The Diane Ravitch / Alter / Brooks Debate

Education Historian Diane Ravitch is at the center of a dust-up that has been swirling around for a month now.

I've collected a series of articles that can help to give a flavor of the reform debate. For a better taste... follow this on Twitter (I'm on as @K12Reformer).

I'm not going to comment on it for now... there is plenty of reading below!

This chapter began with a New York Times opinion piece by Diane Ravitch (@DianeRavitch)

New York Times: Waiting for a School Miracle (05/31/11)

Jonathan Alter (@JonathanAlter), formerly of Newsweek, and now with Bloomberg, writes:

Bloomberg: Don’t Believe Critics, Education Reform Works (06/03/11)

The debate raged on the blogosphere for a month, and included a blog posting by Matthew Yglesias (@MattyYglesias) that has yet to be answered:

ThinkProgress: What Does Diane Ravitch Think We Should Do To Improve Education In The United States? (06/23/11)

The debate really intensified with this piece by Martin Brooks:

New York Times: Smells Like School Spirit (06/30/11)

Jonathan Chait (@JonathanChait) adds to the discussion:

The New Republic: David Brooks Is Slightly Too Nice To Diane Ravitch (07/02/11)

Valarie Strauss (@ValerieStrauss) attempts to minimize / neutralize the rebuttals:

Washington Post: ‘Ravitch Rage’ — cause, symptoms, treatment (07/05/11)

(Funny comment made on the Strauss article: "Oh, when I saw "Ravitch Rage" I just assumed it was the case of rabies Ravitch has seemed to develop over the past ten years.")

From my perspective, the rebuttals to Ravitch are not an illness, they are the antidote!

Anyway, Ravitch goes on to respond here:

New York Times: Letter to the Editor (07/05/11)

There are numerous teacher blogs that bash Brooks/Alter/Chait, etc, and numerous "reformer" blogs that comment on Ravitch. If you find'em, post'em in the comment section below.

Interesting debate, for sure!

==> Mike.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

Two Steps forward, One Step Back.

Here's a follow up to a post I made in May, 2010, (found here) that addressed my concerns with dropping the Valedictorian / Salutatorian awards. The video tells it all; people comment to the school board, and the board responds in muted silence.

The Rochester Community Schools Board of Education eventually created a level of awards that makes sense. Honors are awarded based on GPA, ACT Score, and AP participation. I love it!

Two steps forward!

But the, then one step back: they took away the award for the very top achievers.

I write about that here:

Oakland Press: Schools wrong to drop top honor student designations (06/14/11)


Here is the full text of the article, in case the link does not work:

-------------------------------------------

Schools wrong to drop top honor student designations
Published: Tuesday, June 14, 2011
By Mike Reno

Tis the season of graduation, and the Oakland University Meadowbrook amphitheater will be filled every night with high school commencement ceremonies.

Watch ’em closely this year, so that you can get a glimpse of an endangered species.

Many schools are ending the practice of recognizing the valedictorian and salutatorian. In fact, they are not only ending the practice of honoring those top students, they are even eliminating all “relative performance indicators,” such as class rank.

This does not just impact those few “eggheads” that earned perfect scores in every class. It’s bigger than that. Consider the message this misguided action sends to our children about drive, self-discipline and achievement.

It puts scholarship dollars at risk. But more importantly it speaks to the very core of how your school board views academic achievement — and the message isn’t pretty.

Rochester schools just changed its academic recognition policy and will abandon the honors for the highest achievers. They have replaced it with a “grouping” of kids who meet certain criteria such as overall GPA and participation in Advanced Placement Classes.

It’s like the honor roll — on steroids.

Creating this award is great and students who achieve to these levels absolutely deserve recognition. But these “groups” could’ve been an honor supplement, it didn’t need to replace top honors.

Why take away the brass ring? Picture the Olympics, where a “precious metal pin” is awarded to the top three athletes instead of gold, silver and bronze.

School boards offer excuses to explain why they have decided to stop honoring the top achievers.

To rank high in a class, and be at the “top,” the school must rank the students. Imagine the ego damage to those who are not at the top, or rank near the bottom.

Some note that the valedictorian honor has become diluted now that it’s common to have more than one from the class. And some will argue that kids with really good grades may stop taking challenging classes for fear of lowering their GPA and losing their shot at the title. But those concerns can be addressed by giving additional weight to challenging classes. An “A” in an advanced placement class might be worth five points instead of 4. This way, the student who earns a 4.0 taking basket-weaving classes won’t tie with the one who earns a 4.0 in advanced placement courses.

Schools recognize their top athletes by awarding them varsity letters. Rather than eliminating winners, they instead construct trophy displays and hang record plaques on the gymnasium wall. Have you seen similar public recognition and celebration of top academic achievement?

But this is not just about public recognition. There are scholarships awarded to valedictorians and salutatorians. And class rank matters, too, with scholarships available to those placing in the top 10 percent of their class.

So, as you attend graduation ceremonies and graduation parties, be sure to give a sincere hat-tip to vals and sals in the class. They are a dying breed.

Mike Reno is a former trustee of the Rochester Board of Education.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

Trendy Schools Risk College Scholarship Dollars

Attention middle school parents: Is your school board making trendy policy changes that could cost Rochester students lost college scholarship opportunities?

There is a good chance that they are.

Is there a benefit to the students? Nobody knows.

The Rochester Community Schools board is changing the way it honors high-achieving graduates. The proposed changes will improve the recognition system. But ever-conscious of being trendy, the district will also inadvertently take aim at high-achieving students by removing honors and rankings that can undoubtedly help in admissions and scholarships.

I have yet to understand why we wouldn’t want to do everything we can to help in the competitive admissions process, and I’m dumbfounded why we would want to put potential scholarship dollars at risk.


THE BACKGROUND

The district currently has no mechanism for weighting grades. As far as GPA is concerned, an “A” in gym or salsa-making is equal in weight to an “A” in AP Calculus. As a result, you’ll have some of the “top scholars” consist of those that really busted their butts with a rigorous schedule, while others “not so much.”

So discussions on grade weighting began in 2006. With weighting, the grading scale is expanded; potentially offering extra points to the grades earned in rigorous AP classes. Instead of a 4.0 scale, the tough classes might work on a 4.5 scale. An “A” in AP Calc would be worth 4.5, while an “A” in Diet and Exercise would be worth 4.0. A “B” in AP Calc would be worth 3.5, while a “B” in Diet and Exercise would be worth 3.0. This would reward those students who took the challenging classes, and allow them to stand out. It might also provide an incentive for those who might otherwise shy away from AP classes for fear it would damage their GPA.

After several years of committee work, the board was presented with a proposal that looked at a different approach. Instead of adding weight to the grades of tougher classes, they were proposing to lower the grading scale. I wrote about that here in a blog entry entitled, “Come to Rochester, our A’s are easier!”


THE SOLUTION

Fortunately the committee moved away from their “lower the bar” initial proposal. But sadly, they abandoned the whole concept of rewards and incentives for rigorous classes. Ironicially, the "grading committee" did nothing about grades! :-)

But they did come back with something pretty good.

Rather than the time-honored tradition of summa cum laude, magna cum laude, and cum laude, which is generally based solely on GPA, the district will now implement a more expanded set of requirements:

SCHOLARS OF HIGHEST DISTINCTION
GPA: 3.9 – 4.0
Four AP Courses
ACT Composite of 32 or higher

SCHOLARS OF DISTINCTION
GPA: 3.8
Three AP Courses
ACT Composite of 28 or higher

SCHOLARS OF ACHIEVEMENT
GPA: 3.5
Two AP Courses
ACT Composite of 26 or higher

It’s got a few warts (like no requirement to take the AP exam), but overall I like this proposal because it will acknowledge those that really applied themselves, and showed measurable success.


THE FOOTNOTE

However, in the process of creating this new proposal, they tossed in a few footnotes. No grade weighting, the elimination of Validictorians, Salutorians, and the elimination of class rank.

They did not explain why.

At one point while I served on the board there was some talk that class rank (and Val/Sal recognition) served as an excuse for not talking rigorous classes. Kids would not want to risk their GPA or class rank position.

This is an unsubstantiated theory. There has not been a meaningful discussion in public on this. And if there were some way to prove it, then one could argue that grade weighting could solve it.

I wrote about this a few years back ("Academic Achievement Deserves More Recognition, not Less!").

To be fair, there are some highly selective, top achieving schools that have eliminated class rank. These are schools where many students are taking rigorous classes, scoring well, only to find themselves barely making the top 25%. That is not the case in Rochester, where less than 40% of the graduates can pass all four ACT College Readiness Benchmarks.

On it's website, The College Board states:

According to a March 2006 New York Times article, some college admissions officers disapprove of the trend away from reporting class rank, because, they say, it forces them to "make less informed decisions or overemphasize results on standardized tests."

They go on to say:

Most large state universities, however, still require applicants to report class rank (as do many scholarship programs), and rely on it to help sort through the high volume of applications received.


