[Ohiogift] Fwd: The Education Gadfly Weekly: Cutting to the chase

[anngift at aol.com]

 Good article by Checker Finn on establishing college ready cut scores: 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas B. Fordham Institute <thegadfly at edexcellence.net>
To: anngift <anngift at aol.com>
Sent: Thu, Jan 24, 2013 5:28 pm
Subject: The Education Gadfly Weekly: Cutting to the chase














View the Education Gadfly Weekly online >>


SHARE THIS


SHARE
on Facebook

SHARE
on Twitter

FORWARD
to a Friend


 


 

 




THE EDUCATION GADFLY WEEKLY


       

A weekly bulletin of news and analysis from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute
VOLUME 13, NUMBER 4
January 24, 2013


     
In this Edition      


      


OPINION + ANALYSIS
OPINION
		Cutting to the chase
Questions about Common Core cut scores
		By Chester E. Finn, Jr.


REVIEWS
REPORT
		2012 State Teacher Policy Yearbook
Like McKayla Maroney, NCTQ is unimpressed
        By Daniela Fairchild
REPORT
		What do International Tests Really Show About U.S. Student Performance?
Taking "the glass is half full" to the extreme
		By Brandon Wright

PAPER
		Non-Cognitive Ability, Test Scores, and Teacher Quality: Evidence from 9th Grade Teachers in North Carolina
Evaluating the hidden power of character
        By Andrew Saraf

BOOK
		Trusting Teachers with School Success: What Happens When Teachers Call the Shots
Answer: Some pretty cool things
        By John Horton


GADFLY STUDIOS
PODCAST
Inaugurations and graduations
Mike and Kathleen are skeptical about the President’s educationagenda and newly released high school graduation-rate data. Amber thinks aboutlow-income high flyers.
VIDEO
Pricing the Common Core: How Much Will Smart Implementation Cost States and Districts?
Withthis May 2012 panel, Fordham peeked behind the curtain surrounding Common Coreimplementation with former Florida education commissioner Eric J. Smith,Achieve president Mike Cohen, former Department of Education official Ze’evWurman, and University of San Francisco professor Patrick J. Murphy.




        
       

QUICK LINKS: Best of the Gadfly DailyBriefly NotedAnnouncements




 
OPINION + ANALYSIS
OPINION
Cutting to the chase
By Chester E. Finn, Jr. / January 24, 2013
As the U.S.education world eagerly awaits more information about the new assessments thattwo consortia of states are developing to accompany the Common Core standards,dozens of perplexing and important questions have arisen: Once the federalgrants run out, how will these activities be financed? What will it cost statesand districts to participate? Who will govern and manage these massive testingprograms? What about the technology infrastructure? The list goes on.



Tests in use from Kindergarten through eleventh grade need to have cut scores that denote true readiness for the next grade and that culminate to "college and career readiness."
Photo by albertogp123


The assessmentquestions that weigh most heavily on my mindthese days, however, involve “cut scores.” For if the Common Core is trulyintended to yield high school graduates who are college and career ready, itsassessments must be calibrated to passing scores that colleges and employerswill accept as the levels of skill and knowledge that their entrants truly needto possess. Adequately equipping young people cannot wait ‘til twelfth grade, norcan the assessment sequence. The tests in use from Kindergarten througheleventh grade need to have passing scores that denote true readiness for thenext grade and that cumulate to “college and career readiness.” 
That’s adaunting challenge for any test maker, but it’s further complicated bywidespread fears of soaring failure rates and their political consequences, aswell as by Arne Duncan’s stipulation (in the federal grants that underwrite theassessment-development process) that the states belonging to each consortiummust reach consensus on those passing scores (in government jargon, “commonachievement standards”). All this means, in effect, that Oregon and WestVirginia (both members of the “Smarter Balanced” consortium) must agree on “how good isgood enough” for their students, as must Arkansas and Massachusetts (bothmembers of PARCC).Can that really happen?
The angst ispalpable among state officials—especially the elected kind—over the threat ofsoaring failure rates, and not just among the poor and dispossessed. We alreadyknow from national assessment data that about half of eighth graders with college-educated parents fail to clearthe “proficient” bar on NAEP. If (as mounting evidence suggests) “NAEPproficient” is roughly equivalent to “college ready,” and if the newassessments hew to that level of rigor and honesty, many millions of Americanyoungsters will be found unready—and millions more will learn that they’re noton track toward readiness. Such a cold shower should benefit the nation overthe long haul, but in the short run, it’s going to feel icy indeed.
Yet that’s onlythe start. Here are some other perplexing challenges in this realm:

When will the chilly water hit? PARCC says it doesn’t intend todo any level-setting until afterscores come in from the first test-administration in 2015, a classic example ofpsychometric considerations overriding real-world political considerations. Howcan states and districts possibly prep their students, their educators, andtheir publics for new standards (and heightened risk of failure) if nobodyknows in advance what sort of performance will be deemed passable? The folks atSmarter Balanced say they’ll set cut scores in advance of that firstadministration but “confirm” them afterward. What exactly does that mean?

