In a recent webinar for the National High School Center, Brockton High School (MA) Principal, Sue Szachowicz, attributed her school’s success to the purposeful and hard work initiated by the staff.  “Making change takes tenacity, not brilliance,” she said.

Szachowicz "discussed her school’s experiences in planning for and implementing school-wide literacy, which has resulted in dramatic academic gains in student achievement for both Reading and Math.

Sue's 10 Keys to Literacy Success (in my words):

1. Literacy is the key to raising academic performance.
2. Improving student literacy skills requires the involvement of the entire school.
3. Focus on building teacher capacity over time.
4. Identify, clarify, amplify, and model good instructional practices during professional development.
5. School wide instructional practices that are both "defined" and "aligned" benefit all students by providing each student with repeated exposure to research-based practices throughout the school day.
6. Data-informed initiatives ensure that the focus remains on student needs instead of adult "wants."
7. Change takes time, years in fact. Look at a school wide literacy initiative as a long-term process by building layer by layer, year after year.
8. Any long-term initiative should grow and evolve over time. A literacy initiative should look different in year five than it did in year two.
9. Changes and modifications to any initiative must be based on the assessed needs of the students.
10. "Schools cannot wait for teacher buy-in. Results are what convince the staff." If leaders approach a school wide literacy initiative as a long-term process, there is no need to wait for total agreement before beginning nor is there a need to force everyone to be at the same level all at once.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:12 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

When No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was first presented in the early years of the Bush Administration it represented a significant shift in educational policy.  End-of-course exams like Virginia’s Standards of Learning (SOL) were soon to become a measure of a school’s success.  The initial requirement of a 70% pass rate in English and Math appeared challenging but reasonable.  Of course, most educational professionals acknowledged that such a level could only be a starting point.  When the SOL exams became a barrier to graduation, no one would have been satisfied with such a low target.  As the Fairfax County Public Schools (VA) Coordinator of Math told me at a department chair meeting at the time, “We have to be striving for something closer to 100%.” 

In the first few years before NCLB went into effect, most systems struggled to reach the 70% level but each year brought higher scores and by the time this requirement had become mandatory the majority of schools were deemed to be making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).  In slow, realistic increments the benchmarks began to rise.  These initial goals continued to be well within reach.  

The collision of idealism and reality

There is, however, a time bomb planted deep inside the legislation.  The necessary pass rate for AYP reached 89% last year, a point that became difficult to attain for an increasing number of schools especially in the sub-groups of Special Education and some minorities.  But more importantly, there was a lack of common sense at the endpoint of this relentless march upward. 

In 2014 the requirement for AYP will become 100%.  While such a percentage would literally leave no child behind it also empowers certain students to hold an entire building hostage by choosing to fail a test or at least not giving it their best effort.   

Why would a student not give his best on a standardized test?  Because some tests, although the results are included in the school’s data, are not considered barrier tests for the student.   It doesn’t matter what the student makes, but it can be devastating for the school’s statistics and their AYP.

Surprisingly, as 2012 testing comes into focus, there has been plenty of activity but little effort to address this reality.  Instead of facing the obvious—some children are going to be left behind regardless of the effectiveness of a school— band aids are being applied to the program.  In lieu of adjusting impractical expectations, special temporary exemptions are being issued.  Schools are being given additional time to reach an unreachable goal. 

The irony in all of these machinations is that if the majority of schools did attain test results with no failures, it would be likely that the methods of assessment and/or grading would have to be considered suspect.  Virtually every outcome of 100% is a source of concern.  When Saddam Hussein would win an election with 99.1% of the votes everyone knew the results were rigged.  Garrison Keillor’s Lake Woebegon children are all “above average”, a statement which is intended to be satire, not reality.  Expecting a typical school to have a perfect pass rate is equally ridiculous.  The result of such expectations will be to place inordinate pressure on the school staff and test creators to find ways to pass even the most recalcitrant of students.  In such a case the validity of all test scores will be diminished.  In addition, the recent spate of cheating scandals would likely increase in the wake of such outrageous expectations.  Ask a successful teacher what they would think if every student in all of their classes made an “A” on their final exam.  The answer would reflect on the quality of the test and/or whether it had somehow been compromised. 

Listen to the coach

Vince Lombardi wrote, “Always strive for perfection.  Though you will never achieve it, you may pass excellence along the way.”  Apparently, the authors of NCLB did not read the coach’s book.  Everyone wants all students to be successful.  But this is an aspirational goal, not a realistic one.  Any 100% rule can neither be implemented nor enforced.  However, instead of changing the rule to reflect authentic academic success for as many students as possible, there has been a flood of exceptions, exemptions and excuses.  It is time for a more realistic approach.  While it is true that a rising tide will raise all ships, exam grade inflation will not do the same for actual student performance.   A requirement of a 100% pass rate will surely lead to a disastrous scenario.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:17 AM | Permalink

This week I am blogging from the NASSP Conference in San Francisco.

I used to say, "show me the data." However, it has gotten to the point that I no longer need to look at a school's data to know that a school is thriving or struggling. I can simply listen to what the staff of the school talks about. High-performing schools talk about students and how they are meeting their needs. Struggling schools talk about adult wants and adult needs.

