discussed at the end of this article and in the companion article Charter Schools Are Not the Key to Improving Public Education, are clearly a cautionary tale. For a 306-page handbook on the corporate takeover of our schools, see American Revolution 2.0: How Education Innovation Is Going to Revitalize America and Transform the US Economy.

A second objection to the use of technology to improve schools is based on Clayton Christensen’s disruptive innovation, one of the theories promoted by reformers. Christensen’s innovation has wreaked havoc on many neighborhood community schools without actually improving student or teacher performance. Critics argue that massive disruption does not seem appropriate for important public institutions like our schools. Jill Lapore seriously questions Christensen’s research in “The Disruption Machine: What the Gospel of Innovation Gets Wrong.”

Finally, the critics of technology express concerns that standards, test production and grading, and newly required materials and training are all being proposed in order to create huge new markets for the private sector. I am less apprehensive about this point. There is plenty of room for a vibrant public school sector to use the expertise of private and charitable entities in its pursuit of an effective Build-and-Support strategy. Proprietary instructional materials can supplement open-source materials. For an excellent example of the growing open-source material segment, visit the ISKME website. For an article about open-source materials, see “Free Online Content Helps Teachers Meet Common Core Demands.” See also the Common Sense Media website for reviews of digital and other educational materials or the tips for blended learning.

The more active curriculum envisioned by the Common Core standards and the Next Generation Science standards could profit from digitally delivered activities that are sophisticated, dynamic, and engaging. For example, a digital platform offers students the chance to investigate an epidemic in another country using online synchronous collaboration, access digital content that explains why the Industrial Revolution started in England, or participate in virtual science labs with simulations and graphic modeling. Relevant materials could be organized for these activities, thus avoiding open-ended Internet searches that are often overwhelming and unproductive for students.

Further, Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles developed by the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) demonstrate how technology has the potential to provide all students with access to rich, effective curricula, including those with physical disabilities, learning differences, or limited proficiency in English.

For information about web tools, see the links provided by EdTechReview. Adaptive technology can drive instructional improvement by giving students immediate feedback, adjusting content and the amount of scaffolding to their individual needs, and organizing and reporting student performance data to help teachers track growth in important standards in real time. See, for example, the GOORU site.

One exciting development in the educational technology sector is the growing interest in gamification, or the use of game-design mechanics and principles to motivate and engage students. The Joan Ganz Cooney Center is at the forefront of research in this field. For a list of 100 websites in this area, see “Play to Learn: 100 Great Sites on Gamification” and The Game Believes in You, a recent book on the subject by Greg Toppo. See also the article “Frontiers of Digital Learning Probed by Researchers” and “Can Digital Games Improve Our Schools?,” a nuanced perceptive article by John Thompson.

Two books offer a critical analysis of eLearning games and digital simulation, questioning whether virtual activities actually produce results or work for all children. Our past experience with other supposedly “breakthrough” innovations suggests that the most appropriate approach is to avoid going overboard and to insist on balance.

Some educators and parents are worried about student privacy issues, but with proper prohibitions against selling data and restricting its use to feedback to teachers, those fears can be minimized. The potential power of these initiatives is too important to ignore.

Finally, there is the push for blended learning and performance-based instruction using technology. In blended-learning settings, a student works with a teacher and digital devices. In proper balance and if done right, blended learning could greatly enhance the curriculum. For an example, see Blackboard K–12. However, as widely documented, blended learning can be misused. For an international cautionary note, see a recent report that recommends a balanced approach after finding that too much technology in the classroom actually lowered student performance.

The jury is still out on whether technology innovation will improve instruction or suffer the same fate as previous technological fixes such as hyped teaching machines several decades ago, which turned out to be a huge fiasco.

As mentioned previously, virtual or online charter schools have had major problems in performance. Investigations have revealed some high-profile scams and exploitation. A 2015 report produced by the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE), Mathematica Policy Research, and the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) found that virtual charters result in the loss of a full year’s worth of instruction—a disastrous result. Both Samuelsohn and Stober have questioning the value of virtual schools have been published by many different sources.

Unquestionably, some technology advocates go too far and envision a future where machines and software replace expensive teachers and eliminate the social aspects of learning under the guidance of a competent, caring teacher. So far, that nightmare has not been realized.

Several major issues need to be more fully explored. One major question is how different students profit or fail to profit from technological solutions. Some youngsters have no problem with digital learning, while others become easily flummoxed or bored. Another concern is how to avoid overindulgence in unproductive games, prevent the hampering of social development, and escape the tendency to replace robust traditional instructional activities with low-level computer-based busywork.

Summing Up: The Failure of Conventional Reform

The ineffectiveness of current federal and state policies based on conventional reformers’ agendas should not have been surprising. Fifty years ago, W. E. Deming warned of the negative side effects of an overreliance on evaluation strategies and incentive schemes. Fear tends to make employees disengage, narrow their efforts, or game the system so they appear compliant. It diverts attention from and decreases motivation for collaborative teams and local structures that allow for continuous improvement. This ruinous situation is well known in the social sciences, articulated as Campbell’s law.

As Diane Ravitch explains:

The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor.

That is exactly what has occurred far too often in our educational system during the past decade under policies pursued by conventional “reformers.” Knowledgeable educators predicted that these initiatives would fail, but their warnings were ignored. As foretold, high-stakes, test-driven accountability has resulted in narrowing the curriculum, gaming the system or cheating, using unproven and unfair reward and punishment tools (such as the recent teacher evaluation debacles in many states), and encouraging superficial teaching to the test to the detriment of deeper learning. It has diverted attention from, de-emphasized, or belittled the policies that actually produce substantial results. No wonder the results have been disappointing.

More importantly, punitive management techniques and demonization of teachers and schools have not only eroded support for the institution of public education but have created widespread alienation among teachers.

This is why recent polls found that teachers in the US score among the highest on scales of liking their profession but among the lowest on satisfaction with their working environment, the very opposite of the engaged professionals we need to perform effectively in the difficult circumstances encountered in schools across the country. For example, a recent survey of 30,000 teachers by the American Federation of Teachers found high stress levels among teaching staff:

Only one in five educators feels respected by government officials or the media.
Fourteen percent of educators strongly agree with the statement that they trust their administrator or supervisor.
More than 75% say they do not have enough staff to get the work done.
Seventy-eight percent say they are often physically and emotionally exhausted at the end of the day.
Eighty-seven percent say the demands of their job are at least sometimes interfering with their family life

A MetLife survey found that in the face of ill-conceived reforms and political and societal censure, the percentage of teachers who were “very satisfied” dropped dramatically from 62% in 2008 to 39% in 2012. See also Jeff Bryant’s blog post “We Won’t Get Great Teachers by Treating Them Badly.”

Worse yet, the Test-and-Punish regime has convinced many teachers to leave the profession, a costly decision for schools and students, as reported in Revolving Door of Teachers Costs Schools Billions Every Year. High-stakes testing is one of the major causes of the wholesale flight of teachers from harsh “reform states” to more supportive jurisdictions. There are serious shortages of teachers in states such as North Carolina, Utah, Indiana, and Kansas. England has suffered similar effects from a Test-and-Punish regime.

Ironically, these studies also show that teachers yearn to break out of the traditional isolated culture of most schools and work together with their colleagues in an effort to become better at what they do. We should give them the chance to enlist in this crucial effort.

Broad swaths of the public have begun to turn against Test-and-Punish and privatization strategies; it is time for our political and opinion leaders to follow suit. The reaction to Arne Duncan’s resignation on October 1, 2015, as national secretary of education is instructive. Of the 228 comments written in response to a New York Times article reporting the event, it was hard to find even one supporting the aggressive policies the Obama administration had pursued. The comments were uniformly negative and angry—accusing the administration of devastating public education and providing the least effective educational leaders in recent history.

A statement by the Network for Public Education captures the spirit of the commentators:

The policies of the US Department of Education [under Duncan’s (and Obama’s) watch] have inflicted immeasurable harm on American public education. The blind faith in standardized testing as the most meaningful measure of students, teachers, principals, and schools has distorted the true meaning of education and demoralized educators. Punitive policies have created teacher shortages across the nation, as well as a precipitous decline in the number of people preparing to become teachers. The Race to the Top preference for privately managed charter schools over public schools has encouraged privatization of a vitally important public responsibility.

As I stated in the conclusion to the introductory remarks on this website: Public education has always been central to the continued health of our democracy and our way of life. So-called reformers have foisted a set of initiatives on our schools based on an outmoded management philosophy and a flawed analysis of what it takes to improve education. These policies ignore history, research, and experience, which is why our best schools and districts have studiously avoided them. The reformers’ proposals not only thwart the measures actually needed to improve our schools but their initiatives threaten to put the whole enterprise of public education at risk. We need an immediate course correction to follow the lead of our most successful schools and districts in creating effective learning communities at each school and, finally, building the educational profession that this country deserves.

Recent Developments

9/1/2016 A new report by the US Department of Education finds teacher incentive schemes ineffective. https://www.cabinetreport.com/curriculum-instruction/teacher-bonus-pay-barely-moves-the-dial-on-test-scores

7/30/2016 On-line Algebra students fare worse than those taught by a face-to-face teacher. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/DigitalEducation/2016/07/online_algebra_worse_for_high-performing_students.html?r=1556213501

7/30/2016 Larry Cuban questions whether the hype on blending learning is accurate. https://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2016/06/10/proof-points-selling-and-marketing-blended-learning-to-educators-and-parents/

BBS Companion Articles

The Big Picture
Have High-Stakes Testing and Privatization Been Effective?
Why Conventional School “Reforms” Have Failed
Charter Schools Are Not the Key to Improving Public Education

Reference Notes

Hattie, J. (2008). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. London: Routledge.

Major Problems with Teach for America (TFA)
Blanchard, O. (2013, Sep 23). I Quit Teach for America. The Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/09/i-quit-teach-for-america/279724/

Rubinstein, G. (2015, Sep 19). Category Archives: Teach for America. https://garyrubinstein.wordpress.com/category/teach-for-america/

Gerst, A. (2015, Jun 2). How I Would Fix Teach for America. http://dianeravitch.net/2015/06/02/a-tfa-teacher-how-i-would-like-to-fix-teach-for-america/

Davis, O. (2013, Aug 2). Teach for America Apostates: A Primer of Alumni Resistance. http://www.truth-out.org/articles/item/17750-teach-for-america-apostates-a-primer-of-alumni-resistance See also Brewer, J., & Matsui, S. (2015, Aug 3). Teach for America Counter-Narratives: Two Alumni Books Frame the Discourse. http://www.livingindialogue.com/teach-for-america-counter-narratives-two-alumni-books-reframe-the-discourse/ and Brewer, T. J., & deMarrais, K. (eds.). (2015). Teach for America Counter-Narratives: Black Studies and Critical Thinking. New York: Peter Lang Publishing; and Schaefer, P. (2015, Sept 11). After 25 Years, Teach for America Results Are Consistently Underwhelming. http://nonprofitquarterly.org/2015/09/11/after-25-years-teach-for-america-results-are-consistently-underwhelming/

Katz, D. (2015, Dec 18). Advice for My Students: Don’t “Teach for America.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/danielkatz/advice-for-my-students-do_b_8840714.html

Sawchuk, S. (2016, Jan 20). At 25, Teach for America Enters a Period of Change. Education Week. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/01/15/at-25-teach-for-america-enters-period.html?cmp=eml-enl-eu-news1-RM

Decker, P. (2001–2004). National Evaluation of Teach for America 2001–2004. Mathematic Policy Research. http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/our-publications-and-findings/projects/teach-for-america

Vasquez Heilig, J. (2015, Mar 10). Do You Have Five Minutes to Understand Whether Teach for America Is Effective? http://cloakinginequity.com/2015/03/10/do-you-have-five-minutes-to-understand-whether-teach-for-america-is-effective/

Veltri, B. (2015, Jun 3). Inside Information and Reflections from a Former TFA Instructor. http://cloakinginequity.com/2015/06/03/inside-information-and-reflections-from-a-former-tfa-trainer/

Osgood, K. (2016, Feb 10). The Dangers of Teach for America Indoctrination. http://mskatiesramblings.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-dangers-of-teach-for-america.html

Ravitch, D. (2016, Apr 23). Truth for America Podcast Episode 5. https://dianeravitch.net/2016/04/23/truth-for-america-podcast-episode-5/

Schneider, M. (2015, Jul 28). Teach for America Seeks Help Promoting Itself on Capitol Hill. https://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2015/07/28/teach-for-america-seeks-help-promoting-itself-on-capitol-hill/comment-page-1/

How About Merit Pay?
Moran, M. (2010, Sep 21). Teacher Performance Pay Alone Does Not Raise Test Scores. Vanderbilt News. http://news.vanderbilt.edu/2010/09/teacher-performance-pay/ See also Lavigne, A. L., & Good, T. L. (2014). Teacher and Student Evaluation: Moving Beyond the Failure of School Reform. New York: Routledge.

Tucker, M. (2016, Apr 14). How to Get a First-Rate Teacher in Front of Every Student. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/top_performers/2016/04/how_to_get_a_first-rate_teacher_in_front_of_every_student.html?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=top_performers

Natale, C., Gaddis, L., Bassett, K., & McKnight, K. (2013). Creating Sustainable Teacher Career Pathways: A 21st Century Imperative. National Network of State Teachers of the Year and Center for Educator Learning and Effectiveness at Pearson http://researchnetwork.pearson.com/educator-effectiveness/personal-perspective-creating-sustainable-teacher-career-pathways-21st-century-imperative

Is Test-Based Retention Effective?
The Center for Media and Democracy. Alec Exposed. http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed See also Berger, E. 2016, Jan 25). Arizona: Strangled by an Organized Minority. http://edwardfberger.com/arizona-strangled-by-an-organized-minority/

Xia, N., & Glennie, E. (January 2005). Grade Retention: A Flawed Education Strategy. Center for Child and Family Policy at Duke University. http://childandfamilypolicy.duke.edu/pdfs/pubpres/FlawedStrategy_PartOne.pdf See also Stipek, D., & Lombardo, M. (2014, May 20). Holding Kids Back Doesn’t Help Them. Education Week. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/05/21/32stipek.h33.html

Berliner, D., & Glass, G., et. al. (2014). 50 Myths & Lies That Threaten America’s Public Schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Sparks, S. D. (2015, May 13). Should 3rd Grade Be the Pivot Point for Early Reading? Education Week. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/05/13/should-3rd-grade-be-the-pivot-point.html?cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS1

Heitin, L. (2015, Jun 12). Can Most Kindergarteners Really Tackle ‘Emergent-Reader’ Texts? Most Coaches Say Yes. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2015/06/can_kindergartners_tackle_emer.html?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=curriculummatters

Yopp, H. (2015). Resource Guide to the Foundational Skills of the California Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects. California Department of Education. http://www.cde.ca.gov/search/searchresults.asp?cx=001779225245372747843:gpfwm5rhxiw&output=xml_no_dtd&filter=1&num=20&start=0&q=Yopp%202015%20Resource%20guide

Ehri, L. C. (2013, Sep 26). Orthographic Mapping in the Reading of Sight Word Reading, Spelling Memory, and Vocabulary Learning. Scientific Studies of Reading 18 (1). http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10888438.2013.819356#.VXr1tOsqvzI

Chiles, N. (2015, May 28). As Mississippi Delivers Bad News to 5,600 Third Graders, Stressed-Out Parents Say There Must Be a Better Way. http://hechingerreport.org/as-mississippi-delivers-bad-news-to-5600-third-graders-stressed-out-parents-say-there-must-be-a-better-way/

Is Technology Innovation Key to School Improvement?
Strauss, V. (2015, Oct 31). Study on Online Charter Schools: “It Is Literally as if the Kid Did Not Go to School for an Entire Year.” The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/10/31/study-on-online-charter-schools-it-is-literally-as-if-the-kid-did-not-go-to-school-for-an-entire-year/

Moe, M. T., Hanson, M. P., Jiang, L., & Pampoulov, L. (2012, Jul 4). American Revolution 2.0: How Education Innovation Is Going to Revitalize America and Transform the U.S. Economy. GSV Asset Management. http://gsvadvisors.com/wordpress/wp-content/themes/gsvadvisors/American%20Revolution%202.0.pdf

Lepore, J. (2014, Jun 23). The Disruption Machine: What the Gospel of Innovation Gets Wrong. The New Yorker. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/06/23/the-disruption-machine

Institute for the Study of Knowledge Management in Education. http://www.iskme.org/

Ellison, K. (2015, Oct 15). Free Online Content Helps Teachers Meet Common Core Demands. http://edsource.org/2015/free-online-content-helps-teachers-meet-common-core-demands/88916

Common Sense Media. https://www.commonsensemedia.org/

Blackboard. http://www.blackboard.com/k12/index.aspx

CAST. (2011, Feb 1). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines–Version 2.0. Universal Design for Living. http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlguidelines See also CAST. (2011). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines–Version 2.0: Research Evidence. Universal Design for Living. http://www.udlcenter.org/research/researchevidence/checkpoint5_1

Gupta, P. (2015, Dec 31). 100 Popular (from 2015) Web 2.0 Tools for Teachers and Educators to Explore. EdTech Review. http://edtechreview.in/research/2256-web-2-0-tools-for-teachers-educators?utm_source=EdTechReview%E2%84%A2+Weekly+Newsletter&utm_campaign=cb71fd3b7a-Top_11_Complementary_Guides_2_1_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_94aed71205-cb71fd3b7a-105652173

Gooru. http://www.gooru.org/#home

The Joan Ganz Cooney Center. http://www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/

Play to Learn: 100 Great Sites on Gamification. http://top5onlinecolleges.org/gamification/

Toppo, G. (2015). The Game Believes in You: How Digital Play Can Make Our Kids Smarter. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Herold, B. (2015, May 6). Frontiers of Digital Learning Probed by Researchers. Education Week. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/05/06/frontiers-of-digital-learning-probed-by-researchers.html?cmp=ENL-CM-NEWS2-RM

Thompson, J. (2015, Sep 1). Can Digital Games Improve Our Schools? http://www.livingindialogue.com/can-digital-games-improve-our-schools/

Clark, R. E., Yates, K., Early, S., & Moulton, K. (2009). An Analysis of the Failure of Electronic Media and Discovery-based learning: Evidence for the Performance Benefits of Guided Training Methods. In Silber, K. H., & Foshay, R. (eds.) Handbook of Training and Improving Workplace Performance, Volume I: Instructional Design and Training Delivery. New York: John Wiley and Sons. http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/recent_publications.php See also Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist. http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/recent_publications.php

Blackboard. http://www.blackboard.com/k12/index.aspx

Strauss, V. (2015, Jun 21). Blended Learning: The Great New Thing or the Great New Hype. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/06/21/blended-learning-the-great-new-thing-or-the-great-new-hype/ See also Corcoran, B. & Madda, M. J. (2015, Aug 8). Blended Learning and Flipping the Classroom: You’re Doing It Wrong. https://www.edsurge.com/n/2015-08-08-blended-learning-and-flipping-the-classroom-you-re-doing-it-wrong and Dobo, N. (2015, Feb 10). What Mistakes Did They Make? Lessons from Blended Learning’s Early Adopters. http://hechingerreport.org/what-mistakes-did-they-make-learning-from-blended-learnings-early-adopters/ and Zhao, Y. (2015, Dec 6). ”Never Send a Human to Do a Machine’s Job”: Five Big Mistakes in Education Technology and How to Fix Them. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/10/06/never-send-a-human-to-do-a-machines-job-five-big-mistakes-in-education-technology-and-how-to-fix-them/

OECD. (2015). Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection. PISA, OECD Publishing. http://www.oecd.org/publications/students-computers-and-learning-9789264239555-en.htm For an erudite discussion of this dilemma, see Cuban, L. (2016, Jan 19). Technology Integration in Districts and Schools: Next Project (Part 1). https://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2016/01/19/technology-integration-in-districts-and-schools-next-project-part-1/ and Cuban, L. (2016, Jan 22). New Project in Technology Integration in Schools and Classrooms (Part 2). https://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2016/01/22/new-project-in-technology-integration-in-schools-and-classrooms-part-2/