Asingle cut-score or several? NCLB says states must set at least three cutscores on their assessments, but the Education Department’s RFP for the newCommon Core assessments makes no such demand. It refers only to “college andcareer readiness.”
Ihad the honor of chairing the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) twentyyears back when it was struggling to set “achievement levels” for NAEP. AlShanker (and others) warned that we’d be wrong to establish a single level. Itwould either be too high, he cautioned, in which case far too few kids wouldreach it, or too low, meaning it would amount to little improvement overstate-set “minimum-competency” levels. In the end, NAGB set three achievementlevels, familiar today as “basic,” “proficient,” and “advanced.” We declared“proficient” to be the level that every student ought to reach—but then, as now, fewer than two in five actually achievedthat. “Basic” was intended to be a solid marker along the road to proficientand “advanced” was meant to represent “world class”. Will the Common Coreassessments do something similar?


Willthese cut scores be static or will they rise over time? Some states (Texascomes to mind) have had good results by slowly elevating the cut scores ontheir own assessments. Doing something of the sort with the new Common Coreassessments would ease the political backlash. On the other hand, the promiseof “college and career readiness” would then remain hollow for years to come.

Speakingof which, who is doing what to ensure that colleges and employers will actuallyaccept these standards—and cut scores—as evidence of readiness? And how exactlyis “readiness” being construed? (The federal procurement was nebulous and,while the Common Core standards themselves are substantively very ambitious,the “cut scores” on their assessments are not obliged to be.) For college-boundyoungsters, I see “readiness” as the ability to enter credit-bearing courses inthe appropriate subjects on non-selective-admission campuses—i.e., to avoidremediation. But I’ve no idea how to define “career readiness.” Who does?

Whathappens in states (about half of them) that already have statewide graduationtests (e.g., Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System and the Ohio Graduation Test) with minimum passing scores?These have typically been pegged to levels of academic prowess around old-style ninth- or tenth-grade curricula and have been required (of almost all students) asprerequisite to getting a diploma. Are said states supposed to replace thesewith the new assessments pegged (presumably) to much tougher demands?Administer both? What about a two-tiered diploma system, at least for awhile? Set the new cutscores high to denote true “readiness,” get the colleges to accept them assuch, and confer a “readiness diploma” on youngsters who meet that standard.But for some period of time also continue to hand out “regular” diplomas tothose who meet the state’s existing graduation requirements, typically a mix ofcourse completions, test scores, and the like. Phase out the latter ifpossible. (In the old days, New York State did something like this,distinguishing between an ordinary diploma and a “Regents’ Diploma.”)  

Asthe “credit-recovery” industry grows, often abetted by online delivery ofmake-up courses and such, how will such arrangements intersect with the newstandards, assessments, and cut scores? (The same question may fairly be askedof the G.E.D.) It may turn out that stiffer academic expectations drive morekids to flunk, drop out, etc., and that credit recovery becomes more importantthan ever. But will that path turn out to be a short cut to a meaninglessdiploma or an honorable avenue to meet the higher standards and demonstrateone’s “readiness” for job and college?

Ifthe ACT and College Board folks build the Common Core into their widely usedcollege-admissions tests, as seems likely, will these new consortium-basedassessments even be needed at the high school level? For that matter, what woulda “cut score” on the SAT or ACT look like?

I hope some smart people are figuring all thisout—but if they are, the answers haven’t yet reached my eyes or ears. Time isgetting short.



