Sunday, November 4, 2012

A proficient high school example

Under Kentucky's new accountability system, schools are identified as proficient if their Overall Score is at or above the 70th percentile for schools at their level.  Now that first year results have been released, it's easier to illustrate what goes into the Overall Scores and the proficient classification  I'll use a high school right at that 70th percentile cut off to do just that.

To begin, each school now receives an Overall Score on a 0-100 scale.  For high schools, 100 will mean that all students are college and career ready, making typical or higher growth, and graduating on time.  Here's the actual example, showing the school's Overall Score of 58.0 and the five components that go into it.
The 64.5 for Achievement shown above is calculated from the students' performance levels in five subjects:
The 41.7 for Gap is also calculated from those five-subjects performance levels, using data only for students in groups that have historically been underserved:
The 59.5 for Growth reflects the students making typical growth in the two subjects tested more than once in high school. The 47.1 for Readiness looks at ACT and other tests of readiness for college, career or both, with half- point bonuses for students being ready for both options.  Here are the details on those two results:
Finally, the 77.3 for Graduation is simply the school's 77.3 percent averaged freshman graduation rate shown above.

In future years, the plan is to add program review results and professional growth and evaluation data to the Overall Score calculation. As that happens, the 70th percentile cut point will be adjusted. Once the full formula is in place, the state regulation calls for the 70th percentile to be recalculated every five years.

Added note: I've treated the school above simply as an example to help illustrate the main elements involved in being classified as a proficient school, using one of the three high schools with an Overall Score of 58.0.  Though my purpose is to clarify the process rather than focus on a particular school, I'll satisfy any reader curiosity and mention that charts above show data from Bracken County High.

Friday, November 2, 2012

Disaggregated results (because it's about every child)

Take what we already knew about achievement gaps between student groups.  Combine it with our growing understanding that all students need to move up to a substantially higher definition of proficiency.  The results are painful to see--and this post invites you to see that pain. The results below are high school results only.

Please let them make you sad.  Especially, let yourself ache a bit about the results for students with disabilities and students with limited English proficiency, and the continuing legacy of unequal education for students of color.

Then, let them make you strong, because we have plenty of work ahead!

(All the results are taken from the online statewide School Report Card.)




The work begins anew


Kentucky has moved more quickly than any state in the country to define and assess student results that meet the demands of a knowledge-driven future.  This morning, in our newly released School Report Card, we meet the first data, and we see with new clarity what we will need to do to move all our children to those higher expectations.

The chart above shows where we stand in most succinct form, using the overall scores from  our new accountability system.  In that system, a score of 100 meaning that all students (including those in historically underserved groups) are on track to graduate from high school ready for college and career.  By that measure, we're a little more than half way there.

The elementary score combines three kinds of student results shown below.  The achievement number reflects results for all students in reading, mathematics, science, social studies, writing, and language mechanics.  The gap score indicates similar data for students in groups that are often "caught in the achievement gap," while the growth score based on the percent of students making expected growth from one year to the next in reading and mathematics.
The middle school score uses those three kinds of data and adds a college and career readiness indicator based on the Explore test taken by eighth graders.  Here's how those results break out this year.
The high school score reflects college and career readiness measured by ACT and other assessments, and adds in graduation data. Here's how those stack up.

The bottom line is that, this  morning, we can clearly define the work ahead of us. Kentucky has committed itself to raise all of these results to the high levels our children will need for full success in the economy and in their communities.  As you can see, that will be a mighty undertaking, and all of us--parents, teachers, citizens, elected leaders--will have major roles to play.

These results and further details--for our state, districts, and individual schools--is now easily accessible at the Department of Education's Open House.  

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Thursday, September 13, 2012

National GEAR UP Week

This is a guest post submitted by: Dreama Gentry, J.D.; Berea College Executive Director Externally Sponsored Programs:

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/engagement_and_reform/2012/09/gear_up_week.html

Friday, August 17, 2012

Monday, August 13, 2012

Graduation Rates and Goals

Technically, the new data on Kentucky graduation rates is a year old: the Kentucky Department of Education has traditionally released each year's nonacademic results a year later to address various challenges in data collection.  With that caveat, here's the statewide progress of recent years:
Under our new Unbridled Learning accountability system, 2011 graduation rates will be used to set a graduation goals for each school.  Starting from its 2011 rate, each school will be asked to take 11 equal steps up to a 98 percent graduation rate in 2022.   For the state as a whole, those goals will look like this :

Those goals will require improvement of 1.8 points a year, noticeably faster than the 1.3 point growth from 2010 to 2011.  