Eliminating class rank, and vals/sals seems to be a solution in search of a problem.


BLOCK THE SCHOLARSHIPS

By eliminating class rank, and vals/sals, the school board is putting at risk some scholarship money. Scholarships for vals and sals are quite clear in the requirements. No val/sal, no money. And some scholarships specifically incorporate class rank into their formula. No class rank, no money.

If we are going ruin the opportunity for some students to earn scholarships, then we must have a good reason, right?

I asked that question in a letter to the board. The response: “Thank you. Please provide your home address when corresponding with the board.”

So, I waited around for three and half hours at a school board meeting to ask them in person. Check out the robust board discussion in this clip:



Is it any wonder people avoid school boards like the plague?

I followed-up with yet another letter, and finally received a response. The response did not explain WHY the honors are being eliminated, but does offer a defense that argues our kids will not be negatively impacted because Rochester will join a growing list of high schools that does not report class rank.


HALF EMPTY – HALF FULL

The response was thoughtful, but the arguement was weak. It was quite illustrative of the typical debates that happen all the time in education.

For example, one might argue that the trend is moving away from class rankings, and as a result colleges have adjusted their admissions policies to adapt. Therefore, we should follow the trend.

The opposing argument would note that over half of the colleges still consider class rank to be considerably or moderately important. Therefore, we should retain class rank to give an extra boost to the high achievers.

If you were to ask a college, “Do you value class rank?”, the answer would mostly like be “Yes. It’s helpful”

If you ask that same college, “Can you live without it?”, the answer would probably be “Yes. We must, because some schools don’t report.”

In the end, if both sides of a debate can site the same reports and sources as support for their argument, then does it even matter?

Yes, it does.

Schools should be preparing our children to be adults. Competition is part of life. Shielding them from competition is not doing them any good. It spoils them. Pampers them.

We’re comfortable ranking them as athletes, but not as scholars? We’re comfortable naming a winner in a race, but not in overall academic achievement? We can line the gym walls with athletic records, but won't honor our scholars in the same manner?

Our children are entering a world that is highly competitive. College admissions and scholarship awards are highly competitive. A good class rank, not to mention val/sal designation, is not going to be a deciding factor for a college or a scholarship board. But it would help.

We should not be taking away tools that can help.

And school boards should welcome discussion about this, not ignore it.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

Come to Rochester --- Our A's are Easier!

Rochester is considering a change in their grading policy for Advanced Placement courses. The idea is to lower the grading scale needed to earn an “A”, with the hope that more students will be more willing to take AP classes.

The highly respected Washington Post education reporter Jay Mathews took the Rochester ideas to his national audience:

Washington Post: Should we inflate Advanced Placement grades? (11/27/09)

I am quite certain that the idea is proposed with the best of intentions. But I just don't think lowering the bar is the right approach.

Be sure to read the comments posted by teachers and students… very insightful.

==> Mike.

I pasted the article below in case the link doesn't work.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Should we inflate Advanced Placement grades?

The Rochester Community public schools in Michigan do a fine job. Their leaders often have great ideas. But according to school board member Mike Reno, they are talking about doing something to their Advanced Placement courses that could be troublesome, even though I once thought it was a good idea. (Some people who know me say that is the very definition of a bad idea.)

Here is what Reno revealed in an email to me:

"Our district, in an effort to increase AP participation, is proposing to lower the grading scale for AP classes. The idea is based on the notion that kids in Rochester don’t want to take AP classes because they are afraid that the tougher work will lead to a lower grade, and they don’t want to damage their GPA for fear it will harm their college entrance chances. The district’s logic suggests by that lowering the grading scale, students will have a better chance of getting a better grade, and therefore be more willing to take the class.

"This is not their brainchild. They claim other districts are doing it. They are calling it internal weighting. They believe this is a better approach than grade weighting, where an A in an AP class would be worth, say, 5.0 instead of 4.0. The district argues that colleges strip off weighted grades, whereas an internal weight benefits the student during college entrance. (I believe grade weighting has value when calculating class ranking, vals, sals, top scholars, etc, but think colleges are free to recalculate anything they’d like). Am a crazy to think this is a bunch of nonsense?"

When I first began writing about AP in the 1980s, I saw some sense in AP teachers being somewhat easy on report card grades. You wanted kids to stick with the course. Since they would take an AP exam written and graded by outside experts, they would know eventually how close they were to a college standard. If the student got an A in the course but a 3 (the equivalent of a college C-plus) on the AP exam, that would be a useful wakeup call. I recalled that the AP teacher who inspired me to be an education writer, Jaime Escalante, was livid when another AP teacher gave Fs to a lot of students, leading them to drop the course.

But I later realized I had misunderstood what Escalante was doing. He graded his students pretty tough. He wouldn't flunk them because that would be too much of a turn-off, but if they were doing the kind of work that would get them a 3 on the exam, he came them a C, not an A, on their classwork. He understood that they needed to know BEFORE the exam what they were likely to get, so they would be motivated to work harder if they needed to catch up.

That is precisely what many AP and International Baccalaureate (the other popular college-level program in U.S. high schools) experts told me when I asked them about the Rochester idea. Roy Sunada, for many years a leading AP teacher and administrator at Marshall Fundamental High School in Pasadena, Calif., said none of his first reactions to undermining AP course grades were printable. "I will stand firm in my belief that artificial measures or grand-sweeping programs are not productive in encouraging students to seek academic rigor," he said.

Reno himself had good arguments against the Rochester proposal. "If AP in high school is not the time to introduce the real-life challenges to our youngsters, then when is the right time? Do we allow them to leave our community with high hopes and aspirations--and perhaps a false sense of their skills--only to get crushed in college when they are not prepared?" He also put in a good word for "the kids that really bust their humps and get real A grades and stay on top of the game. Don't they deserve the reward and distinction?"

On the other side was Trevor Packer, the College Board vice president who directs the AP program. He thought the Rochester idea had merit. He called it "another, viable way to weight AP grades in ways that more fairly represent the level of achievement." He and other veteran educators also supported the extra grade point weighting system for AP and IB found in many districts. In Fairfax County, Va., for instance, a student who gets a C in her AP course will see that letter on her report card, but she will get an extra grade point for it, a 3.0 instead of the usual 2.0. That bonus, several teachers say, is important to students who know they are going to struggle in the course.

Erin McVadon Albright, the IB coordinator at Annandale High School in Fairfax County, said that was a powerful inducement for one of her most intriguing students. He came from a low-income family that did not even have an Internet connection at home. He wanted to play football, which meant he had to take a government class online over the summer to have time for IB. He was using the computer at the office where his mother was a receptionist, but she was afraid someone would complain. He almost dropped the course until Albright managed to lend him a school laptop which he could take the public library to do his work.

Jon Gubera, AP director for the Indiana education department, said "grades are the single most relevant academic currency for students. In my experience, the best way we were able to incent marginal students to take a leap of faith and join an AP course was through providing a weighted grade so as to reassure them that their overall GPAs would not be ruined by earning a C in an AP course."

Gubera had little problem with the Rochester idea. It reminded him of what happens on many college campuses--"a 70 percent on a final exam, for example, translates into an A in the course." He also thinks some AP teachers do similar internal weighting on their own, without any guidance from their districts. They will give the student working at the 3 level a representative C in course work leading up to the exam. But when they mark the final report card--weeks after the student has taken the AP exam--they will award extra credit and bump them up to a B.

Does that make sense? Grading in American high schools is like cage fighting. There aren't many rules. If there are AP or IB teachers out there with their own special tricks, post a comment here to educate the rest of us.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

Michigan Schools & MEA prefer tax hikes over $600 million in Federal Money.

Michigan parents are being bombarded with “call your legislator” messages from school boards and superintendents, asking them to pressure the state for more money.

Yet for all of the whining about funding, I haven’t seen a single message from any school asking that parents rally behind the federal "Race to the Top" initiative that would allow Michigan schools to potentially receive up to $600 million in federal funds.

I haven't seen any "Action Alerts" from the MIchigan Association of School Boards -- the MASB -- suggesting that school boards lobby legislators to advocate for this money.

Is it that schools need money, but only want it if there are no strings attached?

Here are a few recent articles on the issue:

Detroit News: Embracing promising reforms would leverage federal money to help students (11/4/09)

Detroit News: School sabotage (11/8/09)

Also note that this is not some new issue. I wrote about his back on August 2, 2009, in a blog entry found here.

Here’s an interesting test… next time you see a school board member from your district, ask them if they know ANYTHING about this legislation. My guess is that they can drone on about the need to raise taxes in Michigan, but can't talk with any depth about this Obama/Duncan "Race to the Top" initiative.


==> Mike.


I have posted the articles below, in case the links don't work.

------------------------------------------


State ignores $600M for schools

Embracing promising reforms would leverage federal money to help students

MICHAEL VAN BEEK

Michigan's school funding debate has been cast as a choice between two ideas: Budget cuts or tax hikes. Yet there is a $600 million alternative that has been ignored by key players in the debate.

