Edcuation Week 5/11/2011 issue

Popular AVID Program Yields Mixed Results in Chicago, p. 15

The Consortium on Chicago School Research (CCSR), based at the University of Chicago, has conducted a study of interventions intended to improve academic skills.  They looked at the AVID program (Advancement Via Individual Determination) that was being used in 14 Chicago high schools.  The AVID program encourages middle-achieving students (defined as those with a B, C, or D average) to enroll in advanced academic classes.  These students also take a daily elective that teaches study skills, organization, and critical thinking, and they are provided with tutoring.  AVID programs are used in more than 4500 schools nationwide.

The CCSR study looked at 14 Chicago schools that had stable AVID programs so that they would have data available from before AVID was implemented as well as after implementation.  They used a method called “propensity matching” to compare the performance of students who attended these schools before AVID to the performance of later students using the AVID program, matching students with similar academic and socioeconomic profiles.  The study concluded that AVID participants in 9^th grade gained little advantage over their non-AVID peers, and they remained off track for graduation and college.

Other studies had shown more positive results from AVID programs, although many of these studies did not meet U.S. Department of Education standards.  Unlike schools in these earlier studies, the Chicago schools that were chosen are generally low-peforming, without a long-established infrastructure of AP courses or a core of high-achieving peers.  Middle achievers on a national scale are high achievers in schools like these Chicago schools.  For an AVID program to be successful, it may need a school-wide support structure of advanced placement courses and high-achieving peers.

One critic of the study, an executive vice president of AVID, suggested that the study was too short-term to be conclusive.  He indicated that gains from AVID build up over the course of a student’s high school career.

Education Week 4/20/2011 issue

More Students Taking Tougher Courses, NAEP Study Finds, p. 6

Results from a 2009 study have revealed an increase in the percentage of high school graduates who have completed a “rigorous” curriculum, including higher-level math and science courses.  The percentage of students taking a “midlevel” curriculum has also increased, with more students moving up from a “standard” curriculum.  High school students overall are taking more classes at all levels, going from an average of 23.6 credits in 1990 to 27.2 credits in 2009.  Some of these additional credits result from summer school courses, high school credits for courses taken in middle school, and online courses.

Researchers also found a link between these curriculum levels and student achievement as measured by national assessments.  They found that students who take more rigorous courses in high school are more likely to perform well on achievement tests.  More minority students are taking higher-level courses than in previous years, although black and Hispanic students still lag behind white students.  Although more female grads took a rigorous or midlevel curriculum than in previous years, they generally scored lower in math and science than boys did.  The average GPA of 3.1 for girls was higher than the average for boys of 2.9.

These findings make a good argument for the adoption of common-core standards, which raise the standards for all.  If all students receive a more rigorous curriculum, they will be more likely to do better on national assessments.

Education Week 4/06/2011 issue

The Time Is Right to End ‘Zero Tolerance’, p. 35

One frequent accompaniment of school reform is an increasingly harsh application of zero-tolerance discipline policies.  These policies have resulted in suspension and expulsion rates in schools are at all-time highs, involving 3.3 million students in 2006, or one in 14 students.  Less than one in ten were for violent offenses, and most were for things like tardiness, talking back to a teacher, or violating dress codes.  Students of color were disproportionately affected:  in 2006 around 15% of blacks were suspended, compared to 7% of Hispanic students and 5% of white students.  Schools are simply excluding students who violate school rules, leaving the court systems to deal with issues that educators used to handle.  Schools are under increasing pressure to raise test scores, and this may also encourage the practice of pushing “problem” children out of school.

The result of this zero-tolerance emphasis is that increasing numbers of students are being denied access to those services that they need most, increasing the likelihood of them becoming involved with the criminal justice system instead—the “school to prison pipeline.”  In the U.S., more 18-to-24-year-old black men live in prison cells than in college dorm rooms.  What’s more, research has shown that this zero-tolerance approach fails to improve student behavior. 

Some school districts are implementing more positive preventative approaches to school discipline, such as creating respectful and welcoming school environments, teaching positive behavior skills and conflict resolution, and expanding access to academic and counseling services for students and families.  These approaches are more likely to support achievement, helping to close the school-to-prison pipleline.  Many of the men in prison today initially made one mistake—as children—and their education simply stopped.  If we can keep kids in school and give them a fair chance to learn, they will be less likely to wind up in prison.    

