Iowa Core – What is it?

There has been a lot of talk about the Governor’s education plan and the Iowa Core. For those who are interested, the following link at the Iowa Department of Education website should provide some good information about the Iowa Core - link

Dr. Dave

Letter in Support of School Board’s Six School Plan

I have been asked by many why the school board majority didn’t respond to the flurry of press coverage given to a press release from two members of the school board. Even the editor of the paper asked the five members supporting the six school plan to write up a response.

The problem with theses requests is that, with the exception of specific code-referenced instances, an elected board of officials must conduct its business in public view. Even getting together to deliberate who might write up a response would be a violation of the intent, if not the letter, of the open meetings laws of the state.

The facilities process has been among the most open I have witnessed in my years in Ames. Facilities meetings were open to the public and, with the exception of a handful of meetings where technology wasn’t available, recorded and rebroadcast. Documents provided to the board have been made available via the district’s web site. A multi-year effort, parents and other members of the public have been involved in focus groups and forums all across town.

In the community forums, the one option receiving the strongest negative reaction was the 4-school scenario – the one requiring the use of larger 4-unit (600 student capacity) schools. Beyond the issues of operating costs, access, involvement and schools knowing their kids that I have mentioned, parents I talked to also asked practical questions connected to things like lunch, recess and scheduling band and orchestra lessons when as many as 150 kids are added to the school but the time in the school day is kept the same. 

I wrote the letter below to share my thoughts on some of the reasons I support the six school plan. It was submitted and put into print/posted prior to Aug 1st. If you are a regular reader, you know there are many topics and analyses – too many to fit into 800 words.

Both the board secretary and counsel have advised that district resources cannot be spent advocating for a referendum once the board approves putting it on the ballot. The petition to place the board approved referendum on the September ballot is schedule to come before the board August 1st. Though guidance on advocacy suggests individual board members may speak in support of the referendum in their role as tax payers, I expect the board will rely on the committee of community members to share information with the public.

On the assumption the board secretary validates a sufficient number of signatures were collected, I expect the board to approve putting the six-school referendum on the ballot. The issue of addressing our elementary buildings is an important one. I strongly encourage everyone to vote September 13th!

Dr. Dave

.

Letter in Support of School Board’s Six School Plan

If you have talked to me, you know I am very passionate about education. The education of a child is one of the most sacred responsibilities a community has. I believe the best way to provide excellent elementary education in Ames is to keep our schools the size they are now.

School Size – Proven Effectiveness vs Promised Efficiencies

Some suggest that because schools in Iowa have been getting bigger, we should do the same in Ames. They rarely point out, however, that Iowa’s standing as an educational leader has declined considerably. The Register’s recent headline asking whether Iowa schools can regain their luster illustrates the concern many have regarding the quality of education kids receive today. Bigger is not always better.

Research clearly documents the educational advantages of smaller schools. The quality of education in Ames, envied by many, supports this. Our smaller two- and three-unit elementary schools are why our outstanding teachers and staff have been successful in maintaining educational excellence while other districts have struggled or failed. If we are to maintain the sense of community, caring and commitment within our elementary schools where high expectations are set for each and every child, we must avoid trading effectiveness for assumed efficiencies.

The idea that larger is more efficient is a notion tied to factory production. Knowing many resources are determined by the number of students regardless of the number of buildings, I have listened to claims of efficiencies of larger schools with caution. Review of available information suggests vast savings do not exist and that fewer and larger schools will result in more logistics costs. To offset these kinds of costs, “efficiencies” in staffing are often tried.

Some believe levels of staffing in areas of administration, technology support, educational assistants and nurses can be the same in an elementary building with 600 children as one with 450 children – I do not. My concern is these “efficiencies” will impact safety and welfare of students, decrease the ability to communicate with and involve parents, and negatively impact learning.

Key to Learning – Student-Centered Instruction

One of our elementary principals shared the following quote – No significant learning occurs without a significant relationship. As a parent, having been a classroom teacher and having reviewed the research, I know this to be true. I agree with our superintendent, who said the advantage of smaller schools is that the entire staff can focus on student needs. So why is this important?