Taxpayers should take note because the failure to explore this option suggests any tax increase for education will be wasted.

In the next few months, the U.S. Department of Education will dish out $4.35 billion in "Race to the Top" money to the states. Michigan would be more likely to receive $600 million of this money if it adopted four reforms: Expand the number of charter schools, create a stronger alternative teacher certification program, link student performance data to individual teachers and systematize reform procedures for failing schools.

There are good reasons to be skeptical of federal money, which often bureaucratizes the schools and advances a questionable agenda. But such concerns are typically overlooked by the governor and many in the Legislature, who desperately seek a school spending fix. In this case, the proposed reforms show promise.

Consider charter schools. A growing body of evidence indicates that charter schools improve student achievement, and a recent study demonstrates that New York City charter schools have closed achievement gaps at an unprecedented rate.

But charter school expansion in Michigan is effectively blocked by a legislative cap on the number of charter schools that can be authorized by state universities, which approve most of the charter schools in Michigan. School employee unions traditionally have fought raising this cap, arguing that there is insufficient evidence that charter schools improve student improvement.

As for alternative teacher certification, Michigan law theoretically permits it. But every teacher is still forced to obtain a degree specifically in education -- no other specialty will do.

This approach discourages many talented individuals from becoming teachers. Yet research shows teacher quality is key to student performance, and Race to the Top's multiple certification routes would permit accomplished professionals to enter teaching without needing to obtain a new degree.

Michigan's student performance measurements, the Michigan Educational Assessment Program and the Michigan Merit Examination are reported school by school. But the results are not linked to teachers to allow teachers' successes to be more easily analyzed. Of course, such an analysis is complex -- many factors go into student achievement -- but the analysis is prohibitively difficult if the raw data is hard to obtain, a point that Race to the Top recognizes.

As for the fourth reform, the Legislature is advancing bills to more aggressively reconstitute perennially failing schools. The bill most likely to pass, however, would make it harder to privatize noninstructional services, robbing districts of a major cost-saving tool.

So why hasn't Michigan adopted these reforms, especially when the state could land an extra $600 million for schools?

The school employee unions view them as threats. They fear more charter schools because the schools are not typically unionized, and reconstituted schools may follow their example. Tracking individual teachers' progress could lead to performance pay and threaten the union's rigid compensation system.

Yet such concerns are primarily about union power, not better educational outcomes for kids.

If the governor and Legislature refuse to consider constructive change, taxpayers should reject any proposed tax hikes. There's no reason to feed more money into a system that refuses the most moderate reforms.

Michael Van Beek is the education policy director of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland. E-mail comments to letters@detnews.com">letters@detnews.com.

Additional Facts:

Among the policies states should adopt for "Race to the Top" grants:

Developing and implementing common, high-quality assessments of student performance

Using state data to improve instruction

Differentiating teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance

Increasing the supply of high-quality charter schools

Turning around struggling schools

Source: U.S. Department of Education


----------------------------


School sabotage

With Michigan schools facing an enormous funding gap, the Michigan Education Association is attempting to sabotage an effort that could bring in more than $600 million in federal education money.

State policymakers are working to put together one of the essential pieces of legislation required to win federal "Race to the Top" grant money. President Barack Obama is using the money to give states an incentive to enact long-overdue education reforms.

Next month state school Superintendent Mike Flanagan must turn in the application for the competition, now being watched by U.S. foundations for signals about which states are serious about education reform and merit even more funding.

But the prospects for Michigan aren't good. The MEA, the state's largest teacher union, is pressuring cowardly lawmakers to block the Race to the Top legislation, which includes provisions making it easier for nonteachers to secure classroom positions, if they have critical skills.

This seemingly innocuous change has stirred up intense political fighting, pitting teacher unions against Gov. Jennifer Granholm and others, such as the United Way of Southeastern Michigan, who want the Race to the Top funds for Michigan.

Teach for America -- the heralded non-profit that prepares and places highly talented educators in struggling schools -- says it must have an alternative certification pathway for its members to become full-time teachers in Michigan.

MEA leaders say they oppose alternative teacher certification because they believe teacher training is essential to properly instruct students.

"This is not an union issue," MEA spokesman Doug Pratt says. "This is a fundamental belief ... that teachers who go through a traditional teacher prep process are going to be better for students in the long run."

But urban districts are having trouble finding highly qualified math and science teachers, in no small part because of the failure of traditional teacher training programs in the state.

That was one of the driving forces behind a Friday announcement by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation that it is investing $16.7 million to establish a new statewide fellowship program to provide 240 teachers for hard-to-staff schools.

If the MEA is allowed to sabotage Michigan's Race to the Top effort, it will mean the loss of about $600 million in federal money at a time when every classroom is facing an unprecedented budget cut. Ultimately, that will mean fewer jobs for teachers, hurting the union's own members.

It is absolutely essential that Michigan gets this money, and the education reforms that come with it.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

The Myths of a Stubborn Culture are Debunked

Amber Arellano writes a insightful article about the stubbornness of Michigan’s entrenched educational bureaucrats, and the change-resistant culture that permeates Michigan’s K-12 education

Detroit News: Myths undercut efforts to boost Michigan's high school standards (09/10/09)

It goes on everywhere. I see it in Rochester.

For example, I know that the Rochester Board of Education shows no interest in understanding how many of it’s graduates must take remedial courses – at their own expense – in college, despite the fact that the district receives matriculation reports from some colleges. Individually, I’ve seen the reports that Michigan State University provides to each high school, and have suggested that the board review them, to no avail. This data is notably absent from the district’s so-called strategic plan.

The district could also do more to allow advance the concept of allowing more academically rigorous Personal Curriculums, yet submissively yields to needlessly restrictive interpretations, such as expecting kids to investigate summer school before they allow a modification. Rather that challenge the status quo, the board fell right in line.

I could go on, but I don’t want to distract from Amber’s excellent article.

All of this points to the fundamental flaw in the culture of Michigan educators, which is the myth that our children are simply not up to the challenge.

And it leads to perhaps a fifth myth, which is that there is nothing parents can do to take on the system. I wrote about Rochester parents who last year stood up to the culture of mediocrity and low-expectations by protesting the decision to “round down” students in the advanced math track in middle school. It was a small victory for a small number of children, but it shows that there is hope.

==> Mike.


I’ve pasted below the article in case the link does not work.



September 10, 2009

Myths undercut efforts to boost Michigan's high school standards

AMBER ARELLANO

This fall at Michigan's colleges, thousands of students are arriving with great expectations -- only to find themselves relegated to paying for high school courses without even receiving college credit. Those courses are called remedial classes, which students have to take because they were so poorly prepared in their K-12 schools.

At Michigan State University, the proportion of incoming freshmen who need remedial classes jumped to 28 percent today from 25 percent last year. At Delta College north of Saginaw, 81 percent of incoming students need remedial classes. That number has grown 3 percent in recent years.

The growth is a sign, some experts say, that Michigan school districts are not taking seriously the implementation of the new high school curriculum that state leaders adopted in 2006 to better prepare students to succeed in the knowledge economy. And it comes as Gov. Jennifer Granholm and state lawmakers fight over whether the tougher curriculum standards should be lowered to accommodate vocational education students and others.

With so much rhetoric, it can be difficult to figure out what is based on proven research and experience, and what isn't. Here are some common myths -- and the real story behind them -- about the high school curriculum.

MYTH No. 1: Only Michigan's lowest-performing school districts, such as Detroit and Pontiac, need to upgrade their high school courses.

FACT: Well-to-do and middle-class districts are under-preparing their children, too.

Take Rockford, the upscale suburban city outside of Grand Rapids, where most families send their children to four-year universities. What most parents in Rockford don't know: The district's latest state test scores show only 24 percent of its kids are college-ready in all subjects based on ACT indicators, which colleges use for admissions.

That suggests most of those students will have to take remedial classes, a predictor of college failure. A majority of students who need remedial classes do not earn either a bachelor's or an associate's degree, according to Education Policy Center experts at Michigan State University.

Mike Flanagan, state superintendent for schools, saw the same problem when he was in charge of Farmington Schools, a well-heeled suburban Oakland County district.

"People thought our students were doing so well because we sent 90 percent to college," Flanagan says.

Then he learned about half of those graduated from college. The knowledge spurred the district to make major changes.

"If you're sending students to college needing remedial classes, it means you're setting them up for failure not only in college but in the workplace," Flanagan says.

MYTH No. 2: All students have to take the same classes, including Algebra II and other high-level math and science classes, no matter what.

FACT: Vocational teachers and the Michigan Education Association union often call the curriculum a "one size fits all" approach. But state law does not require all students take the same specific courses. Rather, high school credits can be packaged into any course. The law allows flexibility for students who focus on the arts or, say, a trade.

Many parents don't know they can request a personal curriculum in which courses are specially designed for their teens.