Education Week 3/30/2011 issue

Task Force Recommends Student Scores Be Included in National-Board Portfolios, p. 8

The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), which oversees national board teaching certification, is considering the inclusion of standardized test scores.  Currently, board certification requires a teacher to pass rigorous assessments (including content and pedagogy) and to submit four classroom-based portfolios, including an analysis of their instruction.  Certification can be in any of 25 areas.  Portfolios include items such as lesson plans, reflective analyses, and student work samples.  Current guidelines are flexible enough to allow teachers to submit many different kinds of student work in their portfolios.

The Board is re-evaluating its guidelines to make sure that its assessments are in line with its standards.  Although it has up to now stayed out of the current discussion and controversy regarding standardized test scores as a measure of student growth in learning, it now wants to consider these for possible use as another component of a program for evaluating teachers.  Critics point to the current patchwork of local and state assessments, concluding that standardized tests are highly in doubt as a measure of student learning and teacher effectiveness. 

[Comment:  My first thought was that while a review of standards for national-board certification may be in order, I’m not sure it was wise for this Board to wade into the standardized tests as a measure of teacher effectiveness controversy.  It might have been better to wait until some sort of consensus emerges on this issue first.  But then it occurred to me that maybe they want to weigh in on this topic and help create a consensus.  They seem to think that standardized tests should be one component in evaluating teachers, and this may be the consensus position that they are promoting.]

Education Week 3/16/2011

D.C. Success Must Go Beyond Test Scores, Study Says, p. 6

The National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies has been hired to evaluate the effectiveness of  reforms to the D.C.  school system that were made during the tenure of its previous chancellor, Michelle Rhee.  While test scores have been going up in the district since Rhee came aboard in 2007 and implemented some major  reforms, the NRC says that test scores alone cannot prove students are learning better, nor can they be attributed to specific changes made by Rhee.  The NRC wants the district to beef up its longitudinal student data system so it can properly evaluate the effects of Rhee’s reforms.  The system for gathering this data is not up and running yet.  Most urban school systems have more sophisticated data systems than those in D.C.

Some problems with the current data:  There have been demographic changes in the district in recent years, such as an increase in the poverty rate, a decrease in the numbers of students with disabilities or with limited English proficiency, a decrease in black students, and an increase in white and Hispanic students.  Demographic changes can skew the data.  Also, it was noted that test scores were beginning to increase before the reforms were made.  A closer look at specific schools and specific areas will be in order as more data become available.

Education Week 3/09/2011 issue

Colleges Play Catch-Up With HEA, p. 15

Title II of the Higher Education Act’s 2008 reauthorization placed new reporting requirements on colleges of education and on the states, and some are having to scramble to catch up with the new requirements.  Previously they only had to report passing rates on teacher licensing tests, but Title II now requires them to provide “scaled scores” on these tests, which will allow state-wide comparisons, in effect generating “report cards” for the states and for individual colleges of education.  The Educational Testing Service (ETS) is providing this scaled-score information to 35 states and territories.

Some deans at colleges of education have questioned the comparability of the scores.  Randy Hitz at Portland State points out that there is variation among institutions in how they define “clinical experience,” for example.  But others point out that any information that goes beyond simple pass or fail is bound to be an improvement.  Also, scaled scores can help a school identify areas where it is weak.

[Question:  how do Oregon colleges of education compare?]

Education Week 3/02/2011 issue

Money, Public Policy Tangled in Wisconsin Labor Feud, p. 1

Gov. Scott Walker’s proposal to cut back collective bargaining rights for most public employees has sparked a feud with teachers throughout the state.  Walker says that his proposal will help financially-strapped school districts by saving money to help offset upcoming reductions in state aid.  Wisconsin faces a $3.6 billion shortfall over the next two years.  His plan would require public employees to contribute more to their pensions and health care, so pension and health-care costs for school districts would be likely to decrease.  A more controversial part of his plan would limit unions’ collective bargaining to wages only, excluding benefits such as health care from these negotiations.

Local school administrators have questioned whether Scott’s proposals will in fact save them money in the years ahead.  If they do save them money in personnel expenses , thesesavings are unlikely to be enough to cover cuts in state aid.  They feel that such an approach will promote discord between teachers and school administrators, who often enjoy amicable relationships.