Glass, G. V. (2015, Oct 14). Outrageous “Class” Sizes at a Virtual Charter School. http://ed2worlds.blogspot.com/2015/10/outrageous-class-sizes-at-virtual.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+EducationInTwoWorlds+%28Education+in+Two+Worlds%29 See also Miron, G., & Urschel, J. L. (2012, Jul). Understanding and Improving Full-Time Virtual Schools. nepc.colorado.edu/files/nepcrbk12miron.pdf

Pazhouh, R., Lake, R., & Miller, L. (2015, Oct). The Policy Framework for Online Charter Schools. The Center on Reinventing Public Education. http://www.crpe.org/publications/policy-framework-online-charter-schools

Samuelsohn, D. (2015, Sep 23). Virtual Schools Are Booming: Who’s Paying Attention? http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/09/virtual-schools-education-000227;

Stober, D. (2015, Oct 16). Massive Open Online Courses Haven’t Lived Up to the Hopes and the Hype, Professors Say. http://phys.org/news/2015-10-massive-online-courses-havent-hype.html

Summing Up: The Failure of Conventional Reform
Ravitch, D. (2012, May 25). What Is Campbell’s Law? http://dianeravitch.net/2012/05/25/what-is-campbells-law/

American Federation of Teachers. (2015, May 13). Survey Shows Need for National Focus on Workplace Stress. http://www.aft.org/news/survey-shows-need-national-focus-workplace-stress

Bryant, B. (2015, Jul 30). We Won’t Get Great Teachers by Treating Them Badly. http://educationopportunitynetwork.org/we-wont-get-better-teachers-by-treating-them-badly/

Phillips, O. (2015, Mar 30). Revolving Door of Teachers Costs Schools Billions Every Year. http://www.npr.org/blogs/ed/2015/03/30/395322012/the-hidden-costs-of-teacher-turnover

Bangert, D. (2015, Aug 3). Ed Reform’s Next Trick? Teacher Shortage. http://www.jconline.com/story/opinion/columnists/dave-bangert/2015/08/01/bangert-ed-reforms-next-trick-teacher-shortage/30981611/

Klein, R. (2015, Aug 8). A Memo to States: This Is How You Create a Teacher Shortage. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kansas-teacher-shortage-recipe_55c28ce6e4b0f1cbf1e3a2d7

Gilbert, F. (2016, Mar 1). Here’s the Real Reason Teachers Are Quitting (It’s Not Just the Money). http://theconversation.com/heres-the-real-reason-teachers-are-quitting-its-not-just-the-money-55468

Harris, G., & Rich, M. (2016, Oct 3). Arne Duncan, Education Secretary, to Step Down in December. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/03/us/politics/arne-duncan.html

Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2015, Oct 3). U.S. Secretary Arne Duncan Resigning in December. http://vamboozled.com/u-s-secretary-arne-duncan-resigning-in-december/

Why Conventional School “Reforms” Have Failed: Teacher and School Evaluations Are Based on Test Scores

Leave a reply

Why Conventional School “Reforms” Have Failed
Teacher and School Evaluations Are Based on Test Scores

by Bill Honig

The reform movement has failed to produce results overall, and reputable evaluations have shown that individual reform measures also proved to be ineffective. Turnaround schools, charter schools, merit pay, or test-based school and teacher accountability have had either nonexistent or trivial effects. In his book Visible Learning, John Hattie writes that even when reforms produced small gains, they fall far below the improvements brought about by validated initiatives. In this article, I examine the failure of one of the major initiatives of the reform movement: high-stakes teacher and school evaluations based on student test scores.

Firing Teachers Based on Students’ Test Scores Is Not the Answer

A major problem with the “reform” strategy is its tremendous overemphasis on removing incompetent teachers based on students’ test performance and enshrining mass firings as a key objective in school improvement efforts. For those who are seeking a “simple” way to improve educational outcomes, this approach has broad superficial appeal. Up until the repeal of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in late 2015, test-based accountability of teachers was a key component of the Obama administration’s educational policy and the price for relief—in the form of waivers—from arbitrary federal requirements. ESSA eliminates a national teacher evaluation system based on standardized tests scores and the federal government’s ability to grant waivers.

Incompetent teachers should be let go if, and only if, credible and fair methods are used. But personnel changes must be part of a broader push for instructional improvements and efforts to raise the performance of all staff—measures that produce much higher effects on student achievement. For examples of these more positive measures, see the Aspen Institute March 2016 report Evaluation and Support Systems: A Roadmap for Improvement.

Up until several years ago, the reform agenda had primarily relied on test-driven, high-stakes accountability systems to punish or reward schools—a questionable enough approach, as discussed later in this article. A recent shift compounded the error when districts and states began to use the tests to also evaluate teachers and administrators and mete out punishment, termination, or rewards.

Often accompanied by hostile, anti-teacher rhetoric, teacher evaluation systems based on test scores became a central plank in the reform movement. That is why some “reformers” have virulently campaigned against teachers’ unions and due process (tenure) rights for teachers. They see these protections (which should be streamlined when they become too cumbersome) preventing the unfettered ability to eliminate incompetent teachers and frustrating what in their minds is the most viable strategy to improve schools—firing bad teachers and pressuring the rest to improve.

As an aside, the article “Tenure: How Due Process Protects Teachers and Students” explains tenure in the context of due process rights and provides a cogent rationale for fair process protections during dismissal proceedings. Also, see Dana Goldstein’s excellent book The Teacher Wars: A History of America’s Most Embattled Profession, which provides a gut wrenching picture of historical harm and arbitrary treatment teachers received before these due process rights were secured.

Many reformers as well as their political and media supporters frame the current debate about educational direction as a clash between themselves—the only ones who are trying to improve schools—and lazy or incompetent teachers and their unions. They contend that those who attempt to block their reform efforts are just trying to protect teacher prerogatives. This is why many policymakers and pundits take a confrontational rather than a cooperative stance. But educators’ opposition to the reform platform is much broader and goes much deeper than this all-too-common specious analysis. It is not that teachers (and their representatives) do not want to improve performance or that they do not see the need for schools to get better at what they are doing. Almost every professional wants that. What teachers and most district and school administrators object to is the path reformers have laid out toward accomplishing that goal. They view reformers’ Test-and-Punish reform initiatives as ill advised and ineffective at best and detrimental at worst. And they are correct.

Teacher Quality: Putting the Issue in Perspective

Contrary to the reform movement’s superficial and overheated rhetoric, the quality of teachers, while significant, is not the only important influence on student performance. According to various research studies, it accounts for only about 10% of student achievement. Bashing and blaming teachers is not a new trick. As recounted in Goldstein’s The Teacher Wars, this destructive ploy has emerged several times in our history, driven by “moral panic.” It is unjust to single out teachers as the primary cause of underperforming students and schools and, at the same time, fail to address more influential factors.

As one example, family and social dysfunction is on the rise and has had a devastating effect on educational performance. This is particularly true among working-class families. Robert Putnam’s important new book, Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis, reveals the alarming growth in recent decades of social pathology among white working-class families. During the same period, professional families have stayed much more stable. Socioeconomic levels continue to significantly outrank all other influences on student performance.

Of course, it is easier to blame teachers for not reversing the damage done by wage stagnation and the dramatic decrease in blue-collar jobs in this country over the past decades rather than tackle these larger problems directly. In the US, we have seen rising levels of inequality, the increase of single-parent families, a steady climb in drug use, and the dearth of supportive services. Reformers’ penchant for blaming teachers and school administrators for low school performance conveniently absolves other societal institutions and actors of their responsibility for ameliorating injurious socioeconomic trends. Stanford professor Linda Darling-Hammond, one of the most respected commentators on how best to improve schools, offers an alternative view. She has called for “reciprocal accountability,” which requires that all major stakeholders share the responsibility for school performance improvement, not just teachers who are so easily scapegoated.

Julie Rummel provides a poignant much-needed teacher’s perspective of the harsh reality encountered in many of our schools. She moved from a dysfunctional poverty-stricken school where she was labeled a “mediocre” teacher to a more upscale campus where she was regarded as great. She essentially made no changes in how she taught or connected with her students.

In a new infographic, Kevin Welner of the National Center for Education Policy reinforces the unfairness of expecting schools to reverse the deleterious effects of poverty by themselves.

Finally, A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education, an organization devoted to addressing these broader issues, just relaunched its efforts following the enactment of the federal ESSA legislation.

Isabel Sawhill and Edward Rodrigue list three measures that had a major effect on whether an individual would remain in poverty. They found that graduating from high school, being in a family with at least one full-time worker, and being at least 21 and married before having children correlated closely with economic success. They describe this as “the success sequence.” According to these researchers, only 2.4% of those Americans who follow the success sequence will live below the poverty line, while over 70% enjoy at least middle-class incomes, defined as at least 300% of that poverty measure. For those who do not meet the three criteria, 79% will live in poverty. Only one of these measures is directly school related—graduation rates. Having an adult with a full-time job depends on successful job creation efforts.

According to Isabel Sawhill, “If we want to reduce poverty, one of the simplest, fastest and cheapest things we could do would be to make sure that as few people as possible become parents before they actually want to.” Here is an example of what could be done to substantially lower teen pregnancy and thus improve educational performance. From 2009 to mid-2015 a dramatically successful program in Colorado slashed the teen pregnancy and abortion rates by nearly 50% by providing free long-term birth control devices such as IUDs for teenagers. The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation initially funded the program, but when the grant ended in 2015, the Republican-controlled legislature killed a bill to support this successful effort. Private donations saved the program for a year.

Tests Are Not Reliable Measures of Teacher Performance

Considering in-school issues, the technical ability of current student tests to accurately identify high- and low-performing teachers is woefully inadequate. In the past few years, a compelling body of research has emerged that demonstrates the dangers of test-based teacher evaluations. Three major research institutes—American Education Research Association (AERA), the National Academy of Education, and the American Statistical Association (ASA)—have forcefully warned against employing these measures for teacher evaluations. The AERA issued standards for teacher evaluation measures, which virtually no existing instruments meet.

Currently, Value-Added Measures (VAMs) is a popular tool. It claims to assess growth by aggregating individual scores adjusted for socioeconomic measures. Like other tools in widespread use, it is not accurate enough for evaluating teachers. A seminal critique of the growing use of test scores and value-added measures was written by Linda Darling-Hammond, Audrey Amrein-Beardsley from Arizona State University, Edward Haertel from Stanford, and Jesse Rothstein from University of California, Berkeley. Their research revealed how inexact the measures were, and they present case studies of egregious misidentification—when excellent teachers have been misidentified as low performing and unfairly dismissed. In Teacher and Student Evaluation: Moving Beyond the Failure of School Reform, Alyson Lavigne and Thomas Good provide a comprehensive analysis of the history of teacher evaluations. Their analysis also found the present strategies to be defective. Further, Rick Stigins in his 2014 book, Defensible Teacher Evaluation: Student Growth through Classroom Assessment, reviews the major deficiencies in current high-stakes, test-driven teacher evaluation.

In March 2015, the respected publication Educational Researcher devoted an entire issue to critiques of the most common VAMs, plus some supporting statements with caveats. For a list of the top 15 research articles that discredit the use of test scores and VAM approaches, see Amrein-Beardsley’s VAMboozled website. The site includes a recommended reading list and lists 86 articles that have raised major technical concerns about VAM. For an exhaustive list, more information, and research articles that discredit the use of test scores and VAM approaches, see briefing paper Problems with the Use of Student Test Scores to Evaluate Teachers and the article “Studies Highlight Complexities of Using Value-Added Measures.” Both make a compelling case against test-driven teacher evaluation. Professor Edward Haertel from Stanford has written a particularly persuasive admonition against this practice, as has Leo Casey in his article published in the esteemed, peer-reviewed journal Teachers College Record titled “The Will to Quantify: The “Bottom Line” in the Market Model of Education Reform.”

Two reports published in 2016 underscore the serious limitations of VAM. The first describes how VAM use failed in the Houston Independent School District (HISD); the second, produced by REL at WestEd, discusses how deficient VAM is in predicting teacher quality.

For further reading on the limits of VAM as a measure of teacher quality, see also “A Reanalysis of the Effects of Teacher Replacement Using Value-Added Modeling” by Stuart S. Yeh, Beardley’s blog post “The (Relentess) Will to Quantify,” and a critique of New York’s plan to use VAM methods to evaluate teachers. Finally, the Melbourne Graduate School of Education website has a compelling video lecture on why test score evaluation does not work.

Evaluations Based on Test Scores Misidentify Teachers

These well-respected researchers make the following points. The section “Standardized Tests Are Not the Best Measures of School or Teacher Quality” in companion article Reformers Target the Wrong Levers of Improvement made the case that such scores fail to accurately measure deeper and broader learning.

As importantly, student tests were never designed to be used for teacher evaluation and suffer from high levels of misidentification, or noise. Studies have shown that if we use current tests, a teacher who is ranked at the 50th percentile could be anywhere from the 85th percentile to the 15th. A significant number of teachers bounce from top to bottom, or vice versa from year to year. A recent report from the US Department of Education found very high misidentifications—even with three years of data per teacher. One-fourth of the teachers identified as “low performers needing remediation” were actually at the mid-range of performance, and one-fourth of teachers who were deemed “average” were actually in need of professional development and support. That level of imprecision should be unacceptable for any respected profession.

A team of renowned researchers set out to demonstrate the absurdity of using student tests to determine teacher effectiveness. They found that changes in the height of students, which is obviously independent of teacher influence, was nearly as predictive of teacher effectiveness as test scores.

Examples of Test-Based Evaluations That Fail Exemplary Teachers

As a result of districts using these suspect measures, there have been numerous cases of top-flight teachers receiving negative scores and of teachers who were identified one year as “stellar” receiving a low rating the next. In some cases this occurred because a teacher voluntarily agreed to take a more difficult class. Then the teacher suffered by comparison with the easier class (s)he taught in the previous years.

The telling case of Pascale Mauclair clearly demonstrates how dangerous it can be to use such dubious evaluation measures. She agreed to teach a harder-to-educate class and did a superb job, but instead of getting congratulated she was identified by the press as “One of the Worst Teachers in the City.” A study conducted by Darling-Hammond and her colleagues also documented tragic cases of misidentification.

Finally, some teachers are taking the issue to court claiming the current evaluation procedures are so arbitrary that they are fatally flawed. An example is Sheri Lederman’s case before the New York courts. Each year she works with students who achieve double the average student proficiency rates in the state, but since her students scored so high in previous years, she did not meet the state’s ill-conceived standard requiring growth from year to year. As a result, Lederman received a low rating. The trial court held the existing system was “arbitrary and capricious” as it applied to her, and voided the rankings based on test scores.

Consequently, when such growth measures are used, results can be extremely arbitrary at the upper ends. My favorite example is the ludicrous case of Carolyn Abbott, an exemplary teacher of gifted students in New York City. Her students made huge gains each year, invariably scoring at the highest levels. In one year, her previous gifted class scored at the 98th percentile and, based on that high performance, her predicted next year’s score became the 97th percentile. The actual score landed at the 89th percentile. Many of her gifted students saw no reason to try hard on the state test since they were doing much more advanced work. On other tests that had consequences for students, they scored in the highest ranks. Even though Abbott was doing an exemplary job, the newspapers dubbed her the “Worst 8th Grade Teacher in the City.” The real story was the complete opposite.

I have some important feedback for the news media in this country: Shame on you for rushing to publish teacher rankings when you know, or should know, that these lists are bogus and prone to error. Even the more thoughtful advocates of VAMs caution against their use for high-stakes personnel decisions.

Other Flaws in Test-Based Evaluation Systems

As previously mentioned, test scores and even evaluations by principals tend to track the socioeconomic status of the student population. So schools in low-income areas have a significantly higher number of low evaluations and fewer high evaluations—a clearly unjust situation and a surefire detriment to attracting our best teachers to these areas in need.

In addition, no one yet has solved the problem that most teachers are not math and reading teachers. Thus, they do not teach the math and reading content tested on the new PARCC and SBAC assessments, yet they are still held accountable based on those test scores. As a result, many teachers are now suing after receiving low evaluations based on the test performance of students they never taught. Another major defect in the measures being used for evaluation is that different assessment instruments yield widely dissimilar results. This is further confirmation of the inaccuracy and inadequacy of these measures.

Further, individual evaluations do not take into account school context, which has a large influence on teacher performance. The students of two similarly talented teachers will score differently if one group of students is in a school led by an effective principal with working teams, a good school climate, and active engagement of students and parents while the other is in a dysfunctional school with none of these attributes.

Finally, yearly decisions about which students get assigned to which teachers can tremendously skew a teacher’s evaluation. Nonrandom assignment of students vitiates a key requirement of valid teacher evaluation systems, subjecting teachers to potential principal favoritism and pressure from parents. Newer VAMs that are being used more and more were supposedly designed to correct this, but apparently they have not. Conversely, one of the best predictors of student achievement is whether teachers are assigned to teach classes in their areas of expertise or classes that match their skill set. Ironically, when districts use the information from test-based evaluations as a proxy for mis-assignment and then reassign teachers to subjects aligned with their preparation and experience, students enjoy a much greater boost to performance than performance improvements resulting from firings using value-added teacher accountability. Perhaps the best use of high-stakes testing is holding administrators accountable for proper assignment of teachers, instead of serving as the unsound basis for teacher evaluation.

Test-Based Evaluations Do Not Measure Good Teaching and Harm the Profession

Do evaluations based in large part on math and reading test scores actually measure “good teaching”? A 2014 report by well-regarded researchers Martin Polikoff and Andrew Porter says no. They looked at six districts nationwide and found that measures of students’ opportunity to learn (OTL) the content specified in standards and measures of instructional quality, both of which have been found to be highly predictive of student learning, showed weak or zero correlation with the VAM tests being used to evaluate teachers.

The upshot of all this research is that not only is test-based teacher evaluation unfair to the limited number of teachers who can benefit from professional support, but the arbitrary threat issued to all teachers impairs their performance and discourages them from remaining in the profession. The Test-and-Punish approach has also had a damaging effect on efforts to recruit new talent. Defective evaluation schemes have many negative consequences, including teachers avoiding hard-to-teach children and resisting collaborative team-building efforts. The demeaning rhetoric about widespread teacher incompetence is another key factor contributing to growing teacher demoralization. For more on this topic, see the companion article Reformers Allowed Their Rhetoric to Be Hijacked.

The op-ed piece “Standardized Tests Don’t Help Us Evaluate Teachers” is an in-the-trenches summary by a Los Angeles Unified attorney who helped create teacher evaluations and now finds them defective. In The Teacher Wars, Dana Goldstein offers an excellent account of the disastrous consequences of personnel decisions tied to student test scores. For an excellent summary of why test scores should not be used for consequential evaluations, see David Berliner’s piece.

Finally, a 2016 extensive report on teacher evaluation policies by Thomas Toch recommends using evaluative information primarily for program and teacher improvement. This shifts the major purpose of evaluations from rooting out the lowest performers to policies aimed at lifting the whole staff.

The business community has been moving away from ranking schemes for decades, recognizing that such evaluations are superficial, work against team building, cause lower performance, and discourage risk taking by employees. In a clear case of hypocrisy, many business leaders have no compunction about recommending such discarded measures for schools.

Fortunately, many school districts and states have been withdrawing from or minimizing the use of mandatory test-based teacher evaluations leading to dismissal proceedings. Many others are using teacher evaluations as just one of many data sets that provide useful information and feedback to teachers and faculties about where to concentrate improvement efforts. Three examples are Tulsa, the state of Michigan, and Houston. State Action to Advance Teacher Evaluation, a comprehensive report by the Southern Regional Education Board, and the California blueprint, Greatness by Design, advocate using evaluations to feedback useful information for teacher improvement.