Student-Focused

After attending three School Showcase presentations this morning it became crystal clear to me that schools serving large numbers under-resourced students must have a student-focused obsession, and that obsession must relate to the specific needs of the population that the school serves.

The three schools all served under-resourced students. However, the three high schools varied in size, had very different demographics, and were located in states with very different economics and education policies. The context in which these schools operated was about as different as they could possibly be.

Although they were very different in appearance, the three schools had a lot in common. They each had a laser-like focus on student success that bordered on an obsession. In fact, these three schools were so obsessed with student success that they were willing to overcome any obstacle that got in their way.

Literacy: Brockton High School (MA) is a large (4,350) urban high school that has focused on raising the literacy--reading, writing, thinking, discussing--levels of ALL students, particularly its large ELL population. Principal, Susan Szachowicz, and a "handful of fellow teachers" organized a school wide campaign that brought reading and writing lessons into every class in all subjects, including gym. According to a New York Times article, Brockton's literacy-for-all success has defied the "small is better orthodoxy" proving that any school can beat the odds and raise student performance.

Attendance: The audience turned to each other with looks of disbelief when the staff of Arroyo High School (CA) posted their three-year attendance figures. Arroyo's average daily attendance was well over 96%. For a large, high-poverty, high minority, urban high school, 96% is phenomenal. However, I could see the enthusiasm abate as the staff spent about twenty minutes describing all the initiatives the school used to improve attendance. As I have emphasized over and over again, improving student attendance is all about hard work and will power, and the Arroyo staff have plenty of both. Arroyo's success formula is simple. Get the students to attend school every day and make sure that the students succeed.

Course Failure: The presentation began with a simple but very effective slide that pointed out that, over a three-year period, Barberton (OH) High School had reduced course failures from over 2,500 to 350. The staff at Barberton must have read Bob Balfanz's dropout research that points out that course failure is one of the best indicators of dropping out of school. Admittedly, a school could reduce failures by simply lowering standards. This was not the case at Barberton, where the focus was clear and no obstacle too big to overcome. The staff used small learning communities, flexible scheduling, a unique master schedule, student-led conferences, and an advisory program among other strategies to significantly improve student performance.

The Bottom Line

These three schools demonstrate that there are no quick fixes. Even though these schools shared a student-focused obsession it took years of hard work, dedication, determination, and sheer will power to realize success. However, their obvious pride and sense of accomplishment make it obvious that the effort was all worth it.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:30 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

There are few lightning rods in the educational landscape of 2011 that rival the debate on the role of testing in the evaluation of student, teacher and school performance.  However, another perspective on this topic was addressed in a recent Mel Riddile post which discussed research indicating that frequent testing had a positive impact on learning.

According to Dr. Riddile, “A recent study summarized in Science magazine and reported in a New York Times article titled To Really Learn, Quit Studying and Take a Test may be a key to unlocking some keys to the teaching and learning process.”  This discussion does not concern the end-of-course barrier exams that are the focal point of most educational conversations.  The research revolves around the use of testing within a teacher’s daily lesson planning.  The study found “practicing retrieval produces greater gains in meaningful learning than elaborate studying.”  As Dr. Riddile notes, “In other words, the simple act of taking a test may improve learning better than any other studying technique including note taking and concept mapping.”

Perhaps the most compelling conclusion noted revolved around the retention of information.  “The Times article went on to say, The research, published online Thursday in the journal Science, found that students who read a passage, then took a test asking them to recall what they had read, retained about 50 percent more of the information a week later than students who used two other methods. One of those methods — repeatedly studying the material — is familiar to legions of students who cram before exams. The other — having students draw detailed diagrams documenting what they are learning — is prized by many teachers because it forces students to make connections among facts.”

The view from the classroom

For forty years I taught high school mathematics.  For the last thirty-eight I employed a teaching technique that paralleled the views expressed in those studies.  Whether the subject was General Math, Algebra 1, Algebra 2 or Pre-calculus I created a classroom strategy that was clearly focused on the concept of frequent and consistent testing.   It was a plan that was simple and direct. 

The centerpiece of the plan

Every class period included a quiz.  It always contained relatively simple questions that could be completed in ten to fifteen minutes.  Questions would be graded on a “right or wrong” basis with little partial credit involved.  It would be the math equivalent of a short-answer, fill-in-the-blanks question.  As the previously noted research found, the regular testing of information led to a number of extremely important outcomes.  Not only did the students retain the material better, they were also clearly aware of their academic status in the class.   A daily evaluation of one’s performance means no one is surprised by their ultimate success or failure.  The teacher also benefits from having a barometer of student learning in every class period.   A quiz that results in a significant number of poor grades requires more work on the topic.  One that indicates overall comprehension allows an educator to move forward with confidence.  Since it is critical that these papers be returned the next class meeting, they must be easy to grade.  The best utilization of time for the teacher is to be able to grade one set of papers while the next class is taking their quiz. 