At the core of student-centered instruction is understanding the strengths and needs of each student. When people talk about smaller schools, many point to the advantages for students who are at risk. While true, the ability of teachers and staff to know every child also allows them to expand the strengths of children who need to be challenged, as well as reduce the chance students get “lost in the middle.”

Costs

From a facilities point of view, the board has two means of controlling costs – building location and building design. Location impacts logistics costs. Building design impacts costs such as heating and cooling. Future boards will address building design. The school locations in the six school plan will reduce dependency on busing.

The board was told it may have been 40 years since the public last supported a bond to improve elementary facilities. By all assessments, our elementary buildings must be our priority. Starting in 2013, state sales tax funds (sometimes called SILO) – which must be used on infrastructure – will be available to mitigate construction costs. Future boards will set levy rates, but estimates shared with the current board which use a portion of available SILO funds show the cost to residential property owners (with the property tax rollback) would be under $1 per $1,000 assessed value. This could be lower depending on the extent future boards use SILO funds.

Adding capacity will add costs and all agree that we must add capacity. My goal has been to find a means by which these costs are tied to providing quality learning environments and staff rather than logistics costs such as busing contracts and diesel fuel.

The need is clear, SILO funding is available and rates are reasonable – now is the time to start the work.

Closing Comments

This issue is complex and any solution will have long-term impacts. At the heart of the matter is how to best provide for the education of the kids in Ames now and into the future. I support the six-school plan because it maintains a system of elementary education proven to be successful and because it puts more money where it matters – the kids. I am excited about the opportunity we have to improve the learning environments for our kids.

David J. Putz, Ph.D.

825 Hodge Avenue

Ames, IA 50010

david.putz@gmail.com

Our Schools are the Right Size

Having discussed research on the benefits of small schools, the next obvious question is – what size is a small school?

Research on Elementary School Size

The reported number of students tied to small schools and the associated benefits is often presented as a range. Elementary school size numbers that appear in the literature include:

• Less than 200 (Howley, 2002)
• 250-300 (Nguyen, Schmidt & Murray, 2007)
• 300-400 (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2000)
• 300-400 (Cotton, 1996)

With or without a specific number, researchers understand the benefits of a small school eventually wear off as a school grows. In stating a range for small elementary schools, Cotton also wrote:

While many researchers argue that no school should be larger than 400 or 500 students, I use Williams’ numbers in this report, since my own sense of the research is very similar to his. (Cotton, 1996) (Williams’ number was 300-400)

Comments

Much coverage has been provided to recent efforts of private entities such as the Gates Foundation which have focused attention on high school size. The research on school size predates these efforts and continues to point to the benefits of smaller schools at all levels. As Cotton wrote,

…research has repeatedly found small schools to be superior to large schools on most measures and equal to them on the rest. This holds true for both elementary and secondary students of all ability levels and in all kinds of settings. (Cotton, 1996)

One of the primary reasons Ames is successful when others aren’t is the use of smaller schools to teach our elementary kids – a fact backed up by the research. We must continue to use smaller schools if we are to maintain the sense of community, caring and commitment within our elementary schools where high expectations are set for each and every child.

Dr. Dave

Materials Cited

Nguyen, Schmidt & Murray 2007. Does School Size Matter? A Social Capital Perspective – A Review of Educational Policy Literature. Simon Fraser University

Howley, Craig 2002. Small schools. In Alex Molnar (ed.) School Reform Proposals: The Research Evidence. Education Policy Studies Laboratory, College of Education, Arizona State University, January.

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2000, March). North Carolina public school guidelines on facilities planning.

Cotton, Kathleen, 1996. School Size, School Climate, and School Performance, Close-up #20, School Improvement Research Series, Northwest Region Education Laboratory. ( link )

School Size – Yes It Has An Impact

At the last chamber forum a person asked if people touting the benefits of small schools were confusing them with the benefits of small class size. The answer then and the answer now is – NO! There is a large body of research that speaks to the benefits of small schools.

