Race to the Top Secretary Arne Duncan RAISING THE BAR & CLOSING GAPS http://vimeo.com/7905225 Arne Duncan Incentives of Race to the Top 2:28 seconds “Softening of sanctions” Provide rewards Raise bar—everyone ready for college Link merit pay for teachers to test scores Give teachers more autonomy Drastic measures for bottom 1% of schools http://learningmatters.tv/blog/on-the-newshour/race-to-the-top-the-race-is-on-pt2/3758/
A Nation at Risk (1983) Prioritizes ECONOMIC needs of the nation –For public benefit, schools should provide manpower to help get America out of recession and keep jobs in America. –Help America deal with the threat of global competition –Blamed schools, contributed to economic decline What contributes to economic decline?
Concludes schools are in crisis. In need of major reform. 1983
A Nation At Risk 1983 Graduation Requirements Curriculum Content Higher Standards/Expectations More Time-day/Year Improve Teaching Hold Leadership Accountable “Our society is being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a nation and a people.” Schools should change … States do respond
Schools have “squandered the gains in student achievement in the wake of the Sputnik challenge (1957)” –Low quality teaching –Not rigorous academic content Did not discuss past policies like tracking that had divided students or views about IQ that had limited students’ opportunities to learn, Regards schools as a monopoly that lacked competition to force higher performance –Common school (public) no longer best kind of school-vouchers discussed –Cannot trust localities and states –Schools did not need more $ money A NATION AT RISK REPORTED A Nation at Risk (1983) led to No Child Left Behind Which made all of these views FEDERAL MANDATES Attitude?
1980s through today— driving forces in school reform—away from poverty, equity, and dismantling segregated schools Schools as monopolies without competition to make them improve (business principle), should develop models of competition HIGHER STANDARDS HOLD SCHOOLS ACCOUNTABLE HIGH STAKES TESTING Philosophy of REAGAN’S Neo-conservatism Business Model for Economic Purposes
President Bush’s (1988-1992) and President Clinton’s (1992-2000) education plan America 2000 and Goals 2000 RECOMMENDATIONS for states to raise standards and demonstrate proficiency in grades 4, 8, and 12 Incorporated 1990s THEMES: –ACCOUNTABILITY –HIGH STANDARDS –But left individual STATES IN CHARGE Limited FUNDS
Major shift in policy: How did Federal policy in the 1980s change how we viewed the purposes and strengths of the COMMON SCHOOL? REAGAN’S NEO-CONSERVATIVE IDEAS that connect school operations to economic needs and business practices and ideas. 1.Promotes the free market system, where competition would pressure schools to improve. 2.Schools called monopolies, with no incentives to perform well. 3.Assumes that private schools are better 4.Seeks to give parents CHOICE (NCLB choice out of failiing schools) 5.To return “school” tax dollars to parents (vouchers). 6. Seeks to expand alternative approaches—like allowing for-profit companies take over schools or districts. 7. Get away from the bureaucracy (idea of charter schools). (Spring, Chapter 6, Local Control, Choice) Overarching Idea Competition Improves learning
Why did Illinois set new standards in the 1990s? In response to: 1983 A Nation at Risk Report and 1990s Federal policies 1983 “A Nation at Risk”--blamed schools for economic woes, pushed for higher standards and encouraged states to hold schools accountable. 1990s Federal Policies--Bush and Clinton –States set higher standards –Federal government asked for some kind of demonstrated measure of “proficiency” (4 th, 8 th, HS) –Left decisions to the states **2001 NCLB Mandated tests (3 rd through 8 th grade in reading and math, and once in HS). Federal government held states and schools responsible for test scores. –NCLB set sanctions for failure (Choice, tutoring, closure) –Federal policy to encourage charter schools (Choice)
http://vimeo.com/9296110 John Merrow Brief history of school reform: http://learningmatters.tv/blog/on-the-newshour/race-to-the-top- making-history-an-introduction/3410/http://learningmatters.tv/blog/on-the-newshour/race-to-the-top- making-history-an-introduction/3410/
2001 NCLB was passed by a huge bipartisan margin. Youtube this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSMI-iZNOU4 Lehrer Newshour Clip is available on Youtube (link on our homepage) The 'Race': A Look at NCLB - Part 1 of 2 It was not connected to just one party— but fit into the modern ideology of those in power.