A systematic approach

My overall classroom strategy was to introduce every topic in three consecutive classes.  The daily quiz was a key component of that plan.  This approach was used regardless of the level of the math or whether the school utilized a block or non-block schedule.  On day 1 a topic would be presented to the students.  An explanation of the concept would be followed by examples and then homework would be assigned to give the students practice.  Day 2 would begin with a review of the homework.  After that review was completed and all questions were answered, a quiz would be given.  Designed to cover this one concept, it was based on questions similar to those found on the homework.  On day 3 the quiz would be returned and reviewed.  

This philosophy was explained in detail to the students on the first day of school.  A typical class would be divided into four segments.  Part one was returning the quiz from the previous session and discussing any questions.  The next segment was reviewing the homework assignment.  Often a worksheet would follow to ensure understanding.  At the conclusion of that conversation the class was given a quiz.  The fourth and final element of the period was devoted to the next topic which would be then practiced in a homework assignment. The next class would be structured in the same manner.   By following this schedule every topic was discussed in three consecutive classes.

It sounds so boring

Obviously, such a highly-structured approach could be a formula for boredom.  Though the basic plan never changed, the challenge for the teacher was to create variety within the segments.  On some occasions I would have my “A” students write the quiz solutions on the board.  An “A” student was anyone who received a grade of “A” on that particular quiz.  Students quickly perceived this opportunity as an “honor” and since all students at one time or another would have a perfect paper I would take care throughout the year to have as many different students as possible receive this recognition.  It was stunning to watch otherwise sophisticated 18-year-olds become giddy when they had a chance to demonstrate their math prowess.  On other occasions, I would personally focus on any problem that was missed by a significant number of students. 

The review of the homework was also approached in different ways.  Volunteers would be solicited on some occasions; other times students were assigned problems.  A third option would have me do the work.  The practice worksheets could be presented as individual work, group projects, contests, or puzzles.  The outcome was always the same—practice—but the methods would vary from day to day. 

The introduction of the new topic would also be open to a variety of educational strategies.  Lecture, group discovery, question-answer and any other method available would be employed on different occasions.

Students love structure

People are most comfortable when they have a familiar routine.  When students feel comfortable in a class they become more confident.  By the end of the first week of school, my students understood the process and knew what to expect each day.  There were no surprises.   At the end of every year I would give my students the opportunity to complete an anonymous evaluation of the course.  When asked for the aspect that contributed the most to their success, the daily quiz was selected more often than all of the other options combined. 

The sincerest form of flattery

Over the course of my career a number of teachers adopted my “daily quiz” approach to teaching.  These individuals taught in courses all across the curriculum.  Many reported not only improved learning but also better communication in terms of student performance.  My wife, an associate Biology professor at a junior college, has successfully used the same strategy with her students. 

Clearly from my perspective those research studies are truly on to something.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:28 AM | Permalink

According to a report by Catherine Gewertz of Education Week, a study released today by the Center on Education Policy, indicates that testing at the high school level will increase.

• More states are using assessments as barriers to graduation and requiring other exams that are not linked to graduation. Twenty-eight states now have such requirements, up from 26 in the 2009 report.
• Three quarters of the nation’s students now attend schools in states that give exit exams.
• Twenty-three states currently give end-of-course tests. Only seven use them as exit exams, but another 10 plan to begin doing so.
• States increasingly are requiring students to take a college-entrance exam—the ACT or SAT—or a workplace-readiness test such as WorkKeys.
• More states also are requiring or considering some form of portfolio assessment.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 05:33 AM | Permalink

Recently, Jay Mathews of the Washington Post, in preparation for an article on the accuracy of school incident reports, asked me to respond to the following question: "Do security incident reports adequately describe the climate of a school?" Here is my complete response.

The answer is simple. No single data point can accurately depict student performance nor can incident reports describe the climate or culture of a school. Experience has taught me that the only way to truly assess the climate of a school is to spend time in the school and to use that time to observe as well as to gather data from multiple sources.

Ask the teachers!

What teachers say is a much better indicator of school climate than incident reports. I admit that I pay close attention to reports from teachers, which identify specific issues and incidents. Experience has taught me that teachers are generally reluctant to make such reports, but when they do, it is usually a sign of a much larger problem.

What affects consistency in reporting?

I have found discipline reports to often be inconsistent within a school and wildly inconsistent among a large number of schools across a district. Schools in which several administrators deal with student discipline could have a wide variation in how some incidents are reported.

The more serious the incident, the more consistent the reporting. Many schools and school systems have zero tolerance policies for drugs, weapons, and gang-related behaviors. The more clearly defined the behaviors, the more consistent the reporting within a school.

NCLB has dramatically improved the consistency of reporting. States like Virginia developed reporting systems that met federal requirements and districts aligned their reporting to match state systems.

Another factor that greatly impacts the consistency of reporting relates to the police presence in a school. In schools with a full-time school resource officer, the reporting will be more consistent.

Pressure to avoid negative labels

We know that schools are under tremendous pressure to raise test scores. However, that pressure pales in comparison to the need avoid the stigma of being labeled a "persistently dangerous" school. Parents will absolutely refuse to send their child to a dangerous school and school leaders know it.