There is concern that Scott’s approach will spread to other states who find themselves in a similar budget crunch.  Ohio is considering proposals that would also limit collective bargaining in areas such as school assignments, class size.  It is also considering teacher pay based on merit and forbidding the exculsive use of seniority in determining teacher layoffs.  The feud in Wisconsin, with teachers staging a sit-in at the state capitol, has galvanized teachers’ unions  in other states.  More to come.

[A politic sidebar:  police and firefighters were excluded from the proposed changes.  Coincidentally, they were contributors to Walker’s gubernatorial campaign.]

Education Week 2/23/2011 issue

‘Disparate Impact’ Discipline Policy Criticized, p. 27

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, at its 2/11/2011 meeting, discussed the Obama administration’s efforts to reduce the overrepresentation of some racial and ethnic groups in school discipline cases.  Administration officials said that they were looking for intentional discrimination (“different treatment”) as well as disproportionate effects on a particular group (“disparate impact”), even though there may have been no intention of discrimination in the latter.  The goal is to make sure that schools are fairly meting out discipline.  One member of the Commission, Todd Gaziono, was concerned that this approach may put a heavy burden on the school to justify any disparity.

Some teachers have taken issue with this approach.  One resents having to give “a thought to disparate impact,”   viewing this as a constraint on effective discipline whenever he has to remove a disruptive student from class.  Another teacher complained about her district’s change in policies because of disparate impact.  She points out that when her district did away with penalties for students not attending class because of disparate impact, it puts an unfair burden on teachers to reteach the material and retest students when they are allowed to make up the work. 

Some school administrators backed the administration’s efforts, however, touting the approach called Positive Behavioral Interventions and Support, which reduced the proportion of African American males expelled from Rochester, NY, schools.  A new commissioner, Roberta Achtenberg, was sympathetic to the civil rights focus on disparate impact, but she also wants to look at whether the remedies actually work.  She wants to allay educators’ concerns that the federal government is interfering for the sake of “political correctness.”

[My thoughts:  This topic can be a political minefield for a teacher.  As teachers, we need to make sure that our disciplinary decisions are not influenced in any way by ethnic or racial stereotypes.  But we also need to be free to address actual behavioral issues that arise, without having to consider how our classroom management decisions will impact some administrator’s statistical scorecard.]

Education Week 2/9/2011 issue

‘College for All’ Confronted:  Harvard Report Proposes Diverse Academic Paths, p.1

Leaders of a group project called “Pathways to Prosperity” at the Harvard Graduate School of Education have called for changing the education system for those students who are not planning on pursuing bachelor’s degrees.   They contend that the “college for all” model is not working for many students, who instead need solid preparation for other occupations.  They note that by their mid- twenties, 60% of Americans have not earned associate’s or bachelor’s degrees.  At the same time, half the new jobs in the next decade will be in “middle skills” occupations that will require vocational or technical training.  They propose presenting career options to students in middle school and then identifying the course work and training required for these middle-skill careers.  They suggest having employers help define the skills necessary and also having them provide internships linked to students’ courses of study, similar to what is being done in Europe.  Early career counseling for students is another suggestion, which is largely absent today.

Members of the group acknowledge that their proposals raise familiar concerns about “tracking” students, however, where the less-capable students, often disadvantaged students, would be channeled into less-demanding programs with more limited prospects for the future.  Critics point out that when multiple tracks with different standards are created, a disproportionate number of poor students and students of color of end up going down the lesser track.  The group contends, however, that they simply want to change the system so that students have will have real choices to make when they turn 16, with their parents’ help.  They point to some exemplary career and technical education programs in California as examples of choices that may be good options for many students.

[My thoughts:  I believe that there are students being ill-served by a system predicated on a college-for-all model.  Vocational training and academic courses appropriate to these vocations are not much in evidence in many high schools.  Many students have to wait to get such training in community colleges, if they get that far.

I have reservations about having students make career choices at age 16, however, when many are still pretty immature and when most haven’t found their calling yet.  There is something to be said for getting a taste of the world before deciding what you want to do with your life.  But for those who are ready to make such a decision, there should be a vocational channel with appropriate resources available.]

Study Finds Academic Payoffs in Teaching Students Social Skills, p.8

Researchers have found that students who took part in social and emotional learning (SEL) not only improved their behavior but also improved academically, improving their grades and standardized test scores by 11 percentile points.  The aim of SEL is to provide a foundation for academic learning by teaching students skills in self-awareness, self-management, getting along with others, and decision-making.  For the study, researchers focused on SEL programs that taught broad universal social skills, rather than targeting specific students with specific behavior issues.  The students in these programs demonstrated improved social skills, less emotional distress and better attitudes, fewer conduct problems, and more frequent positive behaviors such as cooperating with or helping other students.  One SEL expert suggested that these improvements in social skills helped the students academically as well because their teachers could teach more effectively by staying on task with these calmer, more cooperative students.  A report in 2003 found that teachers lost as much as 30% of their instructional time dealing with behavior issues in class.