Why does this seem to be a secret? Many schools and districts have dragged their feet on implementing the curriculum. Many schools also do not publicize these options.

MYTH No. 3: Michigan's dropout rate will go up under the new curriculum.

FACT: There's no evidence of that. The opposite has been found true in some states.

Arkansas, Arizona, Maryland and Massachusetts are among 25 states that now require Algebra II or equivalent skills learned to graduate, as Michigan does. None of their dropout rates has risen.

That fear arose in Michigan after Derrick Fries, an Eastern Michigan University assistant education professor, told reporters that he anticipated a rise in the dropout rate. However, more academic rigor has been found to raise graduation rates, according to the Education Trust and other researchers.

How could that be? Because boredom is one of the leading causes of dropping out. By making school more challenging, many students stay longer.

MYTH No. 4: Michigan's high school curriculum is one of the nation's toughest.

FACT: Other states are leading in school standards and quality. Indiana, Ohio, Maryland, Virginia and Massachusetts are just some of the states that have higher standards and more demanding high school curriculums than Michigan.

Indiana requires students take chemistry, physics and trigonometry, and more writing and foreign language than Michigan students do.

In Ohio, high-schoolers have to pass a competency test to graduate.

"There would be many high school students in Michigan who could not pass it," says Sharif Shakrani, co-director of Michigan State University's Education Policy Center.

In Maryland, the new high school standards are far tougher than Michigan's. They are modeled after the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the only nationally representative test that compares American students with one another by state.

The Obama administration is calling on states to adopt a common core of standards to make sure the United States better competes in the global economy. It is pushing states to ramp up their schools' curriculums to be modeled after the NAEP.

Already the Detroit Public Schools' new leadership team is adopting a curriculum modeled after the NAEP.

Barbara Byrd-Bennett, its academic chief and a respected national educational leader, says those who think Michigan's state curriculum is too tough are fooling themselves and shortchanging students.

Look at Michigan students' test scores for proof. Only about 30 percent of students are considered proficient under NAEP.

MYTH No. 5: The curriculum was designed for college-bound students -- not kids who aim to go into a trade or directly to the workplace.

FACT: Young people who attend community colleges, technical schools and other universities are actually more likely to be underprepared to succeed in life -- and need higher-skilled classes to make sure they do.

"A lot of people think if your kid is not going to the University of Michigan or Michigan State, then there are no negative consequences for not taking higher-level math and science classes," says Jim Ballard, executive director of the Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals.

"This fight about the curriculum is about the students who go to Delta, to Grand Valley, to community colleges," Ballard adds. "They are the ones who need remedial courses, who are dropping out, who are not finding good jobs."

Even students going directly to entry-level jobs or entering technical schools need higher-level thinking and math skills, researchers have found across the country.

The more math Americans learn, research shows, the more money they earn. Students who take challenging high school courses, especially in math and science, will earn $1 million more than students who do not.

Algebra II, in particular, is a predictor of success in college and in getting a good job in the knowledge economy -- more than race, socioeconomic status or family income.

The Wacker Chemical plant in Adrian is a case in point. Factory leaders found local high school graduates woefully lacking skills to work there a few years ago. They teamed up with school leaders to change that.

"My question to the legislators who want to undermine the math requirements in the state curriculum is: 'What kind of jobs do you want in Michigan? Do you want your children to get good jobs or any job at all? Look at Ohio and see what they're doing,' " MSU's Shakrani says.

"Because that's who we're competing with: Ohio and Indiana. And they are out-competing us in school preparation."

E-mail Amber Arellano at aarellano@detnews.com">aarellano@detnews.com or send letters to the editor to letters@detnews.com">letters@detnews.com or mail to Letters, Editorial Page, The Detroit News, 615 W. Lafayette, Detroit, MI 48226.


Additional Facts
Importance of education
Why Michigan's high school curriculum standards are considered critical:


Nine of 10 jobs will require education beyond high school, according to the Michigan Department of Education.

An estimated 80,000 jobs go unfilled in Michigan and an additional 30,940 jobs could go unfilled in the near future, according to a 2007 EPIC/MRA future business study. This indicates Michigan's high rate of unemployment has more to do with a lack of necessary education and training among residents than a lack of employment opportunities.

The state Department of Education finds that 84 percent of those who hold highly paid professional jobs had taken Algebra II or higher as their last high school math course.

The more math you learn, the more money you earn. Students who take challenging high school courses, especially in math and science, will earn more than $1 million more than students receiving a general education, according to the Michigan Department of Education.

Studies indicate there is a strong correlation between increases in average test scores and national economic growth. In country after country, a boost in test performance was linked to a distinct rise in annual per capita gross domestic product growth, according to the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.

A study by the Michigan League for Human Services and the Economic Policy Institute forecasts a decline in U.S. per-capita personal income if America doesn't educate "all of our students well."

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

Keep Parents Empowered!

Read this article:

The Detroit News: Parents, not teachers, should make lifetime decisions on their kids' future (09/01/09)

Then, find your Senator, and send them an email telling them to you want higher standards for your children, and do not want your local school district to water down your child’s education. Tell them the Geiss bill should not be adopted without modification.

When it comes to providing children with the college-prep skills they need to succeed in college, and ultimately our knowledge-based economy, local school boards were simply not getting the job done.

The state legislature created new high school graduation requirements that fill that void.

One of the provisions of the new requirements was an “escape clause”. It recognizes that a presumably small number of students might not be able to fulfill the requirements. Students with severe learning disabilities, for example, might struggle.

As written, the “Personal Curriculum Modification” allows a parent to approach the school and requires a personal curriculum, essentially opting out of the state requirements. It was intended to be a deliberative process, involving the parent, teachers, counselors, and administrators.

While there are good compromise aspects in the legislation, this new Geiss bill would ultimately move the decision making from the parents to the teachers, and that is wrong.

It’s not a question of an individual teacher’s ability to evaluate a child. It’s instead about the institutional power. There are undoubtedly teachers who would make a careful and thoughtful decision, but there are also teachers who would not.

I’ve personally witnessed too many incidents of educators trying to lower the bar for children. Empowering them to unilaterally establish lower expectations is a lifetime sentence, and is a step backwards.

==> Mike.

I’ve pasted below the article in case the link doesn’t work.


Editorial: Parents, not teachers, should make lifetime decisions on their kids' future
The Detroit News

Michigan teachers and lawmakers have debated for more than two years about the state's new high school curriculum. Now Lansing may have developed a sensible compromise bill, but it goes too far by gutting the rights of parents to make life-altering decisions about their children's futures.

The state House passed Rep. Douglas Geiss' bill 4511 last week. It is designed to make it easier for students to obtain permission to take a personal curriculum to graduate from high school. The authors of the original curriculum allowed for any Michigan student to request a personal curriculum out of respect to the diversity of students and their interests.

Current law rightly allows only parents or a legal guardian to request a personal curriculum. Policymakers worried, with good reason, that if teachers had the power to determine a student's high school coursework without a parent's consent, some would abuse it. Teachers who did not want to upgrade their skills and adapt to the new curriculum instead could lobby students to take easier classes -- even though that could be at the student's expense.

Those concerns have proven to be valid. A small but vocal minority of teachers have remained resistant to adopting the state curriculum. Instead many have fought it, arguing they shouldn't have to change despite the fact that more and more Michigan students are poorly prepared to compete for Knowledge Economy jobs.

The Geiss bill, a political compromise, contains some reasonable ideas, including the option of allowing a teacher to help parents develop a personal curriculum for their child.

But the bill goes far too far by allowing teachers to make life-altering decisions for students. No one but parents should determine their child's high school curriculum. The consequences are too far-reaching. What coursework a student takes in high school is a predictor for their success in college, most trades classes and their livelihoods later.

The Senate should make sure this bill does not gut parents' rights. Any compromise should not compromise the future of Michigan's children.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

A History of Ignoring Smart Kids

Take the time to read this. Authors Loveless and Petrilli have contributed so much to the effort of improving schools, and they knock it out of the park with this New York Times piece:

The New York Times: Smart Child Left Behind (08/27/09)

It is this very topic that motivated me to become involved in education: I don't believe my public school adequately challenges all children.

I have been attempting to fight this shortcoming my entire time on the school board, beginning four years ago with my nationally recognized study on Advanced Placement in Michigan, up to the recent post on “Academically Waterboarding Middle School Math Students.” There are numerous examples of this deficiency chronicled on this blog under the heading RIGOR on the right.

As of the time of this writing, Rochester Community Schools still has no district initiatives whatsoever to insure that all children are adequately challenged. I have pushed at every opportunity to spotlight this fact, but unfortunately the best that I’ve been able to achieve is some weakly worded generic language in a list of un-measurable district goals.

While the school board is to blame, the ultimate root cause is that parents have not communicated any expectations to their school board, and do not hold them accountable when examples are provided of school board failures.

Until parents and other stakeholders take the time to let the school board know that they have high expectations for their children – and refuse to accept generic board answers – we can only expect more of the same.