One of the most prominent architects of teacher evaluation, Charlotte Danielson, whose rubrics are in widespread use, has castigated the present way evaluations are being conducted and used. Even New York governor Andrew Cuomo, who was a strong advocate for test-based high-stakes teacher evaluation, has backtracked, and the New York Regents have halted required state test-based teacher evaluations for four years. Many educational leaders such as New York’s Nassau County superintendents had warned against this practice. Some political leaders , such as Hillary Clinton, are also beginning to speak out about the dangers of test-based teacher evaluation. Finally, a court in New Mexico found that using VAM scores based on tests is too imprecise to be used to attach consequences to the results.

Bill Gates, one of the strongest proponents of teacher evaluation strategies, has issued warnings about their overuse:

Too many school systems are using teacher evaluations as merely a tool for personnel decisions, not helping teachers get better. . . . Many systems today are about hiring and firing, not a tool for learning.

In response, to this growing resistance to test-based teacher evaluation, the recent reauthorization of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), now named the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), ignores test-based teacher evaluation.

A More Effective Approach to Teacher Evaluation

Preliminarily, advocates of high-stakes teacher evaluation have a misguided view of “teacher quality.” They think it is a static individual attribute that—after the first few years—can’t really change. A more sophisticated viewpoint sees teacher quality as dynamic, which does and should grow over time. Esther Quintero, a management expert, supports this point of view. Writing for the Albert Shanker Institute blog, Quintero explains:

In the US, a number of unstated but common assumptions about “teacher quality” suffuse the entire school improvement conversation. As researchers have noted . . . instructional effectiveness is implicitly viewed as an attribute of individuals, a quality that exists in a sort of vacuum (or independent of the context of teachers’ work), and which, as a result, teachers can carry with them, across and between schools. Effectiveness also is often perceived as fairly stable: teachers learn their craft within the first few years in the classroom and then plateau, but, at the end of the day, some teachers have what it takes and others just don’t. So, the general assumption is that a “good teacher” will be effective under any conditions, and the quality of a given school is determined by how many individual “good teachers” it has acquired.

In British Columbia, Hong Kong, Shanghai and Singapore, none of these assumptions seems to be at work. Teacher effectiveness is not something fixed that individual teachers do or don’t possess. Rather, effectiveness is both a quality and an aspiration of schools: Schools ought to be organized and resourced so that teachers continuously and collaboratively improve. In these high performance systems, the whole (school effectiveness) is greater than the sum of its parts (individual teacher effectiveness) because, as Susan Moore Johnson argues:

Whatever level of human capital schools acquire through hiring can subsequently be developed through activities such as grade-level or subject-based teams of teachers, faculty committees, professional development, coaching, evaluation, and informal interactions. As teachers join together to solve problems and learn from one another, the school’s instructional capacity becomes greater than the sum of its parts.

The Learning Policy Institute published a report by Kini and Podolsky, Does Teaching Experience Increase Teacher Effectiveness? A Review of the Research, which debunked the idea that teachers don’t continue to become more effective after the first three-year learning spurt. Obviously, well-constructed professional learning will enhance the normal growth process.

It is important to dismiss incompetent teachers if their dismissal is done fairly and is part of an overall effort that gives teachers the support and time they need to improve before they are dismissed. With the right resources and approach, many low-performing teachers become good teachers. Our most successful districts do not ignore struggling teachers. They use effective assessments that include feedback, peer participation and review, and support. They have organized schools to be learning institutions in which all staff can continuously improve. These districts are also careful when making initial hiring decisions and granting tenure. Ironically, districts that follow these more supportive evaluation strategies often end up with higher dismissal rates than those following the pure Test-and-Punish approach. See the policy brief Evaluation, Accountability, and Professional Development in an Opportunity Culture, which outlines proven, more positive approaches to teacher evaluation.

Lavigne and Good have surveyed the best research and practices in the field. In their 2015 book, Improving Teachers Through Observation and Feedback, they offer powerful suggestions for correctly conducting evaluation in the service of improved performance. Their proposals markedly differ from what most districts are currently doing. In fact, Lavigne and Good emphasize useful feedback and cooperative effort, as opposed to formal evaluations. Information from a teacher’s student tests can help that teacher improve instruction when valid methods, measures, and strategies are employed, and checked for accuracy. Again, student test data should not be used in personnel decisions but as part of a broad-scale effort to collect evidence that will help teachers and schools improve. The current emphasis on narrowly conceived test-based, high-stakes teacher evaluation is unfair and ineffective.

A major report by the Network for Public Education, Teachers Talk Back: Educators on the Impact of Teacher Evaluation, reinforces the view that test-based teacher evaluation is harmful and evaluations should instead focus on improving instruction as some states such as California have done.

Does Dismissing Incompetent Teachers Improve Student Outcomes?

This is the most crucial question for those who support Test-and-Punish. First, after a decade of intensive effort to pursue teacher evaluation schemes, the results have been negligible. Rick Hess reports on a study conducted by Matt Kraft and Allison Gilmour. According to Hess:

[The authors] look at teacher evaluation results in 19 states that have adopted new evaluation systems since 2009. Unfortunately, all that time, money, and passion haven’t delivered much. Kraft and Gilmour note that, after all is said and done, the share of teachers identified as effective in those 19 states inched down from more than 99% to a little over 97% in 2015.

Second, the fact is that fixating on just the three to five percent sliver of teachers who are not performing, even if the evaluation process were fair and accurate, affects only a small fraction of teachers with limited payoff. In a school of 20 teachers, eliminating one incompetent teacher will help one class of students but does nothing for the other 19 classes. However, making test-based evaluations and dismissals a major policy component drags 19 other teachers into the vortex of legally justified yet burdensome and what are often superficial evaluation schemes.

When compared to schoolwide initiatives aimed at improving the entire staff and unleashing their potential as a coordinated team, the effect sizes of firing a failing teacher on overall student performance are small. Contrary to recent reform rhetoric, even if three to five percent of incompetent teachers were dismissed tomorrow, student gains would be minimal. There are much more productive strategies to improve student performance.

Recently, a media frenzy erupted over a research report that claimed a huge benefit from firing the worst teachers. This report sensationalized the effect of replacing a poor teacher with an average teacher by stating that the lifetime earning benefits of a given class would increase by $266,000. Diane Ravitch has questioned the methodology used in the research report. Even if the research were valid and findings accurate, the boost in earnings is quite trivial. As the report itself states, the figure amounts to about a discounted $7,000 per student per lifetime, or less than $200 per year. Put another way, the reported effect sizes are tiny compared to the payoff from other improvement strategies. Finally, the report admits that correlations are low at 0.5, which means that large numbers of teachers are identified as lacking who aren’t, and similar numbers are identified as proficient who are actually struggling.

Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) was a major study sponsored by the Gates Foundation. It found that the measures of teacher effectiveness did predict student performance in mathematics, although, again, effect sizes were small. Significant technical issues were raised about the methodology of this study as well. Critics have asked: Were random assignments fully carried out? Did the teachers of hard-to-educate students participate in sufficient numbers to validate the results? Were all the data reported? Is the report based on the flawed assumption that test scores, principal evaluations, and student surveys predicted the same thing?

However, the most damning objection to using the MET report to support high-stakes testing for personnel decisions comes from the report itself. It cautions against such use, saying the researchers did not determine or even consider if evaluation for high-stakes personnel decisions might well negate their findings. The report makes the conjecture that teaching to the test, narrowing curriculum, gaming the system, and failing to cooperate with other teachers competing for bonuses could very well lower student performance. Finally, and critically, this report does not present any evidence that identifying who is a high- or low-quality teacher resulted in improving instruction.

As demonstrated by the extensive research cited above, there is thin to nonexistent evidence suggesting that a reform strategy focused on firing incompetent teachers produces any significant gains in student achievement. Further, policymakers’ misplaced emphasis on the few suspected lowest performers comes with a huge cost. Frequently, all teachers regardless of their demonstrated capabilities are evaluated by expensive, hugely complicated, and time-consuming procedures. These evaluations gravitate toward a checklist mentality of individual items, which trivializes teaching instead of seeing it through a more complex and accurate lens. In addition to the previously mentioned Teacher and Student Evaluation: Moving Beyond the Failure of School Reform (Lavigne and Good, 2014) and The Teacher Wars (Goldstein, 2014), a video produced by WestEd provides an excellent summary of the best research and principles of effective professional evaluation systems.

Can Evaluations by Principals Fix the Problems of Test-Based Accountability?

Relying on principals’ classroom observations cannot obviate the deficiencies of using test scores to evaluate teachers. Evaluations of teachers by principals are heavily influenced by the socioeconomic levels of their students. According to Alisha Kirby:

As the components of teacher evaluations remain under debate among policymakers, a new study suggests the results of classroom observation may hinge more on the students’ capabilities than the teacher’s.

Analysis from the American Institutes for Research and the University of Pennsylvania’s Graduate School of Education found that students’ behavior and prior academic achievement weighs heavily on teacher performance and can skew the results of an evaluation.

“When information about teacher performance does not reflect a teacher’s practice, but rather the students to whom the teacher is assigned, such systems are at risk of misidentifying and mislabeling teacher performance,” reported Rachel Garrett of the American Institutes for Research and Matthew Steinberg from the University of Pennsylvania’s Graduate School of Education.

Two papers reached the same conclusions. One paper is Leading via Teacher Evaluation: The Case of the Missing Clothes? The other one is Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis.

Further, most principals are not adequately prepared to conduct accurate teacher evaluations. Many now find themselves spending an inordinate amount of time conducting formal classroom observations with extensive item checklists in hand. They are visiting each classroom several times a year rather than spending the time needed for schoolwide efforts that will improve curriculum and instruction. It is a case of evaluation run amok. Lavigne and Good provide a chilling example of this pathology. Under Tennessee’s byzantine and excessive teacher evaluation system, principals must visit each teacher’s classroom four to six times a year. In a school of 20 teachers, that means spending between 176 and 260 hours per year on observation, not assistance. Some research even suggests that classroom observations for purposes of evaluation actually reduce performance.

A pilot report from Chicago found small effects when principals used an evaluation strategy that included two observations of reading teachers per year. The results of the evaluations were used for teacher and school improvement, not harsh consequences. A key finding was that extensive training of principals in observation techniques and how to use the evaluations in program improvement made a large difference. Finally, many walkthroughs by principals miss the essence of good teaching and instead concentrate on trivia, according to Peter DeWitt.

A Narrow Focus on Dismissing Teachers Detracts from Effective Improvement Measures

Crucially, such a narrow policy focus on dismissing a few teachers often leads to a failure to address other vital in-school measures, which significantly influence the performance of all teachers and the achievement of students. For example, large numbers of teachers leave inner-city schools each year. Teacher churn and the resulting heavy use of substitutes are a major reason for low student performance. Excellent teachers are leaving the profession due to the stress of teaching in low-income urban schools and dreadful working conditions. This problem overshadows the damage done by a few underperforming teachers.

Several researchers have recommended policies aimed at encouraging the retention of our best teachers. The New Teacher Project (TNTP) published a report in 2013 entitled The Irreplaceables: Understanding the Real Retention Crisis in America’s Urban Schools. The report laments that most districts do not have policies to encourage the highest-performing 20% of teachers to stay, and as a result the districts suffer high attrition rates. Top teachers want collegiality, being part of effective teams, better working conditions, somebody paying attention to them, and career paths that allow them to keep teaching but take on additional responsibility helping other teachers or solving school performance problems and earn more money. Districts that solely concentrate on firing incompetent teachers miss this much larger and more productive target.

It is also important to recognize that the quality of the curriculum and instructional materials is just about as important as teacher quality. For more about the importance of curriculum and educational resources, see the companion article Provide High-Quality Instruction.

In addition, the level of school funding matters. Yes, money does make a difference. Recent reports by moderate and conservative institutions refute reformers’ often expressed claim that expenditure levels are not a key component of quality. The reports find that increased funding results in improved student performance, and conversely, cutting school budgets depresses outcomes. Similar results were found in Indiana after the state drastically cut educational support. The companion article Provide Adequate School Funding covers the role of funding in its discussion of district/state support for improving schools.

For a review of the literature that has revealed funding matters, see Does Money Matter in Education? Unfortunately, the “money doesn’t matter philosophy” and political antipathy to public education in this country have substantially hampered school funding. Most states are spending below their 2008 expenditures, and some are cutting even more.

Equally important is site and district leadership, particularly as they relate to building systems that connect teaching, curriculum, and instruction; to continuously improving these elements; and to improving the school climate by increasing the degree of engagement of teachers, students, and parents and community. A recent report by Thomas Kane from Harvard found teacher perception of the school being a good place to work improved performance. In math, the amount of professional development and teacher feedback also helped. Principal leadership accounts for about one-quarter of in-school measures of student performance, teacher quality about one-third.

For a perceptive two-part series on how to best train principals to lead and a description of efforts currently under way in four states, see the Marc Tucker’s blog posts “Organizations in Which Teachers Can Do Their Best Work,” Part 1 and Part 2. For a comprehensive report on principal training, see The School Principal as Leader: Guiding Schools to Better Teaching and Learning and the standards for school leadership approved by the National Policy Board for Educational Administration in 2015.

There are other essential components of effective improvement efforts: provision of social support and medical services, ongoing professional development and team building for all teachers, and the use of just-in-time assessment systems and valid data on each student’s progress to inform instruction.

Reform measures that emphasize terminating incompetent teachers based on questionable methods not only lower teachers’ morale and efficacy, but inevitably lead to conflict with staff who understand the underlying flaws in the strategy. The evidence is clear—conflict between key stakeholders tends to sabotage the cooperative efforts needed to achieve effective reform. As many have said, “You can’t fire your way to educational greatness.”

Targeting the Lowest-Performing Schools with Closure and Other Drastic Measures Is Usually Ineffective

When it comes to evaluating schools, high-stakes accountability based on tests has been just as ineffective and just as problematic in terms of unintended consequences. Concentrating on five percent of low-testing schools and responding to their performance with drastic measures—closures, mass firings, or conversion to charters—has produced negligible results. Such reform measures do, however, severely impact those schools, their students, and the surrounding communities. This is even more concerning given that many of the affected schools were unfairly misidentified. They were actually progressing equal to or better than the remaining schools in the district. The failure of school turnaround policies has been documented by a number of respected sources. According to the National Education Policy Center’s description of a meta-analysis by Tina Trujillo of University of California, Berkeley and Michelle Renée of Brown’s Annenberg Institute for School Reform, Trujillo and Renée stated that school turnaround policies are “more likely to cause upheaval than to help.” See also pages 96–97 of the previously cited Teacher and Student Evaluation: Moving Beyond the Failure of School Reform, and for an overall study of turnaround strategies, see Emerging State Turnaround Strategies, a report prepared by the Education Commission of the States.

States that used tests to grade schools have found major problems with accuracy, and many have reversed the policy. For a critique of Florida’s 15-year failed effort to get school grades right, see “School Scandals Reveal Problem with Grading Schools.” For a broader, balanced critique of Florida’s reform initiatives, see the Shanker Institute’s policy brief. Many have questioned whether the state reform formula and direction were actually the driving force behind the early gains. Instead, they point to the efforts made by excellent local superintendents who stressed the Build-and-Support approach. Florida’s gains have since stalled following school-funding cutbacks, massive charter expansion, and stringent accountability measures. There are reports showing that segregation and in-school deficiencies considerably outweigh school-to-school comparisons in predicting achievement gaps.

This research demonstrates that, as of yet, the knowledge base for identifying failing schools is not sufficiently developed to allow for fair assessments. As a result, many local sites are labeled as failures simply because they have large numbers of poor and/or students of color. In addition, there is no clear research-based consensus regarding the best ways to intervene in low-performing schools. For example, recent evaluations of the federal School Improvement Grants program aimed at the lowest-underperforming schools found a slight overall improvement, but one-third of the grantees actually had falling scores. The feds are currently providing a bit more flexibility to applicants under the program, admitting that their previous prescriptions were off base. Moreover, even if reform efforts were fair and successful, focusing on the few schools at the bottom ignores the vast majority of children. As Michael Fullan, one of the most respected leaders of the Build-and-Support approach, has pointed out, policies aimed at improving all schools have far better results. Edward Fiske and Helen Ladd made a similar point in an op-ed about successful low-income districts in London. The districts that flourished pursued a districtwide strategic improvement plan as opposed to targeting the lowest performers, used broad accountability systems that went beyond test scores, and provided support for low-income students.

Recent Developments

9/14/2016 Where school turnarounds have been successful they have been embedded in over-all district efforts to improve and have avoided a punishment approach. A new report by the Center for American Progress https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2016/09/13/143922/7-tenets-for-sustainable-school-turnaround/ has found seven important issues for successful school turnarounds:

Grant districts, and ultimately the state, the authority to intervene in failing schools.

Provide significant resources to support planning and restructuring and leverage competitive grants.

Treat the district as the unit of change and hold them accountable for school improvement.

Create transparent tiers of intervention and support combined with ongoing capacity building and sharing best practices.

Promote stakeholder engagement.

Create pipeline programs for developing and supporting effective turnaround school leaders.

Embed evaluation and evidence-based building activities in school implementation

7/30/2016 Audrey Amerain-Beardsley reviewed an excellent piece from twenty years ago by Ed Haertel on the deficiencies of test-based evaluations of teachers. http://vamboozled.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Haertel_1986.pdf She details six major points Haertel makes, all consistent with the article above.

7/30/2016 Another researcher debunks the value of value added measures for teacher evaluation. http://vamboozled.com/vams-are-never-accurate-reliable-and-valid/ Another district eliminated VAMS for teacher evaluation. http://vamboozled.com/no-more-evaas-for-houston-school-board-tie-vote-means-non-renewal/

BBS Companion Articles

Why Conventional School “Reforms” Have Failed
Reformers Target the Wrong Levers of Improvement
How Top Performers Build-and-Support
Provide High-Quality Instruction
Provide Adequate School Funding

Reference Notes

Hattie, J. (2008). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. London: Routledge.

Firing Teachers Based on Students’ Test Scores Is Not the Answer
Aspen Institute. (2016, Mar). Evaluation and Support Systems: A Roadmap for Improvement. http://www.aspeninstitute.org/publications/teacher-evaluation-support-systems-roadmap-improvement See also Brown, C., Partelow L., & Konoske-Graf, A. (2016, Mar 16). Educator Evaluation: A Case Study of Massachusetts’ Approach. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2016/03/16/133038/educator-evaluation/ Humphrey, D., Koppich, J., & Tiffany-Morales, J. (2016, Mar). Replacing Teacher Evaluation Systems with Systems of Professional Growth: Lessons from Three California School Districts and Their Teachers’ Unions. https://www.sri.com/work/publications/replacing-teacher-evaluation-systems-systems-professional-growth-lessons-three Taylor Kerchner, C (2016, Mar 21). Five Lessons for Creating Effective Teacher Evaluations. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/on_california/2016/03/five_lessons_for_creating_effective_teacher_evaluation.html

Kahlenberg, R. D. (2015, Summer). Tenure: How Due Process Protects Teachers and Students. American Educator. http://www.aft.org/ae/summer2015/kahlenberg

Goldstein, D. (2014). The Teacher Wars: A History of America’s Most Embattled Profession. New York: Doubleday.