One surprise from the study:  simple teacher-led SEL programs were more effective than multifaceted programs that involved school-wide activities and parental involvement.  This may be due to the difficulty of coordinating the implementation of these more complex programs, however.

[My thoughts:  This study provides a strong argument for the importance of social skills training, and it did not even look at social skills training for specific behavioral issues such as bullying.  Not only did behavior improve, but also academic performance.  If the academic improvement by these students did indeed result from a more peaceful classroom, then all students benefited, not jus the students whose behavior was in need of correction.]

Education Week 2/2/2011 issue

ESEA Renewal Could Gain Momentum, p. 1

Progress has been stalled on a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), pending since 2007.  The current version of the law is the No Child Left Behind Act, enacted in 2002.  President Obama is pushing for a more flexible version of NCLB, touting the $4 billion Race to the Top competition and recent efforts to develop common academic standards as approaches that could be incorporated into a reauthorization.  He would like to push back the goal to bring all students to proficiency on state tests to 2014, replacing this with new standards focused on getting students ready for college or for the work force.  He also wants to spend $100 million to recruit new science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) teachers.

There is bipartisan agreement in a number of areas that could be included in a reauthorization.  There is a desire to modify the NCLB yardstick known as “adequate yearly progress,” which is seen as punitive and inflexible.  There is agreement that the federal government should address the needs of lowest-performing schools and promote teacher evaluation and improvement.  The focus should be broadened to other subjects besides reading and math.  And leaders in both parties want to give more control to states and districts over the strategies that are used to improve student achievement.

There have been some disagreements, however.  Republicans want to hold down spending, often do not like federal standards of any sort, and some question whether there should even be a Department of Education.  Democrats have clashed over whether test scores should be a factor in teacher evaluations and pay.  One prominent House Democrat suggested that teachers need to know how their practices affect student learning, but he acknowledged that teacher organizations will have to be involved in teacher evaluations.

[My thoughts:  Some of Obama’s comments about and goals for education, as outlined in hi s State of the Union address, are certainly laudable:  “When a child walks into a classroom, it should be a place of high expectations and high performance.”  Instead of another race or competition for limited available funding, however, I would rather see funding sufficient to foster innovation and improvement in all schools that are underperforming.  Wouldn’t it be great if we funded education fully, and required the military to hold bake sales and fundraisers to raise the money for new weapons systems?]

Wanted:  Ways to Measure Most Teachers, p. 1

A big issue in teacher evaluations is what measure or measures to use to estimate how much of an impact an individual teacher has made on student learning.  Almost a dozen states last year took steps to require teacher evaluations to include consideration of students’ academic growth.  One controversial approach measures a teacher’s “value added,” a measure that looks at the difference between students’ test scores on standardized tests at the beginning of the course and again at the end of the course.  These standardized tests are typically available on in the areas of math and reading, however, and only in grades 4-8.  According to one estimate, about 70% of teachers teach in nontested grades or subjects.  One problem with using such standardized tests to guide or evaluate teachers is that they represent a snapshot in time, a picture of where students are at, but they do not tell the teacher what needs to be done next or how to improve teaching strategies.  They measure the endpoint and not the beginning point in student learning.

In some areas throughout the country, teachers’ unions, administrators, and content-area specialists are working together to develop measures of teaching effectiveness in areas other than math or reading.  They are looking at alternative measures such as projects, portfolios (scored using guidelines), and classroom-based assessments.  In one North Carolina district, schools help teachers set rigorous achievement goals for their students and select or craft assessments to measure goal-attainment.  Performance pay in the district is based on these outcomes.  Studies have shown a correlation between rigorous learning objectives and higher performance by students.  Individually-set student learning objectives are difficult to compare with other schools, however, unlike district-wide or state-wide measures.  Several states now require multiple measures of a teacher’s contribution to student learning.  Other issues with teacher evaluations include finding ways to assess teachers of students with disabilities, and making sure that some teachers are not penalized because of the demographic makeup of their classes.