Source note: Trend chart reflects graduation rates reported by the Kentucky Department of Education.  Goal chart applies the formula set in the new Kentucky Board of Education regulation, 703 KAR 5:225, Section 1(7).

Sunday, August 12, 2012

What do teachers make?

Taylor Mali's video at Teaching Channel is three minutes of power and bliss.  There doesn't seem to be a way to embed it, but please do follow the link, enjoy for yourself, and pass it on.

Jefferson County Prospects

My remarks to the Louisville Forum included the historic data I blogged yesterday, followed by some thinking about recent developments and future prospects.   Because Dewey Hensley had already described some of the district's strategies, I shortened and changed some of what I had planned to say, but the substance was the same as this prepared version:

Watching from a distance, I see multiple signs that you are on a stronger track: 
1. Your school board and your superintendent are now setting numerical goals for specific years.  If they follow through with annual reporting, celebrating goals met and confronting goals missed, you’ll be developing a culture that expects improvement year over year. 
2. Dr. Hargens has reorganized your district administration and used the savings to fund assistant principals.  That’s an impressive focus on making resources follow priorities. 
3.  Dr. Hargens has also brought a major shakeup to the Gheens Academy, designed to ensure more responsive professional development and support for your teachers. 
4.  Dewey Hensley, the man without excuses who turned around Atkinson Elementary and provided KDE leadership for your recent high school turnaround, is now your in-district chief academic officer.  
Now, let me add a "theory of action" on what will matter most in the next several years.  I’m sold on the research saying that the approach that raises scores and closes gaps involves a particular kind of learning culture.  It’s one where educators work together regularly, looking at student work to understand what the learners need next, designing changes, and coming back together to see what worked and decide what to improve next.  That approach travels under multiple names: 
·      It’s called "formative assessment "by those emphasize how teachers use the evidence. 
·      It’s called "professional learning communities" by those who emphasize the shared way the evidence gets considered. 
·      It’s called "job-embedded professional development" by those who emphasize the cycle of learning. 
·      And it’s called “instructional leadership” by those who emphasize the roles of principals in building and sustaining that focused work. 
When you read any of the accounts of what’s been changing in your historically troubled high schools, you hear versions of that teachers gathering that evidence, sharing the exploration, and staying in the cycle of identifying needed changes together.  You also hear principals focusing on helping that happen—and that’s where adding those assistant principals can be an excellent first step. 
In the coming year or two, the central issue will be making or solidifying that change in school after school. That’s a tough kind of priority because no school board can do it by policy and no superintendent can do it by memorandum.  It takes lasting engagement, with the central leadership making sure it’s a priority for school leadership, fending off distractions and sending in resources—and dedicated people in each building doing the most important work for themselves. 
So, the way to find out what’s happening, without waiting for the state scores, will be to ask teachers and principals what’s happening. Listen for reports of teams working together to examine work and plan instruction. Listen for reports of having time for that because other requirements have been pushed aside.  Listen for principals spending more time in classrooms.  Especially, listen for examples of students making breakthroughs their teachers hadn’t previously thought were in reach—because when teachers find the ways to do that, they’re excited and they’re exciting. 
It can be done.  Your children need for it to be done, and to be frank, the rest of Kentucky needs Jefferson County back in a leadership role. You’re the leading engine of our statewide economy, and in an information age, we need you as the leading engine of our learning economy as well.


Saturday, August 11, 2012

Jefferson County Update: High school progress, with elementary and middle difficulties

The Louisville Forum took a fresh look at the Jefferson County Public Schools this past week, and I was honored to be on the panel with Dewey Hensley (the district's Chief Academic Officer) and David Hawpe (former editorial director of the Courier-Journal).

Before sharing my analysis of JCPS test scores, I want to emphasize that Superintendent Donna Hargens has been on the job for one year and scores for that one year have not yet been released.  These numbers define the challenge she accepted and do not reflect on her strategic choices.