Teacher Quality: Putting the Issue in Perspective
Haertel, E. H. (2013). Reliability and Validity of Inferences About Teachers Based on Student Test Scores. Educational Testing Service. http://www.ets.org/research/policy_research_reports/publications/publication/2013/jquq

Putnam, R. D. (2015). Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis. New York: Simon & Schuster. For other works on the same topic, see Morsy, L., & Rothstein, R. (2015, Jun 10). Five Social Disadvantages That Depress Student Performance: Why Schools Alone Can’t Close Achievement Gaps. Economic Policy Institute. http://www.epi.org/publication/five-social-disadvantages-that-depress-student-performance-why-schools-alone-cant-close-achievement-gaps/?utm_source=Economic+Policy+Institute&utm_campaign=26b9c8a34e-EPI_News_06_12_156_12_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e7c5826c50-26b9c8a34e-55876685 Berliner, D. C. (2013). Effects of Inequality and Poverty vs. Teachers and Schooling on America’s Youth. www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid=16889 See also Summers, L. H., & Balls, E. (2015, Jan). Report on the Committee for Inclusive Prosperity. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/report/2015/01/15/104266/report-of-the-commission-on-inclusive-prosperity/

Rich, M., Cox, A., & Bloch, M. (2016, Apr 29). Money, Race, and Success: How Your School District Compares. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/29/upshot/money-race-and-success-how-your-school-district-compares.html?_r=3

Darling-Hammond, L., Wilhoit, G., & Pittenger, L. (2014, Oct 16). Accountability for College and Career Readiness: Developing a New Paradigm. Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/publications/pubs/1257

Glass, Gene. V. (2016, Apr 5). Take All the Credit? You’ll Get All the Blame. http://ed2worlds.blogspot.com/2016/04/take-all-credit-youll-get-all-blame.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+EducationInTwoWorlds+%28Education+in+Two+Worlds%29

Strauss, V. (2016, Mar). No, Great Schools Can’t Close Achievement Gaps All by Themselves. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/03/21/no-great-schools-cant-close-achievement-gaps-all-by-themselves/

A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education. http://www.boldapproach.org/

Sawhill, I. V., & Rodrigue, E. (2015, Nov 18). An Agenda for Reducing Poverty and Improving Opportunity. Brookings. http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2015/11/campaign-2016-presidential-candidates-poverty-and-opportunity

Kerwin McCrimmon, K. (2015, Aug 27). Private Money Saves Colorado IUD Program as Fight Continues for Public Funding. Kaiser Health News. http://khn.org/news/private-money-saves-colorado-iud-program-as-fight-continues-for-public-funding/ See also Tavernise, S. (2015, Jul 5). Colorado’s Effort Against Teenage Pregnancies Is a Startling Success. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/science/colorados-push-against-teenage-pregnancies-is-a-startling-success.html

Tests Are Not Reliable Measures of Teacher Performance
American Education Research Association and National Academy of Education. Getting Teacher Evaluation Right: A Brief for Policymakers. https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/publications/pubs/421

American Statistical Association. (2014, Apr 8). ASA Statement on Using Value-Added Models for Educational Assessment. OpEd News. http://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/ASA-Statement-on-Using-Val-in-Best_Web_OpEds-Administration_Caution_Mandates_Teacher-140412-203.html

American Education Research Association. (2015, Nov). AERA Statement of Use of Value-Added Models (VAM) for the Evaluation of Educators and Educator Preparation Programs. Educational Researcher. http://online.sagepub.com/search/results?submit=yes&src=hw&andorexactfulltext=and&fulltext=AERA+Statement+of+Use+of+Value-Added+Models+%28VAM%29+for+the+Evaluation+of+Educators+and+Educator+Preparation+Programs&x=0&y=0

Darling-Hammond, L., Amrein-Beardsley, A., Haertel, E., & Rothstein, J. (2012, Mar 15). Evaluating Teacher Evaluation: We Know About Value-Added Models and Other Methods. Phi Delta Kappan. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/03/01/kappan_hammond.html

Lavigne, A. L., & Good, T. L. (2013). Teacher and Student Evaluation: Moving Beyond the Failure of School Reform. New York: Routledge.

Stigins, R. J. (2014). Defensible Teacher Evaluation: Student Growth Through Classroom Assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Ballou, D., & Springer, M. G. (2015). Using Student Test Scores to Measure Teacher Performance: Some Problems in the Design and Implementation of Evaluation Systems. Educational Researcher. http://edr.sagepub.com/content/44/2/77.full.pdf+html?ijkey=WSTBFIHcTyO9I&keytype=ref&siteid=spedr

Amrein-Beardsley, A. (n.d.). Top 15 Research Articles About VAMS. http://vamboozled.com/research-articles-on-vams/

Amrein-Beardsley, A. (n.d.). All Recommended Articles About VAMS. http://vamboozled.com/recommended-reading/value-added-models/

Shavelson, R. J., Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., et al. (2010, Aug 27). Problems with the Use of Student Test Scores to Evaluate Teachers. Economic Policy Institute. http://www.epi.org/publication/bp278/

Yettick, H. (2014, May 13). Studies Highlight Complexities of Using Value-Added Measures. Education Week. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/05/13/32value-add.h33.html

Haertel, E. H. (2013). Reliability and Validity of Inferences About Teachers Based on Student Test Scores. Educational Testing Service. http://www.ets.org/research/policy_research_reports/publications/publication/2013/jquq

Casey, L. M. (2013). The Will to Quantify: The “Bottom Line” in the Market Model of Education Reform. Teachers College Record. http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=17107

Amrein-Beardsley A., Collins, C., Holloway-Libell, J., & Paufler, N. (2016, Jan 5). Everything is Bigger (and Badder) in Texas: Houston’s Teacher Value-Added System. Teacher’s College Record. http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=18983

Lash, A., Makkonen, R., Tran, L., & Huang, M. (2016, Jan). Analysis of the Stability of Teacher-Level Growth Scores from The Student Growth Percentile Model. WestEd. https://relwest.wested.org/resources/210?utm_source=REL+West+Mailing+List&utm_campaign=05c37febff-ee-4-1&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_316bfe94f7-05c37febff-92259833

Yeh, S. (2013). A Reanalysis of the Effects of Teacher Replacement Using Value-Added Modeling. Teachers College Record. http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=16934

Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2015, Apr 30). The (Relentless) Will to Quantify. http://vamboozled.com/the-relentless-will-to-quantify/

Anrig, G. (2015, Mar 25). Value Subtracted: Gov. Cuomo’s Plot to Tie Teacher Evaluations to Test Scores Won’t Help Our Public Schools. Slate. http://www.slate.com/articles/life/education/2015/03/gov_andrew_cuomo_and_teacher_evaluations_standardized_test_scores_are_the.html

Berliner, D. C. (2015, Aug 11). Teacher Evaluation and Standardized Tests: A Policy Fiasco. Melbourne Graduate School of Education. http://education.unimelb.edu.au/news_and_activities/events/upcoming_events/dean_lecture_series/dls-past-2015/teacher-evaluation-and-standardised-tests-a-policy-fiasco

Evaluations Based on Test Scores Misidentify Teachers
Schochet, P. Z., &. Chiang, H. S. (2010, Jul). Technical Methods Report: Error Rates in Measuring Teacher and School Performance Based on Student Test Score Gains. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104004/

Bitler, M. P., Corcoran, S. P., Domina, T., & Penner, E. K. (2014, Spring). Teacher Effects on Student Achievement and Height: A Cautionary Tale. The Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness. https://archive.org/stream/ERIC_ED562824/ERIC_ED562824_djvu.txt

Examples of Test-Based Evaluations That Fail Exemplary Teachers
Hirsch, M. (2012, Mar 1). The True Story of Pascale Mauclair. New Politics. http://newpol.org/content/true-story-pascale-mauclair

Darling-Hammond, L., Amrein-Beardsley, A., Haertel, E., & Rothstein, J. (2012, Mar 15). Evaluating Teacher Evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/03/01/kappan_hammond.html

Ravitch, D. (2015, Aug 7). Bruce Lederman Explains the Challenge to New York State Teacher Evaluation System. http://dianeravitch.net/2015/08/07/bruce-lederman-explains-the-challenge-to-new-york-state-teacher-evaluation-system/

Harris, E.A. (2016, May 10). Court Vacates Long Island Teacher’s Evaluation Tied to Student Test Scores. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/nyregion/court-vacates-long-island-teachers-evaluation-tied-to-student-test-scores.html

Pallas, A. (2012, May 16). Meet the “Worst” 8th Grade Math Teacher in NYC. The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/meet-the-worst-8th-grade-math-teacher-in-nyc/2012/05/15/gIQArmlbSU_blog.html

Other Flaws in Test-Based Evaluation Systems
Whitehurst, G. J., Chingos, M. M., & Lindquist, K. M. (Winter 2015). Getting Classroom Observations Right. EducationNext. http://educationnext.org/getting-classroom-observations-right/ See also Kirby A. (2016, Jan 21). Study Finds Flaws in Teacher Performance Observations. https://www.cabinetreport.com/human-resources/study-finds-flaws-in-teacher-performance-observations

Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2015, Oct 8). Teacher Evaluation Systems “At Issue” Across U. S. Courts. http://vamboozled.com/teacher-evaluation-systems-at-issue-across-u-s-courts/

Paufler, N. A., & Amrein-Beardsley, A. A. (2013, Jul 25). The Random Assignment of Students into Elementary Classrooms: Implications for Value-Added Analyses and Interpretations. American Educational Research Journal. http://aer.sagepub.com/content/51/2/328.

Condie, S., Lefgren, L., & Sims, D. (2014, Jun). Teacher Heterogeneity, Value-Added and Education Policy. Economics of Education Review. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272775713001647

Test-Based Evaluations Do Not Measure Good Teaching and Harm the Profession
Polikoff, M. S., & Porter, A. C. (2014, May). Instructional Alignment as a Measure of Teaching Quality. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. http://www.aera.net/Newsroom/RecentAERAResearch/InstructionalAlignmentasaMeasureofTeachingQuality/tabid/15510/Default.aspx See also Barshay, J. (2014, May 13). Researchers Give Failing Marks to National Effort to Measure Good Teaching. http://educationbythenumbers.org/content/researchers-say-pennsylvanias-measurement-teacher-effectiveness-doesnt-measure-good-teaching_1238/ and Ravitch, D. (2016, Mar 16). John Thompson: The Utter Failure of Standardized Teacher Evaluation. http://dianeravitch.net/2016/03/16/johnthompson-the-utter-failure/

Johnson, S. M. (2015, Jul 29). Four Unintended Consequences of Using Student Test Scores to Evaluate Teachers. The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/07/29/four-unintended-consequences-of-using-student-test-scores-to-evaluate-teachers/

Kirby, A. (2015, Aug 27). High-Stakes Teacher Evaluations May Not Help. https://www.cabinetreport.com/human-resources/high-stakes-teacher-evaluations-may-not-help See also Bryant, Jeff (2016, April) We Won’t Improve Education by Making Teachers Hate Their Jobs. http://educationopportunitynetwork.org/we-wont-improve-education-by-making-teachers-hate-their-jobs/

Kwalwasser, H. (2015, Sep 15). Standardized Tests Don’t Help Us Evaluate Teachers. Los Angeles Times. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0910-kwalwasser-standardized-testing-problems-20150910-story.html

Goldstein, D. (2014). The Teacher Wars: A History of America’s Most Embattled Profession. New York: Doubleday.

Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2015. Dec 29). VAMboozled!: Why Standardized Tests Should Not Be Used to Evaluate Teachers (and Teacher Education Programs). http://nepc.colorado.edu/blog/why-standardized-tests

Toch, T. (2016, May). Grading the Graders: A Report on Teacher Evaluation Reform in Public Education. Center on the Future of American Education. https://georgetown.app.box.com/s/f47qnfh63wfxhxqu88pu5r0y0tkbo6bk

Feintzeig, R. (2015, Apr 21). The Trouble with Grading Employees. The Wall Street Journal. http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trouble-with-grading-employees-1429624897 See also Korkki, P. (2015, Jul 11). Why Employee Ranking Can Backfire. The New York Times. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/12/business/why-employee-ranking-can-backfire.html?_r=1&referrer

Ravitch, J. (2015, Oct 21). John Thompson: The Gates Plan Failed in Tulsa, Now What? http://dianeravitch.net/2015/10/21/john-thompson-the-gates-plan-failed-in-tulsa-now-what/

Kirby, A. (2015, Nov 9). Michigan Bill Rolls Back Test Scores in Teacher Evaluations. https://cabinetreport.com/politics-education/michigan-bill-rolls-back-test-scores-in-teacher-evaluations

Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2015, Nov 9). Houston Board Candidates Respond to Their Teacher Evaluation System. http://vamboozled.com/?s=Houston+board+candidates&submit=Search&__bcf_gupi=1DCE61EDFC3F0001C87B1A304D9B1E821DCE61EDFC4000013A7E99739110F630

Gandha, T. (2016, Feb). State Actions to Advance Teacher Evaluation. Southern Regional Education Board. http://www.sreb.org/publication/state-actions-advance-teacher-evaluation

Tom Torlakson’s Task Force. (2012, Sep). Greatness by Design; Supporting Outstanding Teaching to Sustain a Golden State. http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/ee.asp

Danielson, C. (2016, Apr 18). Charlotte Danielson on Rethinking Teacher Evaluation. Education Week. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/04/20/charlotte-danielson-on-rethinking-teacher-evaluation.html?cmp=eml-enl-eu-news2-RM

Taylor, K. (2015, Nov 25). Cuomo, in Shift, Is Said to Back Reducing Test Scores’ Role in Teacher Reviews. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/26/nyregion/cuomo-in-shift-is-said-to-back-reducing-test-scores-role-in-teacher-reviews.html?ref=topics&_r=0

Disare, M. (2015, Dec 14). In Big Shift, Regents Vote to Exclude State Tests from Teacher Evals Until 2019. http://ny.chalkbeat.org/2015/12/14/breaking-in-big-shift-regents-vote-to-exclude-state-tests-from-teacher-evals-until-2019/?utm_source=Master+Mailing+List&utm_campaign=f54d1b9f78-Rise_Shine_201912_15_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_23e3b96952-f54d1b9f78-75668293#.VnA8EI-cE2y

Tyrrell, J. (2015, Nov 21). Nassau Superintendents: End Teacher Evals Tied to Test Scores. Newsday. http://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/nassau-superintendents-end-teacher-evals-tied-to-test-scores-1.11150791

Layton, L. (2015, Nov 16). Clinton Says “No Evidence” That Teachers Can Be Judged by Student Test Scores. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/clinton-says-no-evidence-that-teachers-can-be-judged-by-student-test-scores/2015/11/16/303ee068-8c98-11e5-baf4-bdf37355da0c_story.html

Ravitch, D. (2015, Dec 17). John Thompson: The Beginning of the End of VAM? http://dianeravitch.net/2015/12/17/john-thompson-the-beginning-of-the-end-of-vam/

Sawchuk, S. (2013, Apr 4). Bill Gates: Don’t Overuse Tests in Teachers’ Evaluations. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/2013/04/bill_gates_dont_overuse_tests_in_teachers_evaluations.html See also Layton, L. (2015, Oct 7). Improving U.S. schools Tougher than Global Health, Gates Says. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/improving-us-schools-tougher-than-global-health-gates-says/2015/10/07/56da9972-6d05-11e5-b31c-d80d62b53e28_story.html

A More Effective Approach to Teacher Evaluation
Quintero, E (2016, Feb 23). Beyond Teacher Quality. http://www.shankerinstitute.org/blog/beyond-teacher-quality

Johnson, S. M. (2015, Jun 25). Will Value-Added Reinforce the Walls of the Egg-Crate School? http://www.shankerinstitute.org/blog/will-value-added-reinforce-walls-egg-crate-school

Kini, T., & Podolsky, A. (2016). Does Teaching Experience Increase Teacher Effectiveness? A Review of the Research. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/our-work/publications-resources/does-teaching-experience-increase-teacher-effectiveness-review-research/

Public Impact. (2015). Evaluation, Accountability, and Professional Development in an Opportunity Culture. Opportunity Culture. http://opportunityculture.org/evaluation-policy-brief/

Lavigne, A. L., & Good, T. L. (2015). Improving Teachers Through Observation and Feedback: Beyond State and Federal Mandates. New York: Routledge.

Network for Public Education. (2016). Teachers Talk Back: Educators on the Impact of Teacher Evaluation. http://networkforpubliceducation.org/2016/04/6468/

Does Dismissing Incompetent Teachers Improve Student Outcomes?
Kraft, M.A., & Gilmour, A.F. (2016, Feb). Revisiting the Widget Effect: Teacher Evaluation Reforms and the Distribution of Teacher Effectiveness. Brown University. http://scholar.harvard.edu/mkraft/publications/revisiting-widget-effect-teacher-evaluation-reforms-and-distribution-teacher

Hess, R. (2016, Mar 8). When Fancy New Teacher-Evaluation Systems Don’t Make a Difference. http://mobile.edweek.org/c.jsp?cid=25920011&item=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.edweek.org%2Fv1%2Fblog%2F76%2F%3Fuuid%3D57146

Lowrey, A. (2012, Jan 6). Big Study Links Good Teachers to Lasting Gain. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/education/big-study-links-good-teachers-to-lasting-gain.html?_r=0

Ravitch, D. (2014, Aug 11). The Holes in the Chetty et al VAM Study as Seen by the American Statistical Association. http://dianeravitch.net/2014/08/11/the-holes-in-the-chetty-et-al-vam-study-as-seen-by-the-american-statistical-association/

Rothstein, J., & Mathis, W. J. (2013, Jan 31). Review of Two Culminating Reports from the MET Project. National Education Policy Center. http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-MET-final-2013

DeWitt, P. (2015, May 11). 3 Reasons Why Your Observations May Be a Waste of Time. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/finding_common_ground/2015/05/3_reasons_why_your_observations_may_be_a_waste_of_time.html

WestEd. (2015, Sep). Video: Making Meaningful Use of Teacher Effectiveness Data. https://relwest.wested.org/resources/198

Can Evaluations by Principals Fix the Problems of Test-Based Accountability
Kirby, A. (2016, Jan 21). Study Finds Flaws in Teacher Performance Observations. https://www.cabinetreport.com/human-resources/study-finds-flaws-in-teacher-performance-observations

Hallinger, P., Heck, R. H., & Murphy, J. (2013, Jul 30). Leading via Teacher Evaluation: The Case of the Missing Clothes? Educational Researcher. http://ecs.force.com/studies/rstudypg?id=a0r70000003ql6SAAQ

American Educational Research Association. (2016, Mar). Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. http://eepa.aera.net See also Di Carlo. M. (2015, Feb 25). Student Sorting and Teacher Classroom Observations. http://www.shankerinstitute.org/blog/student-sorting-and-teacher-classroom-observations and Garret, R., & Steinberg, M. P. (2015, May 21). Examining Teacher Effectiveness Using Classroom Observation Scores. http://epa.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/06/13/0162373714537551

Lavigne, A. L., & Good, T. L. (2015). Improving Teaching Through Observation and Feedback: Beyond State and Federal Mandates. New York: Routledge.