Among the most often cited research is likely that done by Cotton. In a review of over 100 previous studies on school size, she wrote:

…research has repeatedly found small schools to be superior to large schools on most measures and equal to them on the rest. This holds true for both elementary and secondary students of all ability levels and in all kinds of settings. (Cotton, 1996)

Another researcher wrote about the same time:

A higher percentage of students, across all socioeconomic levels, are successful when they are part of smaller, more intimate learning communities. (Irmsher, 1997)

Remember, in 1983 the report A Nation at Risk was released, becoming a clarion for wave after wave of school reform. Researchers began pouring over what research said about education and effective schools – both for what did, and didn’t seem to be working.

By the 1990s researchers realized the promises of improved achievement and efficiencies being touted by those supporting larger schools were not coming true. A report by the North Caroline State Board of Education wrote:

…there is little empirical support for making schools larger. Studies have failed to adequately demonstrate the presumed economic and curricular benefits associated with larger schools. (State Board of Education, 2000)

Reports began emerging, such as the pair Dollar & Sense I & II written in 2002 and 2005, which documented the efficiencies of small schools. But along with the efficiencies, researchers began to identify why small schools were also more effective in educating children.

Small schools are more flexible and responsive, because there is less formal bureaucracy, and because people are known to each other. People cannot connect in the same ways in a large school, because intimacy is impossible and students are anonymous. There are many examples of small schools taking advantage of their size to do outstanding work with students. (Knowledge Works, 2002)

A publication released in 2007 titled, Smaller, Safer, Saner Successful Schools sponsored by the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, spoke to the overall benefits of smaller schools. Among the key conclusions in the report, smaller schools provided:

• A safer place for students
• A more positive, challenging environment
• Higher achievement
• Fewer discipline problems
• Much greater satisfaction for families, students, and teachers.

Closing Thoughts

The research shows school size impacts achievement – smaller schools are better academically for students. This is something our superintendent reinforced when he said the advantage of smaller schools is that the entire staff can focus on student needs. Smaller schools are also better at helping students whose socio-economic status would label them as ‘at-risk.’

If we are to have an elementary system that works to address the needs of all students, and maintains our focus on student-centered instruction, smaller schools are the best option for maintaining the high level of excellence in our elementary schools.

Dr. Dave

Materials Cited:

Cotton, Kathleen, 1996. School Size, School Climate, and School Performance, Closeup #20, School Improvement Research Series, Northwest Region Education Laboratory. ( link ) 

Irmsher, Karen, 1997. School Size. College of Education, University of Oregon.

KnowledgeWorks Foundation, 2002. Dollars & Sense: The Cost Effectiveness of Small Schools.

Nathan, Joe; Thao, Sheena, 2007. Smaller, Safer, Saner Successful Schools. National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, Washington, DC.

State Board of Education, Public Schools of North Carolina 2000. School Size and its Relationship to Achievement and Behavior, April.

Additional materials can be found here ( link )

Correlation is NOT Causation – An Illustration

In a post a few days back, I looked at a single example of the relationship in Iowa between poverty and achievement. As mentioned, there is a difference between correlation and causation. There are bound to be counter-examples to the notion that higher poverty rates lead to lower achievement. Let’s look at just one example.

NOTE: All data was recently taken from the Iowa Department of Education website.

In many of our facilities conversations, both Ankeny and Waukee are mentioned quite often. They are close to the Ames district and are among those districts with more than 3,000 students. They do, however, differ in some regards.

F/R Lunch Rate

In terms of free/reduced lunch rates, increases have occurred in all three districts. The increase in the percent of F/R lunch rates (’10-’11 to ’04-’05) the past six years has been: Waukee = 3.4%, Ankeny = 4% and Ames = 5.6%.

So, in relation to poverty (F/R lunch rates) we see that poverty rates are increasing and that Ames’ rate is considerably higher than the other two. Given the previous post and the strong relationship between poverty and achievement, we would expect achievement to be much lower in Ames than in either Ankeny or Waukee – but that isn’t the case.

