The Education Gadfly Weekly

Michael Casserly
Council of the Great City Schools
March 2006

This is the Sixth Edition of "Beating the Odds," an ongoing analysis of how Great City Schools (i.e., schools in the nation's 66 largest urban districts) are doing in their efforts to improve student performance and shrink achievement gaps. And there's good news to share-these traditionally troubled, urban schools are making progress. "Over 80 percent of the Great City School districts have improved math scores in grades 3-10 since 1999-2000. Over 70 percent of the large cities, moreover, have improved faster than their respective states in grades 3-8." The story is similar but less dramatic for reading results. But don't jump up and down just yet. The data have a number of flaws-eleven, at least, by the report's account. Among them: 1) assessment data cannot be compared across states, because each state test is different; 2) the report didn't test the statistical significance of state test score growth rates; and 3) the report doesn't attempt to adjust for varying degrees of difficulty that state tests display. We'll add another: the state tests might be getting easier over time. What the report does do, however, is compare rising state test scores in Great City Schools with each city's state scores to determine if GCS schools are improving faster than non-GCS schools in their respective states. It also compares the gains on test scores to NAEP, specifically the Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA), which tested several large cities similar to those that are part of Great City Schools. The TUDA data also show improvements, though less impressive. Despite all the report's flaws, there's substantial use of raw data. The report isn't definitive, but still worth a look. Read it here.

National Association of Secondary School Principals
2006

This large guidebook for principals-which gives sundry suggestions (structural, administrative, pedagogical) for reviving struggling middle schools-has a catch-all feel. Parts will appeal to those who decry middle school as an academic graveyard; parts will appeal to those whose focus is the emotional and social development of middle school students. Therefore, principals who use this guide must be discerning. The first of its nine Cornerstone Strategies is to establish rigorous academics, and it offers detailed suggestions for using data to enhance teaching and to assess (collaboratively, not competitively) teachers. The book is filled with checklists, self-tests, Ask the Experts interviews, and recommendations. Some are sound and based on accountability systems. Other tips are more traditional, though perhaps still useful-for example: "To creatively use existing time," principals should seek "parent volunteers, older students, and so on to produce manipulatives, copies, laminates, and other class materials," and "pay expert teachers during the summer to develop ‘curriculum tubs' that include well-developed concept-based lessons in key content areas. Place the materials in plastic tubs in a central location, so they can be checked out by any teacher." Unfortunately, some of the volume's fluff advice (teachers should be "adept at acting as coaches and facilitators to promote more active involvement of students in their own learning") is apt to cause more academic problems than it can hope to remedy. This book is vast, so it offers both good, data-driven suggestions, but also much "touchy-feely" advice. Overall, though, the document manages to stress content, assessment, and data-a welcome sign in middle school literature. You can order a copy here.

Beginning in the 2007-2008 school year, states will be required to test students in science at least once in elementary, middle, and high school as part of No Child Left Behind. But as the law now stands, schools won't face consequences for poor results. President Bush wants to change that, and he has quietly come out in favor of basing adequate yearly progress on math, reading, and science scores as part of his competitiveness agenda. Congress looks to be moderately receptive to the president's proposal, though is unlikely to act until the law's reauthorization. Others citizens are more enthusiastic. Eighth-grade science teacher Inez Liftig, who supports holding schools accountable in her subject, said, "Because science is not a mandated item, it gets pushed to the end of the day." What's true for science is also true for history-policymakers should add both subjects at the same time lest the core curriculum itself become history.

"Bush wants schools to progress in science," by Ben Feller, Associated Press, March 29, 2006

In the West Contra Costa Unified School District (near San Francisco), some 500 seniors have repeatedly failed the California High School Exit Exam and may not graduate. But if school board Trustee David Brown gets his way, those kids will receive high school diplomas anyway. Brown has floated a proposal-a board vote is scheduled for April 10-that would grant diplomas to all West Contra Costa students who have satisfied all graduation course requirements and passed the California exit exam or "an alternative assessment designed by local officials and graded subjectively." Were Brown to get his way, West Contra Costa would, of course, be in complete violation of the law. The state's education department has rightly responded by notifying the district's superintendent that should the board pass such a proposal, a court date won't be far off. Forget for a moment the specious arguments about exit exams "demoralizing" students, and concentrate instead on the example that Brown and his allies are setting for Golden State youngsters. If at first you don't succeed... break the law. We say: take the school board and send them straight to jail.