[My thoughts:  Some subjects are more amenable to standardized testing than others (math, for example), and these subjects are probably better-suited to more standardized criteria for teacher evaluation.  Other subjects have more variation in their curricula and do not have standardized tests, making comparative measurement of teacher effectiveness more difficult.  And then there are the larger questions, such as how to measure a teacher’s contribution to the development of students’ critical reasoning abilities.  I’d like to see a formula for that!]  

Educaton Week 1/26/2011 issue

Districts’ Efficiency Evaluated in Report, p.1

The Center for American Progress, a think tank that has produced a series of reports that examine government accountability and efficiency, has produced a report that evaluates the “educational efficiency” of some 9000+ school districts around the country, covering school districts with more than 250 students in all states but four (also excluding the District of Columbia).  The aim of the report is to generate discussion about how efficiently school districts are using their funding, especially as stimulus funds for education are drying up and states are having to cut back funding in all areas, including education, because of the economic downturn.  It attempts to measure “productivity” by looking at student math and reading test results compared to dollars spent.  It came up with three different measures of productivity:  (1) A “basic return on investment” measure rates school districts within a state based on how much academic achievement they get for each dollar spent (with some adjustment for more expensive students such as special ed students, free lunch-qualified students, and ELL students).  (2) An “adjusted return on investement” measure is similar to the basic measure, above, but it takes into account some additional factors that result in spending differences within a state.  (3) A “predicted” efficiency rating is even more sophisticated, attempting to gauge how much achievement a district produced compared to another district in that state that had a similar spending level and similar student demographics.

Some findings:  High-spending districts are often inefficient.  Only about one-sixth of the Florida school districts who ranked in the top third in spending were also in the top third in achievement, for example.  Also, students from disadvantaged backgrounds were more likely to be enrolled in highly inefficient districts.  Some of the more efficient school districts were spending more on teachers and less on administration, were partnering with their communities to hold down expenses (one school district shared a technology center with the town, for example), or were saving money by closing low-enrollment schools.  With a few notable exceptions, most of the efficient school districts were larger and wealthier.

The author of the report acknowledges that the research cannot account for all of the variables outside of the control of the school district and or for flaws in the database that it used.  One critic of the report pointed out that it does not adequately account for the extra resources that are needed to educate disadvantaged students.  And there was concern that the report might be used to justify cuts in funding.

[My thoughts:  Imagine two school districts with identical funding levels.  One is located in a blighted urban area and serves a high percentage of at-risk students, and the other is in an affluent suburb.  Since student achievement (test scores) is one of the two variables in the efficiency model, the first school district will most likely be “inefficient” while the second will be “efficient.”  How useful is this measure, even if you attempt to control for different student demographics?  There were few ideas offered in the article for how to control costs, on the one hand, or to increase student achievement, on the other.  The report pointed to a school district in a Kentucky coal-mining community that measured high in efficiency and was getting good academic achievement from a predominantly low-income student population, but there was no mention (at least in this article) of how that district was accomplishing this.  Identifying specific factors that contribute to efficiency (especially on the achievement side) would make this a much more valuable analysis.]

Choice Advocates See Issue Rising on Congressional Radar, p.17

The Republican takeover of the House of Representatives and the bolstering of Republican minority in the Senate may bode well for advocates of school choice, including those who favor school vouchers.  Republicans tend to me more supportive of vouchers, although their current priority is on reining in spending and cutting back programs, not creating and funding new ones.  The issue at hand is whether to reauthorize spending for the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program, which gives $7500 scholarships to students in low-performing schools who are from low-income families to attend higher-performing private schools.  The program expired in 2009, when an attempt to reauthorize it failed in the Senate, with Republicans in favor of reauthorization and most Democrats against it.  Senator Lieberman, who chairs a committee that oversees policy for the District of Columbia, is the major proponent of reauthorization and has been working with House Speaker John Boehner on legislation to accomplish this.  He proposes new spending that would go in equal parts to the voucher system, charter schools, and public schools in D.C.  The effort faces opposition from groups like the NEA, who are against spending on school choice when so many school districts are financially hard-pressed.

Reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind act, which has been pending since 2007, also will have to address the issue of school choice.  Currently, schools that miss NCLB achievement targets must allow students to transfer to a higher-performing public school.  The Obama administration wants to delete this provision from any NCBL reauthorization bill, but Republicans are generally in favor of it.  School choice advocates may find causes to promote in other areas as well, such as funding incentives for schools to provide online learning (which would be like changing schools but without leaving the actual building) and in voucher programs for special ed students.