The Illustration

The table below shows the F/R Lunch rates and the percent of 3rd graders identified as proficient in reading – both 2010-2011 values.

	F/R	3rd Grade Reading
Ankeny	11.2%	83.1%
Waukee	13.1%	88.8%
Ames	23.3%	85.6%

The table shows the poverty rate in Ames is more than twice that of Ankeny and more than 75% higher than Waukee’s, but the proficiency rate in Ames is actually between those of Ankeny and Waukee.

So what does this mean?

This is an illustration of how correlation is more an indication of trend than it is direct cause and effect. It shows that, in this instance, what is happening in Ames runs contrary to the trend in larger school districts that achievement falls as poverty rises.

Dr. Dave

Poverty – What Impact?

Many factors vary from district to district. The free/reduced priced lunch rate is one such factor. This is often looked to with interest because it is a substitute measure for poverty and there has been little debate about the negative impact that poverty has on achievement.

Our elementary principals brought forth the goal of having all children proficient in reading by the 3rd grade. Given the state maintains test data on 3rd grade reading I thought I would take a very quick look at 3rd grade proficiency scores compared with free/reduced lunch rates.

In pulling down the data (all data is taken from the Iowa Department of Education web site), I noticed that not all districts had 3rd grade reading proficiencies due to low numbers of students. This reduced the number of district which had both a F/R lunch rate and a 3rd grade reading proficiency down to 345. I then looked at schools with PK-12 enrollment between 3,000 and 7,000 (Ames was in the middle with about 4,542) and then all district with enrollments over 3,000.

Correlation between District F/R Lunch Rate and 3rd Grade Reading Proficiency

District Enrollment	Correlation
All (n=345)	-0.43
3K-7K (n=22)	-0.8
+3,000 (n=32)	-0.83

The results suggest that, at least in the case of last year’s 3rd grade reading proficiency, there was a relationship between the F/R lunch rate and achievement. As the chart shows, as size increased, it appears the relationship grew stronger.

For those of you mathematically oriented, the equation generated as a linear best fit was:

y = -0.4458x + 93.15 with an R-squared value of 0.69

Now it is appropriate to offer a word of caution here – correlation is not causation. With dozens or perhaps hundreds of schools involved, there will be individual examples that will stand out as contrary to this. I will highlight such an example in my next post.

However, with that said, results in this instance support what is widely reported in the research – poverty has a negative impact on achievement. And, at least in the instance cited, the negative impact is stronger in larger districts.

Dr. Dave

 

Effective Educators – A Couple of Articles

The theme of the most recent issue of Educational Leadership (EL) was ‘The Effective Educator.’ There are a couple of articles that I found particularly interesting

The first was an article titled, “Once a Struggling Student…”

The piece centered on interviews conducted with dozens of highly qualified, dedicated and effective preK-12 teachers from across the US. This in and of itself isn’t a new idea. The notion of researching those who are successful to identify better practices goes on all the time.

What stuck out to me was that the teachers in this study had struggled either academically or socially as students. When asked to reflect on their struggles and how it impacted their teaching, researcher found four key themes – something they called Four Characteristics of Effective Educators. These were:

1. They have caring relationships with students.
2. They set high standards and help students reach them.
3. They connect the curriculum to students’ lives.
4. They participate in ongoing professional development.

These are very much in line with things I have talked about here on this blog as well as many of the comments I heard from teachers and parents over the course of the recent open houses.

There was a pull-quote that I thought was particularly telling.

“Helping students meet high standards involves talking to them about their thinking, learning, and behavior.”

 

The second article was titled, “Leadership, Not Magic: Highly effective teachers show what it takes to close the achievement gap”

The main focus of the piece is recognizing that one of the distinctions between good and great teachers is how they use their leadership skills to determine when and how to employee the knowledge, strategies, classroom, management, and all the other essential aspects of successful teaching.