"School board to vote on defying exit exam law," by Simone Sebastian, San Francisco Chronicle, April 5, 2006

"48, 000 students still out in the cold," by Laurel Rosenhall, Sacramento Bee, March 29, 1996

Phil Rynearson of Rochester, Minnesota, is working to raise student achievement and decrease students' waist-lines-simultaneously. He's using a program developed by the Mayo Clinic's Dr. James Levine (who also created an office of the future where white-collar folks work kinetically), which forces students to stand at podiums, sit on exercise balls, or lie on mats while learning. Technology is integrated, too: Students are hooked up to iPods and computers, and to calorie-measuring leg sensors. "I don't like standing," says Mariah Matrious, "my legs get tired and I like sitting." Poor Mariah-she has yet to learn that sitting is for sickly, lethargic troglodytes. Levine says his dream is a classroom with "kids shooting hoops and spelling," like the basketball game "H-O-R-S-E." Gadfly is always down for hoop-it-up, but he prefers to bring-the-pain on the playground court, after school. As for Levine, we've got a game for him: L-O-O-N-Y.

"Fidgeting in classroom may help students" By Chris Williams, Boston Globe, March 28, 2006

It is understandable that citizens and policymakers want taxpayer-funded universities to show proof that students are learning. But are government-mandated standardized tests-currently under serious consideration by a federal panel-the answer? The 4,000-plus institutions of higher education vary wildly in institutional structure, educational goals, and academic focus. How would students studying a range of subjects from art history to chemical engineering to animal husbandry be compared with anything but a "lowest common denominator" measure? And why would 20-year-old college students (adults, remember) make an effort on such tests? The accountability impulse is sound, but in the case of the higher education marketplace, the old doctor's oath is apropos: first do no harm.

"Colleges pushed to prove worth," by Patrick Kerkstra, Philadelphia Inquirer, March 28, 2006

History, science, and the arts are being de-emphasized by most schools in order to make room for teaching basic reading and math skills, according to a new study. Who's to blame for this? Critics of reform point to the No Child Left Behind law.

And they're right to do so-to a point. NCLB mandates that schools boost achievement in reading and math-only reading and math-or face tough consequences. The incentive has worked, to the surprise of some, but so, too, has the law of unintended consequences.

This is not the only example of that phenomenon. NCLB puts pressure on educators to get all students to a low level of proficiency, so schools ignore kids at the top of the class. The law leaves the standards-setting to the states but ties sanctions to the results, so the states "race to the bottom" and lower their standards. And yes, the statute focuses its accountability provisions on reading and math, so schools ignore everything else. The latter problem is easily fixed (though the fix is politically unpopular). Congress should add history testing to the law's requirements, and make the history and science results count. (Science testing will be required next year, but the results won't count for accountability purposes, unless President Bush has his way.) Now that we know that schools will respond to incentives, we should be clear about our aims.

But tweaking the law's carrots and sticks is not enough, and NCLB is not completely to blame. We must also address the fact that schools are choosing the path of least resistance by narrowing the curriculum. After all, pushing other subjects aside is not the only choice schools face. Great schools beef up their students' basic skills while also providing them a broad, rich education. Why don't most? There are two reasons-one ideological, and the other political.

E.D. Hirsch tackles the ideological problem in his new book, The Knowledge Deficit. Hirsch identifies an obvious solution to the challenge schools face: teach reading through history, science, literature, and the arts. He argues persuasively that most of the students who have been "left behind" have successfully learned to decode words and sentences, but can't comprehend much because of their limited vocabulary and knowledge base. Especially in the upper elementary grades and middle school-where we see student achievement plateau and then begin its long, precipitous decline-the best way to teach reading is to teach content. Instead of "doubling up" on rote, mechanical reading instruction, schools can engage students with compelling historical accounts, fanciful stories, fascinating science, and riveting poetry. In fact, it is exactly the kind of rich content that students find in Hirsch's Core Knowledge schools that account for their strong gains in reading and math achievement.

So why don't schools embrace Core Knowledge or something like it? Hirsch: "The reason for this state of affairs-tragic for millions of students as well as for the nation-is that an army of American educators and reading experts are fundamentally wrong in their ideas about education and especially about reading comprehension." Still enamored with romantic beliefs that children can learn to read as naturally as they learn to talk, disregarding knowledge and content as nothing but "mere facts," the leaders of the education establishment and their comrades in schools of education continue to indoctrinate teachers and principals in self-defeating ideas. The solution to schools' reading woes and their curricular conundrum is right in front of them, but these misguided ideas get in the way.

There's another solution to curriculum narrowing: expand the school day. Excellent charter schools such as KIPP and Amistad Academy use this strategy and record great results. The KIPP middle schools, guided by their philosophy that "there are no shortcuts," equate their efforts to a ball game. A fifth grader who enters KIPP several years below grade level is like a team down by two touchdowns in the fourth quarter. There is no time to spare. The only way they are going to make it is if they work harder than their competition. So KIPP runs from 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., assigns several hours of homework daily, brings students in for Saturday morning classes, and adds a month of school in the summer. This allows them to provide extensive instruction in reading and math, plus engage students in a full, rich curriculum, complete with history, science, foreign language, physical activity, and the arts. What's most remarkable about the KIPP model is how un-innovative it is. Anyone could think of it.

