Test scores and poverty

[StanN]

Fitzsimon File

The Follies

by Chris Fitzsimon

The infuriating testing program

The confusion about the state's standardized testing program continued this week. Education officials released test scores that show roughly half of the students in grades 3-8 did not pass math and reading tests at the end of the school year last spring.

That is not a shock since the tests were made more difficult and the standard for passing was increased. Still it is not good news when half the students in the state don't know what education leaders believe they should know at the end of a school year.

The state's testing program has been plagued by problems from the beginning and fixing them ought to be a priority of the Perdue Administration. The remedy should begin with two simple ideas, establish demanding standards to measure student progress and leave them alone. And just as importantly, finally follow through on the promise made when the testing program began that every student who was struggling would get the help they need to succeed. It's not that complicated.

The release of the scores also provides yet another opportunity to discuss the link between poverty and student performance that state leaders continue to ignore. Data released in August showed how every school in the state did last year meeting its goals for improvement, not just raw scores. That is an important distinction. Schools that have traditionally struggled are evaluated on how much test scores improve, not how they compare to schools in which students have traditionally done very well on the tests.

The schools are given one of seven designations based on their performance. The top category is Honor School of Excellence and the bottom designation is Low Performing School. The Department of Public Instruction website allows you to sort the schools based on their designation and several other factors, including the percentage of students who are eligible for free and reduced lunch, in other words, the percentage of poor students.

Even though the schools are judged on how much they improve, not raw scores, no school with at least 80 percent of its students eligible for free or reduced lunch was named an Honor School of Excellence. Only one school with at least 60 percent poor students earned the top designation.

Nineteen schools with less than 20 percent free and reduced lunch students were named an Honor School. At the other end of the spectrum, the pattern is the same. Forty-seven of the schools deemed low performing had at least 80 percent of its students who were free or reduced lunch eligible. Only eight schools with less than 40 percent poor kids received the lowest designation.

Memo to Perdue and education leaders—poverty matters.

[JoeCiulla]

Fitzsimon File

The Follies

by Chris Fitzsimon

The infuriating testing program

The confusion about the state's standardized testing program continued this week. Education officials released test scores that show roughly half of the students in grades 3-8 did not pass math and reading tests at the end of the school year last spring.

That is not a shock since the tests were made more difficult and the standard for passing was increased. Still it is not good news when half the students in the state don't know what education leaders believe they should know at the end of a school year.

The state's testing program has been plagued by problems from the beginning and fixing them ought to be a priority of the Perdue Administration. The remedy should begin with two simple ideas, establish demanding standards to measure student progress and leave them alone. And just as importantly, finally follow through on the promise made when the testing program began that every student who was struggling would get the help they need to succeed. It's not that complicated.

The release of the scores also provides yet another opportunity to discuss the link between poverty and student performance that state leaders continue to ignore. Data released in August showed how every school in the state did last year meeting its goals for improvement, not just raw scores. That is an important distinction. Schools that have traditionally struggled are evaluated on how much test scores improve, not how they compare to schools in which students have traditionally done very well on the tests.

The schools are given one of seven designations based on their performance. The top category is Honor School of Excellence and the bottom designation is Low Performing School. The Department of Public Instruction website allows you to sort the schools based on their designation and several other factors, including the percentage of students who are eligible for free and reduced lunch, in other words, the percentage of poor students.

Even though the schools are judged on how much they improve, not raw scores, no school with at least 80 percent of its students eligible for free or reduced lunch was named an Honor School of Excellence. Only one school with at least 60 percent poor students earned the top designation.

Nineteen schools with less than 20 percent free and reduced lunch students were named an Honor School. At the other end of the spectrum, the pattern is the same. Forty-seven of the schools deemed low performing had at least 80 percent of its students who were free or reduced lunch eligible. Only eight schools with less than 40 percent poor kids received the lowest designation.

Memo to Perdue and education leaders—poverty matters.