School Discipline and Grey Areas

Like most school issues, there are a number of grey areas, and that is particularly true when reporting student behavior. For example, one student brings a knife to school to protect him, but since the blade is shorter than that specified in the code, the knife is not considered a weapon. Another student goes on a camping trip and forgets that he left his knife in his backpack. However, because the knife is of a specified length, it is considered a weapon.

Generally speaking, the tendency is to downplay incidents. In fact , I cannot imagine a case in which a school would want to overstate the number of serious incidents. Truth be told, some principals pressure school resource officers to downgrade some incidents. Likewise, some police officers don't want to deal with juveniles and the juvenile court system and they want to downgrade incidents.

Data can be misleading

In the short run, a school can look better when less is done. Principals can reduce the number of incidence by not showing up or by simply doing nothing. Schools that take a less aggressive stand could look better on paper than they actually are in real life. On the other hand, schools that actively and consistently address discipline issues could, in the short run, have a high number of incidents. In that case, the school could look worse on paper than it actually is.

The Bottom Line

School culture is a product of the values, beliefs, mindsets, and behaviors of the entire school community. Just as no school and no student can or should be judged on the basis of a single data point, neither can the number of incidents portray the culture or climate of a school. When it comes to reporting student behavior, I would trust first-hand experience and the word of the teachers and students rather than a state or district report that simply lists the number of incidents.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:01 PM | Permalink

"There are three kinds of lies; lies, damn lies, and statistics."--Mark Twain

The release of the 2009 PISA results this past week has created quite a stir and has provided ample fodder for public school bashers and doomsayers who further their own philosophical and profit-motivated agendas by painting all public schools as failing. For whatever reason, these so-called experts, many of whom have had little or no actual exposure to public schools, refuse to paint an accurate picture of the state of education.

Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, should be providing the nation with a proper vision and focus for public education. He knows our challenges all too well. He confirmed that he gets it when he recently wrote me saying, "We must build a culture nationally where great educators ... choose to work with children and communities who need the most help." I believe his message is sincere and heartfelt and it is spot on. However, overstating a problem in order to increase the sense of urgency around school improvement is just as bad as understating the problem.

This week, Duncan had a golden opportunity to use the PISA results to provide focus for our education efforts and to point us in the right direction. Instead, he dug himself deeper into the pseudo-reformers' hole--more charter schools, more reliance on competition and free-market strategies, more testing, more use of test scores to evaluate teachers, more firing of principals and teachers, more closing of low-scoring schools--when he said, "the PISA scores released this past Tuesday were "a massive wake-up call," because the scores show American students holding relatively steady in the middle of the pack of the developed nations taking the international exam.

There is, however, someone who recognizes that the data is being misinterpreted.  NEAToday published remarks from National Association of Secondary School Principals Executive Director, Dr. Gerald N. Tirozzi, that have taken "a closer look at how the U.S. reading scores on PISA compared with the rest of the world’s, overlaying it with the statistics on how many of the tested students are in the government’s free and reduced lunch program for students below the poverty line." Tirozzi pointed out, “Once again, we’re reminded that students in poverty require intensive supports to break past a condition that formal schooling alone cannot overcome.” Tirozzi demonstrates the correlation between socio-economic status and reading by presenting the PISA scores in terms of individual American schools and poverty.  While the overall PISA rankings ignore such differences in the tested schools, when groupings based on the rate of free and reduced lunch are created, a direct relationship is established.

With strong evidence that increased poverty results in lower PISA scores the next question to be asked is what are the poverty rates of the countries being tested?  (Listed below are the countries that were tested by PISA along with available poverty rates. Some nations like Korea do not report poverty rates.)

Leveling the playing field

A more accurate assessment of the performance of U.S. students would be obtained by comparing the scores of American schools with comparable poverty rates to those of other countries.

Schools in the United States with less than a 10% poverty rate had a PISA score of 551.  When compared to the ten countries with similar poverty numbers, that score ranked first. 

In the next category (10-24.9%) the U.S. average of 527 placed first out of the ten comparable nations. 

For the remaining U.S. schools, their poverty rates over 25% far exceed any other country tested.  However, when the U.S. average of 502 for poverty rates between 25-49.9% is compared with other countries it is still in the upper half of the scores.

Mathematically Speaking

The results of the latest PISA testing should raise serious concerns.  However, the overall ranking of 14th in reading is not the reason to be concerned. The problem is not as much with our educational system as it is with our high poverty rates. The real crisis is the level of poverty in too many of our schools and the relationship between poverty and student achievement. Our lowest achieving schools are the most under-resourced schools with the highest number of disadvantaged students. We cannot treat these schools in the same way that we would schools in more advantaged neighborhoods or we will continue to get the same results. The PISA results point out that the U.S. is not alone in facing the challenge of raising the performance of disadvantaged students.

Additional observations from PISA results:

·      Shanghai, China topped the list with 556 but is not included in this analysis because Shanghai is a city not a country and because only 35% of Chinese students ever enter high school and because "when you spend all your time preparing for tests, and when students are selected based on their test-taking abilities, you get outstanding test scores."

·      Of all the nations participating in the PISA assessment, the U.S. has, by far, the largest number of students living in poverty--21.7%. The next closest nations in terms of poverty levels are the United Kingdom and New Zealand have poverty rates that are 75% of ours.