[My thoughts:  I am somewhat ambivalent on the school choice issue.  On the one hand, if a school is “broken” we should fix it instead of paying students to go elsewhere.  On the other hand, if I had a son or daughter in school and the local school was a “broken” school, with no chance of being fixed any time soon, I would want my child to go to another school, preferably a well-rated public school—if one were available in the district.  If there were no good public schools in the district, I would send my child to a private school.  Would I like to receive a voucher or “scholarship” to help pay for this private schooling?  Of course.  Should public funds be used to pay for my child’s private school?  Aye, there’s the rub!]   

Education Week 1/19/2011 issue

School Restructures Student Grouping, p. 1

Palmer Park Preparatory Academy, a middle school in the troubled Detroit school system, is being used to test some innovative pilot programs that eventually could be expanded to include other schools in the system.  First, it will become a teacher-led school.  Four lead teachers are being trained to take on the budgeting and management duties usually done by an administrator.  Second, an extended day gives teachers the opportunity every afternoon to engage in “common planning,”  in addition to their regular prep periods during the day.  They use the common planning time to discuss things such as the results of their lessons, to analyze data from quarterly benchmark assessments, and to decide whether particular students are ready to be moved to another class.  Third, they are experimenting with “differentiated instruction” for students, especially  for those who have struggled to understand key concepts and who are at risk for falling behind.  Schedules are personalized for all students in the pilot program based on data culled from state, local, and classroom tests.  Students are placed into one of three classrooms for math and one of three classroom for English/language arts, depending on whether they need more intensive instruction in basic concepts or whether they are ready to move on to more in-depth instruction.  Student progress can be monitored on a weekly or even daily basis, and a student can move to another class whenever he/she is ready.  Scheduling is based on student needs, not on teacher preferences or convenience.

Differentiated instruction is not a new idea.  It is similar to the controversial concepts of “ability grouping" and “tracking.”  Critics of these concepts contend that they benefit high achievers but lead to greater educational disparities between them and the low-achieving peers.  Anecdotal evidence at this school, however, suggests that students appear to be more engaged and focused on their tasks; some have proactively asked to move on to other classes.  Although the program is so new that there is hard evidence to go on, the district will be carefully monitoring progress at the school and accumulating comparative data, including standardized test scores and other measures.  If the school shows progress, the district will consider expanding the concept to other schools.

[My thoughts:  The innovative approach being tried in this school came about because of a partnership among teachers, the local teachers’ union, the central administration, and a publisher that was hired to revamp the school’s curriculum and which provided the data to drive the differential instruction.  It may be difficult to bring together such a coalition in other school districts.  I’m not sure that I see the need for teachers to perform administrative roles, but the concept of differential instruction is intriguing to me.  It may mean longer hours and a more hectic schedule for teachers, but I see the potential of real benefits for students.  I hope that the editors will re-visit the school to see how the experiment has worked once comparative data have become available.]

 Renewed Push on ESEA Likely, p. 1

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) is being pushed by the Obama administration for renewal.  The current version of the law, the No Child Left Behind Act, was passed in late 2001, touted as one of George W. Bush’s singular achievements during his presidency.  NCLB is now seen as outdated, however, and a revised version of ESEAwas put forward last year, pushed by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.  The revised plan ties teacher evaluations in part to student test scores, gives states more control over how to improve student progress while calling on them to better prepare students for college or for a career, and proposes stringent programs to help those schools that are struggling the most.  Some of the administration’s K-12 priorities have already been partially realized through the $100 billion for education in the federal stimulus bill.  The $4 billion Race to the Top program, included in the stimulus bill, pushed states to adopt more uniform and rigorous standards, revise their charter school laws, and reconsider teacher tenure  and evaluation.

Prospects for the Obama administration’s revised ESEA appear to be uncertain, however.  Some of the newly-elected tea party Republicans would prefer to do away with the Department of Education and transfer decision making back to the state and local levels.  But Republican leaders share Obama’s concern with teacher quality and would be more inclined to work with the administration on a revised ESEA.  The problem has more to do with Democrats in Congress, who are divided over the proposed changes.  The NEA, which is usually a reliable ally of the Democratic Party, is highly critical of the administration’s push to link teacher evaluations and tenure decisions to student test scores.  A number of Democrats will not want to alienate the teachers unions, although others will want to support the President.  It remains to be seen whether they will be able to find common ground.