They discuss things like –

• Setting Big Goals
• Getting Students Invested in Learning
• Planning Purposefully
• Executing Effectively – “On Your Feet” Adjustments
• Continually Improving
• Working Relentlessly

Teachers exhibiting this kind of leadership:

“…deliberately create and maintain a welcoming environment…”

“…build strong relationships with their students and create a sense of community among them.”

The thinking is actually fairly straight forward – if teachers do a better job of leadership in classrooms and with each child, children who are struggling will see what they need to do to be successful and how to accomplish their goals. Instilling motivation and success to students who have struggled will help them correct their learning trajectory and, as a result, close the achievement gap.

 

Both articles highlight skills and abilities of effective educators.  In my mind, teachers not only need those skills and abilities – they also need the opportunities to use them.

Dr. Dave

Study Results Show Teacher Bonuses Don’t Improve Test Scores

As reported in AP, in a recently released report titled, “Teacher Pay for Performance: Experimental Evidence from the Project on Incentives in Teaching,” researchers at Vanderbilt’s National Center on Performance Incentives concluded that potentially large bonuses to teachers did not raise test scores.

The report (Teacher Pay for Performance – POINT Report – 09-21-10) summarizes the Project on Incentives in Teaching (POINT). POINT followed middle school math teachers for three full years. Teachers, who volunteered for the study, entered into a program that offered up to $15,000 if their students showed “unusual gains on standardized tests.” A system for determining guidelines and thresholds for incentive pay was created (POINT – A Guide to Calculating Monetary Bonuses for Teachers).

Because many middle school teachers taught subjects in addition to mathematics, the study wished to avoid encouraging teachers to focus on mathematics in order to raise test scores. Student performance in reading, science and social studies was also tracked. The portion of bonus earned as a result of math test results was prorated based on student performance in these other areas.

Teachers were assigned randomly into treatment and control groups using a two stage process. Groupings involved grouping schools and then clusters of teachers. All teachers in the study – whether assigned to a treatment or control group – were given a $750 stipend for participating. Student gains on test scores on the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP) were used to evaluate improvement in learning.

FINDINGS

 The findings of the study included (pg 43): 

• No significant differences in math tests scores overall between students whose teachers could earn incentives and those teachers who could not over the three years of the study.
• No significant differences in any single year, nor any significant differences for students in grade 6-8 when separate effects were estimated for each grade level.
• There was a significant positive effect on math test scores found during the 2^nd and 3^rd years of the study in grade 5.
• For the one year allowing for tracking into the 6^th grade, the positive effects found at 5^th grade did not continue on 6^th grade math test scores.
• There was a significant difference in 5^th grade social studies (2^nd and 3^rd year of project) and 5^th grade science (in year 3). No other differences were found

CONCLUSION

The last of the bulleted statements in the conclusion section read:

 Given the limited scope of the effects and their apparent lack of persistence, we conclude that the POINT intervention did not lead overall to large, lasting changes in student achievement as measures by TCAP.

THOUGHTS

In reading through the methodology, it seems the authors worked hard to carry out a well designed study. The report itself discusses points such as study design, threats to validity, analysis procedures and sensitivity tests.

Even with that said, the results will (if they haven’t already) become political. According to the AP story (link), those against merit pay for teachers are praising results and the U.S. Department of Education is calling the study ‘too narrowly focused.”

Of all of the comments reported, I would agree with two:

• More research is needed, and
• Merit pay can’t be a stand-along solution to improving student learning.

Dr. Dave

Grade Span Configuration – A Local Investigation

In looking at on-line reports connected to grade span configuration, I came across a report done for an educational region in Connecticut (discerned by a search of school names listed in the report). Based on information at the end of the report, I dated it to 2006. The study can be found here – Grade Span Configuration Research Study – Barber 2006

The local question was tied to investigating whether grade span configuration had impacted achievement. The report, conducted by a Ms. Erica Barber, examined differing configurations, including: 31 examples of either K-2/3-5 or K-3/4-5, 33 examples of K-4 and 60 examples of K-5 configuration.