I began by pointing out the district's huge strengths: an adult population with substantially higher educational attainment and a community willing to support its schools at substantially higher levels than the rest of Kentucky.  And then (with small adjustments as I spoke), I said this:


To me, all of that says that Jefferson County ought to be in a leadership position.  Your schools should be delivering results in the top third of the state, and educators from elsewhere should flocking here to learn about your successful innovations.
 Unfortunately, that is not what is happening academically in your elementary and middle schools, and it wasn’t happening in your high schools until the state stepped in aggressively.
 Our statewide assessment shows results for grades 3-8, but I’ll keep things short with two subjects and one grade from each level.  I’m going to compare your districts rates of proficiency to other districts rates for similar students.
 In 2011 fourth grade reading, comparing percent of students reaching proficiency
·      89 percent of Kentucky districts had stronger results than Jefferson county for all students
·      92 percent had stronger results for low-income students
·      84 percent had stronger results for African-American students
 In 2011 fourth grade mathematics:
·      86 percent had stronger results for all students
·      90 percent had stronger results for low-income students
·      76 percent had stronger results for African American students
 In 2011 seventh grade reading
·      84 percent had stronger results for all students
·      87 percent had stronger results for low-income students
·      77 percent had stronger results for African-American students
 In 2011 seventh grade mathematics
·      87 percent had stronger results for all students
·      92 percent had stronger results for low-income students
·      79 percent had stronger results for African American students
 Of those comparative twelve results, only two are better than they were two years ago. Seven are worse, and three are flat.
  Now, I’m glad to be able to report that your high schools look much healthier.
 In 2011 tenth grade reading,
·      Only 31 percent of districts had stronger results than yours for all students
·      Only 42 percent had stronger results for low income students
·      Only 26 percent had stronger results for African-American students
 In 2011 eleventh grade mathematics,
·      Only 17 percent of districts had stronger results than yours for all students
·      Only 33 percent had stronger results for low-income students
·      Only 23 percent had stronger results for African-American students
 Those are big jumps into the lead.  Since I spoke here about 2009 results, you passed between 18 and 26 percent of other districts in those subjects for those kids.
 So, between the districts that are outscoring you and the districts you’re rapidly proven you can outscore, enough already with saying you’re urban and your children can’t handle the work. They can, and what’s happened in your high schools is a down payment on what you should expect across the board.
 More than that, from here on out, you shouldn’t need either the state or the federal government to tell you it’s time to turn things around.  That high school turnaround owes a lot to state pressure, but the middle and elementary steps should come from your own community’s demands.
Tomorrow, I'll share from what I said about the strategies that have been deployed in Jefferson County and the key things I hope citizens will listen for as signs that the strategies are taking effect.



Tuesday, August 7, 2012

The Impact of Top Teaching Talent: Watch this video of Ali Crowley, teacher in Lexington, Kentucky

http://blogs.edweek.org/cgi-bin/mt.cgi

Monday, August 6, 2012

Higher Education Graduation Rates

In today's "Doonesbury" strip, Walden University's top administrators worry over by an 18 percent four-year graduation rate--plus reports that 65 percent never graduate at all.

Inspired, I've pulled both four-year and six-year rates for Kentucky's public private universities from the NCES College Navigator.   Half our state schools outpace Walden in four years, and all but one do better by their students in the long run.



Sunday, August 5, 2012

A framework for Kentucky teaching

Kentucky's new Professional Growth and Evaluation System (PGES) is being designed around five major domains of strong teaching:
  1. Planning and Preparation
  2. Classroom Environment
  3. Instruction
  4. Professional Responsibilities
  5. Student Growth
For the first four items, the design is building on Charlotte Danielson's Framework for Teaching, using the 2011 edition.  Ms. Danielson is a widely respected expert on effective teaching and on the creation of evaluation systems that can identify teaching quality and encourage growth.  

The last item, Student Growth, will require careful Kentucky-specific design work.  It's easy to imagine comparing test data from one year to another to decide how much a particular teacher added to student achievement--but it's actually very hard to make that happen. Some reasons:
  • Kentucky's new assessment system can produce year-to-year comparison data for reading and mathematics in six of the thirteen K-12 grades: grades 4-8, using grade 3 scores as a starting point, plus grade 11 by comparing that year's ACT scores to the previous grade's Plan results.  That means that most grades and most subjects need another solution.
  • Matching teachers with students can be surprisingly difficult.  If a student changes schools two months before testing, is the old teacher or the new one responsible?  What if the switch happens two days before the test?  Even within a school, students may switch classes for many reasons, and the student data system may not be quite up to date on which changes have been made.
  • Small numbers can yield weak data.  In general, the more students are tested, the more confidence testing experts have in the results.  Data on thousands of students will be more trusted than data on hundreds, which is why state and school accountability calculations are fairly sturdy.  An individual teacher may have just two dozen students, making it very uncertain whether a particular set of results represent that person's overall effectiveness well.  For students with disabilities, class sizes can be even smaller, and the needed learning approaches can be hugely different from one student to the next.
To tackle these challenges, the Teacher Effectiveness Steering Committee is looking at ways for teachers and principals themselves to take the lead in identifying appropriate measures where test data is not a good option.