==> Mike

Here is the article in case the link does not work:


New York Times
Op-Ed Contributors
Smart Child Left Behind
By TOM LOVELESS and MICHAEL J. PETRILLI
AS American children head back to school, the parents of the most academically gifted students may feel a new optimism: according to a recent study, the federal No Child Left Behind law is acting like a miracle drug. Not only is it having its intended effect — bettering the performance of low-achieving students — it is raising test scores for top students too.

This comes as quite a surprise, as ever since the law was enacted in 2002, analysts and educators have worried that gifted pupils would be the ones left behind. While the law puts extraordinary pressure on schools to lift the performance of low-achieving students, it includes no incentives to accelerate the progress of high achievers.

Yet the new study, by the independent Center on Education Policy, showed that more students are reaching the “advanced” level on state tests now than in 2002. This led the authors to conclude that there is little evidence that high-achieving students have been shortchanged.

If only that were so. But like many miracle-drug claims, this conclusion is deeply flawed, for several reasons.

First, under the federal law, state tests are supposed to measure whether students are meeting grade-level expectations — whether the average third grader knows the mathematics taught through third grade. But high achievers usually work above grade level, so the state tests are very poor instruments for measuring how well top students are learning.

Second, the way the study’s analysts depicted state trends creates a misleading national picture. They calculated “trend lines” in each state — for example, whether more fourth graders in Georgia reached the “advanced” level in math, whether they made gains in reading and so on for each grade and subject.

For their conclusions, they added together all the up, down and sideways trends to give a national snapshot, saying that 83 percent of trend lines showed gains, while 15 percent showed declines. The problem with this system is that it treats all states equally, regardless of size. So a gain among high-performing students in North Dakota has the same weight as one in California, which has more than 60 times as many students.

Third, the analysis does not compare today’s students with those of earlier eras. High-achieving students might be making incremental progress — but is this new? If they were making similar gains before 2002, then might recent progress have nothing to do with No Child Left Behind? And how did their progress compare with trends for lower-achieving students?

Thankfully, there is a more suitable tool to help answer such questions: the National Assessment of Educational Progress, which tracks achievement changes in 4th, 8th and 12th graders across the country. It found relatively little progress among our highest-achieving students (those in the top 10 percent) from 2000 to 2007, while the bottom 10 percent made phenomenal gains. For example, in eighth-grade math, the lowest-achieving students made 13 points of progress on the national-assessment scale from 2000 to 2007 — roughly the equivalent of a whole grade. Top students, however, gained just five points.

We also learned something from the data from the 1990s. For the most part, both high- and low-achievers made tepid annual gains. But there was one exception: In the states that already had accountability systems similar to those that would eventually be required by No Child Left Behind, there were much larger gains at the bottom than at the top.

So what does all of this mean? It is clear that No Child Left Behind is helping low-achieving students. But it is also obvious that high-achieving students — who suffer from benign neglect under the law — have been making smaller gains, much as they did before it was enacted. Alas, this drug is producing no miracles.

No doubt, some will claim victory: We are closing the achievement gap between our top and bottom students! But is that our only national goal in education? What might happen if federal law encouraged educators to improve the performance of all students? Our analysis of the federal data identified tens of thousands of high achievers who are black, Hispanic or poor. They are excelling at their studies, often against great odds. Shouldn’t we be addressing their educational needs?

As we look for ways to improve No Child Left Behind, we must recognize that our top students still have much to learn.

Tom Loveless is a fellow at the Brookings Institution and a member of the task force on K-12 education at Stanford’s Hoover Institution. Michael J. Petrilli is the vice president for national programs and policy at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

MEA contractual “firewall” blocks assessment data

Interesting article from the left coast:

LA Times: Obama chides California for not using test scores to evaluate teachers (07/25/09)

It spotlights a bizarre and well-entrenched failing of the education system: the reluctance – even resistance – towards the use of data when evaluating teachers.

This debate has been escalated by a new federal program called “Race to the Top”, which is described in The Economic Times:

WASHINGTON: President Barack Obama has announced a race for $4.35 billion in federal grants to improve academic achievement and reverse a decline in American public schools to meet increasing competition from countries like India and China.

"In an economy where knowledge is the most valuable commodity a person and a country have to offer, the best jobs will go to the best educated, whether they live in the United States, or India, or China," Obama said announcing the competition Friday.

"In a world where countries that out-educate us today will out-compete us tomorrow, the future belongs to the nation that best educates its people," he said in an address at the Department of Education. "We have talked about it for decades but we know that we have not made the progress we need to make."

Dubbed the "Race to the Top," the competition aims to ease limits on charter schools, which receive public funding but generally are exempt from some state or local rules and regulations, link teacher pay to student achievement and move toward common US academic standards.

A good discussion can be found in this education trade magazine article:

Eduweek: 'Race to Top' Guidelines Stress Use of Test Data (07/23/09)

The use of data in decision-making is a major component of this effort, and it’s going to be interesting to see how this concept plays. It’s a common sense concept, but one that is counter-culture in education, and is clearly opposed by teacher unions.

Some (many?) educators are opposed to the use of data analysis, instead believing the data comparison is not fair because each student is unique. Another common argument is that students may know the material, but simply not be able to demonstrate mastery in a structured test environment.

I don’t want to be completely dismissive of those concerns, but they fundamentally suggest that the teacher alone should the sole judge of whether the teacher has been successful, ultimately making them accountable to, well, only themselves.

The “Race to the Top” will force discussion of this topic because it includes grant money – the mothers milk in education – and it’s guidelines will likely exclude states like California and New York, which bar the use of data in evaluating teachers.

While Michigan (and most other states) don't specifically bar the use of data in evaluations, the real roadblocks are established at the local level.

In Rochester, for example, meaningful data is scarce, especially at the secondary level. Teachers don’t use common assessments, meaning that there is no common measuring tool within the district, or even with a building. The effort and achievement required to earn a “B” in one teacher’s class might’ve gotten a student an “A” or a “C” with another teacher. This hardly seems fair, and it inherently prevents effective and objective comparison.

There is a district-level effort in Rochester to move towards common assessments, but it’s reportedly meeting strong resistance. Like most things in education, it’s moving at a glacial pace. The progress is not clear, and the outcome is far from inevitable. It calls into question how serious the district really is about the use of data in decision-making.

It’s sad news, given the potential benefits.

At a minimum, it would insure that achievement in a class would be measured by common standards, and not the unique standards of an individual teacher. An “A” in a particular class would mean the same thing within the district, regardless of which high school or which teacher bestowed it.

Furthermore, common assessments would provide building leaders and district leaders with a macro view of curriculum success, and provide insight on where the district should concentrate efforts on improving instructional resources or professional development.

Consider an example where six teachers of varying experience levels, in different buildings, administer a common assessment, and most of the students tested fail to demonstrate mastery of a particular concept. Those results would serve as an indicator that the district curriculum specialists need to better support the teachers by focusing attention on that particular concept.

But apparently those benefits are outweighed by the risk that the data might reflect poorly on certain teachers.

In that same example, consider if five out of six teachers consistently achieve comparable results, and the remaining teacher consistently performs below far below those other five. This data alone would not suggest that the one teacher is ineffective, but it would certainly serve as a red flag.

Having common assessments – and common achievement data – would inherently establish achievement norms for teachers, and is presumably one of the primary reasons it’s unacceptable to teacher unions.

Whatever the reason, this common sense use of data goes against the grain of education norms, and opposition to the use of data remains a significant plank in the MEA platform.

In Rochester, the union has a built-in “firewall” in the teacher contract designed to “protect” teachers from data. Section 8.21 of the contract states, “If teachers who teach the same course administer common assessments, there shall be no comparisons of classroom assessment results reflected on any teacher’s evaluation.” Furthermore, in a “Memo of Understanding” addendum, the concept is expanded beyond evaluations when it goes on to stipulate, “There shall be no comparison of classroom assessment results reflected on any teacher’s evaluation or provided to any parents.”

Unions contend, as summarized by AFT president Randi Weingarten, that student test-score data should be used primarily for informative and instructional purposes. In other words, we want to specifically avoid using measurable data to set expectations and hold teachers accountable.

I cannot imagine that philosophy being acceptable in any other profession.

Rather than confront this head on, some suggest a more pragmatic approach. They argue that teachers feel threatened by data, and that introduction of data into their evaluations will only strengthen opposition. They maintain that data needs to become integrated into the education psyche in a more natural, evolutionary way.

That argument may have some merit, but on the other hand it’s reasonable to wonder if this is simply too much coddling. How long are we supposed to allow for the evolution?

Teachers need to realize that this is not some sort of “attack” on their profession, but is instead meant to help instructional leaders and teachers alike identify what is working, and what is not. And yes, it should also help to weed out those teachers who are simply not effective.

The current evaluation system is far too subjective and superficial.

- Mike.