Stan,
A couple of simple questions:

1. Do you believe the the answer to improving F&R student performance is:
a) move these students to schools with lower F&R demographics
b) keep these students in their school, but provide more resources
c) something else (please explain)

2. The new 'yardstick' has been determined by the State of NC. We know students are not making this grade. We know how one county does versus the next, but do not know how NC students are doing against the nationwide students who they will compete with for jobs in the future. Do you believe WCPSS should move to national/standardized testing?
a) yes
b) no
c) This is a BoE decision (hint: if you take this one.....)

[Brent]

Memo to Bev, Stan and anyone else who might be affecting NC Education Policy:

1. School performance is poor. By and large, across the board. It's not limited to schools with some particular demographic.

2. Parental involvement matters. More than any other single factor.

[StanN]

Memo to Bev, Stan and anyone else who might be affecting NC Education Policy:

1. School performance is poor. By and large, across the board. It's not limited to schools with some particular demographic.

2. Parental involvement matters. More than any other single factor.

By what standard or benchmark do you define "poor"? If you are talking about academic performance, I totally agree virtually all NC schools need to be improved...for all students but especially for low income populations and for the academically advanced. NC standards for educational achievement are unsuitable for a high-tech, globally competitive economy.

Are you aware that NC contribution (or the County's) to education is not based on need. Schools with high populations of academically advanced students and schools with high populations of mentally challenged kids (both true in WCPSS) receive no more per pupil than schools with low populations of such children. What are YOU willing to do about this situation?

It is a disgrace that 30% of NC students entering the ninth grade do not graduate in four years. Even WCPSS's well above (NC) average drop-out rate (particularly for minority, low income males) is a unacceptable. Do you agree? What do you suggest be done? Note that in the last budget cycle when WCPSS requested funds for specific programs to increase the graduation rate - they were turned down by the BOC. Did you support this action?

Given that parents' involvement is extremely important, is it in the school or at home where it is more important? Do you have any data or is this your opinion?

What do you suggest for children with one parent, many with two jobs...or children raised by surrogates?

(FYI, I was raised by my grandmother - my mother worked during school hours, had no car and would have had to commute by mass transit for one hour to get to my school- my grandmother could not drive, spoke English with a heavy accent, did not read English well, and never came to school-ever, and my father was not at home after I was seven years old. None of my parents or grandparents were big readers or read to me...so how come I was an omnivorous reader, an A student and was able to get into academically demanding universities?)

Given your past postings, you favor neighborhood schools. Have you studied the extensive data on schools populated with high pcts. of children from low income families? Are you familiar with the difficulties of getting good, experienced teachers to work in such schools? Please research the data and conclusion of those who don't favor neighborhood schools and then give me your opinion.

Do you agree that during the school day that teachers and principals are the most important factor in a child's education? How would you raise the effectiveness and competence of teachers?

[DarylB]

Memo to Bev, Stan and anyone else who might be affecting NC Education Policy:

1. School performance is poor. By and large, across the board. It's not limited to schools with some particular demographic.

2. Parental involvement matters. More than any other single factor.

Brent

I know this isn't a newsflash, but Stan isn't ALLOWED to look at the best or most efficient school solutions. He was only placed into the BOc by his "friends" because he is on a short leash to get the money they want. He has no latitude to listen to you or the parents. He doesn't want better education, but he does want more money for education. Big difference. As long as education doesn't work, he can always get more money. That's just how it's always been done.

[StanN]

Fitzsimon File

The Follies

by Chris Fitzsimon

The infuriating testing program

The confusion about the state's standardized testing program continued this week. Education officials released test scores that show roughly half of the students in grades 3-8 did not pass math and reading tests at the end of the school year last spring.

That is not a shock since the tests were made more difficult and the standard for passing was increased. Still it is not good news when half the students in the state don't know what education leaders believe they should know at the end of a school year.