Across the subjects of reading, writing and math the analysis showed the larger configurations (K-5 & K-4) out performed the smaller configurations. At the end of the report, the last sentence of the conclusions paragraph reads

It appears to us that the adoption of the proposed K-2/3-5 configuration is likely to result in no meaningful educational benefit, and may perhaps even impair our students’ academic performance as a whole.

While the findings seem straight forward enough, it should be remembered that this is more a summary of results than well designed research.

A LOOK AT LOW-SES PERCENTAGES

Though the overall results were of interest, a breakdown by a percentage of low-SES students showed some interesting results.

Overall Results – When looking at the overall results, the percent of students identified as proficient was lower in all subjects examined – with a gap in the 6% to 7% range.

  

  

  

High Low-SES Results – When looking at the results for schools with 20% to 30% low SES students, the results shifted. The gap in writing between K-5 and the K-2/3-5 results doubled from around 6% o 12%. 

The shift in the area of reading was the most dramatic, with the gap going from 7.4% to 24%. By almost anyone’s account, this would be a concern – especially given the importance of reading ability in a young student’s capacity to learn.

Caveats – As with any descriptive report such as this, there is no way of knowing to what degree other variables are known and controlled. There is also unlikely that the report was reviewed by another educational researcher.

Nuggets from Report

There are a couple of things of interest in the report.

• First, those students in a chopped up grade configuration did not perform as well as those show stayed in a school longer.
• Second, the negative impact was greater in schools that had a higher (at 20%-30% this is relative) percentage of low-SES students.

This second point would be consistent with research in other areas – such as class size, school size, etc – that school improvement initiatives sometimes are more beneficial to students with a low-SES background. It was not one actually examined in detail in the piece.

Though not a ‘research’ piece, it is one that examines multiple elementary structures and the impact on student achievement. The breakdown of test results suggests that grade span did have an impact on achievement.

Dr. Dave

 

 

Combing Through Information – Wren’s 2003 Research

With many issues I come across, I often ‘hit the books’ to gain a better understanding. In the case of the discussions (to date and future) related to facilities and the structure of elementary education in Ames, the idea of finding research that explicitly ties (is a perfect match) to our situation and discussion is daunting.

I recall conversations with my major professor who, when told by students they couldn’t find any research on a topic, would tell them they hadn’t looked hard enough, long enough, or in the right places. His point was that - if you take into account that terminology has changed over the years, applications applied in one area could apply to others, or that variables related to the problem may exist that weren’t available or thought of - there is likely no subject out there that someone, somewhere hasn’t investigated that can be tied to your research question or information need.

I remembered this when the board was told that the research really didn’t provide a clear picture or preference regarding elementary configuration. That may be true, but it doesn’t stop a person from investigating aspects tied to configuration. Things like – transitions, grade span, mobility, parent involvement, etc. Of course, investigating all of these aspects would consume a research center for years.

Fortunately, I have had some current and retired ISU staff agree to help with finding and reviewing of research and information. One piece that was looked at was research done by Wren and published in 2003.

Titled “The Effect of Grade Span Configuration and School-to-School Transition on Student Achievement,” the piece studied the effects of grade span configuration (how grades are grouped in schools) and school-to-school transitions on student achievement. Wren examined Michigan Education Assessment Program test data to investigate the passing rate of students in 232 schools in a large urban district.

Wrens conclusions were that school-to-school transitions had a significant negative effect and that grade span configuration (the longer a child attended the same school) had a significant positive effect on student achievement. In reading the piece, there are a couple of things to note before attempting to apply the results.

A couple of caveats – First, the inner city urban school system had a very high minority population suggesting the student population does not match the ethnicity make up in Ames. Second, the transitions monitored were not in line with the shift being discussed.

So, while the results are not perfectly aligned with ACSD, the research findings do support two notions - 1) grade span does appear to impact achievement, and (perhaps the key nugget) 2) students tend to perform better when they spend more time in a building.