Devaney, L. (2016, Jan 19). Classroom Observations May Hurt Teachers More Than They Help, Study Says. eSchool News. http://www.eschoolnews.com/2016/01/19/classroom-observations-may-hurt-teachers-more-than-they-help-study-says/

DiCarlo, M. (2015, Dec 4). Evidence from a Teacher Evaluation Pilot Program in Chicago. http://www.shankerinstitute.org/blog/evidence-teacher-evaluation-pilot-program-chicago

DeWitt, P. (2016, Apr 19). The Myth of Walkthroughs: 8 Unobserved Practices in Classrooms. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/finding_common_ground/2016/04/the_myth_of_walkthroughs_8_unobserved_practices_in_classrooms.html

A Narrow Focus on Dismissing Teachers Detracts from Effective Improvement Measures
American Education Research Association and National Academy of Education. Getting Teacher Evaluation Right: A Brief for Policymakers. https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/publications/pubs/421

Thompson, J. (2015, Sep 10). The Rhino in the Room: Time to End Disruptive Reform. http://www.livingindialogue.com/the-rhino-in-the-room-time-to-end-disruptive-reform/

The New Teacher Project. (2013, Jul 30). The Irreplaceables: Understanding the Real Retention Crisis in America’s Urban Schools. http://tntp.org/publications/view/retention-and-school-culture/the-irreplaceables-understanding-the-real-retention-crisis

Knudson, J. (2013, Sep). You’ll Never Be Better Than Your Teachers: The Garden Grove Approach to Human Capital Development. http://eric.ed.gov/?q=source%3a%22California+Collaborative+on+District+Reform%22&id=ED557950 See also Tucker, M. (2016, Apr). How to Get a First-Rate Teacher in Front of Every Student. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/top_performers/2016/04/how_to_get_a_first-rate_teacher_in_front_of_every_student.html?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=top_performers

Sawhill, I. V. (2015, Sep 8). Does Money Matter? http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2015/09/08-does-money-matter-education-sawhill See also Jackson, C. K., Johnson, R. C., & Persico, C. (2015, Fall). Boosting Educational Attainment and Adult Earnings. http://educationnext.org/boosting-education-attainment-adult-earnings-schoolspending/

Ravitch, D. (2015, Oct 20). Indiana: Less Money, More Chaos. http://dianeravitch.net/2015/10/20/indiana-less-money-more-chaos/

Baker, B. (2012). Revisiting That Age Old Question: Does Money Matter in Education? http://eric.ed.gov/?q=Does+Money+Matter+in+Education&id=ED528632 See also Baker, B. (2016). Does Money Matter in Education? Second Edition. http://www.shankerinstitute.org/resource/does-money-matter and Spielberg, B. (2015, Oct 20). The Truth About School Funding. http://34justice.com/2015/10/20/the-truth-about-school-funding/

Leachman, M., Albares, N., Masterson, K., & Wallace, M. (2016, Jan 25). Most States Have Cut School Funding, and Some Continue Cutting. http://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/most-states-have-cut-school-funding-and-some-continue-cutting

Kane, T. J., Owens, A. M., Marinell, W. H., Thal, D. R. C., & Staiger, D. O. (2016, Feb). Teaching Higher: Educators’ Perspectives on Common Core Implementation. http://cepr.harvard.edu/teaching-higher See also Hull, S. J. (2015, Oct 14). Principals Matter—And They Need the Right Start. http://www.learningfirst.org/principals-matter-and-they-need-right-start?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LFA+%28Public+School+Insights%3A+What+is+WORKING+in+our+Public+Schools%29 and Center for Education Policy Research. (2014–16). Teaching Higher: Educator’s Perspectives on Common Core Implementation. http://cepr.harvard.edu/teaching-higher

Tucker, M. (2015, Aug 13). Organizations in Which Teachers Can Do Their Best Work: Part I. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/top_performers/2015/08/organizations_in_which_teachers_can_do_their_best_work_part_i.html

Tucker, M. (2015, Aug 20). Organizations in Which Teachers Can Do Their Best Work: Part II. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/top_performers/2015/08/organizations_in_which_teachers_can_do_their_best_work_part_ii.html

The Wallace Foundation. (2013, Jan). The School Principal as Leader: Guiding Schools to Better Teaching and Learning. http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Pages/The-School-Principal-as-Leader-Guiding-Schools-to-Better-Teaching-and-Learning.aspx

Superville, D. R. (2015, Oct 23). New Professional Standards for School Leaders Are Approved. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/District_Dossier/2015/10/new_professional_standards_for.html?r=608789257

Targeting the Lowest-Performing Schools with Closure and Other Drastic Measures Is Usually Ineffective
Miller, T. D., & Brown, C. (2015, Mar 31). Dramatic Action, Dramatic Improvement. Center for American Progress. http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-school-turnaround See also Burris, C. (2015, Sep 4). School Closures: A National Look at a Failed Strategy. http://www.networkforpubliceducation.org/2015/09/school-closures-a-national-look-at-a-failed-strategy-2/?can_id=012f354d90b87664b362dda6a4b2980d&source=email-school-closures-a-national-look-at-a-failed-strategy&email_referrer=school-closures-a-national-look-at-a-failed-strategy and American Institutes for Research and Mathematica Policy Research. (May 2015). Evaluation Brief: State Capacity to Support School Turnaround. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20154012/

Trujillo, T., & Renée, M. (2012, Oct 1). Democratic School Turnarounds: Pursuing Equity and Learning from Evidence. National Education Policy Center. http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/democratic-school-turnarounds

Aragon, S., & Workman, E. (2015, Oct). Emerging State Turnaround Strategies. Education Commission of the States. http://www.ecs.org/press-release-emerging-state-turnaround-strategies/ See also Felton, E. (2015, Oct 19). Are Turnaround Districts the Answer for America’s Worst Schools? http://hechingerreport.org/are-turnaround-districts-the-answer-for-americas-worst-schools/

Ehrenhalt, A. (2013, Oct). School Scandals Reveal the Problem with Grading Schools. Governing. http://www.governing.com/columns/col-school-scandals-reveal-testing-ignorance.html

Di Carlo, M. (2015, Jun). The Evidence on the “Florida Formula” for Education Reform. Albert Shanker Institute. http://www.shankerinstitute.org/resource/evidence-florida-formula-education-reform

Sparks, S. D. (2015, Oct 6). Studies Probe How Schools Widen Achievement Gaps. Education Week. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/10/07/schools-help-widen-academic-gaps-studies-find.html?r=258221469&cmp=eml-enl-eu-news1-RM

Klein, A. (2014, Sep 15). New Turnaround Options Detailed in Draft SIG Guidance. Education Week. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/09/17/04sig.h34.html

Fullan, M. (2011, Nov 17). Choosing the Wrong Drivers for Whole System Reform. http://education.qld.gov.au/projects/educationviews/news-views/2011/nov/talking-point-fullan-101117.html

Fiske, E. B., & Ladd, H. F. (2016, Feb 13). Learning from London About School Improvement. The News & Observer. http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article60118256.html

The Big Picture: Have High-Stakes Testing and Privatization Been Effective?

Leave a reply

The Big Picture
Have High-Stakes Testing and Privatization Been Effective?

by Bill Honig

More and more educators, parents, and community, political, and opinion leaders are becoming aware of the failure of high-stakes accountability based on reading and math test scores (Test-and-Punish) and the failure of privatization hailed as “choice, charters, and competition.” As a result, people are increasingly open to alternative strategies. A viable replacement is staring us right in the face. It is found in our most successful public and charter schools, districts, and states that adopted the more positive, engaging Build-and-Support agenda. This article examines the problem of low student performance and the flawed approach used by conventional reformers who support Test-and-Punish and market-driven solutions. It will summarize the evidence that documents the reform policies’ lack of success and describe the considerable collateral damage these policies have caused.

The Problem of Low Performance: Real or Hype?

The conventional school reform movement began as a response to the perceived low performance of our students. While the reformers’ solutions have been unsound, the problem is very real. Although student performance is currently at its highest level in our history, there is widespread agreement in this country that the increasing educational demands of the job market, the impact of global competition, and the need to preserve our democracy require a substantial improvement in student achievement in our schools and colleges and the narrowing of the performance gap between affluent and low-income, minority, or second-language children. Indisputably, there are excellent classrooms, schools, and districts across the United States. Moreover, there are hundreds of thousands of dedicated teachers, including those teaching in difficult circumstances, who day by day do a superb job with their students. As a result of their efforts, graduation rates and student performance have risen substantially in the past 20 years, although student performance has stalled recently as the harsh policies of the reform movement took hold. At the same time, no one disputes the fact that far too many dysfunctional classrooms, schools, and districts must be improved if students in those settings are going to have any chance at leading a productive life.

In order for our country to stay competitive, virtually every school and district in the US must continually focus on improvement. Some states and districts shine. Massachusetts, for example, outperforms just about every other nation in the world, and Long Beach Unified School District is one of the 20 best districts on the planet. Yet most other states and districts are lagging.

Distressing International Results

Currently, our youngsters significantly underperform students in other industrialized countries—seriously jeopardizing our democratic and economic future. Nor is it just our lower achievers who are lagging. According to one recent international assessment, the Programme for International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), recent US college graduates, students with some college, high school graduates, and high school dropouts are average compared to their global counterparts in terms of the practical applications of literacy, but they are near the bottom in numeracy and at the bottom in technical problem solving.

Similarly troubling are our low scores and declining growth on the 2012 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), given to 15-year-olds worldwide, especially as these scores relate to students’ math skills. Comparable results were found in the 2011 Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), which tested eighth graders in math and science. In its 2015 review of international assessments, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) found the US ranking 31st among 76 countries in basic math and science skills, with 23% of our students failing to reach rudimentary levels. The report foresaw a large economic payoff if we are able to improve these results. A recent summary by OECD found no improvement from 2003 to 2012 in the numbers of US students scoring as low performers in math and reading.

Do International Tests Fairly Reflect Socioeconomic Factors?

Analyzing international test results is complex. The failure to accurately account for higher levels of poverty in the US and lower family academic resources (FAR)—such as a mother’s educational level and books in the home—exaggerates our performance gap. In their October 2015 report, Bringing It Back Home, Carnoy, García, and Khavenson adjusted for FAR, which significantly narrowed the gap between the US and other nations, particularly at the lower socioeconomic levels. When our lowest FAR cohorts of students were compared to similar students, the gap closed substantially in both math and reading. However, such adjustments still left our students, on average, performing significantly below other comparable nations.

Overall, our students fared much better in reading than in math—scoring in the middle of other countries. In math, we considerably trailed many postindustrial countries, including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, compared to similar FAR cohorts, our middle-range students fell further behind other nations, and our more advantaged levels plunged. Even so, adjusted US TIMSS math scores grew from 1995 to 2011 by a hefty 0.5 standard deviation (SD), or one-half to one year’s added instruction. This growth rate, however, is not sufficient to catch up to many other countries, as they experienced greater increases at the middle and higher socioeconomic levels.

It is important to note that the PISA and TIMSS scores vary widely among US states. Some of our states, when adjustments for FAR are made, surpass results in the highest-performing nations. For example, on the PISA 2012 test, Massachusetts nearly matches Canada and Finland, two of the top-scoring countries in mathematics; matches Germany; and actually surpasses France and the United Kingdom. In reading, the Bay State outscores all nations but one—Korea. For a nuanced view of US national and international rankings on school performance, see the report by the Horace Mann League and the National Superintendents Roundtable.

Are International Tests Useful Measures of Achievement?

Many experts in the field of education question the value of international tests on the grounds that the tests do not measure important aspects of education such as depth of knowledge, interpersonal skills, drive, character, perseverance, ambition, creative thinking, and willingness to challenge accepted orthodoxy. Others contend that the tests are methodologically flawed, although that view has been widely challenged. Some analysts also point to the fact that the United States has traditionally scored in the middle of the industrialized countries yet has consistently outperformed those countries in actual economic growth and scientific innovation.

It is interesting to note that some educational leaders in high-scoring countries are warning us not to place too much emphasis on high test scores. In a recent statement, the deputy minister of education and training in Vietnam, which now places 12th in the world in the cited OECD report, cautions that many Vietnamese students have learned by rote, are unable to solve unique problems, do not have the interpersonal skills needed for work, and subsequently perform poorly in college and careers. For additional comments from educators in that country, see M. I. Hanoi’s article on The Economist website. For a critique of China’s test-driven system, see Diane Ravitch’s review of Yong Zhao’s book Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Dragon? Why China Has the Best (and Worst) Education System in the World.

It is worth noting that the previously mentioned PIAAC test, which shows US students underperforming, is primarily a problem-solving and application test and is thus arguably more predictive of adult performance. Also worrisome is the slowing growth in performance for our students in the middle and higher socioeconomic groups. Most troublesome is the large number of students failing to reach rudimentary levels. Given that jobs in the future will increasingly demand higher educational levels, it is essential that all students at least reach basic levels, which the international assessments do measure. Therefore, the results of these international assessments do matter, and they matter more now than ever.

Misguided Reform Policies

Consequently, today our country and its educators are faced with a major policy question: Which strategies have the best chance of rectifying our relatively low performance? Two different approaches are vying for acceptance—Test-and-Punish and Build-and-Support.

I can sympathize with the passion that drives reformers’ desire to crack down on low-performing schools and incompetent educators. There are certainly many distressing examples of malfunctioning or mediocre schools and classrooms. We should do everything in our power to address these problems. It is also true that there are individual teachers and entire school staffs who have given up striving for excellence and are merely marking time until retirement. Most are reacting to overwhelming problems: traumatized and alienated students, indifferent parents, a hostile political climate, inept leadership, and extremely high levels of stress. Many of these disaffected practitioners have become angry at their school conditions and constant public vilification. As a result, they resist improvement measures and urge their union representatives to be uncooperative and unyielding.

Unfortunately, many reformers have responded with a counterproductive solution—upping the ante by exerting more pressure on these disheartened, exhausted, or underperforming educators. There are much more effective ways to improve teacher and school performance, as exemplified by numerous schools that have managed to rekindle the professional energies of a demoralized staff and correct genuinely dreadful situations. These successful programs use a Build-and-Support approach that focuses on instruction, building trust, and creating effective teams.

I can also understand how anti-reformers fuel frustration when they downplay the idea that some schools are underperforming or the idea that many teachers and schools require substantial improvements. For an incisive rebuttal to those who assert that “schools are doing just fine,” see Grant Wiggins’s letter on the subject and Jai Mehta’s article. Reformers’ anger and frustration are understandable. But anger and frustration do not justify ill-advised approaches, especially when effective alternatives exist. To make matters worse, many reform measures have done little good and much harm.

Conventional reformers tend to base their improvement initiatives on a misguided belief in high-stakes testing and market-driven competition. For more than a decade, this two-pronged approach has produced only limited results. Yet these same reform measures have caused considerable collateral damage to schools and resulted in a disastrous drop in teacher morale and the appeal of teaching as a profession.

Reformers assume that schools will not improve by themselves and, therefore, will require external pressure in the form of high-stakes accountability based on standardized reading and mathematics test scores. Reform advocates assert that the best way to improve student performance is to fire the lowest-performing three to five percent of teachers; reward the superstars; encourage competition and disruption by expanding charter schools and choice; and close neighborhood schools with the lowest scores, or replace their staffs, or convert the schools into charter schools. In fact, many reformers promote wholesale privatization of public education by replacing public schools with charters or with private schools funded by vouchers. For a decade since the passage of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), these proposals have been put into practice on every level—nationally, in most states, and in many districts.

Until recently, the federal government and a multitude of states and school districts have heavily promulgated this reigning get-tough-on-teachers-and-schools dogma and the belief in the power of market-based competition, choice, and charters. In December 2015, Congress repealed NCLB and the Race to the Top expansion sponsored by the Obama administration. The new Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) ameliorated some of the more extreme measures of the reform movement sponsored nationally and is a welcome course correction. ESSA shifts much decision making to the states and local levels, so that is where the debate on which way to improve our schools will now primarily occur. Although there is a growing shift away from the “reform” agenda, discredited proposals continue to be supported by far too many political and opinion leaders, wealthy individuals, editorial boards, think tanks, and well-funded organizations. This support persists in spite of the evidence from the most successful districts and states such as Massachusetts and now California, which have adopted an instructionally driven, supportive approach that is grounded in modern management techniques of engagement. For more about exemplary districts and states, see Exemplary Models of Build-and-Support.

Since a mainstay of reform policy is to hold schools accountable for improving test results, it is only fair to judge the reform movement by how well it improved student performance on tests—live by the scores, die by the scores. Admittedly, a once-a-year standardized test only offers a limited measure of student learning, but reformers have had no compunction about using those test results to fire teachers, close schools, and privatize entire districts. Thus, in fairness, they cannot reasonably object to using the same criteria to evaluate their reforms.

Meager National Results

Much to the reformers’ chagrin, their strategies have produced only meager results, though this lack of success has not tempered their advocacy. In the 1990s, the overall average scores of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), our well-respected national score card, revealed a slow but steady rise in student performance. That was before the enactment of the national No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation in 2001, which established the primacy of high-stakes accountability.

After the passage of NCLB, the growth of NAEP scores slowed. During the past few years the adoption of punitive “reform” measures has intensified, fully supported and required by the Obama administration. Since 2009, as test-based teacher evaluations have spread and harsh consequences for failure to meet unattainable goals have been triggered, gains in NAEP scores have essentially halted. In contrast, our most successful districts and the highest-performing nations have continued to improve by adopting a more supportive strategy.

NAEP relies on student samples unconnected to individual teachers or particular schools. Thus, the test cannot be linked to accountability systems and carries no consequences for low performance. Consequently, NAEP is one of the most accurate tests of student achievement, albeit a limited measure. The test avoids artificially inflated results that are generally associated with high-stakes testing. In those cases, results are skewed by damaging behaviors such as spending excessive time on test preparation and outright gaming of the system. The NAEP processes of sampling and lack of consequences also minimize curriculum narrowing for test prep purposes and its deleterious effects on deeper learning and broader instruction. Here are the results from the most recent period. Nationwide, 12th-grade 2013 NAEP reading and mathematics scores were unchanged from 2009. Since 2009, fourth-grade scores were also flat for mathematics and increased only two points in reading; eighth-grade scores increased only one point in reading and declined one point in math.

Equally concerning is the fact that our students are performing significantly below students in industrial countries and are continuing their slide. In 2012, results from Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) show declines from the already low 2007 levels: a six-point decrease in math, four points in reading, and five points in science. See also the Welner and Mathis policy memo for a recent summary of the lack of improvement in student achievement during the proliferation of the more severe reform measures. Similar disappointing results were documented worldwide for countries that pursued test-driven high-stakes accountability systems and competition strategies.

Finally, the gap between high-income and low-income students has substantially increased in the past 25 years due to rising income inequality and, according to one scholar, has widened 30–40%. Gary Sasso writes:

As the income disparity has increased, so has the educational achievement gap. According to Sean F. Reardon, professor of education and sociology at Stanford University, the gap for children from high- and low-income families is at an all-time high—roughly 30 to 40 percent larger among children born in 2001 than among those born 25 years earlier.

High school graduation rates are another measure used to gauge school effectiveness. From 2011 to 2014, these have inched up from 79% to 82%, although they are still falling further behind our competitors. This rise was most likely caused by a combination of efforts initiated by schools, credit recovery strategies for students not qualifying for graduation (some of which are questionable), changing attitudes of students stemming from the increasingly dismal outlook for high school nongraduates, and a more realistic assessment of the importance of educational attainment by low- income, minority, and immigrant families. California, which did not pursue a Test-and-Punish strategy, actually rose at a rate that was higher than the national increase. Furthermore, our country’s college graduation rates are also slipping behind those of many industrial nations.

Another disconcerting finding is that in many urban districts the gap is increasing between low-income, English-language learners, and minority students and other students. This is particularly the case in districts pursuing large-scale expansion of charter schools and “reform strategies.” Similarly, Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores, one of the two major college entrance exams, have tumbled in the past five years—dropping seven points in 2015 alone. ACT scores, the other major college entrance exam, were flat. The drop in SAT scores cannot be explained by changes in the composition of the test takers or the increasing numbers of students who are taking the test.

To be fair, primarily in the early millennial years, there were some positive changes in instruction due to increased pressure from accountability efforts and the availability of test results for neglected subgroups. These changes translated to increases in fourth- and eighth-grade mathematics scores. Also, contrary to conventional opinion, international tests showed our lowest-performing students catching up to but still significantly behind their FAR cohorts in the top-performing countries, while our top students had stalled. In the mid-2000s, we also saw a recovery from a severe dip in the number of students qualified for college, returning to a 40% level in math and reading—about where we were in 1998.

These increases in NAEP scores, however, were more sporadic than in the decade before high-stakes test-driven accountability became widespread. After NCLB, there were no NAEP score increases at 12th grade and no increases for reading, and overall they seem to have ceased during the recent era of more stringent reforms. Some growth was masked by the Simpson paradox where overall scores can be flat while each subgroup is improving due to a change in the mix of students—more lower-scoring minority or second-language students. Even taking this paradox into account, most of the growth statistics for each subgroup were minimal after 2009, except for the growth demonstrated by Hispanic students in reading.

In stark contrast to the disappointing national scores, during the same period many districts, states, and countries had significant gains in reaching higher average scores or increases in proficiency levels on NAEP. That is because they followed a broader, more supportive approach. For an in-depth discussion of this Build-and-Support approach in action, see the series of companion articles How Top Performers Build-and-Support.

Collateral Damage Caused by Reform

Whatever limited growth resulted from tough accountability measures, it has been overshadowed by the deleterious effects high-stakes test accountability has had on instruction, teacher efficacy, and morale. In addition to lackluster test scores, reform initiatives have led to a severe narrowing of the curriculum due to their focus on high-stakes math and reading tests. Superficial teaching to the test, at the expense of deeper learning, has proliferated. For a scholarly treatment of the concept of deeper learning, see the work of Jal Mehta and Sarah Fine Maggie Lampert, and Mike Amarillas’s blog post.