The state's testing program has been plagued by problems from the beginning and fixing them ought to be a priority of the Perdue Administration. The remedy should begin with two simple ideas, establish demanding standards to measure student progress and leave them alone. And just as importantly, finally follow through on the promise made when the testing program began that every student who was struggling would get the help they need to succeed. It's not that complicated.

The release of the scores also provides yet another opportunity to discuss the link between poverty and student performance that state leaders continue to ignore. Data released in August showed how every school in the state did last year meeting its goals for improvement, not just raw scores. That is an important distinction. Schools that have traditionally struggled are evaluated on how much test scores improve, not how they compare to schools in which students have traditionally done very well on the tests.

The schools are given one of seven designations based on their performance. The top category is Honor School of Excellence and the bottom designation is Low Performing School. The Department of Public Instruction website allows you to sort the schools based on their designation and several other factors, including the percentage of students who are eligible for free and reduced lunch, in other words, the percentage of poor students.

Even though the schools are judged on how much they improve, not raw scores, no school with at least 80 percent of its students eligible for free or reduced lunch was named an Honor School of Excellence. Only one school with at least 60 percent poor students earned the top designation.

Nineteen schools with less than 20 percent free and reduced lunch students were named an Honor School. At the other end of the spectrum, the pattern is the same. Forty-seven of the schools deemed low performing had at least 80 percent of its students who were free or reduced lunch eligible. Only eight schools with less than 40 percent poor kids received the lowest designation.

Memo to Perdue and education leaders—poverty matters.

Stan,
A couple of simple questions:

1. Do you believe the the answer to improving F&R student performance is:
a) move these students to schools with lower F&R demographics
b) keep these students in their school, but provide more resources
c) something else (please explain)

2. The new 'yardstick' has been determined by the State of NC. We know students are not making this grade. We know how one county does versus the next, but do not know how NC students are doing against the nationwide students who they will compete with for jobs in the future. Do you believe WCPSS should move to national/standardized testing?
a) yes
b) no
c) This is a BoE decision (hint: if you take this one.....)

1. Joe, we have been down this road before - several times. Why do you believe that asking it again will get you a different answer? What is your purpose of opening this up again?

2. National/standardized testing has its pro's and con's. One con is that it would give the Feds an excuse to stick their nose into what traditionally has been a local decision. IMO, the NCLB program was designed to make local public schools look bad - which was the politics of those in power at the time. National testing also gives the Feds an excuse to create another layer of bureaucracy. Until and unless the Feds take an important role in funding schools/education, I see no real reason for that bureaucracy. The fed has little "skin in the game" - yet they want to control same.

In contrast, NC spends a huge amount of money on education but shows little leadership on spending it to the best effect.

The county spends a large pct. of its budget on education...but relative to its ability to fund same, the County ranks about 65th in the state in funding K-12 per student (ex construction.)

None-the-less I believe national and even international standardized tests have a role to play. Per past references I have posted here - the U.S. does poorly on international standardized tests. One reason I support such testing is that it would hopefully give the NCGA and the WBOC the motivation to rededicate themselves to provide the leadership and resources to advance public education...not to mention stopping disregarding the State's own constitution re education.

Adding federal, state and local funds, NC ranks about 43rd in the nation in support of K-12 - in most part due to the low level of contribution by local governments...and also to the State's reluctance to give the counties local option revenue sources (that will not be vetoed by the real estate lobbies and PAC's.)

[Brent]

By what standard or benchmark do you define "poor"? If you are talking about academic performance, I totally agree virtually all NC schools need to be improved...for all students but especially for low income populations and for the academically advanced. NC standards for educational achievement are unsuitable for a high-tech, globally competitive economy.

Of course I look to academic performance, and I generally agree with your preceding statements. Current policies, in Wake County, are resulting in further erosion of academic performance and an increase in the "achievement gap". What policy changes do you support?