No Child Left Behind is trying to solve what problems? What was its underlying philosophy? 1. Lack of progress as seen on national tests results (National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP). 2.The achievement GAP on tests, differences in test performance for different ethnic groups and low income students. (See Spring chapter 7 & 2)
EXCELLENCE (Academic) BECAME THE GOAL Caution about an essentialist view that goes to an extreme, where knowledge is reduced to test scores, a high stakes accountability view
Old solutions had not worked. New solutions: Require tough new standards. Require tough accountability. Since 2001, schools have been consumed by a High Stakes Testing Model
States must set standards. States must use test scores for all students in reading and math grades 3-8 to judge progress (adequate yearly progress—AYP), and once in high school. FEDERAL RULES MANDATES PROGRESS
Within a Content Area: Reading and Math Scores-- School & District must Meet Adequate Yearly Progress Combines 3 Elements 1. Student Performance— Meet a set pass rate and All SUBGROUPS must pass 2. Student Participation 3. School Progress over time to 100% pass rate of all students in grades 3-8 by 2014 95%
PROGRESS TO 100% IN ILLINOIS What do you think about this goal? 100% Pass Rate by 2014?
Several states that have conducted projections of AYP results in the year 2013-13 predict that between 75 and 99 percent of all school will fail AYP. A just-published analysis in the scholarly journal Science of AYP in California showed that almost all California elementary schools would fail to meet AYP by 2014. What are the implications for public schools if most fail to meet AYP?
TO PASS AYP All subgroups must meet the standard pass rate. The more diverse the school the more chances to fail to meet the standard. Grades 3-8, and once in High School Subgroups SIZE DIFFERS state-to state: Two years ago Illinois increased subgroups from 40 to 45 Race/Ethnicity Economic Background English Proficiency Disability (now 3% Alternative Tests)
ReadingReading Math AYP is determined by making it over all 18 hurdles (9 hurdles for reading and 9 for math) by disaggregation of data. Composite American Indian American Indian Asian Black White Hispanic Students with Disabilities Students with Disabilities Low Income Low Income LEP DIVERSITY PENALTY
Many urban schools are hurt by the Diversity Penalty The more subgroups, the more ways to fail.
When scores are computed, and schools (subgroups) are below standard, then the School Improvement Timeline takes effect Miss AYP Miss AYP School Improvement Yr 1(CHOICE) Miss AYP School Improvement Yr 2 (TUTOR) (supplemental educational services) Miss AYP Corrective Action Miss AYP Restructure (planning year) Restructure (implement plan) FEDERAL REGULATIONS CONTAIN STRICT SANCTIONS When schools fail to meet AYP this timeline begins….
Top down Say something nice –Subgroup scores may be indicators –Tests should be tied to curriculum –Places concern for failing students and schools
Are you concerned by the amount of high stakes testing in our schools?
What might teachers react if their school is designated as needing improvement?
However, A CALL FOR HIGHER ACCOUNTABILITYSHOULD MEAN “two way” accountability Professor Darling Hammond, Stanford University In exchange for being held accountable states should provide:In exchange for being held accountable states should provide: –for upgrading facilities –new textbooks –higher teachers’ salaries –more resources –creating more opportunities to learn –incentives to attract more qualified teachers
Composite (Group) scores don’t tell the whole story either. Standard Score 65 2003 2004 Laura 10090 James 9080 Felipe 8070 Kisha 70 65 Raul 20 transfers out
The Collision of New Standards and Old Inequalities Professor Linda Darling-Hammond, Stanford University School of Education Some of the unintended consequences –Limited English Proficiency (LEP) groups will never reach 100% (proficient students move out of the group) –Students with disabilities are not on grade level but have IEP that reflect “instructional” level –Teachers leave “needs improvement” and “failing” schools –The more diverse a school, the more likely to have a subgroup fail to meet the standard “diversity penalty” –Loss of funds to struggling schools $$$ –CHOICE Transfer programs need non-failing schools with open slots –States will consider lowering standards –Pressures on students will increase the dropout rate
Value Added If a 5 th grade student, reads at 2 nd grade level at the beginning of the year, and at the end of the year reads at a 3 th grade level would you judge this student to have made progress?
What alterations to assessment might be considered? Many educators support a value added model of evaluation BEFORE AND AFTER EVALUATIONS
Based on history and current results, a test based system assures a high failure rate. 40% of the nations’ schools have been labeled as failing AYP over the past five years Will high-stakes testing encourage lower standards?
How should we assess schools? Why are multiple data points viewed as a sound way to achieve a successful school?
Attendance Rates Graduation Rates College Attendance Rates AP participation Special Education Rates Grades Test scores Teacher Mobility Parent satisfaction Student satisfaction Quality of the learning community -climate Discipline Rates