[Comment:  I am reminded of the politician who said, “I am a member of no organized political party.  I am a Democrat.”] 

Education Week 1/12/2011 issue

Simulations Help Novices Hone Skills, p. 1

Classroom simulation programs are being used to provide teacher candidates with opportunities to work in virtual classrooms with different groups of students and to develop their classroom management skills.  TeachMe is one such program, which is being used at the University of Central Florida.  Another program is simSchool, which features the ability to define up to 18 individual students with different emotional characteristics and response patterns, so that the teacher candidate will have to adapt his/her methods to these different individual students during the classroom simulation.  The idea behind these programs is not to replace actual student teaching but rather to build their skills in a virtual environment where mistakes will not have actual consequences on a child’s education.

The TeachMe program uses an actual actor for each lesson, who plays five roles based on different student personalities and profiles.  The actor has a copy of the day’s lesson plan and plays each character in turn in response to the teacher candidate’s classroom instruction.  They have no script, only a knowledge of the background of the characters they are to play.  TeachMe may appeal to more youthful teacher candidates who have grown up in a world of computer-simulated reality.

The simSchool program is quite sophisticated.  It looks at the complexity of the tasks assigned by the user, the different personalities of the students (which can be customized in advance), and the students’ level of involvement in each activity.  It tracks student performance based on the actions of the teacher candidate.  The virtual students may pay attention, or they may decide to distract their peers.  They may understand the lesson, or it may be too difficult for them and they become frustrated.  They will reflect different emotional factors (including openness to learning and conscientiousness), different perceptual abilities, and different cognitive abilities such as the general capacity to learn.  Results have been encouraging for users of simSchool.  Those who have used it report higher levels of “instructional self-efficacy.”  They were more resilient in the face of instructional setbacks, which could improve retention rates among new teachers.

[My thoughts:  I cannot help but think either of these programs would be a great tool for prospective teachers.  They could be used to help them hone their skills prior to their actual practice teaching.  I particularly like the capability of the simSchool program for customizing different types of students that the teacher candidate might encounter.  It could provide some challenges that might not be present during actual practice teaching, depending on the venue involved.]

Gates Analysis Offers Clues to Identification of Teacher Effectiveness, p. 11

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has financed a Measure of Teaching Effectiveness study.  In its December preliminary report it identified two components of teacher effectiveness:  teachers’ value-added histories, which were strong predictors of how they would perform in other classrooms or in other school years, and students’ perceptions of their teachers’ abilities to maintain order in the classroom and provide challenging lessons.  “Value-added” modeling controls factors such as a student’s past performance in order to attribute learning gains to a specific teacher.  Students’ perceptions of their teachers’ abilities included their perceptions that the teachers made the point of their lessons clear, were considerate of their students, and were able to explain the material presented in different ways understandable to students. 

The study found that, in every grade and subject, teachers’ value-added histories were strongly predictive of their performance in other classrooms, although there was some volatility in the estimates from year to year.  It also found that students’ perceptions of their teacher were consistent across his/her classes, and that the teachers that they gave high ratings to, especially in the areas of classroom management and providing a challenging academic environment, were teachers whose classes consistently made learning gains.  Value-added measures of teacher effectiveness held up even when students were given supplemental tests requiring harder tasks such as conceptual questions and open-ended writing (which are more difficult to prepare for).  Although there was a positive correlation between test preparation and value-added estimates of teacher effectiveness, this was weaker than other factors.

Some states have moved toward including value-added estimates in teacher evaluations.  Few are considering including student perceptions.  The study seems to suggest that both factors should be included, as well as other factors such as teachers’ content knowledge and working conditions.  Further studies will try to measure student performance when students are randomly assigned to teachers identified as more effective or less effective.

[My thoughts:  There have been a number of methodological issues raised by some who question using value-added estimates to measure teacher effectiveness, but these are only hinted at in this brief overview.  The article mentions “volatility” in value-added estimates for specific teachers from year to year, for example, without giving statistics to indicate how seriously this volatility could undermine the reliability of value-added estimates.  Nor does it talk about how value-added estimates could be skewed by social selection factors such as parents (of good students) wanting to locate near good schools, good teachers wanting to get jobs in good schools, and good students seeking to take classes with teachers who are known to be good teachers.  Further studies using students who are randomly assigned to teachers, mentioned in the article, could control for some of these social factors and also yield more reliable results.]