·      U.S. students in schools with 10% or less poverty are number one country in the world.

·      U.S. students in schools with 10-24.9% poverty are third behind Korea, and Finland.

·      U.S. students in schools with 25-50% poverty are tenth in the world.

·      U.S. students in schools with greater than 50% poverty are near the bottom.

·      There were other surprises. Germany with less than half our poverty, scored below the U.S. as did France with less than a third our poverty and Sweden with a low 3.6% poverty rate.

·      Having recently listened to Sir Michael Barber talk about the amazing progress of the reforms in the United Kingdom, I was absolutely shocked to see that the UK, with 25% less poverty, scored below the U.S. average.

The Real Meaning of PISA: It's Poverty Not Stupid

If the so-called experts would have honestly and responsibly reported the PISA results, we might now be on the road to responsible school improvement instead continuing down the road of "reform de jour."

President Bill Clinton is famous for his campaign slogan, "It's the economy stupid!" When it comes to student achievement and school improvement, it's poverty not stupid! Researchers report that perhaps the only true linear relationship in the social sciences is the relationship between poverty and student performance. While there is no relationship between poverty and ability, the relationship between poverty and achievement is almost foolproof. To deny that poverty is a factor to be overcome as opposed to an excuse is to deny the reality that all educators, human services workers, law enforcement officers, medical professionals and religious clergy know and have known for years.

PISA reports average scores. The problem is that the U.S. is not average. While the U.S. is the top country in global competitiveness, we also have the highest percentage of students living in poverty and, regretfully, poverty impacts test scores.

To Secretary Duncan, poverty is not an issue that educators must address. At least he won't admit it in public. Apparently, he wants to take away all the excuses from teachers and principals. When I met with Duncan, I asked him if he had read the book or seen the movie, Blind Side. He indicated that he had and that he had enjoyed it very much. I reminded him of the pride and sense of accomplishment felt by the teachers in the private school attended by Michael Oher. In their minds, they had performed a miracle. I pointed out that, in high-poverty schools, a Michael Oher is the average student. In schools like ours we have hundreds of students like Michael Oher who depend on our school for everything including food, clothing, and emotional support.

The Bottom Line

School improvement is not an event. It is an ongoing process that has no end. As a principal, parents and community members would repeatedly ask me, "When can we stop our comprehensive school-wide literacy initiative? I would answer, "We will stop emphasizing reading, writing, thinking and speaking when our parents repeatedly complain that their children are reading too fast with comprehension that is too high and when our students' writing skills are so superior that they are regularly winning Pulitzers and other literary awards." Smiles would erupt throughout the audience. They got it. They understood that literacy skills can always be improved and so can our schools.

There are three compelling reasons why we must improve our schools:

1. We have a moral and ethical obligation to provide every student with the best education, the kind of education that we would want for our own children.
2. In a knowledge economy, the country with the best-educated populace will have the highest standard of living.
3. Every dropout as well as every graduate who is not prepared for at least some post-secondary education and training is and will continue to be an economic and social burden on their local community and on this nation for their entire life.

The challenge of ensuring that each and every student is a life-long learner prepared to contribute in a global community is daunting enough. We don't need more hyperbole, particularly from those education insiders who should know better. For those of us who are deeply committed to improving the performance of every student, this rhetoric is counterproductive because it seriously erodes our ability to hire teachers, obtain resources, and gain the confidence and support of our communities.

We count on our leaders to provide focus and direction. Sadly, our education leaders don't trust us enough to tell us the truth. The problem is that we will never solve a problem that our leaders refuse to admit even exists. The comparison of PISA scores by poverty clearly identifies our strengths and challenges as a nation. Our schools with less than 50% poverty) are some of the best in the world. Our extremely high-poverty schools, with over 50% poverty, are among the poorest performing internationally.

Instead of labeling all schools as failing, we must find a way to raise the performance of our students in under-resourced schools. Instead of looking to low-poverty countries like Finland for direction, we should be looking to take what we already know about educating students in high-performing, high-poverty schools like our Breakthrough Schools and scaling up their successes across the nation. We continually look for gold in other countries when, all along, we are sitting on Acres of Diamonds.

Truthfully, you and I know all too well that Secretary Duncan, who led schools in Chicago, is aware of the relationship between poverty and student achievement, but he doesn't trust us enough to tell us the truth. He is afraid that we will use poverty as an excuse and that we will forget about our disadvantaged students. Ironically, by not acknowledging poverty as a challenge to be overcome, Duncan is forgetting about our disadvantaged students. Duncan needs to deliver the message that all our students deserve not only access to an education, but access to an excellent education. He needs to repeatedly remind us that, when it comes to school improvement, it's poverty not stupid.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 12:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the data. It biases the judgment." – Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

It has been argued that teachers should not be responsible for exam results if they have minimal or no input into the process.  When teachers lack opportunities for input into standardized testing procedures, frustration often results. But administrators and teachers do not always see eye to eye on this topic.   This fact was reinforced in a correspondence I received from a regular reader of this blog.   