As a side note, the LA Times article cites the Data Quality Campaign, which maintains an interesting site here: http://dataqualitycampaign.org. I could not find any state ranking data, but I did read an interesting piece on the benefits of linking teacher and student data, found here.




Obama chides California for not using test scores to evaluate teachers
At stake are billions in federal stimulus funds to be allocated in 'Race to the Top' grants. Schwarzenegger says state law will be amended if necessary to comply.

By Jason Song and Jason Felch

July 25, 2009

President Obama singled out California on Friday for failing to use education data to distinguish poor teachers from good ones, a situation that his administration said must change for the state to receive competitive, federal school dollars.

Obama's comments echo recent criticisms by his Education secretary, Arne Duncan, who warned that states that bar the use of student test scores to evaluate teachers, as California does, are risking those funds. In an announcement Friday at the Education Department in Washington, Obama and Duncan said the "Race to the Top" awards will be allocated to school districts that institute reforms using data-driven analysis, among other things.

"You cannot ignore facts," Obama said. "That is why any state that makes it unlawful to link student progress to teacher evaluations will have to change its ways."

The remarks escalate a disagreement between the Obama administration and California education leaders. While a 2006 law prohibits the use of student test scores to evaluate teachers on a state level, it does not mention local districts, where state officials say pupil data can be used to judge instructors. A handful of districts currently are doing that; L.A. Unified is not.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Friday he would push to amend state law if necessary.

"We will seek any reforms or changes to the law deemed necessary, including changes to our data system laws, to ensure California is eligible to compete" for federal funds, Schwarzenegger said in a statement.

California's top education officials sent the Obama administration a letter earlier this month saying no changes were needed to state law and that any attempt to modify it could distract from reform efforts, but the administration has not responded.

Obama's speech could also mark the beginning of a protracted fight with teachers unions, which have resisted some of the reforms advocated by the administration, including performance pay and data-driven teacher evaluation.

The state's teachers unions have already voiced their opposition to such a move. When the 2006 law was drafted, teachers unions insisted that it include an amendment saying: "Data in the system may not be used . . . for purposes of pay, promotion, sanction, or personnel evaluation of an individual teacher or group of teachers, or of any other employment related decisions related to individual teachers."

Obama and Duncan made their position clear. "This competition will not be based on politics, ideology, or the preferences of a particular interest group," Obama said. "Instead, it will be based on the simple principle: whether a state is ready to do what works."

"Race to the Top" applicants must show progress in four key areas to compete for the $4.35 billion: adopting rigorous academic standards, recruiting and retaining talented educators, turning around chronically low-performing schools, and building data systems to track student and teacher effectiveness. But Obama also pointed out that teachers should not be judged solely on student test scores.

Seven states have already lifted restrictions on public charter schools to better compete for the funds, the Associated Press reported Friday. Other states, such as Colorado and Massachusetts, are trumpeting their recent progress on issues like merit pay and higher educational standards, which they believe will give them an inside track to secure the federal dollars.

Federal officials have said that California legislators do not have to necessarily revise current law. Instead, the attorney general could certify that the state law is not a barrier to teacher accountability.

But some California education officials questioned whether it would be possible to comply with the administration's demands.

California ranks 41st among states in collecting and using data to evaluate teachers, according to a 2008 survey by the Data Quality Campaign, a nonprofit based in Austin, Texas.

"There is . . . [a] possibility nobody will apply" for the funds, said California Deputy Supt. for Public Instruction Rick Miller, who stressed that state leaders share the Obama administration's goals. "They're asking for fundamental changes in all sorts of areas, and you have to commit to all of it by October. . . . That's a heavy lift."

The draft guidelines for the federal funding released Friday are open for public comment for 30 days. States are required to submit applications by October for the first round of grants.

The money is a portion of the roughly $100-billion educational stimulus package approved by Congress. But much of that money is expected to be used by districts to make up for state budget cuts.

Jason.song@latimes.com

Kristina Sherry in the Washington bureau contributed to this story

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

Hit the Reset Button on K12 Schools!

Tom Watkins, Michigan’s former State Superintendent of Schools, has become a prolific opinion writer who offers insightful perspectives on how K-12 education and Michigan’s international business future – particularly in China – have somewhat symbiotic relationships.

He penned the following article:

The Oakland Press: Education needs radical reformation (07/19/09)

The opening paragraph sets the stage:

“Nothing short of radical change in our education system, from cradle to grave, is what will be required for America to regain its international competitiveness. This is a theme I have been championing for years and it was reinforced by a powerful panel presentation at the National Summit recently in Detroit. There is a need to hit the reset button when it comes to reforming our schools. We have yet to get it right.”

He goes on to say:

“Change is often the most talked about and least acted-upon concept in school reform today. Most of our schools believe they have changed. The panel’s assessment: You have not seen anything yet.”

Sadly, his article was buried in the opinion section on page F11, while in the same edition the front-page headline screamed:

The Oakland Press: Oakland students are tops (07/19/09)

The article regurgitates boasts from officials in Oakland County school districts about their test scores on the ACT. Rochester brags that, “We are in the top four or five districts in Oakland County and our per pupil money is right in middle,”

This is exactly the sort of “head in the sand” perspective that is preventing Michigan schools from reforming, and is precisely what Watkins is referring to when he says that schools believe that they have changed.

Consider the “top performance” of Oakland districts. Statistics in the article point out that Rochester saw 76 percent of it’s students pass the math section of the MME (Michigan Merit Exam), which is largely based on the ACT.

While that may be better than others, it doesn’t erase the fact that nearly one out of four children in Rochester could not pass the math minimums. And this is from one of the top districts!

The statistics are even worse if you parse the data and try to look at how many are ready to do college level calculus.

School boards are the root cause of the problem. They tolerate this narrow goal of being the local star, and completely ignore a national or international perspective.

For example, look at Rochester’s so-called “Strategic Plan” , which largely aspires to keep Rochester MEAP/MME scores in the top 95th percentile of Michigan schools.

That would be a worthwhile goal if Rochester students would only be competing with other students from Michigan. But they’re not. They’re competing for college seats – and jobs – with students from around the nation, and around the world.

So, while Rochester is content to say, “… we are giving a big bang for your buck.”, Wayne State Unversity President Dr. Jay Noren more correctly observes, “High school for far too many of our students is not serious — we need high national educational standards, having 50 separate sets of state standards does not make sense in this global, knowledge economy. We need a longer school day and year, increased compensation for effective teachers and a minimum of 14 years of basic education.”

There is nothing wrong with recognizing success. But most schools, like Rochester, spend more time focusing on how to provide positive spin on whatever results are achieved, rather then establishing aggressive and meaningful goals.

While Rochester crows that, “We do well because we’ve got a great teaching staff and good support from parents and we work together as a team.”, Superintendent of Public Instruction Mike Flanagan instead acknowledges “…we still are not where we need to be overall, in getting all students to be college-ready.”

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

Academically Waterboarding Middle School Math Students

I continue to struggle to understand the logic – or lack thereof – of the methods employed by some responsible for our children’s education.

This school year, Rochester schools implemented a revised math curriculum. It was required to do so in order to comply with the State of Michigan’s new, more rigorous high school graduation requirements. Oddly enough, in transitioning Rochester middle school students from the old to a new math curriculum, central office folks decided to “round down” (my words).

They unilaterally determined that the district’s top middle school math students – those who had just completed the “old” Pre-Algebra – should take (retake?) the “new” Pre-Algebra, rather than advancing to Algebra I.

Understandably. parents objected. And in response, the district offered a bold compromise: If parents were really convinced that their kids were ready, students could elect to “opt-in” to Algebra I.

While I would have preferred more thoughtful student guidance, I was willing to accept the compromise because it offered an option to rescue these talented, yet overlooked students from the tedious prospect of needlessly repeating an entire year of math.

But even with this compromise, the hesitation of some to offer an appropropriate academic challenge was stark - even shocking. The district held a math 'information night', which unfortunately turned into a misinformation night. Some officials and some teachers attempted to frighten parents, literally telling them kids would fail if they attempted to move on to Algebra I.

Instead of encouraging children with “Yes, you can!”, they discouraged motivated students by suggesting, “Maybe you shouldn’t”.

Despite the official naysaying, two hundred and seventy one 6th and 7th grade students - with parental support - opted to enroll in the more challenging Algebra I math course. And despite the doomsday predications, recent grading data indicates that the vast majority of the students earned a “B” or better in the new Algebra I.

Unfortunately, the damage is already done. This school year, approximately 25% of eight graders - those considered “advanced math” students under the old system - are taking geometry. Yet only 12% of current year seventh grade “advanced math” students are taking Algebra I - the course which precedes geometry - under the new math curriculum. This means that the number of next year’s eighth graders who take geometry may be reduced by 50 percent.

It’s significant to note that if the district’s original proposal had prevailed - restricting all advanced math students to Pre-Algebra - there would be almost no 8th graders taking geometry next year.