Are you aware that NC contribution (or the County's) to education is not based on need. Schools with high populations of academically advanced students and schools with high populations of mentally challenged kids (both true in WCPSS) receive no more per pupil than schools with low populations of such children. What are YOU willing to do about this situation?

Having been an involved parent in my kids' elementary school for many years (a school that had a high population of highly challenged students), I am fully aware of this. I am willing to volunteer at such schools. I am willing to (I do) participate in a mentor program at such a school. I am willing to change the funding allocation formula to more closely match the cost of educating more challenged students. What do YOU propose to do about this situation?

It is a disgrace that 30% of NC students entering the ninth grade do not graduate in four years. Even WCPSS's well above (NC) average drop-out rate (particularly for minority, low income males) is a unacceptable. Do you agree? What do you suggest be done? Note that in the last budget cycle when WCPSS requested funds for specific programs to increase the graduation rate - they were turned down by the BOC. Did you support this action?

Yes, I agree that this is a disgrace. For starters, I would work with the students who have dropped out or are about to drop out and find out why they did or plan to. That would shape the sorts of dropout prevention programs that could be effective. They might be more trade training, or they might involve tutors or mentors. I don't know. I think it would be advantageous if all those who expect to implement educational policy would spend some time in the schools with the principals, teachers and students.

Given that parents' involvement is extremely important, is it in the school or at home where it is more important? Do you have any data or is this your opinion?

Both have value. There is much data and literature on this topic, so much that you can find annotated bibliographies of the literature.

What do you suggest for children with one parent, many with two jobs...or children raised by surrogates?

The literature includes many strategies and tactics that have been studied. Not all parents can be directly involved in their childrens' education to the same degree. Those who have more time/resources can help all students, not just their own children. It takes a village, right?

(FYI, I was raised by my grandmother - my mother worked during school hours, had no car and would have had to commute by mass transit for one hour to get to my school- my grandmother could not drive, spoke English with a heavy accent, did not read English well, and never came to school-ever, and my father was not at home after I was seven years old. None of my parents or grandparents were big readers or read to me...so how come I was an omnivorous reader, an A student and was able to get into academically demanding universities?)

Good for you -- I mean that sincerely. You overcame significant obstacles. I want to see more students do that. I won't speculate on the reasons for your success (please tell us). I'm guessing that one or more really involved adults played a significant role.

Given your past postings, you favor neighborhood schools. Have you studied the extensive data on schools populated with high pcts. of children from low income families? Are you familiar with the difficulties of getting good, experienced teachers to work in such schools? Please research the data and conclusion of those who don't favor neighborhood schools and then give me your opinion.

Actually, what I've said is that I would favor "resetting" the student assignment policy in Wake County. That is, start by assuming that all students attend the closest school to their home. See what that looks like. See what the academic performance would be with such a policy. See what financial savings result. Then consider adjustments. Performance is declining. The current policies aren't working, and the assignment policy is far more complex and expensive than it likely needs to be to optimize performance for all students.

I've read a great deal of the literature with various viewpoints and conclusions. What I have concluded, which is consistent with many researchers, is that parental involvement is the single most important factor in educational success. Demographics, teacher effectiveness, administration policies and many other factors contribute, too. There are numerous success stories for schools with high percentages of low-income students. We should study those and see if there are strategies and tactics that might apply here, too. I hope you will review literature that studies the effects of parental involvement and that you and others will work toward a comprehensive, holistic solution for our schools, rather than focusing on only one factor (F&R percentage), which apparently is not even the single largest contributor to educational success.

Do you agree that during the school day that teachers and principals are the most important factor in a child's education? How would you raise the effectiveness and competence of teachers?

Teachers, principals, staff and involved parents all contribute. Once again, I'd start by listening. What do the teachers say? The ones I've talked to decry the all-out efforts to "teach to the test". They cite behavior problems. I think that most public school teachers are competent and dedicated. What are they saying? How many policy-makers have spent a few days in the classroom, talking to teachers and students?