SHARE
on Facebook

SHARE
on Twitter

FORWARD
to a Friend


↑ Back to top


          
                  



REVIEWS


REPORT


2012 State Teacher Policy Yearbook
By Daniela Fairchild

Spanning a manageable2,000 pages, this sixth edition of the National Council onTeacher Quality’s (NCTQ’s) annual teacher-policy yearbook focuses attention onstates’ teacher-preparation policies (one of five areas tracked by NCTQ as partof this initiative). And, once again, NCTQ finds them wanting. Across the itemsinvestigated (including the rigor of admission requirements in teachingprograms, student-teaching expectations, and accountability systems linked tothe performance of prep programs’ alumni when they reach the classroom), theU.S. averages a D-plus. Only four states earn respectable marks (still a meagerB-minus): Alabama, Florida, Indiana, and Tennessee. Three others (Alaska,Montana, and Wyoming) earn Fs. Looking closely at specific policies is evenmore depressing: Just three states (Indiana, Minnesota, and Tennessee) requirehigh school teachers to pass content-area tests in their subjects withoutallowing loopholes (most of which are for math and science teachers). And Texasis the only state that norms its admissions exam to the generalcollege-bound population (all others norm it to the prospective teachingpopulation, setting a lower bar than for other college and universitystudents). Still, NCTQ acknowledges that states are slowly moving in the rightdirection. In 2007, when the organization began scrutinizing these data, nostate held its prep programs accountable for the quality of their graduates;today, eight do. And since 2011, fourteen states (including Ohio) have improvedtheir teacher-preparation policies in some way. Kudos to NCTQ for continuing tospotlight one of education reform’s greatest ironies: that the work to improvethe teaching profession often is done without thought to improving the qualityof the folks we admit into it in the first place. Look for more from them inthe spring with the release of their Teacher Prep Review.(Indeed, if you can’t wait, this year’s policy yearbook offers a few “sneakpeeks.”)



SHARE
on Facebook

SHARE
on Twitter

FORWARD
to a Friend


↑ Back to top




SOURCE
National Council on TeacherQuality, 2012 StateTeacher Policy Yearbook (Washington, D.C.: National Council on TeacherQuality, January 2013).


        


REPORT


What do International Tests Really Show About U.S. Student Performance?
By Brandon Wright

This report by Stanford’s Martin Carnoy and the Economic Policy Institute’s Richard Rothstein offers a catchy press-release headline: The U.S. Fares Better on International Assessments than Previously Thought. But that isn't actually true. Analyzing PISA data, Carnoy and Rothstein argue that the U.S. educates its disadvantaged students about as well as similar nations—and, for that, America should be praised. But the problems with the study are myriad. First, the authors use a “very approximate” index—the number of books in a student’s home—to determine social class. Others have explained the methodological flaws with this approach. Second, the authors engage in some dangerous statistical gymnastics to prove their point: Based on the assumption that students of low “social class” bring down average U.S. scores, Carnoy and Rothstein re-estimate PISA attainment (by using the books-in-the-home index) to norm the proportion of students in each class. They find that, if the U.S. had the same proportion of students in lower social classes as other nations, then it would rank fourth in reading (instead of fourteenth) and tenth in math (instead of twenty-fifth). The conclusions of this report only affirm the very significant education problem that it’s trying to downplay: We have a greater proportion—and a significantly greater number—of low-scoring and low-income students than other OECD countries. Carnoy’s and Rothstein’s flawed analysis and misleading primary conclusion is at best a diversionary ploy.



SHARE
on Facebook

SHARE
on Twitter

FORWARD
to a Friend


↑ Back to top




SOURCE
MartinCarnoy and Richard Rothstein, What do International Tests Really Show About U.S. StudentPerformance?(Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute, January 15, 2013).




PAPER


Non-Cognitive Ability, Test Scores, and Teacher Quality: Evidence from 9th Grade Teachers in North Carolina
By Andrew Saraf

Theteacher-evaluation debate follows a well-worn path: Traditional evaluationsystems (in which upwards of 99 percent of educators are deemed “effective”)are meaningless, argue reformers. New models that rely heavily on value-addedtest-score data are unreliable and unfair, counter others. This new NBER workingpaper from Northwestern’s C. Kirabo Jackson provides the debate new turf onwhich to tread: Based on data from the 1988 National Educational LongitudinalStudy, Jackson channels Paul Tough to argue that students’“non-cognitive” abilities (adaptability, self-restraint, motivation) helpexplain their success. Noting this, teachers should be evaluated on them; yetthey are rarely considered by current metrics. The report has two parts. First,Jackson shows that the “non-cognitive factor” (which he proxies with variableslike absenteeism, suspensions, and grades) ispredictive of college enrollment and lifetime earnings—more so, in fact, thancognitive ability. Jackson then evaluates whether teachers can affect this“non-cognitive” factor. Using 2005-10 North Carolina data, he finds thatteachers’ impact on student test scores is only weakly associated with theirimpact on improving youngsters’ non-cognitive abilities. In other words,evaluations that rely exclusively on test scores fail to capture the fullbreadth of teachers’ contributions to student outcomes. Jackson concludes: Othervariables that assess ability to improve students’ non-cognitive skills, variablessuch as student suspensions and absences, should also be used in teacherassessments. And the debate marches on.