“Last spring our SOL scores were dismal.  After a few days of remediation by teachers who volunteered to help failing students, the retest scores improved. But because the scores were deemed ‘good enough,’ there was no follow up by the administration.  They never looked at the reasons for the failures in the first place.   Were the failing students from specific teachers; were they from a specific subgroup, gender, etc.?     

I don’t understand why we aren’t studying the results?  Why aren’t we using the teachers who were successful to work with the (other) teachers? Won’t this problem occur again this year?  I know there are poor teachers, but many good teachers have their hands tied when the administration does not want to listen to creative ideas that could improve our scores.”

Understanding the teacher’s view

This is only one of many examples where the administrative and teaching staffs do not share a mutual vision of accountability. Why might that be the case?  Long before there were standardized tests, good teachers wanted to help students learn.  It is the main reason why most teachers enter the profession.  Of course, teachers want to have high test scores which will make them look good on their evaluations.  But the importance of these scores pales in comparison to   the greatest driving force for all excellent educators.   Any classroom failure is a highly personal experience for a teacher.  Each one has a name, a face, and a story.  Clearly these individuals are far more than mere statistics and will cause teachers to spend endless hours of self-examination as to what they could have done better. 

However, there is a strong sense that in many schools there is a disconnect between this view and the one of the administrative team.  Issues that are critical to teachers may be considered simply as a set of boxes to be checked off on yet another official form.  The mindset seems to be that if the results are good enough, we need not examine any issues that may be lurking just below the surface.  Why waste time fixing something that, based on a superficial inspection, is not totally broken?   

Focusing on the individual

Total school pass rates on barrier exams do not give a complete or an accurate appraisal of what is actually occurring within a student body.  An overall pass rate of 80% may satisfy some arbitrary requirement created at a meeting involving people who have never stood in front of a classroom.  But it does not explain why one of every five students did not succeed.  It does not put faces to those 20%, nor does it discuss their now imperiled futures.  It does not identify at-risk student populations, define educational problems, or find potential solutions. However, as described by my reader, it may empower some people to believe that a task has been accomplished and it is time to move on. The failure to explore all data to find important answers is a disservice to both students and teachers.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 03:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

“Successful teaching cannot begin until students are regularly attending class.”—The Teacher Leader

Student attendance is the proverbial elephant in the middle of the room when it comes to discussions of school improvement. How can teachers be held accountable for student achievement when students have poor attendance? How can school and principals be held accountable for student achievement when states allow students to quit school at age 16 and/or have weak attendance laws? How can schools be held accountable for student achievement when law enforcement agencies or the courts reluctant to enforce existing attendance laws? Finally, how can schools be held accountable for student performance when they have no resources like school attendance officers to assist in improving attendance.

Upon arriving at my new school, I proceeded to ask our teachers a simple Peter Drucker question. What do we need to do in order to improve? Although simple in structure, this question contains some critical underlying presuppositions. First, we believed that our students were capable of learning at much higher levels. Second, our school needs to improve. Third, our school can improve. Finally, our school will improve.

When I asked the question, I had a number of teachers give me similar answers, but I will always remember what our Science Department Chair, Sherry Singer, said to me. “Mel, our students don’t come to school, and, when they do, they can’t read.”

It was from that simple question and Sherry’s straightforward response that our decade-long school journey began. For it was on those two focal points, attendance and literacy, that we formed our “R-A-G-S to riches” school improvement plan—Reading plus Attendance will result in better Grades and a Safe school. If we can get our kids to school and give them strong literacy skills, student performance will improve and discipline problems will decrease. Sounds simple, doesn’t it? However, in apparent simplicity lies complexity.

A Culture Shift

We learned that improving attendance and implementing a school wide literacy initiative each require massive changes in school culture in terms of mindsets, attitudes, and adult behaviors. I knew from experience that improving attendance had a lot to do with good old fashioned, roll-up-your-sleeves, hard work. Improving student attendance also required alignment between state laws, law enforcement and court policies, district policies, school practices.

Having the right laws and procedures in place was important in the short-term. However, in long-term, we had to build a school culture that attracted students. We had to become a place where they wanted to be. We had to be the kind of school in which each and every student felt wanted and valued. We had to be the kind of school that students wanted to attend and hated to leave. We had to be a school that had to work to get students to leave, not one that had to work to get students to attend. To be that school, we had to provide a safe, clean, orderly, warm and inviting school environment built on quality relationships. In addition, we had to create a culture of success in which students came to school expecting to succeed and knowing that their teachers would not stand bye and allow them fail.

The Role of the State

When Virginia imposed strict accountability measures on schools in the mid- to late- 1990s, the principals met with state officials and made it very clear that if we are going be held accountable for student achievement, the State needs to strengthen existing attendance laws, which they did. Compulsory attendance laws in Virginia require attendance until age 18. In addition, state statutes require schools to refer students to the courts after a prescribed number of days—five.

The Role of Law Enforcement

Local crime statistics indicated that teenagers who, either should have been in school at the time, or who had a record of chronic truancy committed a significant proportion of crimes against property. The principals simply asked the police to, instead of ignoring school-aged students walking around the community during school hours, pick up truants and return them to school.