This earlier post shares the basics of how and why PGES is being developed.

Saturday, August 4, 2012

Starting Teacher Salary $100,000?

Check out the blog Public Engagement and Ed Reform on Ed Week to read the post about $100,000 as a starting salary and the reactions to it:

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/engagement_and_reform/

Aiming higher, scoring lower

Within a few months, we'll see the first scores from Kentucky's new assessment and accountability system, which means we'll be taking a frank look at where our students now stand compared to strong standards of readiness for college and career.

One good way to imagine what's coming is to think about one of those four-foot-high Fisher-Price basketball hoops.  Anyone who switches from one of those to a regulation court is going to score fewer goals the first season.

Kentucky testing is about to go through the same sort of shift, moving from an old definition of proficiency to a new one that fits better with what students will need in global competition.

While the Department still has some work to do to finalize the scoring system and calculate the statewide results, Commissioner Holiday is now sharing initial estimates that involve big drops.  Here's a comparison, reformatted from numbers shared by the Kentucky School Boards Association:

This is a hard thing, but a good thing: we're now aiming for what our children need, with an honest look at how much we must change to make those higher goals reality.




Friday, August 3, 2012

PGES: basics of a new approach to teacher growth and evaluation.

With a new school year beginning, many Kentucky schools will be participating in deeper field tests of a new Professional Growth and Evaluation System for teachers, often called PGES.

That system is being designed on a multi-year timetable that has already included:
  • Sustained involvement from 54 districts providing ideas, feedback, and field-testing work.
  • Guidance from the Teacher Effectiveness Steering Committee, with a parallel group steering work on principal effectiveness. (Cindy Heine and I represent the Prichard Committee at the teacher meetings.)
  • Creation of "framework documents" identifying the overall description of the qualities to be sought and developed in all teachers and principals.
  • 2011-12 field tests of some of the multiple measures that will be used to determine where individual educators stand and how they can further develop their skills.
The major next steps in the process will include:
  • 2012-13 field-testing of all of the multiple measures.
  • 2013-14 statewide piloting of the new system
  • 2014-15 statewide implement of the new system.
Kentucky is doing this work for multiple reasons:
  • Because it allows Kentucky to qualify for $17 million in Race to the Top funding.
  • Because it allows Kentucky to qualify for flexibility under No Child Left Behind.
  • Because the new Unbridled Learning accountability system is designed to include data on "Next-Generation Professionals"
  • Most of all, because it's the right work to strengthen our students by strengthening the educators who guide their learning. 

Saturday, March 24, 2012

Common Core: good teaching and "cold reading"


Linking to a thoughtful essay by Jeremiah Chaffee, who teaches English in upstate New York, Richard Day writes:
If this author can be believed, low-ordered thinking skills dictated by Common Core "Exemplars" seem to undermine creative and critical thinking. Will we find ourselves five years from now wondering why such a great idea isn't working?  ...and blaming teachers for the failure?
Since I’m investing many of my waking hours in Common Core implementation, I want to respond in some detail.

Mr. Chaffee’s concerns
Mr. Chaffee writes that his department has been working with an “exemplar” lesson designed to align with the Common Core State Standards, one centered on the Gettysburg Address.  He then shares his concerns, which I hope can be fairly summarized in with this excerpt:

Most of [the lesson] was too scripted. It spelled out what types of questions to ask, what types of questions not to ask, and essentially narrowed any discussion to obvious facts and ideas from the speech. 
*** 
Another problem we found relates to the pedagogical method used in the Gettysburg Address exemplar that the Common Core calls “cold reading.”This gives students a text they have never seen and asks them to read it with no preliminary introduction. This mimics the conditions of a standardized test on which students are asked to read material they have never seen and answer multiple choice questions about the passage. 
Such pedagogy makes school wildly boring. Students are not asked to connect what they read yesterday to what they are reading today, or what they read in English to what they read in science.
I’ve quoted those two concerns, about scripting and cold reading, in the order Mr. Chaffee shares them, but I’ll offer my response in the reverse order.

Cold reading
It is true that standardized tests require students to read texts cold, without teachers coaching them to pull up their other knowledge or connect to other interests.
 