As I and others (please feel free to read, contribute or comment) work through pieces, they will be posted on the Research/Information pages. This one can be found at – http://amesces.wordpress.com/research-information/resources-grade-span-and-transitions/ 

Dr. Dave

Comment on 1-1 Computing Post

In response to the post of 1-1 computing, Dr. Scott McLeod offered observations via comment. I asked, and he granted, permission to share the comment – which is shared as it was written.

Dr. Dave

.

As an Ames CSD parent and the director of the nation’s only academic center dedicated to the leadership side of K-12 school technology (CASTLE), I am encouraged that the school board is considering a 1:1 learning initiative. I’m also pleased that the board is recognizing that appropriate levels of professional development will be critical to the success of such an initiative. However, I’d also like to note that providing iPads to students is NOT what most school districts would consider a 1:1 scenario.

The problem with iPads, as elegant as they are (we love ours), is that they are predominantly consumption rather than creation devices. Calls for 21st century literacy development for students, such as the Iowa Core, emphasize that students need to be active content producers, not just passive content consumers. Many have noted the limitations of the iPad for educational / content creation purposes. For example…

“the apparent target user for the iPad is focused 95% on being a consumer and maybe 5% on being a creator. If you want to buy music on the iPad you are fine. If you want to compose or record music then you’ll need another device. If you want to read a book or magazine you are fine, if you want to write a non-trivial amount of text you will need another device or an awkward docking station. If you want to use a bunch of other people’s applications that are accepted through the App Store vetting process, then you are fine. If you want to write your own applications you will need another device.”
http://blog.bruceabernethy.com/post/Evaluating-the-iPad-Consumer-vs-Creator-vs-Cross-Platform.aspx

“The iPad is an imperfect content creation device, at least without a couple of additional tools. For short bursts of writing, photo editing, and simple drawing is performs admirably. More complex tasks can become a chore.”
http://www.educationbusinessblog.com/2010/06/ipad_for_education_revisited.html

“We already have ways to consume information in education. Consuming information has never been our issue. What we need help with is teaching students how to become producers of information and knowledge.”
http://www.thethinkingstick.com/the-ipad-not-the-right-product-for-education

iPads are amazing devices. And at CASTLE we definitely favor district experimentation with new technology tools. But I think it’s important for the board to recognize that there is widespread belief in the educational technology community that these are not a viable substitute for laptops (or even netbooks) for true 1:1 learning initiatives. I know that Dr. Wilhelm, district technology coordinator, thinks that iPads are robust enough for what the 6th grade curriculum requires. That (arguably) may be true. But the point of 1:1 learning initiatives is not to simply do what we’ve always done but with more expensive tools. Rather, the point is to TRANSFORM existing educational practices into new paradigms that prepare students to be critical, collaborative thinkers and active, engaged content creators.

Next year at least 40 school districts in Iowa (approximately 1/9 of all Iowa districts) will be providing laptops, NOT iPads, to at least some segment of their students. I would encourage the board to contact Van Meter, Newell-Fonda, Sigourney, or some of the other trailblazing districts in Iowa to see what they are doing, how they are funding their initiatives, why they chose laptops instead of devices like iPads that are primarily oriented toward consumption rather than creation, etc. Nick Sauers, CASTLE’s 1:1 point person, and I also would be happy to come speak with the board.

Thank you.

Scott McLeod, J.D., Ph.D.
Associate Professor & Director, CASTLE
Iowa State University, 7077-CASTLE or 707-722-7853
Blog @ http://www.dangerouslyirrelevant.org
Twitter @ http://www.twitter.com/mcleod
Full contact info @ http://www.dangerouslyirrelevant.org/contact.html

Proposed Cuts – Impact on Class Size

At Saturday’s public forum, the superintendent shared some numbers on current and projected class size. I will post the numbers which I will hopefully get at tonight’s work session, but thought I would share the preliminary numbers for those who might be interested.

Average Class Size
Grade/Level	Now	Next Year
K	19	23
1	21	23
2	22	23
3	23/24	24
4	24	25
5	24	25
6-8	21/22	28
9-12	26	30

At this point, the proposed reductions put class size across the district in a pattern that has the smallest class size in the early elementary and the largest class size at the high school level.