The Role of the Courts

Principals met with court officials to urge them to impose strict consequences on truants. Judges were understandably reluctant to detain a student for truancy when they had so many more serious criminal offenses to deal with. However, we pointed out to them that if they weren’t willing to detain them for truancy, they would be detaining them for much more serious offenses later. In addition, we pointed out that their current lack of will in enforcing existing laws was actually encouraging truancy. We predicted that, their willingness to take a strong stand, would, in the long-term, result in a significant drop in truancy cases, and it did. Ironically, because the courts were willing to detain truants, in the long-run, they rarely had to do so.

The Role of the District

Principals met with district officials and requested additional attendance officers, a clear district-wide policy on attendance referrals, and a clear policy relating to attendance and grading. All three requests were implemented.

Now we had strong state laws, the agreement of the courts, and district support. Now, that all the barriers were removed, it was up to us. We had no excuses and no one to blame. It was time to get to work.

Next: The Role of the School in Improving Student Attendance

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:30 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

The Los Angeles Times with the cooperation of the leadership of the Los Angeles United School District (LAUSD) is publishing standardized test results listing more than 6,000 elementary school teachers in terms of their classroom effectiveness. The ranking of these educators by a “value added” analysis of their students’ scores on standardized exams is enthusiastically applauded by Education Secretary Arne Duncan who says, "In education, we've been scared to talk about success."  Duncan’s stance was that the public disclosure of the results would allow school systems to identify teachers who are doing things right.  "We can't do enough to recognize them, reward them, but — most importantly — to learn from them," he said.   Secretary Duncan is not alone in praising this effort.   Bonnie Reiss, California’s Secretary of Education has announced that the state will encourage districts to follow the lead of LAUSD.  

Standardized Tests Scores and Teachers

I, myself, have written on a number of occasions of my conditional support for the use of standardized tests scores in evaluating teacher and school performance.  My critical qualifier though has always been that the people doing the interpreting must have a clear understanding of what the information actually means.  There needs to be a high level of sophistication when reviewing a complicated set of data.  When that level of competence is attained then teachers should be held responsible for their students’ test scores. To that end, I applaud the introduction of “value added” data which measure scores in a longitudinal manner rather than in simple raw numbers.  This is a significant first step in creating meaningful measuring tools.   

But how can we expect the general public without any context to accurately assess the meaning of the numbers being released?  It is unlikely that a primer explaining in detail exactly what is being conveyed will accompany the listing. What is far more likely is that the community will look for the number next to a name and rate the teacher exclusively on the position of that number in the ranking. There is truth in the old adage that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

Bad, Worse and Worst Outcomes

Competition does not necessarily make everything better.  That approach may work in some vocations but not in the world of education.   To the contrary the competitive nature of publically ranking teachers will impair schools causing decreased professional collaboration, lowered morale and administrative nightmares.

The most successful educational staffs are the ones who share their best techniques and strategies with each other.   When teachers are pitted against one another as will be the case when their “scores” are posted in public, cooperation within a building will take a significant hit.   When was the last time the pitching coach for the Red Sox sent an email to a Yankee hurler with a helpful suggestion?  Unfortunately, it is also highly unlikely that the teacher ranked 43rd is going to be giving tips to the one sitting at 54th.   

Staff morale will also be negatively impacted. Duncan’s claim that the primary outcome of this exercise will be to “celebrate our best teachers” is laughable. If that were the goal, to celebrate teachers, then the correct approach would be to list only the top 10% of the teachers instead of all of them. Does the secretary think the readers are not going to move quickly to their child’s teacher’s rank?  Rest assured morale will plummet as individuals keep one eye on the “standings” and one on their classrooms. As parents and students demand placement in what are now perceived as the best teachers’ classrooms, an emotional price will be paid.

And how are administrative staffs going to handle the repercussions from the release of this value added analysis?  How does one tell someone that their child must stay in the classroom of the 14th rated teacher when their neighbor’s child is across the hall in number 8?  Can class sizes remain in balance under this predictable onslaught?  And will some of these rankings become self-fulfilling prophecies if certain teachers have classes primarily populated with the children of the most activist parents while others are overloaded with the families least involved in the process? When a principal has a teacher who is ranked 5421st on his staff, what should be his response to the inevitable parent concerns?

Bottom Line

Publishing these numbers in this manner is not only mean-spirited it is destined to be tragically ineffective if the goal is to improve the teaching profession. What is needed is a better evaluation process which has the ability to help struggling teachers and terminate unproductive ones.    Instead of simply printing lists, continue to refine the “value added” measure of student test results as a part of the larger process of analyzing the totality of a teacher’s performance.  Then create a procedure that will quickly identify and remove weak members.  The end point of this more effective, albeit more difficult, approach would be a staff populated by uniformly capable educators.  Only then should we feel free to talk about and celebrate success.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 01:57 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Educational reform has always been popular cocktail conversation.  While most people do not understand Wall Street derivatives and very few have expertise on medical science or the cause of automobile accelerator problems, everyone has been a student and they all have an opinion on what is right and wrong with our schools.  Recently, however, this discussion has shifted from casual to red-hot.  Normally a campaign issue that fades after the votes are counted, educational reform is now being debated on high-profile opinion shows and the front pages of newspapers throughout the country. The development of the “Common Core State Standards Initiative” (CCSSI), the new “Race to the Top” Obama initiative which ties funding to student performance and the drama of firing teachers by the scores have all brought the analysis of school data to the forefront.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