The thing is, life itselfrequires cold reading.  On the job, adults get handed manuals, assembly instructions, and memos, and they don’t always get an experienced colleague to coach them through figuring out what they’re reading and what to do in response.  When studying for a technical certificate or a college degree, older students will be assigned texts and expected to read the assignments on their own.  As citizens, we all need to be able to work our way through articles, editorials, and websites as part of thinking through public issues.
 
Equipping students for cold reading
In some classes, for some topics and some texts, it makes sense for teachers to provide context, help students activate their prior knowledge, review needed vocabulary before students open their books, and otherwise provide a scaffolding that helps students make meaning of the assignment.  All of that makes students’ work easier and all of it can help make it easier for them to engage the substance of what they read.

Still, if every lesson front-loads that kind of support, how do students develop the reading skills they’ll need when they graduate and the support goes away?

Some lessons need to begin with cold reading, to start students on the way to independence. 

Then, after students do their own wrestling, good teaching can include modeling good skills for pulling the text apart and deepening their understanding of what it says.  For example, a teacher might prompt students to identify and wrestle with challenging words, then tricky phrases, and then the overall organization of the piece, before reading it through a second time to think more deeply about how the whole piece fits together. Long-term, students need to be able to summon up those strategies on their own, but part way through their learning process, they may still need to rehearse the steps with a teacher illustrating how to do each one.

As I read Mr. Chaffee’s description of the exemplar lesson, I developed a strong hunch that he was looking at a lesson that specifically designed to model that type of sound teaching: cold reading as the first step, questions to guide students in closer reading as the second round of work.

That is, I suspect that cold reading—meaning independent work to make sense of text without a teacher softening the work—was a central purpose of the exemplar lesson. Understanding the Gettysburg Address wasn't the only goal, and the reading step was not just a teaching method.  On the contrary, independent reading was a capacity being taught both in the "cold" phase and the questioning phrase of the lesson, and the Gettysburg Address, though valuable in itself, was also being used as a vehicle for skill development.

Again, I am not saying that is the only kind of teaching students should receive. I am, though, saying that Mr. Chaffee’s description makes me think that the exemplar is one of the kinds of learning students need. 

Scripting or empowering teachers
The exemplar lesson Mr. Chaffee worked with does not come directly from the Common Core State Standards. I can say that with certainty because the Standards document does not contain any lesson plans.  There are many ideas circulating about how to teach to Common Core, but none of them are required by the Common Core itself, and it’s worth repeating that none of them are mandated by the federal government. 

Given the many different people and jurisdictions involved, it’s certainly possible that some one is dictating scripted lessons for teachers to recite. 

However, many places, including Kentucky, are following far more empowering strategies.  The Literacy Design Collaborative, for example, calls for teachers to develop robust teaching tasks and then plan instruction that builds students’ reading, thinking, and writing skills on the way to responding to that overall task—giving teachers huge control over the skills to be taught, the order of teaching, and the activities used to build each skill.  Kentucky is sharing that strategy across its Leadership Networks, and I’m part of the design team that has been working to develop LDC for use in other states and on-line.

The bottom line
Almost any sound idea can be undercut by foolish implementation, and nothing built into Common Core prevents that from happening.  If teachers convert to “all cold reading, all the time,” that will be a mistake.  That said, “all scaffolded reading, all the way through senior year” would also be the wrong approach.

The ability to “read and comprehend complex literary and informational texts independently and proficiently” is clearly part of what every member of the rising generation will need to be ready for higher education, the jobs of the future, and the challenges of the coming century. In the Common Core State Standards, that ability is listed as Reading Anchor Standard 10, and the part about doing the reading independently-- or cold--is a serious part of the expectation.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

American Teacher: A Movie Not To Be Missed!


American Teacher is a fabulous film about the people who teach our children, vividly illustrating the energy required to do this important work well and underlining our failure to reward and honor that energy appropriately.  Having seen it last June, I recommend it heartily.  Check out the trailer here, and then plan to see the whole movie.  The film will be shown across the state next week, and I urge you to sign up for one of the showings listed below.
The movie will be shown at 6:00 p.m. local time  (unless otherwise noted) at all locations and tickets are free. Click the link next to the city nearest you to view locations and register for tickets.
March 27, 2012 Locations

March 29, 2012, Locations

Sunday, March 11, 2012

NAEP Exclusion Rates and Kentucky Success

There's been some talk recently about the number of Kentucky students excluded from NAEP participation based on disabilities.   The chart above, drawn from the NAEP "Nation's Report Card" documents for each subject, shows those rates. To me, it offers two clear messages.  