History, science, humanities, art, and other crucial subjects have been decimated. The Council of the Great City Schools report (2015) found that increases in testing time did not improve instruction but did cause significant collateral damage. For more on this topic, see the FairTest report and the excellent book The Test: Why Our Schools Are Obsessed with Standardized Testing—But You Don’t Have to Be, written by Anya Kamenetz.

Perverse accountability incentives have encouraged teachers and administrators to game the system by devoting inordinate time to test preparation, concentrating only on students near cutoff points, and, in some tragic cases, outright cheating. In many states, reformers have promoted unfair, unproven reward-and-punishment tools, which have discouraged collaboration among teachers, thwarted the building of effective teams, and caused a severe drop in morale. Finally, reform nostrums have diverted attention from, de-emphasized, or belittled Build-and-Support policies that can actually produce substantial results.

Have Individual Components of Reform Worked?

Not only has the reform movement failed to produce results overall, but reputable evaluations of individual reform measures such as turnaround schools, charter schools, merit pay, or test-based school and teacher accountability have either found nonexistent or trivial effects. See the series of companion articles Why Conventional School “Reforms” Have Failed for a detailed discussion of the reasons these measures failed to produce results.

Even when small gains are detected, the gains are substantially below the improvements brought about by the initiatives at the heart of Build-and-Support. To put these findings in perspective, a full standard deviation (1.0 SD) difference in test performance translates to between one and two years of additional instruction. Analyses of reform efforts with increases reveal inconsequential effect sizes of 0.05 to 0.15 SD, which is substantially below programs that actually work. These meager results did not dissuade the reform community from trumpeting the reported increases as major breakthroughs.

In his meta-analysis of 150,000 research studies involving 250 million students, John Hattie lists the effect size of 150 of the most popular school improvement interventions. He found several programs near or above the 1.0 SD level, though it is important to note that 0.4 of that level was expected yearly growth. Among the effective practices were visible learning—making children’s thinking and understanding transparent and enlisting students in the educational process, 1.44 SD; formative evaluation—getting timely information on how well a student is progressing, 0.9 SD; response to instruction—early intervention after good first teaching, 1.07SD; and classroom discussion, 0.82 SD.

Many other measures were close to the 1.0 SD range, which is several times the minimal effect size of 0.04 to 0.05 SD found for urban charter schools compared to their public school counterparts according to a Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) study. Perhaps most importantly, Hattie found that the largest gains were produced by improvement efforts that focused on developing collaboration, team building, and continuous improvement capacity. He calls this “The Power of Collaborative Expertise.”

Many of the high-scoring programs and ideas are integral to the Build-and-Support strategy and staples of the active classroom instructional approach called for in the Common Core State Standards. These measures offer a clear rebuttal to the claims that the only way to improve public education is through governance reforms such as charters and the competitive pressure they engender or high-stakes accountability based on tests. Of the 150 improvement strategies evaluated, charter schools were 114 on the list, in the bottom range of Hattie’s effect size with almost no advantage over expected normal growth.

Alyson Lavigne and Thomas Good conducted an extensive review of the efficacy of reform measures such as turnaround schools and merit pay. In their 2014 book, Teacher and Student Evaluation: Moving Beyond the Failure of School Reform, they report finding either insignificant gains or no effect at all. Likewise, Grover Whitehurst discovered small increases of between 0.05 and 0.15 SD gains for some reform strategies and no gains for many others. He compared these small improvements to the much larger boosts achieved by programs such as dropout prevention (1.0 SD) and excellent early reading phonics programs (0.8 SD). He also points to the What Works Clearinghouse, which lists a raft of programs with effect sizes many multiples of those found for charter schools, turnaround schools, or merit pay.

This article has supported the contention that while we have much to do to improve our schools, the “reform agenda” was not the right medicine and has not produced results. The series of companion articles Why Conventional School “Reforms” Have Failed explains why this agenda has been unsuccessful.

A Tale of Two Cities

Two New Jersey school districts provide powerful examples of the difference between Test-and-Punish and Build-and-Support. Union City, New Jersey, undertook extremely effective but low-key school improvement measures. The success of its Build-and-Support approach is chronicled in David L. Kirp’s recent book, Improbable Scholars: The Rebirth of a Great American School System and a Strategy for America’s Schools. Just seven miles away, the Newark, New Jersey, district implemented a “reform strategy” that was highly disruptive to schools and communities and had minimal positive outcomes for students. After five years of a very public and controversial school improvement effort, Newark’s experiment was unsuccessful. For a complete account of what went wrong, see The Prize: Who Is in Charge of America’s Schools? by Dale Russakoff, and for an illuminating contrast of the two approaches see an article by David L. Kirp, “How to Fix the Country’s Failing Schools: And How Not To.”

School leaders in Union City, New Jersey, followed an incremental, basic approach concentrating on long-term improvement of instruction through strong content, team and trust building, collaboration, and continual reevaluation. Student achievement rose substantially as did teacher and community engagement. From being on the brink of a state takeover in 1989 due to low performance, by 2014, 89% of Union City students were graduating from high school in four years. Across the grades, test scores have nearly caught up to those of suburban New Jersey students, who are among the top performers in the US. A recent report by Stanford researchers Reardon, Kalogrides, and Shores found a strong correlation between socio-economics and student performance as well as connections between levels of segregation and opportunity gaps. A few districts substantially beat the odds. Union City was one.

An abstract of Kirp’s Improbable Scholars provides a cogent summary of the lessons learned from Union City:

No school district can be all charismatic leaders and super-teachers. It can’t start from scratch, and it can’t fire all its teachers and principals when students do poorly. Great charter schools can only serve a tiny minority of students. Whether we like it or not, most of our youngsters will continue to be educated in mainstream public schools.

The good news, as David L. Kirp reveals in Improbable Scholars, is that there’s a sensible way to rebuild public education and close the achievement gap for all students. Indeed, this is precisely what’s happening in a most unlikely place: Union City, New Jersey, a poor, crowded Latino community just across the Hudson from Manhattan. The school district–once one of the worst in the state–has ignored trendy reforms in favor of proven game-changers like quality early education, a word-soaked curriculum, and hands-on help for teachers. When beneficial new strategies have emerged, like using sophisticated data crunching to generate pinpoint assessments to help individual students, they have been folded into the mix.

The results demand that we take notice–from third grade through high school, Union City scores on the high-stakes state tests approximate the statewide average. In other words, these inner city kids are achieving just as much as their suburban cousins in reading, writing, and math. What’s even more impressive, nearly ninety percent of high school students are earning their diplomas and sixty percent of them are going to college. Top students are winning national science awards and full rides at Ivy League universities. These schools are not just good places for poor kids. They are good places for kids, period.

The experience in Newark is in stark contrast to the success in Union City. Current US senator Cory Booker, then the Democratic mayor of Newark, joined forces with New Jersey’s Republican governor Chris Christie and persuaded Mark Zuckerberg to donate $100 million. Another $100 million of matching contributions were made. The reformers’ goal was to make Newark a national model of high-stakes accountability and the market-driven reform agenda—test-based teacher and school evaluation with rewards and punishments, large-scale expansion of charters, and the closure of underperforming public schools.

Newark had been taken over by the state previously. Booker and Christie, with advice from a small group of state reform leaders and donors, hired Cami Anderson as superintendent. At the time, Anderson had limited school management experience but was a staunch supporter of reform. Under her leadership, expensive consultants were hired and decisions were made with virtually no transparency. Test-and-Punish was ardently pursued. Anderson did hire some effective principals, and many dedicated educators in the district recommitted themselves to improving low-performing schools. However, fiscal mismanagement and a top-down management style frustrated their efforts.

Initially, Anderson opposed the wholesale conversion of public schools to charters, viewing that effort as detrimental. Her focus was on building up low-performing schools rather than closing them, albeit with a management style that excluded and alienated teachers and principals. Unfortunately, Anderson eventually succumbed to pressure from Christie, Zuckerberg, and her reform advisors, who believed that public schools would never perform, could not be improved, and therefore should be replaced by charters. The district closed large numbers of neighborhood schools, disrupting communities, children, and families and draining needed improvement resources from the remaining public schools. Anderson rightly complained that she was “expected to turn Newark’s public schools into a national model, yet as children left for charters—and state funds followed them—she would be continually closing schools and dismissing teachers, social workers, and guidance counselors.”

Some Newark charters performed well, but on the whole the majority of students wound up in worse schools farther from home. Christie did not help matters when he slashed public school funds and supported increased resources for charters. The project in Newark was a bust. Five years after it began, student gains were minimal but parents and an entire community were left seething. Educators in Newark were utterly demoralized. A chastened Zuckerberg then switched philosophies, investing $120 million in low-income Bay Area schools that were committed to pursuing a more collaborative and supportive approach.

BBS Companion Articles

Why Conventional School “Reforms” Have Failed
Reformers Target the Wrong Levers of Improvement
Teacher and School Evaluations Are Based on Students’ Test Scores
Charter Schools Are Not the Key to Improving Public Education
Four Nostrums of Conventional School Reform
Reformers Allowed Their Rhetoric to Be Hijacked
How Top Performers Build-and-Support
Ground Efforts in Unassailable Research
Provide Engaging Broad-Based Liberal Arts Curriculum
Provide High-Quality Instruction
Build Teams and Focus on Continuous Improvement
Provide Adequate School Funding
Lessons Learned from Successful Districts
Exemplary Models of Build-and-Support

Reference Notes

The Problem of Low Performance: Real or Hype?
Carnoy, M., García, E., & Khavenson, T. (2015, Oct 30). Bringing It Back Home: Why State Comparisons Are More Useful Than International Comparisons for Improving U.S. Education Policy. Economic Policy Institute. http://www.epi.org/publication/bringing-it-back-home-why-state-comparisons-are-more-useful-than-international-comparisons-for-improving-u-s-education-policy/

Distressing International Results
Goodman, M. J., Sands, A. M., & Coley, R. J. (2015). America’s Skills Challenge: Millennials and the Future. Educational Testing Service. http://www.ets.org/s/research/29836/

Barshay, J. (2013, Dec 3). Top US Students Fare Poorly in International PISA Test Scores, Shanghai Tops the World, Finland Slips. http://educationbythenumbers.org/content/top-us-students-fare-poorly-international-pisa-test-scores-shanghai-tops-world-finland-slips_693/

Hanushek, E.A., & Woessmann, L. (2015). Universal Basic Skills: What Countries Stand to Gain. OECD. http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/education/universal-basic-skills_9789264234833-en#page1

Sparks, S. D. (2016, Feb 10). OECD: U.S. Efforts Haven’t Helped Low Performers on Global Math, Reading Tests. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/inside-school-research/2016/02/OECD_American_efforts_low_performers.html?cmp=eml-enl-eu-news2-RM

Do International Tests Fairly Reflect Socioeconomic Factors?
Carnoy, M., García, E., & Khavenson, T. (2015, Oct 30). Bringing It Back Home: Why State Comparisons Are More Useful Than International Comparisons for Improving U.S. Education Policy. Economic Policy Institute. http://www.epi.org/publication/bringing-it-back-home-why-state-comparisons-are-more-useful-than-international-comparisons-for-improving-u-s-education-policy/

The Horace Mann League and the National Superintendents Roundtable. (2015, Jan). School Performance in Context: Indicators of School Inputs and Outputs in Nine Similar Nations. The Horace Mann League and the National Superintendents Roundable. http://www.hmleague.org/fullreport/

Are International Tests Useful Measures of Achievement?
Strauss, R. (2013, Feb 1). Do International Test Scores Matter? Renewing America. http://blogs.cfr.org/renewing-america/2013/02/01/education-do-international-test-scores-matter/ See also Tucker, M. (2016, Nov 19). The Iceberg Effect: A Reply to James Harvey and Charles Fowler. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/top_performers/2015/11/the_iceberg_effect_a_reply_to_james_harvey_and_charles_fowler.html and Ravitch, D. (2013, Dec 3). My View of the PISA Scores. https://dianeravitch.net/2013/12/03/my-view-of-the-pisa-scores/ and Tucker, M. (2015, Nov 24). ESEA reauthorization and Standards: A Chance to Do It Right. Top Performers. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/top_performers/2015/11/

Thanhnien News. (2013, Dec 7). Vietnam Deputy Education Minister Not Convinced by Global Test. Thanhnien News. http://www.thanhniennews.com/education-youth/vietnam-deputy-education-minister-not-convinced-by-global-test-18276.html

Hanoi, M. I. (2013, Dec 12). Very Good on Paper: Education in Vietnam. http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2013/12/education-vietnam

Ravitch, D. (2014, Nov 20). The Myth of Chinese Super Schools. The New York Review of Books. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/nov/20/myth-chinese-super-schools/

National Governors’ Association. (2013–2014). America Works: Education and Training for Tomorrow’s Jobs: The Benefits of a More Educated Workforce to Individuals and the Economy. National Governors Association Chair’s Initiative. http://www.nga.org/cms/home/nga-center-for-best-practices/center-publications/page-other-publications/col2-content/main-content-list/america-works-the-benefit-of-a-m.html

Misguided Reform Policies
Hart, M. (2015, Jul 6). Research: Collaboration Is Key for Teacher Quality. The Journal. http://thejournal.com/articles/2015/07/06/research-collaboration-is-key-for-teacher-quality.aspx

Wiggins, G. (2013, Oct 23). Is Significant School Reform Needed or Not?: An Open Letter to Diane Ravitch (and Like-Minded Educators). https://grantwiggins.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/is-significant-school-reform-needed-or-not-an-open-letter-to-diane-ravitch-and-like-minded-educators/

Mehta, J. (2014, Jul 18). Five Inconvenient Truths for Traditionalists. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/learning_deeply/2014/07/five_inconvenient_truths_for_traditionalists.html

Meager National Results
Ratner, G. M. (2015, Feb 11). Independent Test Results Show NCLB Fails. Fair Test. http://www.fairtest.org/independent-test-results-show-nclb-fails

The Nation’s Report Card. (2013). Are the Nation’s Twelfth-graders Making Progress in Mathematics and Reading? http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_g12_2013/#/

Burns, D., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2014, Dec 18). Teaching Around the World: What Can TALIS Tell Us? Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/publications/pubs/1295

Welner, K. G., & Mathis, W. J. (2015, Feb 12). Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act: Time to Move Beyond Test-Focused Policies. National Education Policy Center. http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/esea

Masters, G. N. (2014, Dec). Is School Reform Working? Australian Council for Educational Research. http://research.acer.edu.au/policyinsights/1/

Reardon, S. F. (2013, Apr 27). No Rich Child Left Behind. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/27/no-rich-child-left-behind/?_r=1

Sasso, G. M. (2016, Jan 7). To the 1 Percent Pouring Millions into Charter Schools: How About Improving the Schools That the Vast Majority of Students Actually Attend? http://www.salon.com/2016/01/07/to_the_1_percent_pouring_millions_into_charter_schools_how_about_improving_the_schools_that_the_vast_majority_of_students_actually_attend/

Ujifusa, A. (2015, Dec 15). National Graduation Rate Increases to All-Time High of 82 Percent. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2015/12/national_graduation_rate_incre.html?cmp=eml-enl-eu-news2-RM

Pondiscio, R. (2016, Jan 13). The Phoniest Statistic in Education. http://edexcellence.net/articles/the-phoniest-statistic-in-education?mc_cid=6794bd3d0d&mc_eid=ebbe04a807

Brounstein, K., & Yettick, H. (2015, Feb 24). Rising Graduation Rates: Trend or Blip? Education Week. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/02/25/rising-graduation-rates-trend-or-blip.html?cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS2

DeArmond, M., Denice, P., Gross, B., Hernandez, J., Jochim, A., & Lake, R. (2015, Oct). Measuring Up: Educational Improvement and Opportunity in 50 Cities. Center on Reinventing Public Education. http://www.crpe.org/publications/measuring-educational-improvement-and-opportunity-50-cities

Strauss, V. (2015, Sep 8). What the New SAT Scores Reveal About Modern School Reform. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/09/08/what-the-new-sat-scores-reveal-about-modern-school-reform/

DiCarlo, M. (2015, Dec 4). Evidence from a Teacher Evaluation Pilot Program in Chicago. http://www.shankerinstitute.org/blog/evidence-teacher-evaluation-pilot-program-chicago

Carnoy, M., & Rothstein, R. (2013, Jan 28). What Do International Tests Really Show about U.S. Student Performance? Economic Policy Institute. http://www.epi.org/publication/us-student-performance-testing/

Petrilli, M. J., & Finn, C. E., Jr. (2015, Apr 8). College Preparedness Over the Years, According to NAEP. http://edexcellence.net/articles/college-preparedness-over-the-years-according-to-naep

The Nation’s Report Card. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/

Masters, G. N. (2014, Dec). Is School Reform Working? Australian Council for Educational Research. http://research.acer.edu.au/policyinsights/1/

Collateral Damage Caused by Reform
Mehta, J., & Fine, S. (2015, Dec). The What, Where and How of Deeper Learning in American Secondary Schools. Jobs for the Future. http://www.jff.org/publications/why-what-where-and-how-deeper-learning-american-secondary-schools

Lampert, M. (2015, Dec). Deeper Teaching. Jobs for the Future. http://www.jff.org/publications/deeper-teaching

Amarillas, M. (2016, Feb 4). Deeper Learning, Metacognition, and Presentations of Learning. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/learning_deeply/2016/02/deeper_learning_metacognition_and_presentations_of_learning.html?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=learningdeeply

Hart, R., Casserly, M., Uzzell, R., Palacios, M., Corcoran, A., & Spurgeon, L. (2015, Oct). Student Testing in America’s Great City Schools: An Inventory and Preliminary Analysis. Council of the Great City Schools. http://cgcs.org/site/default.aspx?PageType=3&ModuleInstanceID=312&ViewID=7B97F7ED-8E5E-4120-848F-A8B4987D588F&RenderLoc=0&FlexDataID=2146&PageID=257

Fair Test. (n.d.). Reports: High Stakes Testing Hurts Education. http://fairtest.org/reports-high-stakes-testing-hurts-education See also Švigelj-Smith, M. (2015, Feb 5). The High Cost of High-Stakes-Testing: (Spoiler Alert! It Hurts Students with Disadvantages the Most!) https://msvigeljsmith.wordpress.com/2015/02/05/the-high-cost-of-high-stakes-testing-spoiler-alert-it-hurts-students-with-disadvantages-the-most/

Kamenetz, A. (2015). The Test: Why Our Schools Are Obsessed with Standardized Testing—But You Don’t Have to Be. New York: PublicAffairs/Perseus Book Group.

Have Individual Components of Reform Worked?
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. New York: Routledge.