In virtually every new plan under consideration the use of statistics is the centerpiece for evaluating students, teachers, schools and districts.  As a math teacher for forty years, I find myself simultaneously applauding this approach while cautioning its utilization.  Far too often, such numbers have been the fool’s gold of education.  The recent firing of the entire staff at Rhode Island’s Central Falls High School demonstrates the danger inherent in the use of statistics as an evaluative tool.  As Valerie Strauss documented in her recent post, “Teacher firings and Obama comments stir serious backlash” the data used to condemn the school were misleading.  One of the primary complaints against the personnel was the low graduation rate.  The methodology of computing this number included counting as “dropouts” a significant number of individuals who were deported as illegal immigrants.  Also included in this category were students who transferred to other schools in order to enroll in honor programs after such courses were discontinued at Central Falls.  Not included in the analysis was an assessment of the demographics of the school’s student body compared to others in the state.  This staff was working with a significantly higher rate of free and reduced lunch, ELL, and special needs students than the norm in the state.  Mix in seven principals in the past six years and there is little wonder that the school struggled.  While this additional information does not by itself change the belief that Central Falls has serious problems, the greater concern is that, if future plans are to use data in more sweeping evaluations, such measurements must consistently and accurately reflect the performance of a school.

Evaluating Statistics is Not Intuitive 

I recently asked my son who is a senior vice-president of marketing for a large international bank about the use of student performance statistics in education.  His principle warning was to recognize that raw data by itself is generally useless.  He added that the true value of such numbers is when they are placed into context with multiple measures, and, even better, when used in regression analysis to truly understand what the data is saying.  His advice reinforced what I had discovered when I created a statistical review during the 1999-2000 school year.  It was the fourth year of state barrier exams and the basic numbers were not particularly favorable to our school.  The county ranked the twenty-four schools in the system based on the total score created by adding the pass rates in the four subject areas (Math, Science, Social Studies and English).  Not surprisingly my school with the highest rate of free or reduced lunch (54%) was positioned at number seventeen while the school with the lowest rate (1%) was at the top.  Staff morale was low—the teachers believed they were doing far better than that placement would indicate and I often heard derogatory comments about the top-ranked school—“Of course they were number one.  What would you expect with that student body.”

A Colorful Comparison

With the prodding of my principal I took a look “inside” the numbers.  I began by color-coding in red the schools with the twelve lowest free and reduced lunch rates and the highest dozen in blue.  Not surprisingly, the top half of the county score chart was entirely red and the bottom completely blue.  Clearly success on these tests was directly correlated to the financial status of the student body.  But the goal of my research was not to prove the truth of this long held belief; the task was to determine how well each school was performing based on their unique circumstances.  A formula was developed comparing the relationship between the raw scores and free/reduced lunch levels.  A line of regression was created and the equation of that line would produce a predicted total score for a school based on its demographics.  The correlation coefficient (basically its accuracy reliability) of this tool was determined to be 0.9.  Since 1.0 represents perfect correlation (i.e. the sun rises in the east) this value represents a very high degree of accuracy. Using this information it was determined that a school with a 6% free/reduced rate “should” score 354 while one with 26% would be expected to have a 335.  The rest of the analysis was simple.  Every school’s “expected” score was computed, then that number was compared to their actual result.  If the school at 6% had a total of 351 it would be given a –3.  The 26% had a 341 that translated to a +6.

A Beautiful (and More Meaningful) Blend

The twenty-four schools were ranked with these new numbers.  The revised chart was a montage of colors.  The top half now had five blues and seven reds.  My school was ranked number one and the previous leader was second.  I gave a thirty-minute presentation on this process at a faculty meeting.  Despite the density of the math, the audience was unusually attentive because of the relevance of the topic.  More importantly, two critical conclusions were clearly ascertained.  Based on this analysis of multiple, relevant sets of data, our staff was doing extremely effective work with our unique student body and that other school, although possessing a wealthy student body, was also performing at a very high level.  Validation was given to two schools at opposite ends of the demographic spectrum. 

This particular study represented one small statistical interpretation of educational scores.  It was neither sophisticated nor broadly based.  But it did have the capacity when used over a period of time to more accurately demonstrate a school’s actual trajectory in terms of this set of exams.  This process was only presented to the faculty for one more year.  It was, however, a clear demonstration of the power of precise mathematical analysis.  The staff gained significant reassurance and confidence from these results and quickly elevated their goal to having the best scores in the county regardless of socio-economic level.  Likewise, the administrative team acquired a better understanding of the success being attained within the school.

If comprehensive data analysis is to become a critical component in crafting future educational policy extreme care must be taken to ensure that these powerful tools are used correctly.  Procedures should be in place requiring that context, consistency, and research are utilized extensively when creating any measurement.

Next:  A Plan for Standardizing Data

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:41 AM | Permalink