First, Kentucky has been doing something different from the rest of the country with NAEP reading. Or, more exactly, the local decision makers in the districts chosen to participate in NAEP testing have been doing something different than the local decision makers elsewhere. NAEP exclusion is a local decision based on judgment about the individual student's needs.

Second, NAEP science and mathematics have worked differently.  Kentucky's exclusion rate has been a perfect match to the country in science, and it has differed by a single point in mathematics.  

So, what if we look at reading, and leave out students with disabilities for a moment?  (Only for a moment, I promise! Only to make this one point!)  All the excluded students in the chart above above were in the group with disabilities.  Even if the disability exclusion rate made a difference, it wouldn't change the scores for the students without disabilities.  Here's that comparison.
For both grades, Kentucky students scored above the national average by a statistically significant margin in reading.

That is, Kentucky's recent record of relative NAEP success does not, in fact, evaporate when exclusion rates are considered.  In two of three subjects with recent comparisons, exclusion rates line up nicely with the nation. In the remaining subject, Kentucky students without disabilities--and thus unaffected by the exclusion rate--outscore the national average.

Relative NAEP success is, of course, not enough.  The whole nation needs to move student performance substantially higher, Kentucky must be part of that movement, and Kentucky's students with disabilities should receive priority attention to ensure that our whole state moves forward.   Nevertheless, the notion of Kentucky as distinctively weak among the states is one we need to lay to rest.  The right question for our state is not how to catch up with our neighbors,  but how to move faster and faster as we pull ahead.





Sunday, January 29, 2012

Teacher growth through teacher feedback

After seeing how valuable peer evaluation is, I think it should be part of every public school personnel system. Dedicating 2 percent of teachers to do this work is a large investment. It can mean raising the average class size by 2 percent or spending 2 percent more money. With budgets as tight as they are, most states will not add extra money for evaluation so we will have to make the case that it is worth the small increase in class size (of fewer than one student per class on average).
That's Bill Gates' bold proposal for a big change in how teachers invest their time, moving to a plan where a small but important fraction of the total teacher corps works full time on observing and strengthening the others.  The idea is that the feedback would strengthen their colleagues greatly in ways that, in turn, strengthen what students know and can do across the whole curriculum.   It's central to the education section of his 2012 Annual Letter.

The letter also explains key experience from the Hillsborough County (Tampa, Florida) school system, which is trying that model of feedback under a major grant from the Gates Foundation:

A key element of the agreement between the teachers’ union and the superintendent was to assign 2 percent of the teachers to become peer evaluators. These teachers were trained to observe classroom teaching and provide feedback on 22 different components. The principals have also been trained in this approach. Every teacher gets in-depth feedback from both the principal and the peer evaluator. 
Tampa has been doing this for three years now, and it is already making a big difference. Teachers told us they value having feedback from two different sources—the principal who knows the school the best and the peer who knows the challenges of their specific job. The first round of evaluation revealed that many teachers need help engaging the students to prompt critical thinking and problem solving. The district started to organize its professional development around these findings, and the teachers have seized that opportunity to become more effective in the classroom. 
When Melinda and I met with students, they told us that they had seen a big change during their time at the school. The success here required great work by Superintendent Mary Ellen Elia, Classroom Teachers Association President Jean Clements, and all of the teachers. I was particularly impressed with the peer evaluators. They all said they understood great teaching far better, having done the peer evaluation job. Some of the peer evaluators will go back to teaching and others will go into schools of education to help make sure new teachers have better preparation.
Crucially, this idea of peer evaluation is about strengthening teachers in their craft, and there isn't any good way to use test data in place of this sort of substantive feedback:
Without this investment I don’t think an evaluation system will get enough credibility with the teachers or provide enough specific feedback to help teachers improve. Looking at test scores is also valuable for most subjects, but test score data mostly just identifies who is succeeding—it doesn’t show a teacher what needs to change.
To me, this is a really big idea.  It's too big for any district or state to do it casually.  It's the kind of thing that any system should review and discuss with great care before jumping in --but it also has enough potential benefits to be worth exactly that sort of study.

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Kentucky students are not behind Indiana, Ohio, Tennessee, or the nation

After receiving questions regarding the Kentuckians Advocating for Reform in Education's television commercials and website text we researched the data, and this post shares our findings.