And while it’s encouraging to learn that the daring Algebra 1 students have been so successful, it’s disheartening to hear from those who did not opt in. The school board recently received email from parents whose kids followed the district’s advice to take (retake?) the new Pre-Algebra. These students were bored in math, and their parents are now desperate to get their kids back onto the accelerated math track.

LOOKING AT THIS YEAR

With this unfortunate experience so close at hand, and with tangible data readily available, you’d think the district would revise its approach for this year’s current 6th and 7th grade advanced math students.

Given that ‘those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it’ you’d think the school board would have interest in how math matters were addressed during the year.

Sadly, you’d be wrong.

Once again, the district held its “information night” this spring to help parents better understand their young students’ options. I attended. The district sent one central office administrator, and one middle school principal. Unfortunately, not a single math teacher was in attendance, and no other board members came to observe.

Attending parents expressed serious concerns about the district’s failure to challenge their children in math. They shared their frustration – and even anger – over a “whisper campaign” conducted by some math teachers. Parents overwhelmingly reported that Rochester middle school students are being discouraged from taking Algebra I.

These parents are supportive of their children’s learning aspirations, and dedicated to helping them succeed. They requested study guides, or some other materials to help students prepare for Rochester’s homegrown district “Placement Exam”. In response, the district referred parents to the Michigan Department of Education’s website to look up the 8th grade GLCEs.

Left without official support, parents turned to each other for help. Online resource materials were found. Self-directed study groups were formed. Students were shown that the course content for Pre-Algebra contained much of what they had learned this year.

In a bizarre twist, the district offered last minute suggestions. After months of stalling, and just 10 days before the placement exam, the district posted study suggestions online.

Yet, the posting wasn’t advertised to parents!

The exam was administered last week. Students reported its scope was well beyond the material presented in their study guides, and most felt they were unlikely to “pass”. Similar impressions were reported by students who took the exam last year - the same students, incidentally, who are earning A’s and B’s this year in Algebra I.

From my perspective, this placement exam’s credibility is suspect -- and harmful. It fails to serve as a reliable indicator of success, while simultaneously serving to discourage and block the advancement of students capable of doing Algebra I. At a minimum it's time to find a new test.

By using this test, the district is academically waterboarding these students; intending to pressure them into compliance by simulating failure.

It's also disturbing that some teachers are "lobbying" students... telling them their parents are wrong to encourage them to take Algebra 1. It's quite appropriate for teachers to have an opinion on this matter, and they should share that opinion with parents. They are the education partners, and should be working together. But it's downright unprofessional for teachers to attempt to drive a wedge between parents and their children.

The biggest failure, however, rests with your school board. Last year’s “Math Wars” may have caught them by surprise. But there is no excuse for this year’s oversight. The board watched this discussion unfold, fully armed with the data and experience described above. Furthermore, the administration and board is fully aware of the in-classroom intimidation tactics, and are doing nothing to stop it.

The school board’s failure to maintain vigilance on this important matter is inexcusable.

Through its inaction, this board has earned its distinction as a “Weapon of Math Destruction”.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

Image and Appearance… Education’s top priority?

I repeatedly hear parents in suburban communities brag about their schools.

“It’s the reason I moved to this area”, they say.

“I agree they’re good, but why do YOU think they’re good?” I ask.

The responses almost always point to test scores.

The problem is that in most cases people don’t understand what the scores really mean. It’s not that they are incapable of understanding… it’s that schools rarely provide enough meaningful information.

I wrote about this in an article here:

Detroit News: Many students aren't ready for college (09/10/08)

Schools (and the state) report test scores, but don’t really help parents to interpret them. Oftentimes they’ll report their relative rankings, comparing themselves to neighboring schools, county averages and state averages.

While being “above average” or “among the best” might be an accomplishment, it really says nothing about whether a school is preparing kids for college and it’s really not a meaningful goal.

What it does do is present a positive image. There’s certainly nothing wrong with that… unless it’s the ONLY thing presented. Image might be everything in Hollywood, but it should be secondary in education.

Parents can be excused for not understanding how to parse and interpret the data, but school boards cannot. Schools have an obligation to be candid with parents. And sharing the data – good or bad – creates an opportunity to start (or continue!) a dialog with parents.

It’s a chance to explain the importance of rigor, and relevance of taking challenging classes. It's an opportunity to reinforce the importance of engaging in their child's education.

School boards have – or should have – data on the ACT College Readiness Benchmarks, and identify specific ways to increase the percentage of students that meet the benchmarks. Establishing those types of goals, and reporting progress on them would be much more helpful to parents than knowing whether they are “keeping up with the Joneses.”

Also, for clarification, it appears that I incorrectly associated the ACT with The College Board in the print edition when I said, “According to the College Board…” That quotes that followed came from ACT’s material. The College Board is responsible for Advanced Placement courses, which I frequently write about, and they are not associated with the ACT. It was corrected online. Sorry to both organizations!

Here is the full article in case the link doesn't work:

---------------------------------------------

Many students aren't ready for college
Make it easier for parents, taxpayers to gauge whether kids are prepared
Mike Reno

The results are in for the Michigan Merit Exam, which includes the ACT -- a national college entrance exam that's considered a reliable predictor of college success. Rather than take a comprehensive look at the results, most high schools will spend the next month reassuring the public that they're doing a splendid job.

Oftentimes it's an illusion, inviting rebuttal and reinforcing the growing concern that schools are out of touch with reality.

Schools need support. But also they need to admit -- to themselves and to parents -- that there's much to do.

The common approach presents parents with their school's average scores and rankings, and offers no explanation of how to interpret them. Schools atop the rankings are dubbed "high-performing," while everyone else will be reassured their district is "above the state average." These comforting descriptions are designed to make parents feel secure that all is well.

Any mention of disappointing results will include official comments about the difficulty of the test and how parents need to be patient because the test is new. "This is only our second year" or "We need more time" are the usual rallying cries -- as if the idea of preparing kids for college is new.

And no education press release will be complete without the "inadequate funding" potshot aimed at Lansing.

This posturing does nothing to drive school improvement or help our children.

Consider the 299 schools that can boast that their average ACT composite score beats the state average of 18.9. Does that mean those schools are doing a good job of preparing students for college? Who knows? Beating the state average has little bearing -- if any -- on college admission or success.

Knowing how many students met the nationwide average ACT score for incoming college freshmen would be more meaningful. The average freshman score for many universities in Michigan is between 21 to 23 with the highly selective universities accepting freshmen with averages pushing 28 to 30.

Just 60 high schools in Michigan -- out of 722 -- saw their average student achieve a score of 21 or higher.



Another meaningful goal might focus on the ACT college readiness benchmarks. According to the ACT folks, they represent "the minimum ACT test scores required for students to have a high probability of success in ... college courses," such as math, science and English." They are "empirically derived based on the actual performance of students in college."

Mind you, a "high probability of success" means earning a "C" or better in an entry-level college class. Few schools find their average student meeting these benchmarks.

Increasing the percentage able to perform to these minimum levels would be a great goal.

Unfortunately, the state doesn't report the percentage of students meeting these benchmarks. Knowing that data -- especially knowing how many students meet all four benchmarks in English composition, college algebra, biology and the social sciences -- would help parents better evaluate their schools.

Consider that Rochester Community Schools ranks among the top in the state by many measures, and 95 percent of its graduates are college-bound. Yet less than half meet all four benchmarks.

That may mean remedial courses in some subjects -- at the going college tuition rate -- or disappointing outcomes for students who aren't prepared for the rigor of college coursework even though they're admitted.

Really, aside from being self-serving, there's little value in trumpeting the fact that a school is "above the state average" or "top tier."

In fact, such public relations tactics can be harmful because some parents may easily be lulled into complacency.

Parents instead need a wake-up call from their schools. Transparent and informative achievement reporting could be an effective way to get parents more involved in their children's education.

The leadership needs to start with local school boards, which tend to set weak goals and have shallow communications. This is unlikely to change until parents and taxpayers demand candid assessments from these boards and hold them accountable for the results.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

The 2008 Algebra Revolution

This is a follow-up to the posting on "Parents lobby to raise the education bar and face hurdles "
The district publicly reported that 135 children opted to take the more rigorous Algebra 1 Course.

I wrote about it in the an opinion piece:

Oakland Press: Parents right to stand up to board (09/05/08)

(by the way, I did't write the headline! I would've called it "Parents stand up for increased rigor!")


Here is the full article, in case the link doesn't work:

------------------------------------

In late August — days before the start of school — some Rochester middle school parents connected to press for a critical curriculum change … and won!

This display of parent resolve gives hope that attitudes about education are changing.

These parents recognized the importance of insisting their eighth-graders take Algebra 1, setting higher expectations for their children than those set by the district. Hopefully their actions will inspire other parents, and send a clear signal to educators that it’s time to raise the bar.

The story begins two years ago when State Superintendent Mike Flanagan led the effort to reform high school graduation requirements. It the time, the state expected but a single class in government and one in gym/PE. Requirements have since been updated to what are now among the highest minimum standards in the nation.