[JoeCiulla]

Stan,
A couple of simple questions:

1. Do you believe the the answer to improving F&R student performance is:
a) move these students to schools with lower F&R demographics
b) keep these students in their school, but provide more resources
c) something else (please explain)

2. The new 'yardstick' has been determined by the State of NC. We know students are not making this grade. We know how one county does versus the next, but do not know how NC students are doing against the nationwide students who they will compete with for jobs in the future. Do you believe WCPSS should move to national/standardized testing?
a) yes
b) no
c) This is a BoE decision (hint: if you take this one.....)



1. Joe, we have been down this road before - several times. Why do you believe that asking it again will get you a different answer? What is your purpose of opening this up again?

Because you are on a different road now. I know your personal feelings on the subject, which are strong support for the current busing program. But you don't just speak for you now, you speak for your entire district. That is why we call it representative government. So, before jumping to an answer based on your personal opinion, why don't you canvass a representative sample from the district you represent and take action accordingly?


2. National/standardized testing has its pro's and con's. One con is that it would give the Feds an excuse to stick their nose into what traditionally has been a local decision. IMO, the NCLB program was designed to make local public schools look bad - which was the politics of those in power at the time. National testing also gives the Feds an excuse to create another layer of bureaucracy. Until and unless the Feds take an important role in funding schools/education, I see no real reason for that bureaucracy. The fed has little "skin in the game" - yet they want to control same.

You honestly believe NCLB was a federal government conspiracy to embarrass North Carolina schools? What about Iowa testing or something else? Our kids will compete in a global workplace, and we do them a disservice educating them in an environment when we don't even know whether they are competing with kids in Alabama, let alone the rest of the country.


In contrast, NC spends a huge amount of money on education but shows little leadership on spending it to the best effect.

Agree with you there, courtesy of our "Education Governor" and the Wake County BoE.


The county spends a large pct. of its budget on education...but relative to its ability to fund same, the County ranks about 65th in the state in funding K-12 per student (ex construction.)

None-the-less I believe national and even international standardized tests have a role to play. Per past references I have posted here - the U.S. does poorly on international standardized tests. One reason I support such testing is that it would hopefully give the NCGA and the WBOC the motivation to rededicate themselves to provide the leadership and resources to advance public education...not to mention stopping disregarding the State's own constitution re education.

Adding federal, state and local funds, NC ranks about 43rd in the nation in support of K-12 - in most part due to the low level of contribution by local governments...and also to the State's reluctance to give the counties local option revenue sources (that will not be vetoed by the real estate lobbies and PAC's.)

If you're referring to the transfer tax, it has already been vetoed by citizens of 22 counties, so I wouldn't waste any energy on a cause which you know is lost. Pursue a county-wide APFO, you don't need a referendum to get that done. When the economy turns around this will be a good source of revenue to build schools.

Would appreciate you clarifying your position on standardized tests. At the beginning of your post you are against them, but at the end you say they have a "role to play." What does that mean?

[DarylB]

Busing for Brilliance is a Dumb Idea!

The ongoing answer to Wake's failures to improve has come about because of continuous attempts to game the verdict through "busing for dilution". If you can bus enough kids to get the demographics shifted, and keep the true problem masked and moving, they won't be able to catch you, or so has the "education philosophy of keeping the target moving. But the shell game is running out of diluent. The fact that the best and brightest get shortchanged, right along with the 30% dropout group, is only evidence of the bigger problem. Kids going to Wake county schools are not learning as well as they should in this environment. They still refuse to see, it isn't about money, it's about education. Schools rated for best achievment are diminishing, as these latest measures show. Until the reassignment policy for demographic dilution is scrapped in favor of an education policy, the hemorrhaging will continue, and these measures will continue to illustrate the failures of leadership we now face. Stop begging for more money, and teach!

Unless we're testing our kids' abilities to memorize their bus routes, busing for brilliance is a dumb idea!