SHARE
on Facebook

SHARE
on Twitter

FORWARD
to a Friend


↑ Back to top




SOURCE
C.Kirabo Jackson, "Non-CognitiveAbility, Test Scores, and Teacher Quality: Evidence from 9th Grade Teachers inNorth Carolina" (Chicago, IL: Northwestern University, January2013).




BOOK


Trusting Teachers with School Success: What Happens When Teachers Call the Shots?
By John Horton

This book awakens an establishedbut sparingly practiced and often unknown initiative in K–12 education: teacherautonomy. Authors profile eleven schools (seven of them charters and three ofthem in Minnesota, a pioneer in the “teacher-led-schools" initiative) thatembrace teacher autonomy to differing degrees and study the policies andpractices by which they operate. Ten criteria are used to judge the autonomylevel of the teachers including their agency over: staff hiring and firingdecisions, budget allocations, curriculum design, and school-wide disciplinepolicies. Written for teachers, the book—a worthwhile primer on what teacherautonomy is and what its many forms look like—offers an illustrative blueprintfor one manner in which teachers may be empowered, rather than alienated ordemonized, by the reform movement. Still, the book unconvincingly handles onekey component of a worthy teacher-autonomy policy: Before you give teachers thekeys to the castle, make sure you have royalty in the profession.



SHARE
on Facebook

SHARE
on Twitter

FORWARD
to a Friend


↑ Back to top






SOURCE
Kim Farris-Berg and Edward Dirswager with Amy Junge,Trusting Teachers withSchool Success (Lanham,MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education, 2012).



               
         

BEST OF THE EDUCATION GADFLY DAILY


FLYPAPER
         Nixon, his staff, and the art of government reports
By Andy Smarick on January 23, 2013
CHOICE WORDS
The right decision from Ball State
By Adam Emerson on January 23, 2013
FLYPAPER
What we're listening to: Mike Petrilli and Josh Starr on whether the brightest students are being challenged
By Education Next on January 18, 2013




                     
         


BRIEFLY NOTED
Is it good news or bad?



In his second inaugural address,President Barack Obama mentioned two pieces of his K–12 policy agenda: hisplans to train new math and science teachers and his plans to improve school safety. PoliticsK–12 notes thatinaugural addresses are not typically policy-laden, so one can fairly inferthat these two items top his second-term to-do list. In this week’s EducationGadfly Show, Mike Petrilli—self-professed “koala dad”—expresses unease over placing STEM education on apedestal over all other subjects.
Last Friday, a federal appealscourt upheld Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s public-sector union reforms infull, rejecting the unions’ charges that the law violated the Equal Protection clause and the FirstAmendment. But according to the SchoolLaw blog, the practical effect ofthe ruling is “unclear” due to litigation in a separate state court. We will bewatching.

 

A fresh batch of federal datashows that the U.S. public high school graduation rate rose to 78.2 percent in 2010—a thirty-five-year high. But before you bake Arne Duncan a cakeand sing “For He’s A Jolly Good Fellow,” be sure to listen to this week’s EducationGadfly Show for a wee slice of humble pie. Has our fixation on graduation rates incentivized schools to cheapen the value ofdiplomas—say, with bogus credit-recovery programs?
After the ouster ofIndiana State Superintendent Tony Bennett (who, subsequently, was snapped up by Florida), HoosierRepublicans began to push for the state to withdraw from the Common Core. Lastweek, Fordham’s Mike Petrilli visited the Indiana State Senate to make the casefor staying the course with the standards. Read his full testimony on Flypaper.




FEATURED PUBLICATION
Putting a Price Tag on the Common Core: How Much Will Smart Implementation Cost?

The Common Core State Standardsfor English language arts and mathematics represent a sea change instandards-based reform. Their implementation is the movement’s next—andgreatest—challenge. Yet while most states have now put forward implementationplans, these tomes seldom address the crucial matter of cost. This studyestimates the implementation cost for each of the forty-five states, plus theDistrict of Columbia, that had adopted the Common Core State Standards as ofits publication in May 2012. Click here to read more about it. 