Center for Research on Education Outcomes. (2015). Urban Charter School Study: Report on 41 Regions. Stanford University. http://urbancharters.stanford.edu/summary.php

Hattie, J. (2015, Jun 16). What Works Best in Education: The Politics of Collaborative Expertise. Australian Policy Online. http://apo.org.au/resource/what-works-best-education-politics-collaborative-expertise See also Hirsh, S. (2015, Nov 18). Leverage the Power of Collaborative Expertise. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/learning_forwards_pd_watch/2015/11/leverage_the_power_of_collaborative_expertise.html?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=learningforwardspdwatch

Lavigne, A.L., & Good, T.L. (2014). Teacher and Student Evaluation: Moving Beyond the Failure of School Reform. New York and London: Routledge, See also three excellent books on the failure of the “reform” program: Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America’s Public Schools. New York: Alfred A. Knopf; Ravitch, D. (2010). The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education. New York: Basic Books; and DuFour, R. (2015). In Praise of American Educators and How They Can Become Even Better. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Whitehurst, G. J. (2009, Oct). Don’t Forget Curriculum. Brookings. http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2009/10/14-curriculum-whitehurst

What Works Clearinghouse. U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/

A Tale of Two Cities
Kirp, D. L. (2013). Improbable Scholars: The Rebirth of a Great American School System and a Strategy for America’s Schools. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Russakoff, D. (2015). The Prize: Who’s in Charge of America’s Schools? Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Kirp, D. L. (2016, Jan 9). How to Fix the Country’s Failing Schools: And How Not To. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/opinion/sunday/how-to-fix-the-countrys-failing-schools-and-how-not-to.html?ref=opinion&_r=1

Berwick, C. (2013, Apr 1). Can the Model for Urban School Reform Be Found in Union City, New Jersey? https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/can-the-model-for-urban-school-reform-be-found-in-union-city-nj

Goldman School of Public Policy. (2013). Abstract of Kirp, D. Improbable Scholars: The Rebirth of a Great American School System and a Strategy for America’s Schools. https://gspp.berkeley.edu/research/selected-publications/improbable-scholars-the-rebirth-of-a-great-american-school-system-a-strateg

Cramer, P. (2015, Sep 10). When an Outsider Arrives to Shake Up a School System, a Tightrope Walk Follows. http://ny.chalkbeat.org/2015/09/10/when-an-outsider-arrives-to-shake-up-a-school-system-a-tightrope-walk-follows/#.VlFOETZdE2w

Nocera, J. (2015, Sep 8). Zuckerberg’s Expensive Lesson. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/opinion/joe-nocera-zuckerbergs-expensive-lesson.html?ref=todayspaper See also Weber, M. (2015, Sep 8). Book Review: “The Prize” by Dale Russakoff. http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com/2015/09/book-review-prize-by-dale-russakoff.html?m=1. For another thoughtful analysis of Russakoff’s book, see Thompson, J. (2015, Oct 10). Will Reformers Learn a Lesson from Newark? Dale Russakoff’s “The Prize” Could Help. http://www.livingindialogue.com/will-reformers-learn-a-lesson-from-newark/

The Big Picture: The Three Goals of Public Education

2 Replies

The Big Picture
The Three Goals of Public Education

by Bill Honig

In the public debate about school improvement, we rarely step back to consider a crucial underlying question: What do we want for our children? There is a tendency among reformers to view job preparation as the primary goal of education, ignoring the vital role it plays in promoting democracy and developing well-rounded individuals. Obviously, career readiness is important, but we should adopt two other central goals in educating young people: to spur their active civic participation and to enable them to lead full lives made rich by learning. All three of these goals are equally valid.

Goal 1: Job Preparation

National and international tests have shown that our country has much work to do if we are to stay competitive and fulfill the promise of good jobs awaiting students upon graduation. For more about the problem of low performance, see Have High-Stakes Testing and Privatization Been Effective?

The Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy; the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics; and the frameworks, curricula, and materials based on these standards have identified college and career preparation as a primary goal of public education. Yet it is important to recognize that math and reading scores offer only limited information about a student’s readiness for college and career. Other subject areas are equally important, as are twenty-first-century skills like communication, collaboration, and creativity, particularly in solving unique problems. Also essential are the inter- and intrapersonal skills of perseverance, social intelligence, and knowing how to learn.

The Common Core State Standards; the new Next Generation Science Standards; and recent standards-based mathematics, language arts, science, and history-social studies frameworks have all begun to encourage the broadening of instruction. New standards and frameworks also emphasize the importance of being well read and having deep knowledge across disciplines. These supporting documents now incorporate the practices of problem solving, explanation, modeling, written and oral communication and discussion, and collaboration.

Goal 2: Active Civic Participation

Things are more dismal on the education-for-democracy front. Many reformers have so enshrined the importance of choice, privatization, and job preparation that they ignore the widely accepted purposes that have traditionally sustained free, public education in this country. From the very beginning of our experiment in democracy, from early champions like Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams, civic education and nation building were major reasons people supported public schools. They were, after all, called “free common schools”; people widely endorsed the ideal of all students having a shared sense of national identity. Unfortunately, this view of education has recently fallen on hard times. Leon Botstein, president of Bard College, has written a splendid article on this point. For more on the subject, also see the report coauthored by Stanford professor William Damon and the wonderful section on the history of public education in Dana Goldstein’s book, The Teacher Wars: A History of America’s Most Embattled Profession. See also the opinion piece in The Seattle Times by former US representative George R. Nethercutt Jr. on some of the bipartisan national efforts encouraging civic engagement.

Currently, several national efforts are under way that focus on revitalizing civic education. Among these are the iCivics organization, founded by retired US Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O’Connor and the Campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools, which produced an excellent report, Guardian of Democracy: The Civic Mission of Schools. The report identifies six proven practices of effective civic education:

Classroom Instruction Provide engaging instruction in civics and government, history, economics, geography, law, and democracy that goes beyond rote memorization.
Discussion of Current Events and Controversial Issues Incorporate discussion of current events and issues—local, national, and international—especially those that are relevant to students’ lives.
Service-Learning Design and implement programs that provide students with the opportunity to apply what they learn through performing community service linked to the formal curriculum and classroom instruction.
Extracurricular Activities Give students opportunities to work together toward common goals outside the classroom.
School Governance Help students learn responsibility by giving them a voice in the management of their schools and classrooms.
Simulations of Democratic Processes Encourage students to participate in simulations of democratic processes and procedures such as formal debates, voting, mock trials, or Model United Nations.

Aligned with these six research-based practices, the History-Social Science Framework for California Public Schools has been designed to make civic education relevant and meaningful for young people. My colleagues and I recognize that each generation must be persuaded of the benefits of democracy and the need to guard against the erosion of its principles and protections. Understanding how our democracy evolved is a crucial educational goal. The framework has many suggestions for making abstract concepts concrete—free speech, press, and religion; free, fair elections, and a broad franchise; due process; and the rule of law. Students grasp the importance of these constitutional guarantees when they are examined in the context of the historic abuses they remedied. The framework gives equal weight to examples from world history in which human rights were systematically destroyed by totalitarian governments such as those headed by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, and Pol Pot—despots who overthrew or ignored democratic rule with terrible consequences for their populations and the world. The framework also calls for students to learn about current dictators who squelch democratic development or impose authoritarian rule.

Making civic education relevant is particularly important when discussing current events and controversial issues. If we want students to become involved and register to vote when they are 18, schools must help them understand how their act of voting contributes to preserving our democracy. I witnessed an interesting example of this need during a visit to an inner-city 12th-grade class in Sacramento. When I asked how many were 18, about two-thirds of the 30 students raised their hands. This is how the conversation unfolded:

“How many of you 18-year-olds are registered to vote?” Only two raised their hands.

“Why not,” I asked the others.

“Because it doesn’t matter.”

Given that it is extremely rare for a contest to be won by a single vote, the students were too streetwise and too savvy to believe the shibboleth that one person’s vote could determine the outcome of an election. I agreed but offered a counterargument. Voting is a collective pact with fellow citizens, especially those who want the same things you want. If members of your group all agree to vote, then your positions will be better represented; if you stay home, people with different interests will certainly prevail.

The students thought my argument made sense, but they said no one had made that case to them before. This perfectly illustrates the need for convincing the next generation that it takes their personal involvement to sustain a democracy. At the close of the Constitutional Convention, a woman approached Benjamin Franklin to ask him what sort of government the delegates had proposed—a monarchy or a republic. Franklin responded: “A republic, Madam, if you can keep it.” That sentiment is just as true today.

Florida is among several states that have passed bipartisan legislation supporting efforts that bolster civic education. In California, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson sponsored the California Task Force on K–12 Civic Learning, which produced a blueprint for action in the state and a follow-up Power of Democracy website. I was privileged to serve on the task force. Key players from the group are now organizing county committees composed of educators, political representatives, and business leaders to advocate for greater inclusion of civic education in schools. Civic education needs to be reinstated as a major aim of our schools.

Goal 3: Leading a Full Life

Discussion of the third important purpose of education—to enrich every child’s life—has virtually disappeared from public discussion about schooling. Historically, it was one of the major rationales for providing a liberal education for all in the sense of helping students reach their potential and develop crucial character traits. Fareed Zakaria recently offered a detailed explication of this idea in his book In Defense of a Liberal Education. See also the previously cited section in Goldstein’s The Teacher Wars.

Daniel DeNicola contends that a liberal education has transformative power. In his Learning to Flourish: A Philosophical Exploration of Liberal Education, he interprets it through the lens of five paradigms:

Transmission of our culture since cultural ideas, literature, stories, and our core values are potent tools to help our children live a richer, more rewarding life, build character, and assist them in becoming what used to be called “a good person”
Self-actualization or helping each student reach his or her potential and develop unique talents and interests
Understanding how the world works and how the people in it interact, especially in the area of developing perspective
Engagement with the world, which includes the type of democratic participation discussed earlier, and encouragement of both individual and collective participation; and
The skills of learning including self-monitoring, working in groups, being able to judge the quality and reliability of information, and understanding how different disciplines view the world

DeNicola combines these five into the general goal of helping each student learn to flourish. Evaluating school quality based solely on the results of reading and math tests distracts us from this worthy aim. In his book, DeNicola also rebuts critics of the liberal arts who negatively influence educator and public attitudes by claiming, among other things, the illegitimacy of a common cultural heritage.

MindShift, the always thought-provoking website sponsored by KQED in San Francisco, recently published an article about Scott Seider’s book Character Compass: How Powerful School Culture Can Point Students to Success. The article explains how Seider determined which character education strategies had the greatest success: “Seider gave students at all three schools a character survey at the beginning of the school year and again at the end with questions meant to measure empathy, integrity (strengths he defines as moral character), perseverance, daring/courage (which he defines as performance character), social responsibility and school connectedness (which he defines as ethical character).” Seider found that perseverance and school connectedness produced the best results.

Marc Tucker, president of the National Center for Education and the Economy, is another eloquent advocate for a broader approach to public education. In a blog, he explains why economic preparation is not enough:

But I want much more than that [education for jobs]. I want graduates who have a good command of the great sweep of history, who not only know what happened at critical junctures in history but who understand the interplay of factors that produced those turning points and can draw from that understanding of history the implications for the conflicts and choices the United States must now deal with. I want students who understand how and why liberty and freedom developed in some societies and not others, how fragile that achievement can be and what it takes to preserve freedom and democratic government when it is under attack. I want students who are not only familiar with the greatest works of art that humans have ever created, but have also gained the skills needed to create art and play music themselves. I want students who are good not just at solving problems someone else has defined for them, but who can frame problems for themselves in forms that make those problems solvable. I want graduates who will take the initiative and get it done without the need of detailed supervision. I want students who are good team members and good leaders. I want students who know the difference between right and wrong and who will do what is right whether or not anyone is looking. I want students who can think for themselves, who can think out of the box, who can look at a complex problem and solve it by bringing to bear an angle of vision on that problem that is fresh and original. I want graduates who are eager to learn from others but not cowed by authority. I want graduates who are not afraid to be wrong, but who work hard at getting it right. I want students who are not only tolerant of others who are different but who value those differences. I want graduates who set high standards for themselves and never give up until they reach them. I want students who are ambitious but will stop to help others who need help. I want graduates who think of themselves not as consumers but as contributors.

The idea of broadening educational goals has become much more widespread. If we were to use all three goals of education as the drivers of school improvement efforts, our approach to building better schools would shift dramatically. Recognizing that the true measures of success go beyond scores on tests has significant implications. It means we must adopt proven strategies to upgrade curriculum, enhance classroom instruction, rethink assessments, and altogether re-envision accountability.

Recent Developments

7/30/2016 Character and moral education should be an important part of our children’s education. http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/07/students-broken-moral-compasses/492866/

BBS Companion Article

The Big Picture
Have High Stakes Testing and Privatization Been Effective?

Reference Notes

Goal 2: Active Civic Participation

Botstein, L. (2015, Spring). Are We Still Making Citizens? Democracy 36. http://www.democracyjournal.org/36/are-we-still-making-citizens.php?page=2

Rigoglioso, M. (2013, Nov 26). Schools Not Inspiring Students to Participate in Civic Life, Stanford Scholar Says. Stanford News. http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/november/civics-education-report-112613.html

Goldstein, D. (2014). The Teacher Wars: A History of America’s Most Embattled Profession. New York: Doubleday.

Nethercutt Jr., G. (2016, Mar 13). Civic Knowledge and Engagement Are Critical to Our Republic. The Seattle Times. http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/civic-knowledge-and-engagement-are-critical-to-our-republic/

iCivics. https://www.icivics.org/

Gould, J. (ed.). (n.d.). Guardian of Democracy: The Civic Mission of Schools. Campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools. http://www.civicmissionofschools.org/the-campaign/guardian-of-democracy-report

California Department of Education. (2016, Jun). History-Social Studies Framework for California Public Schools (Draft). http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/hs/cf/sbedrafthssfw.asp

California Task Force on K-12 Civic Learning. (2014, Aug). Revitalizing K–12 Civic Learning in California: A Blueprint for Action. California Bar Foundation. http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/civicedinitiative.asp

Power of Democracy. http://www.powerofdemocracy.org/

Goal 3: Leading a Full Life

Zakaria, F. (2015). In Defense of a Liberal Education. New York: W. W. Norton.

DeNicola, D. R. (2012). Learning to Flourish: A Philosophical Exploration of Liberal Education. New York and London: Continuum/Bloomsbury.

Schwartz, K. (2016, Feb 1). What Character Strengths Should Educators Focus On and How? http://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2016/02/01/what-character-strengths-should-educators-focus-on-and-how/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+kqed%2FnHAK+%28MindShift%29

Seider, S. (2012). Character Compass: How Powerful School Culture Can Point Students Toward Success. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Tucker, M. (2016, Oct 8). What Does It Mean to Be an Educated Person Today? http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/top_performers/2015/10/what_does_it_mean_to_be_an_educated_person_today.html?r=1667465392 See also a must-read article by Robert Pondiscio about the importance of historical, cultural, and civic knowledge: Pondiscio, R. (2016, Jan 19). Ten Things Every American Should Know. http://edexcellence.net/articles/ten-things-every-american-should-know?utm_source=Fordham+Updates&utm_campaign=a03b3a8a64-012415_LateLateBell1_21_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d9e8246adf-a03b3a8a64-71491225&mc_cid=a03b3a8a64&mc_eid=ebbe04a807 For an account of how regressive governors are taking the opposite position and cutting funds for liberal arts at the college level, see Cohen, P. (2016, Feb 21). A Rising Call to Promote STEM Education and Cut Liberal Arts Funding. The New York Times. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/business/a-rising-call-to-promote-stem-education-and-cut-liberal-arts-funding.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share&_r=1&referer See also Tucker, M. (2015, Apr 30). How Should We Gauge Student Success? The Accountability Dilemma. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/top_performers/2015/04/how_should_we_gauge_student_success_the_accountability_dilemma.html

Why Conventional School “Reforms” Have Failed: The Reformers Target the Wrong Levers of Improvement

Leave a reply

Why Conventional School “Reforms” Have Failed
The Reformers Target the Wrong Levers of Improvement

by Bill Honig

The school reform movement has failed to produce results overall, and reputable evaluations have shown that individual reform measures also have proved to be ineffective. Turnaround schools, charter schools, merit pay, and test-based school or teacher accountability have had either nonexistent or trivial effects. In his book Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement, John Hattie (2008) writes that even when reforms produce small gains, they fall far below the improvements brought about by validated initiatives.

Reformers have operated under an extremely unsophisticated view of the educational landscape and how best to influence it. This causes two fundamental errors. First, they target their improvement efforts on a limited and weak set of levers for change. Secondly, they undertake solutions that have either little or no basis in research or experiential support.

Reformers fundamentally misunderstand how schools and districts work. They have primarily focused their efforts on indirect structural changes and governance reforms—limiting the power of teachers’ unions and scaling back workplace protections, using threats and incentives to pressure teachers and administrators, and promoting competition by expanding charter schools. These strategies fail to appreciate the complex factors that impact school quality and the appropriate places to focus improvement efforts. Other direct and more powerful leverage points have been shown to influence educational performance more than those areas traditionally targeted by reformers.

Factors That Impact School Quality and Student Achievement

Schools are complicated. Among the factors that influence school quality and student achievement are:

individual teachers and all the potential influences on those teachers including the type of content they provide, their pedagogical practice, and their level of engagement
members of the school community who are responsible for resource allocation, team building, and developing capacity for continuous improvement—the principal, key teachers, parents, and community leaders
parents’ role in supporting their child’s education
the district—superintendent, staff, and board—which hires teachers and principals, establishes curricular guidelines and creates curriculum, adopts materials, provides professional development and other supports for schools and teachers, allocates broad resources, defines accountability, involves the community, and ideally creates a positive climate
the state apparatus—the governor, state school boards, and the legislature—which funds schools, adopts standards and curricular frameworks, administers special programs, sometimes reviews instructional materials, approves charter schools, establishes state accountability systems, and provides social supports for needy children
the federal government, which influences all these actors through the requirements of numerous federal programs such as the strict conditions that were mandated by the now-repealed No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the Individual Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), or even the new more flexible Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
poverty levels and range of social support systems
several more key stakeholders such as schools of education, textbook publishers, the research community, the blogosphere, think tanks, opinion makers, and political leaders

Any successful improvement effort must include strategies to improve the performance of each of these major stakeholders and, crucially, engage them in working toward a common goal. This requires a much more positive, comprehensive, and considered approach than the school reform community has offered thus far. An example of comprehensive policy can be found in Greatness by Design (2012), which was developed for California by Tom Torlakson, the state superintendent of public instruction. He formed a prestigious commission chaired by Linda Darling-Hammond, one of the most respected school improvement researchers in the country, and Chris Steinhauser, superintendent of the Long Beach Unified School District, which was designated one of the top districts in the world. The resulting policy document is a superb example of the more supportive and comprehensive strategy needed.

Another example of this more sophisticated approach is the excellent guide pertaining to professional development found in the Learning Policy Institute’s (2015) publication Maximizing the Use of New State Professional Learning Investments. An example of policy that addresses all the necessary components of reform at the district level is the Leadership Planning Guide California, which was produced by the California Consortium for the Implementation of the Common Core State Standards. These topics are fully covered in Lessons Learned from Successful Districts.

Individual Reform Initiatives Are Based on Misguided Assumptions

Even when reformers’ Test-and-Punish and Choice, Charters, and Competition strategies are directed at weak leverage points, their individual measures must still succeed and avoid causing extensive collateral damage. Unfortunately, the specific measures in the reform playbook rely on discredited and faulty assumptions about the best ways to improve schools. This is why these individual reforms have produced limited or nonexistent results.

The rest of this article focuses on two of the faulty assumptions of the school reform movement: the belief that threats, pressure, and incentives work and the use of standardized math and reading test scores as the most important measures of student learning. For a detailed discussion of the lack of overall success of conventional reform initiatives, see Have High-Stakes Testing and Privatization Been Effective?

Threats and Pressure Are Not Effective

One major fallacy underlying the “reform” strategy is the flawed assumption that teachers and administrators do not care about improving educational performance and will not try to improve unless they are threatened or pressured by positive and negative incentives. This is often communicated in a politically seductive way: “It is unconscionable that many low-income students are failing. Schools and teachers must be held accountable.” Yet, while the sentiment is superficially appealing, pressure usually backfires.

Almost all school staffs want to do the best job possible. As professionals, they desire to perfect their performance and improve student achievement, but they do not necessarily possess the strategic or tactical know-how to accomplish those goals. Many work in extremely difficult school situations—bereft of capacity-building resources and student social supports such as health clinics, isolated from collaborating with other teachers, and lacking structures and techniques to help them grow professionally. The fear engendered by high-stakes accountability makes the situation worse by narrowing the curriculum, focusing on test preparation to the detriment of deeper learning, gaming the system, discouraging collaboration, and increasing widespread disaffection. A more productive strategy relies on a positive, engaging approach and concentrates on developing the leadership and infrastructure to bolster continuous improvement efforts of all teachers at a school.

The punitive strategy of Test-and-Punish has little evidentiary support and only meager backing from questionable research conducted by a few economists. For example, Milton Friedman and Eric Hanushek have argued that improvement will occur only if strong incentives push schools and districts to upgrade. Reformers have leaned heavily on those ideas—advocating the necessity of competition, consequences, and high-stakes evaluation.