So why doesn't every high-poverty public school embrace the KIPP model and lengthen their day? In this case, the answer is politics: It's not allowed under the collective bargaining agreement. As Frederick M. Hess and Martin R. West make painfully clear in their manifesto, A Better Bargain: Overhauling Teacher Collective Bargaining for the 21^st Century, teacher union contracts dictate every facet of school life. Consider the contract from Eau Clare, Wisconsin, which Hess and West quote at length: "A standard day shall be defined as 435 minutes, excluding lunch but including a morning homeroom period of 7-15 minutes, e.g., where teachers will supervise students entering the building, take roll, take lunch count, make announcements, etc. The teaching day shall not exceed 349 minutes of classroom teaching, thirty (30) minutes for lunch and thirty (30) minutes of recess..." The reality in many big city districts is even worse; a five or six hour school day is not uncommon. Of course schools cannot fit remediation in reading and math and broad exposure to the core curriculum into such a crammed schedule. But the unions are loathe to give up their hard-fought "gains"-in this case, the right to be home by 3:00 p.m. School board members, most of whom are elected with union money and union votes, just sit and watch.

Yes, let's tweak NCLB and undo its perverse incentives. But we must also address the crazy ideas that still delude the education profession and the ridiculous union contracts that hamstring common sense reforms. If the traditional K-12 system is unwilling to be so bold, then we should create an alternative system of schools that is. Narrow-minded solutions won't produce the schools our children deserve.

From the Capital to the Classroom: Year Four of the No Child Left Behind Act, Center on Education Policy, March 2006

"Schools cut back subjects to push reading and math," by Sam Dillon, New York Times, March 26, 2006

The Knowledge Deficit, by E.D. Hirsch, Houghton Mifflin, 2006

A Better Bargain: Overhauling Teacher Collective Bargaining for the 21st Century, by Frederick M. Hess and Martin R. West, Program on Education Policy & Governance, Harvard University, March 2006

Michael Casserly
Council of the Great City Schools
March 2006

This is the Sixth Edition of "Beating the Odds," an ongoing analysis of how Great City Schools (i.e., schools in the nation's 66 largest urban districts) are doing in their efforts to improve student performance and shrink achievement gaps. And there's good news to share-these traditionally troubled, urban schools are making progress. "Over 80 percent of the Great City School districts have improved math scores in grades 3-10 since 1999-2000. Over 70 percent of the large cities, moreover, have improved faster than their respective states in grades 3-8." The story is similar but less dramatic for reading results. But don't jump up and down just yet. The data have a number of flaws-eleven, at least, by the report's account. Among them: 1) assessment data cannot be compared across states, because each state test is different; 2) the report didn't test the statistical significance of state test score growth rates; and 3) the report doesn't attempt to adjust for varying degrees of difficulty that state tests display. We'll add another: the state tests might be getting easier over time. What the report does do, however, is compare rising state test scores in Great City Schools with each city's state scores to determine if GCS schools are improving faster than non-GCS schools in their respective states. It also compares the gains on test scores to NAEP, specifically the Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA), which tested several large cities similar to those that are part of Great City Schools. The TUDA data also show improvements, though less impressive. Despite all the report's flaws, there's substantial use of raw data. The report isn't definitive, but still worth a look. Read it here.

National Association of Secondary School Principals
2006

This large guidebook for principals-which gives sundry suggestions (structural, administrative, pedagogical) for reviving struggling middle schools-has a catch-all feel. Parts will appeal to those who decry middle school as an academic graveyard; parts will appeal to those whose focus is the emotional and social development of middle school students. Therefore, principals who use this guide must be discerning. The first of its nine Cornerstone Strategies is to establish rigorous academics, and it offers detailed suggestions for using data to enhance teaching and to assess (collaboratively, not competitively) teachers. The book is filled with checklists, self-tests, Ask the Experts interviews, and recommendations. Some are sound and based on accountability systems. Other tips are more traditional, though perhaps still useful-for example: "To creatively use existing time," principals should seek "parent volunteers, older students, and so on to produce manipulatives, copies, laminates, and other class materials," and "pay expert teachers during the summer to develop ‘curriculum tubs' that include well-developed concept-based lessons in key content areas. Place the materials in plastic tubs in a central location, so they can be checked out by any teacher." Unfortunately, some of the volume's fluff advice (teachers should be "adept at acting as coaches and facilitators to promote more active involvement of students in their own learning") is apt to cause more academic problems than it can hope to remedy. This book is vast, so it offers both good, data-driven suggestions, but also much "touchy-feely" advice. Overall, though, the document manages to stress content, assessment, and data-a welcome sign in middle school literature. You can order a copy here.