       
         

ANNOUNCEMENT
Fordham seeks a research + staff assistant
Would you like to work at the forefront of the national education-reform movement? Are you a personable, organized, and detail-oriented self-starter? Are you comfortable handling varied responsibilities? Calm under fire? A born multi-tasker? A resourceful researcher? A savvy writer/editor? A great dancer? If so, you might be the Thomas B. Fordham Institute’s new D.C.-based research + staff assistant. For more information and to apply, please visit the job description on our website.

 
ANNOUNCEMENT
February 5: Fordham hosts the George W. Bush Institute
Please join us for a presentation of the Bush Institute’s new report Operating in the Dark: What Outdated State Policies and Data Gaps Mean for Effective School Leadership, a first-of-its-kind compilation of state-reported data on how the fifty states and the District of Columbia increase the supply of high-quality principals. The distinguished panel, moderated by Chester E. Finn, Jr., will include Florida state supe Tony Bennett, Rhode Island state supe Deb Gist, New Leaders’s Ben Fenton, and the National Governors Association’s Richard Laine. Bethany Little of America Achieves and Kerry Ann Moll of the Bush Institute will present the report. The event will be held on Tuesday, February 15, from 10:00AM to 11:30AM EST at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute; coffee and a light breakfast will be served from 9:30AM. For more information, please visit our events page. To RSVP, email your name, job title, and organization to Patrick Kobler at pkobler at bushcenter.org.




         

ANNOUNCEMENT
Fordham LIVE, February 11: School Choice Reguations: Red Tape or Red Herring?
Many proponents of private school choice assert that schools won’t participate if government asks too much of them, especially if it demands that they be publicly accountable for student achievement. Were such school refusals found to be widespread, the programs themselves could not serve many kids. But is this assumption justified? A new Fordham study—to be released on January 29—provides empirical answers. And on February 11 at 4:00PM EST, David Stuit, the study’s author, will discuss these and more. He will be joined on a panel, moderated by Fordham’s Chester E. Finn, Jr., featuring Step Up for Students’s John Kirtley and the Catholic Conference of Ohio’s Larry Keough. Register now to attend the event at Fordham’s D.C. office, or view the live-streamed event online.

 
 ANNOUNCEMENT
CRPE hiring a research analyst and an administrative assistant
The Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) is looking to fill two positions on its University of Washington–based team: a research analyst and an administrative assistant. The research analyst will support Compact, Portfolio, and proposed Carnegie work via a fair amount of fieldwork, data collection, and case studies. He or she must be a strong writer and either a Master’s level researcher with several years of experience or a recent PhD. The administrative assistant will primarily support Director Robin Lake, but will also provide administrative aid to other scholars. The ideal assistant will have some project management or administrative experience; excellent writing and technical skills are a must. To apply, please visit CRPE’s career page.



       

The Education Gadfly is published weekly (ordinarily on Thursdays), with occasional breaks, by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Regular contributors include Aaron Churchill, Adam Emerson, Daniela Fairchild, Chester E. Finn, Jr., John Horton, Emmy Partin, Michael J. Petrilli, Kathleen Porter-Magee, Matt Richmond, Terry Ryan, Andrew Saraf, Andy Smarick, Pamela Tatz, Amber Winkler, Brandon Wright, and Dara Zeehandelaar. Have something to say? Email us at thegadfly at edexcellence.net. Find archived issues or other reviews of reports and books here.
Follow the commentary online:   
The Thomas B. Fordham Institute is a nonprofit organization that conducts research, issues publications, and directs action projects in elementary and secondary education reform at the national level and in Ohio, with a special emphasis on our hometown of Dayton. (For Ohio news, check out our Ohio Education Gadfly, published bi-weekly, ordinarily on Wednesdays.) The Institute is neither connected with nor sponsored by Fordham University.
Unsubscribe

         










The Thomas B. FordhamInstitute is the nation's leader in advancing educational excellence for every child through quality research, analysis, and commentary, as well as on-the-ground action and advocacy in Ohio.
Find us online:
 
www.edexcellence.net
The Thomas B. Fordham Institute
  1016 16th St. NW | Floor 8| Washington DC, 20036 
202.223.5452
Update Your Profile | Unsubscribe



nonprofit software
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/ohiogift/attachments/20130124/66828adb/attachment.html>