However, the belief that positive or negative incentives work has been thoroughly discredited by a long history of findings that show such strategies do not produce improved student performance. In 2010, the National Research Council released Incentives and Test-Based Accountability in Education, a report edited by Michael Hout and Stewart Elliot. Hout and Elliot reviewed the research on incentives, specifically whether positive incentives such as bonuses for teachers or negative incentives such as threats of dismissal had any positive effect. They found that these policies did not produce improvements in student achievement nor bring about changes in instruction.

Fifty years ago, W. Edwards Deming warned of the negative side effects of an overreliance on evaluation strategies. Fear tends to make employees disengage, narrow their efforts, or game the system so they appear compliant. It diverts attention from and diminishes motivation to participate in developing cooperative teams and structures for continuous improvement. This ruinous situation is well known in the social sciences and articulated as Campbell’s law as explained by Diane Ravitch (2012):

The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor.

A New York Times opinion piece by Robert Wachter (2016), a prominent physician, reinforces the point that emphasis on evaluation of teachers, or doctors, actually causes more harm than good.

Incentive Schemes Sabotage Collaboration

Specifically, reliance on incentive schemes hampers or diverts attention from collaboration—one of the main strategies for improving school performance. In fact, in The Missing Link in School Reform (2011), Carrie Leana argues that collaboration at the school site is the most powerful strategy for improving instruction. She found that instructional conversation and help from fellow teachers outweigh all other improvement initiatives. Professor Leana calls into question school reforms that pursue test-driven rewards and punishments. Since, according to Professor Leana, only about an estimated five percent of US schools are actually managed this way, the unrealized potential in expanding this approach far outweighs other strategies. Team building around powerful instruction and curriculum should be one of our major priorities. She also emphasizes that this approach requires:

training principals how to promote collaboration and holding them accountable for it
building the infrastructure to support instructional improvement and team building
striving to get more talented people into our schools
avoiding rhetoric and policies that make collaboration more difficult

Esther Quintero (2015), a management expert, has published a series of articles on the crucial importance of building social capital. In addition to being ineffective, pressure and illegitimate negative incentives lower morale and undermine positive working conditions at the school site—another key component of successful school improvement. A post by John Papay and Matthew Kraft (2015) summarized the research on the importance of a positive professional environment:

An emerging body of research now shows that the contexts in which teachers work profoundly shape teachers’ job decisions and their effectiveness. Put simply, teachers who work in supportive contexts stay in the classroom longer, and improve at faster rates, than their peers in less-supportive environments. And, what appear to matter most about the school context are not the traditional working conditions we often think of, such as modern facilities and well-equipped classrooms. Instead, aspects that are difficult to observe and measure seem to be most influential, including the quality of relationships and collaboration among staff, the responsiveness of school administrators, and the academic and behavioral expectations for students.

In conclusion, increasing accountability pressure on schools has not produced the promised results and has sabotaged the very collaboration and engagement necessary for improvement.

Standardized Tests Are Not the Best Measures of School or Teacher Quality

Another major defect in school reform thinking is the misplaced faith that a one-time annual snapshot offered by a multiple-choice test in math and language arts is the best, or even an accurate, way to gauge school or teacher performance. These widely used tests do have a legitimate role—if used sparingly. They can feed back to schools, districts, or even individual teachers identifying potential areas that need improvement or confirming that the school is on the right track. Standardized tests do give some sense of where a school or district ranks with comparable jurisdictions, and they do provide crucial sub-group information for low-income, minority, learning-disabled, or ELL students. But these expensive, ubiquitous assessments are one of the least useful measures for improving instruction and performance, and they come with huge educational costs, especially when they are tied to evaluation or reward schemes.

To begin with, testing only math and reading (and a smidgeon of science) ignores important areas of instruction—history, civics, humanities, the arts, physical education, and most of science. It also devalues other central aims of education. The result has been a considerable narrowing of instruction and a constricted view of educational purposes. For a broader perspective on educational purposes, see The Three Goals of Public Education.

Another limitation of these large-scale tests is that scores almost wholly mirror the income levels and special needs of a school’s students, which raises the question: “What is being tested?” Even within math and language arts, the end-of-year general tests currently used for school and teacher accountability usually emphasize limited, basic skills. Thus, the tests encourage teachers to neglect the deeper learning required for highly educated students, which can only be assessed by measures like essays, complex applications, and performances.

Moreover, there are much better ways to provide schools and teachers the data they need to improve instruction. Most teachers know how their students are doing. Utilizing teacher judgment of performance, enhanced by locally administered formative assessments, is a much more powerful strategy.

Essays, end-of-unit, and end-of-course tests, performances, experiments, certificates of mastery, projects, extracurricular activities, and portfolios are all more helpful than existing state or national tests. These authentic performance assessments provide a richer array of information that goes beyond content knowledge to application. They also assess important life skills such as perseverance, the ability to work in groups, communication skills, and self-monitoring. The Innovation Lab Network Performance Assessment Project at Stanford, the New Hampshire Performance Assessment Network, and the New York Performance Assessment Consortium are good sources of these types of assessments. Linda Darling-Hammond and her colleagues (2014) have written an excellent thought piece on the subject, and Stanford sponsors the Performance Assessment Resource Bank, which identifies the best K–12 performance tasks in math, English language arts, science, and history-social studies.

Regrettably, although formative, authentic assessments provide the best data to assist in improving instruction, conventional school reformers have not embraced them. There is the perception that the assessment instruments are not independent enough for high-stakes accountability. This may be due to a misplaced distrust of teachers and educators or because the assessments are viewed as too expensive, time consuming, and subject to manipulation. The new nationwide Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) and Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) tests, which many states gave in 2015, are an improvement from previous tests. Still, to provide a more accurate picture of student achievement, their results need to be substantially augmented by the classroom and school measures I’ve described.

More importantly, too much emphasis on tests for accountability purposes ignores other gauges of school effectiveness such as graduation rates, course taking, honors, extracurricular activities, career preparation, and student and teacher engagement. So whether or not test scores improve or lag, they only partially measure how students are doing, and they are not informative enough to sufficiently evaluate the effectiveness of schools or teachers. The new Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) passed in 2015, which replaced NCLB and Race to the Top, allows states to use a much broader array of assessment measures.

In Mission High: One School, How Experts Tried to Fail It, and the Students and Teachers Who Made It Triumph, Kristina Rizga (2015) chronicles how measuring school effectiveness by test scores alone can lead to harmful conclusions. Diane Ravitch reviewed Rizga’s book in “Solving the Mystery of the Schools” (2016) in The New York Review of Books. Ravitch comments:

Mission is a “failing school” because it has low test scores. When Rizga [the author] first entered Mission in 2009, it was one of the lowest-performing schools in the nation, as judged by standardized test scores. And yet, contrary to the test scores, 84 percent of its graduates were accepted to college, and other indicators were positive.

Rizga followed several students who had recently moved to the US and who consequently scored low on standardized tests while making substantial academic progress.

In her review, Ravitch explains:

One of the six students Rizga followed closely, an immigrant from El Salvador named Maria, asked her, “How can my school be flunking when I’m succeeding?” Maria arrived at Mission High School knowing no English. After only one year in the U.S., she had to take the same state tests as other students.

Kristina Rizga writes:

By eleventh grade she was writing long papers on complex topics like the war in Iraq and desegregation. She became addicted to winning debates in class . . . . In March 2012 Maria and her teachers celebrated her receiving acceptance letters to five colleges, including the University of California at Davis, and two prestigious scholarships.

Ravitch sums up:

Rizga devotes chapters to the students she gets to know well, who blossom, as Maria did, as a result of their interactions with dedicated Mission teachers. She also devotes chapters to teachers who devote themselves to their students with intense enthusiasm. What the teachers understand that reformers . . . do not is that human relationships are the key to reaching students with many economic and social problems.

Rizga realized that standardized test scores are not the best way to measure and promote learning. Typically, what they measure is the demographic profile of schools. Thus, schools in affluent white suburbs tend to be called “good” schools. Schools that enroll children who are learning English and children who are struggling in their personal lives have lower scores and are labeled “failing” schools. Hundreds, if not thousands, of such schools have closed in the past decade. . . .

Ravitch gives Rizga the final word:

Some of the most important things that matter in a quality education—critical thinking, intrinsic motivation, resilience, self-management, resourcefulness, and relationship skills—exist in the realms that can’t be easily measured by statistical measures and computer algorithms, but they can be detected by teachers using human judgment. America’s business-inspired obsession with prioritizing “metrics” in a complex world that deals with the development of individual minds has become the primary cause of mediocrity in American schools.

In conclusion, using test scores alone can easily misrepresent the performance of a school. Focusing on limited, basic-skills tests and attaching potential high-stakes consequences to them cause substantial harm to instruction, engagement, and student performance.

As discussed in Have High-Stakes Testing and Privatization Been Effective?, test-driven threats and incentives lead to narrowing of the curriculum, devoting inordinate time and resources to test preparation, concentrating on those students just below cut-points, gaming the system, and discouraging collaboration among teachers. This is all to the detriment of good instruction and deep, lasting student learning.

A Council of the Great City Schools (2015) report found that increases in testing time did not improve instruction but did cause significant collateral damage. For a heart-wrenching testament to the devastation done by the US obsession with test-driven education, read The Test: Why Our Schools Are Obsessed with Standardized Testing—But You Don’t Have to Be by Anya Kamenetz (2015).

In 2015, President Obama and former secretary of education Arne Duncan issued a “mea culpa.” They cautioned against over-testing and the harm caused by too much attention to standardized tests. President Obama stated, “Learning is about so much more than filling in the right bubble,” and he called for “tests to be high-quality, a limited part of the curriculum, and just one measurement of a student’s progress.”

In a letter to Arne Duncan, Georgia state school superintendent Richard Woods aptly described our system of test-based accountability:

Our broken model of assessment is too focused on labeling our schools and teachers, and not focused enough on supporting our students. Our current status quo model is forcing our teachers to teach to the test. We need an innovative approach that uses tests to guide instruction, just as scans and tests guide medical professionals. Oftentimes, we hear teachers called professionals because they have the knowledge and skill set to reach the needs of their individual students, yet in our accountability measures we have not supported or given value to diagnostic tools and tests that teachers need to fully utilize that knowledge or those skills. We must find a balance between accountability and responsibility.

Resistance to over-testing has been gathering steam in many local districts and states and at the national level as exemplified in the spreading opt-out movement. Unfortunately, testing still looms large in the daily life of most teachers and students. Simply reducing the time devoted to the administration of standardized tests does not repair the damage caused by spending inordinate instructional time on test preparation, narrowing the curriculum, or the questionable use of test scores for high-stakes personnel decisions.

Recent Developments

7/30/2016 Consistent with the failure of pay for performance efforts in education, such schemes also are problematic for hospitals. http://harvardmagazine.com/2016/06/are-hospital-pay-for-performance-programs-failing

BBS Companion Articles

The Big Picture
The Three Goals of Public Education
Have High Stakes Testing and Privatization Been Effective?
How Top Performers Build & Support
Lessons Learned from Successful Districts

Reference Notes

Hattie, J. (2008). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. London: Routledge.

Factors That Impact School Quality and Student Achievement
Tom Torlakson’s Task Force on Educator Excellence. (2012). Greatness by Design: Supporting Outstanding Teaching to Sustain a Golden State. California Department of Education. http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/ee.asp

Bishop, J., Darling-Hammond, L., & Jaquith, A. (2015, Nov). Maximizing the Use of New State Professional Learning Investments To Support Student, Educator, and School System Growth. https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/publications/pubs/1394

Consortium for the Implementation of the Common Core State Standards. (2013, Oct). Leadership Planning Guide California: Common Core State Standards and Assessments Implementation. California County Superintendents Educational Service Association (CCSESA). http://www.scoe.net/castandards/Pages/default.aspx

Individual Reform Initiatives Are Based on Misguided Assumptions
Threats and Pressure Are Not Effective
Hout, M. & Elliott, S. W., eds. (2011). Incentives and Test-Based Accountability in Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12521

Gabor, A. (2014, Nov 15). Lessons for Education Reformers from W. Edwards Deming, America’s Leading Management Thinker. http://andreagabor.com/2014/11/15/lessons-for-education-reformers-from-w-edwards-deming-americas-leading-management-thinker/

Ravitch, D. (2012, May 25). What Is Campbell’s Law? http://dianeravitch.net/2012/05/25/what-is-campbells-law/

Wachter, R. M. (2016, Jan 16). How Measurement Fails Doctors and Teachers. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/opinion/sunday/how-measurement-fails-doctors-and-teachers.html?_r=1

Incentive Schemes Sabotage Collaboration
Leana, C. R. (2011, Fall). The Missing Link in School Reform. http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/the_missing_link_in_school_reform/

Quintero, E. (2015, May 21). Trust: The Foundation of Student Achievement. http://www.shankerinstitute.org/blog/trust-foundation-student-achievement

Papay, J. P., & Kraft, M. A. (2015, May 28). Developing Workplaces Where Teachers Stay, Improve, and Succeed. http://www.shankerinstitute.org/blog/developing-workplaces-where-teachers-stay-improve-and-succeed

Standardized Tests Are Not the Best Measures of School or Teacher Quality
Tienken, C. (2015, May 7). Predictable Results. http://christienken.com/2015/05/07/predictable-results/

Nehring, J. (2015, Aug 26). We Must Teach for “Range” and “Depth.” http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/08/26/we-must-teach-for-range-and-depth.html?cmp=eml-enl-eu-news2-RM

Haq, H. (2016, Jan 20). Harvard Study Says SATs Should Be Optional. Here’s Why. The Christian Science Monitor. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2016/0120/Harvard-study-says-SATs-should-be-optional.-Here-s-why In a Harvard Study, it has been shown that grades are actually a better predictor of college success than the state tests being used, or even SAT or ACT scores.

Innovation Lab Network Performance Assessment Project. https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/projects/1188

NH Performance Assessment Network. http://education.nh.gov/assessment-systems/

New York Performance Standards Consortium. http://performanceassessment.org/

Darling-Hammond, L., Wilhoit, G. & Pittenger, L. (2014). Accountability for College and Career Readiness: Developing a New Paradigm. Education Policy Analysis Archives 22 (86). http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1724

Performance Assessment Resource Bank. http://www.performanceassessmentresourcebank.org/

Rizga, K. (2015). Mission High: One School, How Experts Tried to Fail It, and the Students and Teachers Who Made It Triumph. New York: Nation Books. http://www.missionhighbook.com/

Ravitch, D. (2016, Mar 24) Solving the Mystery of the Schools. The New York Review of Books. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/03/24/solving-the-mystery-of-the-schools/

Council of the Great City Schools. (2015). Student Testing in America’s Great City Schools: An Inventory and Preliminary Analysis. http://www.cgcs.org/site/default.aspx?PageType=3&ModuleInstanceID=312&ViewID=7B97F7ED-8E5E-4120-848F-A8B4987D588F&RenderLoc=0&FlexDa

Kamenetz, A. (2015). The Test: Why Our Schools Are Obsessed with Standardized Testing—but You Don’t Have to Be. New York: PublicAffairs.

Serrano, R. A. (2015, Dec 17). Obama Proposes Capping Standardized Testing at 2% of Classroom Time. The Los Angeles Times. http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-na-obama-testing-policy-20151024-story.html See also Emma, C. (2015, Oct. 24). Education Department: Too Much Testing, Partly Our Fault. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/education-department-too-much-testing-215131?utm_source=News+and+Updates+from+NCEE&utm_campaign=62476d01c8-TopPerformers_TooMuchTesting&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4cd9241b4a-62476d01c8-337853085

Downey, M. (2015, Jan 27). Georgia School Chief to Feds: Stop the “Measure, Pressure, and Punish” Approach. The Atlantic Journal Constitution. http://getschooled.blog.myajc.com/2015/01/27/georgia-school-chief-to-feds-stop-measure-pressure-and-punish-approach/#__federated=1

Tucker, M. (2015, Oct 27). Too Much Testing in U.S. Schools: The Department of Education’s “Mea Culpa.” http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/top_performers/2015/10/too_much_testing_in_us_schools_the_department_of_educations_mea_culpa.html

Designed and Developed by Pointline.net

The California Context California Policymakers and Educators Shift from Test-and-Punish to Build-and-Support

Ensuring Adequate Funding Levels

Adopting a Rigorous, Standards-Based Liberal Arts Curriculum

Delivering High-Quality Instruction

Useful California Content Frameworks and Support Documents

Creating Useful and Fair Accountability Systems

Engaging Stakeholders

Resisting High-Stakes Testing

How California Avoided the Push-Back Against the Common Core

Build-and-Support Is Working in California

Meeting the Challenges of Diversity and Underfunding

Career Tech Pathways

Recent Developments

Reference Notes

How Top Performers Build-and-Support Provide an Engaging Broad-Based Liberal Arts Curriculum

Why the Common Core State Standards Are So Important

Why Support the Common Core State Standards?

The Crucial Role of Content Frameworks

Useful California Content Frameworks and Support Documents

The Common Core State Standards Are Not a Curriculum

Resources for Developing a Coherent Scope & Sequence

The Role of Core Basal Programs

Improved Mathematics Instruction

More Comprehensive and Engaging Language Arts

History, Civics, Economics, Geography, Humanities, and the Fine Arts

Science

Other Crucial Student Learning

BBS Companion Articles

Reference Notes

Why Conventional School “Reforms” Have Failed Four Nostrums of Conventional School Reform

Major Problems with Teach for America (TFA)

How About Merit Pay?

Is Test-Based Retention Effective?

Is Technology Innovation Key to School Improvement?

Summing Up: The Failure of Conventional Reform

Recent Developments

BBS Companion Articles

Reference Notes

Why Conventional School “Reforms” Have Failed Teacher and School Evaluations Are Based on Test Scores

Firing Teachers Based on Students’ Test Scores Is Not the Answer

Teacher Quality: Putting the Issue in Perspective

Tests Are Not Reliable Measures of Teacher Performance

Evaluations Based on Test Scores Misidentify Teachers

Examples of Test-Based Evaluations That Fail Exemplary Teachers

Other Flaws in Test-Based Evaluation Systems

Test-Based Evaluations Do Not Measure Good Teaching and Harm the Profession

A More Effective Approach to Teacher Evaluation

Does Dismissing Incompetent Teachers Improve Student Outcomes?

Can Evaluations by Principals Fix the Problems of Test-Based Accountability?

A Narrow Focus on Dismissing Teachers Detracts from Effective Improvement Measures

Targeting the Lowest-Performing Schools with Closure and Other Drastic Measures Is Usually Ineffective

Recent Developments

BBS Companion Articles

Reference Notes

The Big Picture Have High-Stakes Testing and Privatization Been Effective?

The Problem of Low Performance: Real or Hype?

Distressing International Results

Do International Tests Fairly Reflect Socioeconomic Factors?

Are International Tests Useful Measures of Achievement?

Misguided Reform Policies

Meager National Results

Collateral Damage Caused by Reform

Have Individual Components of Reform Worked?

A Tale of Two Cities

BBS Companion Articles

Reference Notes

The Big Picture The Three Goals of Public Education

Goal 1: Job Preparation

Goal 2: Active Civic Participation

Goal 3: Leading a Full Life

Recent Developments

BBS Companion Article

Reference Notes

Why Conventional School “Reforms” Have Failed The Reformers Target the Wrong Levers of Improvement

Factors That Impact School Quality and Student Achievement

Individual Reform Initiatives Are Based on Misguided Assumptions

Threats and Pressure Are Not Effective

Incentive Schemes Sabotage Collaboration

Standardized Tests Are Not the Best Measures of School or Teacher Quality

Recent Developments

The California Context
California Policymakers and Educators Shift from Test-and-Punish to Build-and-Support

How Top Performers Build-and-Support
Provide an Engaging Broad-Based Liberal Arts Curriculum

Why Conventional School “Reforms” Have Failed
Four Nostrums of Conventional School Reform

Why Conventional School “Reforms” Have Failed
Teacher and School Evaluations Are Based on Test Scores

The Big Picture
Have High-Stakes Testing and Privatization Been Effective?

The Big Picture
The Three Goals of Public Education

Why Conventional School “Reforms” Have Failed
The Reformers Target the Wrong Levers of Improvement