The information presented by KARE in commercials here and here and website text here invites serious misunderstandings. No matter your position on charter schools, Indiana, Ohio, Tennessee, and the nation are not doing better than Kentucky on the student performance measures KARE presents.

Fourth-Grade Reading
KARE’s commercials cite 2011 NAEP results showing:
  • 65% of Kentucky students reading below the proficient level. 
That figure is correct, but Kentucky is not scoring behind the states with charter schools listed in the KARE commercial. Instead, the same assessment shows:
  • 67% of Indiana students reading below the proficient level. 
  • 66% of Ohio students reading below the proficient level.
  • 74% of Tennessee students reading below the proficient level. 
  • 68% of students nationwide reading below the proficient level.
Fourth grade reading results do not show Kentucky scoring behind the states listed in the KARE commercial

African-American Eighth Grade Reading 
KARE’s commercials also cite 2011 NAEP results showing:
  • 42% of Kentucky African-American students reading below the basic level. 
Again, that does not mean Kentucky students are at a disadvantage compared to the states KARE cites for comparison. The same assessment shows:
  • 41% of Indiana African-American students reading below the basic level.
  • 42% of Ohio African-American students reading below the basic level.
  • 52% of Tennessee African-American students reading below the basic level.
  • 42% of African-American students nationwide reading below the basic level. 

Graduation Rates 
KARE’s commercials and website do not give a source for the claim that 25% of Kentucky high school freshmen will not graduate on time. If they add a reference, PrichBlog will be happy to report on how other states compare.

As a first analysis, though, the federal calculations of all states’ average freshman graduation rates estimate that for ninth graders from fall 2005 who should have graduated in 2009:
  • 23% of Kentucky freshmen did not graduate on time. 
  • 25% of Indiana’s freshmen did not graduate on time.
  • 20% of Ohio’s freshmen did not graduate on time.
  • 23% of Tennessee’s freshmen did not graduate on time. 
  • 24% of freshmen nationwide did not graduate on time. 

Other NAEP Results
KARE’s website shows some additional NAEP results not included in the commercials. In context, those results show Kentucky tied or ahead of the country and the other three states far more often than Kentucky is behind.

Adding Science to the Mix
The KARE site does not share any of Kentucky's 2009 NAEP science results.  Here's an important snapshot of Kentucky students results related to the jurisdictions mentioned in KARE's commercials, further clarifying that Kentucky public schools are not falling behind the comparison group.

To restate the main point, whatever the merits of charter schools, Kentucky students are not being left behind the students of Indiana, Ohio, Tennessee, and the nation.

Source Notes: NAEP data downloaded from the Data Explorer on January 24, 2012.  AFGR results downloaded from the National Center for Education Statistics on January 24, 2012.

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

SEEK and the Governor's Budget

Here's a quick overview of how Governor Beshear's proposed budget for the next two years addresses the SEEK base guarantee.

The SEEK base guarantee per pupil will go down:
  • $3,903 was the original SEEK base guarantee per pupil for 2011-12
  • $3,850 is the average guarantee that has actually been possible for 2011-12: schools turned out have more students than the budget expected and funding for each child had to be reduced as a result.
  • $3,833 is the proposed base guarantee for 2012-13.
  • $3,827 is the proposed base guarantee for 2013-14.
The total funding for the SEEK base will be flat:
  • $2.9 billion was the budget line item for 2011-12.
  • $2.9 billion is the proposed budget line item for 2012-13.
  • $2.9 billion is the proposed budget line item for 2013-14.
Why will the per pupil will go down while the total funding remains flat?  Primarily, because the number of students in average daily attendance is expected to rise:
  • 596,858 was the final figure used for 2011-12 SEEK allocations.
  • 600,662 is the budget assumption for 2012-13.
  • 603,523 is the budget assumption for 2013-14.
It is also important to note that though the local contribution of SEEK is expected to rise again, that growth is much smaller than in most past years:

  • $856 million of the guarantee was contributed by the local 30¢ tax rate for 2011-12.
  • $866 million of the guarantee is expected to be the local 30¢ contribution for 2012-13.
  • $881 million of the guarantee is expected to be the local 30¢ contribution for 2013-14.
(The SEEK guarantee is really funded by a combination of state and local dollars. In years past, growing local property values contributed a lot to Kentucky's ability to afford a growing SEEK guarantee.  Local growth is still expected to contribute, but now it works to limit how much the guarantee will go down.)