[Laurie]

Given that parents' involvement is extremely important, is it in the school or at home where it is more important? Do you have any data or is this your opinion?


I posted this a few years ago, but here it is again. From the book Building Successful Partnerships by the National PTA -

Research shows that schools with well-structured, consistent parent involvement programs are more likely to experience profound benefits for students, parents, teachers, administrators, and overall school quality.

From 85 studies done since 1981 -

The most accurate predictors of student achievement in school are not family income or social status, but the extent to which a student's family is able to 1) create a home environment that encourages learning; 2) communicate high, yet reasonable, expectations for the child's achievement and future career; and 3) become involved in the child's education at school and in the community.

[StanN]

Thanks for the research and input.

StanN

[JoeCiulla]

From today's WakeEd Blog:




The school board shot down a proposal today to have staff research whether students are benefitting from the diversity policy.

School board members Ron Margiotta and Horace Tart argued for having the Evaluation and Research Department track the performance of students who are assigned for diversity reasons. They said it would help show whether trying to balance the percentage of low-income students at schools is succeeding.

But other board members at today's student achievement committee meeting disagreed. Some said a study wasn't needed while others said it wouldn't be possible to do a valid study.

As noted previously, Wake has only done one study that actually tracked students who are reassigned for diversity reasons. But the authors of that 2004 study concluded that too few students were in the sample size to develop valid conclusions.

Instead, over the years Wake has pointed to research showing that high-poverty schools don't do as well academically. Most recently, school leaders have pointed to how high-poverty schools in Charlotte are doing much worse since the district abandoned diversity.

The initial discussion today was whether an updated study is needed.

The issue, according to David Holdzkom, assistant superintendent for evaluation and research, is that you can't statistically show how a student would have done if he wasn't reassigned.

Holdzkom said you can try to see how that reassigned student would do compared to similar students at his old school.

But Lori Millberg, chairwoman of the student achievement committee, said there are so many variables trying to compare the students that it wouldn't be "statistically valid." Furthermore, she said she knows that Wake's policy works.

"I've been at these [high poverty] schools," said Millberg, whose children have attended schools in Eastern Wake. "The stress on the teachers, the stress on the schools. I don't need any further study to see if our diversity policy is working."

Board member Beverley Clark said they can't just think about how the diversity policy impacts individual students. She argued it can't be ignored how hard it is to get teachers to work at high-poverty schools.

"As a school board, we have to be worried about the entire school system, the turnover of teachers and the overall working conditions," Clark said.

After much discussion, no one made a formal motion for a districtwide study.

But Tart asked Holdzkom if he could see how the students who were recently reassigned out of North Garner Middle School to West Lake Middle School are doing. They would be compared with similar students at North Garner.

"We have to start somewhere," Tart said.

Because Tart isn't a member of the committee, he couldn't formally make the request. It was left up to Margiotta, vice chairman of the committee, to make the motion.

But the motion died when none of the other committee members seconded the request. In addition to Millberg, committee members Eleanor Goettee and Anne McLaurin said they didn't feel the need for the study.

Millberg argued that it would be hard to control for how the students at North Garner should be benefitting from efforts to reduce the school's FR percentage.


Bottom line, the School Board has no data to demonstrate ANY improvement in F&R student performance resulting from busing, and does not want to know the truth. On the other hand, we KNOW that schools like Davis Drive have been blown apart due to the busing program, and their achievement has suffered.

The School Board themselves have admitted that they cannot quantify the effectiveness of Policy 6200, I'd be interested to hear if there are any other posters here that still think this is a good idea.

[Icorpse]

Our best hope is to assume that some of the WCPSS members will either retire or will be run out of town in the near future.

[JoeCiulla]

Our best hope is to assume that some of the WCPSS members will either retire or will be run out of town in the near future.

..... and be replaced by true progressive leaders who won't be happy with more of the same.