Michigan high school students must now take four years of math and English, and three years of science. Graduates must at least complete Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2. The state wisely defined the content of each class, preventing schools from circumventing the requirements with inappropriate class names.

The Rochester math curriculum was adjusted to meet new state guidelines, and parents discovered students in the Class of 2013 — incoming eighth-graders — who had taken pre-algebra last year were scheduled to take a “new” prealgebra course instead of moving to algebra 1.

Parents felt their children were being shortchanged. They began calling schools, and contacting the school board. The board president thought they’d be satisfied with answers like; “It will take a couple years to complete the transition from our current math classes to the new classes.”

The district went on to say the “new” pre-Algebra was basically equivalent to the “old” Algebra.

Pressure built as nearly 100 parents attended a board meeting to voice their concerns.

Fortunately, the district superintendent was listening and responded admirably. The district still maintains Algebra 1 might be a stretch for some students, but will give them the opportunity to take it as long as parents take the initiative to “opt in.”

This innovative approach places responsibility squarely back in the hands of parents. Parental insistence on greater rigor allows teachers to insist on a stronger learning partnership with those parents.

Algebra 1 in eighth-grade should not be viewed as “accelerated” in Rochester, or anywhere else. It puts students on track to take Algebra 2 by tenth-grade, thus fully preparing them for their junior year ACT college entrance test, which includes a math component that assesses a significant number of Algebra 2 topics.

It affords students the opportunity to take AP Calculus by their senior year, better preparing them for college.

Some Rochester officials seemed willing to support the status quo by arguing the “old” curriculum would’ve gotten these students to pre-calc by their senior year, and the “new” curriculum — with Pre-Algebra in eighth-grade – would accomplish the same thing.

In fact, it was stunning to hear that the average student in Rochester won’t take Algebra 1 until ninth grade and will only get to pre-calc by their senior year.

By comparison, California has new state requirements that all eighth-graders take Algebra 1. And some studies show that of students who take calculus, more take it as high school students rather than as a college freshman.

Establishing Algebra 1 as an eighth-grade standard, as well as encouraging more graduates to study calculus are relevant and achievable goals that should be embraced by a top-tier district like Rochester. Actually, they’re appropriate goals for Michigan schools statewide.

It’s truly inspiring to see parents send a clear message to school boards that they have higher expectations. Let’s hope it’s contagious!

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

Parents lobby to raise the education bar and face hurdles

This lengthy rant spotlights a front-line math skirmish that just played out in Rochester. It clearly shows the difficulty in trying to improve public education in Michigan. Identifying new curriculums is really the simple part of the battle. Educating and changing the attitudes of parents and teachers is the tougher part.

Just before the opening of school, the Rochester superintendent published an op-ed,

Rochester Eccentric: As school year dawns, recommit to educational excellence (08/31/08)

Mr. Pruneau advises:

“If you are a parent in the Rochester school system, I would ask you to make school the number one priority for your child. In the global society of today, we need to raise the bar for all of our students, but that means students will have to spend more time about school, take harder courses than they may want (that Advance Placement course is worth the extra effort), and don't let a day go by not asking your child what is going on in his/her school life.”

Heeding that call, mothers and fathers of 8th grade students did just that, requesting that the district place their children in a more rigorous math class, and thus preparing them for higher-level science and math classes down the road. The superintendent was responsive to parents and allowed the option.

I wrote about it in an opinion piece that ran today:

Oakland Press: Parents right to stand up to board (09/05/08)

(by the way, I did't write the headline! I would've called it "Parents stand up for increased rigor!")

The issue centers on basic Algebra, and the adopted changes in the Rochester math curriculum designed to increase rigor and, and align with state requirements.

The Algebra taught by Rochester last year is apparently closer to what the state calls “pre-algebra”. Students who took Rochester’s pre-algebra last year appear to be caught in what one mother dubbed a “math opportunity gap”, in which their skills fall somewhere between the “new” Pre-Algebra and the “new” Algebra 1.

The question is whether students should take the new pre-algebra, which will repeat some material, or if they should move ahead to Algebra 1, which is likely be a more challenging course.

In light of these changes, and hoping to expand their children's learning opportunities, parents asked for options, and the superintendent supported that idea.

However, it seems everyone didn’t get the superintendent’s “raise the bar” memo.

Eighth graders came home the first few days of school, telling parents they were being advised that the new Algebra 1 class would be WAY over their heads. Students told parents, and parents told other parents, creating a sea of mixed messages in play.

A packed informational meeting designed to share details unfortunately deisintegrated into a confusing “fright-night”. One math teacher – not part of the official program – took the floor and shared her opinion that, “Unless your child prefers math homework over soccer, this class is not for them.”

Other teacher comments I heard included:

* “Nobody but the true math geeks take calculus as a junior.”

* It’s “crazy” that kids might “be forced to take a math class at a University in their senior year”.

One teacher suggested that reaching pre-calc by a student’s senior year was “good enough”.

Again, these comments were not part of the official presentation, but they were effective in discouraging and scaring parents. And while their opinions might be based on legitimate concerns, it would’ve been much more professional to present them in an objective, and unemotional manner.

For it’s part, I wish the district had offered a more clear and concise explanation of the differences between these various algebra curriculums. Better yet, the district – and objective math teachers – could’ve offered a plan showing how much additional learning support these students would need if they step up to the challenge of Algebra 1, as well as a list of how much overlapping content they’d face with the "safer choice" of the "new” pre-algebra.

Absent a lack of clarity, and influenced emotionally by the unofficial generalization that “this math is SO hard” and "will set your kids up for failure", some parents left more confused, frustrated, and unsure than ever.

Incredibly, some even questioned why the more rigorous course would even be OFFERED!

Relevant thoughts notably absent from the discussion that night:

* There was nothing to balance the message that “your child is ill-prepared and likely to fail”.

* There was no mention of the fact that there are online resources available with these new texts that can provide additional support.

* There was no mention of the fact that Rochester does have some outstanding math teachers that are more than capable of teaching the new curriculum.

* There was no discussion about how neighboring districts have plenty of seventh and eighth graders taking “true” Algebra 1.

And while Rochester may not have many juniors taking AP Calculus, it’s not uncommon at all in districts such as East Lansing, Bloomfield Hills, Forest Hills, Birmingham, and Troy. And, it’s commonplace in schools like Marion, Brother Rice, Cranbrook, Country Day, and Greenbriar.

Let me be clear: I’m in no position to evaluate which math class is best for any individual child, and I’m not trying to “sell” anyone on anything. But it is very discouraging to see emotional appeals sabotage the genuine interest parents had in seeking more rigor and opportunity for their children. My purpose in spotlighting this issue is to demonstrate one of the biggest challenges facing public education today: motivating students, parents, and teachers to reach higher.

It would’ve been inappropriate for me to speak out at the meeting. But what I would’ve liked to have pointed out is that we live in competitive and challenging times, which undeniably requires higher standards and expectations. We need to make sure students are prepared for that challenge. Other districts – many other districts – successfully shepherd students through the very same “new” math curriculum adopted by Rochester, and begin with Algebra 1 in middle school. Rochester children will be competing with them – as well as children from China and India – for seats at Michigan’s colleges and universities.

I simply cannot understand why some believe Rochester students and teachers are not up to the task.

Again, let me be clear: when asked, the only advice I’ve ever given is that parents talk with their teacher and look for clear, objective, unemotional explanations of why the teacher believes this specific student is prepared – or not – for Algebra 1.

If all they're told is, “It’s hard because I said it’s hard”, then perhaps parents might consider looking at this important decision in the same way they would a proposed medical procedure or treatment. In medicine, we get a second opinion – from someone other than the doctor’s partner – hoping to get a complete picture. It’s prudent, and is not disrespectful to your doctor.

After the fear-mongering I heard the other night, a second opinion might be a good idea.

A former teacher wrote to me and shared what they thought would’ve been a much more effective message from teachers:

"Hey, it's a transition to a totally new textbook. There are differences in the two texts.

If your child takes the Pre-Algebra before the Algebra I, then we can assure you that while there will be repeated material, that your child will get adequate and thorough coverage of all the different material before advancing to Algebra I. If your child has struggled, takes longer to pick up on a concept, is easily frustrated by math, is involved in activities that preclude lengthy homework assignments, if your child has no intention of advancing beyond the minimum required Algebra II in high school, or is not willing to put forth a reasonable effort, then this is the best option for you. Realize the highest your child can achieve is pre-calculus.

If your child opts for Algebra I, then understand they will be expected to work at an accelerated rate to cover both the material that is unique to the new textbook series and also the Algebra I material. I as a teacher will do everything to support and teach your child and make them successful. This will not be a class for slackers. Your child will need to work. We will be going at a faster rate but it will give them the opportunity to achieve AP Calc by senior year. But I will always be available to your child and your child's success will be my top priority."

Advice like that, coupled with a meaningful discussion of an individual child’s specific math skills, might be just what the doctor ordered!

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......