To put these SEEK numbers in further context, do note that federal funding is dropping rapidly, from $1,215 million last year to $878 million this year, and to an estimated $782 million in 2012-13.  State funding to specific categorical programs beyond SEEK will also drop, and we can also expect inflation to further reduce the buying power of school dollars from all sources.

Sparkly!

"Sparkly People Loving Data" is a headline I couldn't possibly ignore. Brennan McMahon at the SCORE  Sheet blog reports:
This afternoon in Washington, DC, people who are instrumental to the conversations around education reform in this country—including U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, Michelle Rhee, Tennessee’s own Governor Phil Bredesen, and neighboring Kentucky Education Commissioner, Terry Holliday—will gather to talk about the imperative of implementing and using data effectively to change student learning for the better. I am referring to the Data Quality Campaign’s “Day of Data,” during which we highlight the annual progress of the states in implementing longitudinal data systems to improve student learning and set the agenda for the coming year.  
You may have noted in my title my reference to “sparkly people”—this in no way has anything to do with the Twilight saga. Sparkly people, like Duncan, Rhee, Bredesen, and Holliday are those who get people’s attention; they galvanize people—move them to action, to excitement, perhaps even to anger.
I'm delighted to see Dr. Holliday as a marquee name, and even more delighted by McMahon's closing push to broaden data engagement:
These days anyone can be part of the changing conversations around data and education in their state, and the country as a whole. You don’t have to be sparkly—just willing to nag, ask questions, push back, and beg for more—to help effect change. Of course, the more you do that, the more people will pay attention . . . and eventually you might just be sparkly too!
I may never give another presentation in Kentucky without that quote!

[Hat tip: Myrdin Thompson]

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Why Kentucky School Funding Is A Huge Concern (For This Year And The Future)

From 2007-08 to 2010-11, added federal dollars almost made up for state and local declines in funding for Kentucky schools. Add in other revenue, which is tiny in most districts and big in a few each year, and funding grew an average of $63 per pupil over those years after adjusting for inflation.

For 2011-12, we know the added federal revenue has dried up, and after several years of using federal dollars to fund the state SEEK formula, Kentucky is struggling to resume full responsibility for SEEK and unable to replace the other federal resources.  Estimating from Budget of the Commonwealth figures, the federal decline this year is likely to be more than $600 and the state increase closer to $60 per pupil after inflation.

Core point of this post: when we say that revenue per pupil grew slightly through last year, counting the temporary federal increases that are now gone, that means we know that the trend for this year and beyond will be decline unless state leaders step up in the current legislative session. We also know those funding losses will pose a grave danger to Kentucky's bold commitment to ensure that all students graduate from high school with the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in higher education and in the job markets of the future.

Here's a closer look at those trends for 2007-08 to 2010-11.

State funding per pupil, adjusted for inflation, declined an average of $726 from 2007-08 to 2010-11.



Local funding per pupil, adjusted for inflation, declined an average of $13 over the same years.

Federal funding per pupil, adjusted for inflation, grew an average of $615 over those years. That growth, of course, was not enough to replace the buying power of the shrinking local and state dollars.

Other revenue, adjusted for inflation, grew an average of $187 per pupil. Averages for other revenue need to be treated with care, because most districts receive very little from other sources, and a few receive quite a lot.

Combining those four categories, Kentucky schools received a total revenue increase of $63 per pupil after inflation from 2007-08 through 2010-11.

Again, looking to the current year and the future, we know our schools are now working with a federal decline and a state increase that is nowhere near enough to make up those losses. We also have reason to worry about local funding.  The newest report on state revenue says that July to December state property tax collections in 2011 dropped more than 9% from the 2010 level.  If local tax receipts show a similar trend, the results could be disastrous.  It's too early to know that will happen, but definitely time to be very concerned that it might.

The core point here is important enough to repeat: when we say that revenue per pupil grew slightly through last year, counting the temporary federal increases that are now gone, that means we know that the trend for this year and beyond will be decline unless state leaders step up in the current legislative session.  We also know those funding losses will pose a grave danger to Kentucky's bold commitment to ensure that all students graduate from high school with the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in higher education and in the job markets of the future.

Source notes: the main data for this analysis comes from Annual Financial Receipts and Expenditure reports per district, available here, with 2010-11 using the unaudited reports now available. Per pupil figures were calculated using December 1 preschool counts (from June 2010 and August 2011 Kentucky Board of Education briefing materials) plus K-12 average daily attendance plus growth (from SEEK files), and inflation adjustments were developed with this inflation calculator to reflect changes in what districts can buy with the money they receive.