There was conversation at the forum that average doesn’t tell the entire story, so the superintendent indicated additional information – such as median – would also be made available. As stated earlier, I will post the information when it becomes available.

Dr. Dave

Technology Fair at ISU – Great Stuff!

One of the things I have enjoyed about being on the school board is the expanded opportunity to hear about the great things that are happening across the district.  At a recent meeting, the board heard from three students who had used technology in a project.

After the meeting, board members received an invitation to attend the Central Iowa Student Technology Fair that was held April 13, 201 in the Ballroom and Great Hall at Iowa State University. It worked out that I could spend a few moments there this week – and it was worth every minute!

The rooms were buzzing with students, parents and judges – all focused on various projects and displays.  I saw everything the use of laptops to display video in support of a project to a young Ames student who built and programmed a robot. The kids were all excited and respectful. I was very impressed with the robot builder who took me over to see another student’s project. I also saw at least two of the district’s tech staff there supporting the kids. 

Later, I wrote the technology director:

I may have missed more than I saw in my brief time there, but I saw:

• the three projects that were presented to the board
• a Meeker “Top Ten” project
• a middle school video on bullying
• and an impressive collection of graphic art projects from several HS students

I think people would enjoy and be impressed with the work the kids are doing.

The last statement led to my asking if  there was any chance that some of the projects would be available. Unfortunately, I learned there were a number of concerns that prevented that from happening. That’s too bad, because if you didn’t have a chance to attend you missed some great stuff!

Just another example of some of the wonderful things going on in the district!

Dr. Dave

Amidst the Storm

Of late, most the posts have dealt with budget issues within the district.  It would be easy to get drawn into to focusing on the monetary issues and not remember all of the fantastic things that are going on.  I have been remiss in not sharing an experience I had talking to two teachers who are working hard to make a difference.

About a month ago, I was in a meeting of administrators and a building principal mentioned something about some of the hurdles being faced by teachers who were trying to build a ‘book room’ at Sawyer Elementary.  I asked the principal if he would have the teachers contact me, and a few days later I had an email invitation to visit with them before the start of school one morning.

Two teachers greeted me and took me down to the book room. Tucked into a room that was about 10 x 12 (which also held band instruments and audio-visual equipment) was a hodge-podge collection of shelves filled with bags of books. 

Sorted by reading level, and in a wide assortment of holders, were hundreds of plastic bags that held multiple copies of a wide range of books.  The teachers explained that often there was a need by teachers to have small groups of students at the same reading level read through the same book.  This required having a dedicated collection of books where multiple copies existed and the specific reading level was identified. 

The teachers shared how they were entering the title, reading level and other information into a database on their own time. They told me, as had the principal, that some of the shelves had been picked up from ISU surplus.

I thanked the teachers for their time and asked if it would be okay with them if I shared their story and posted information in the hopes folks who were interested could help. They agreed.  My apologies for not getting to it sooner.

At present, their greatest need is monetary donations.  This would go to the purchase of more shelving as well as sets of non-fiction books.  If supporting this effort is of interest, I would contact Sawyer Elementary (239-3790) and ask how best to support the book room. My thanks to Twyla Anderson and Linda Sharpnack for the invitation and all of their time and effort.

If you want to learn more about leveled books, check out:

• http://home.comcast.net/~ngiansante/index.html
• http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/home.jsp

 

This experience reminded me that teachers, parents and administrators all across the district are doing fantastic things everyday. Whether it is science night, carnival, music performances, plays, wax museums, or anything else – the staff of the district clearly care and are working hard to see our kids get a quality educational experience.

If you really want to know how you could help in the coming months, contact a teacher or principal and ask if there is anything you can do.

Dr. Dave

Snow Day Decision – An Update

At the February 22nd regular meeting of the ACSD School Board, an action item was brought forward to address the days lost this school year due to inclement weather.

A total of five options were outlined in a presentation, but the teacher/parent conference option was eliminated because the days are already included in the 180 day count.  The four remaining options were:

1. Add to the end of the current calendar
2. Saturdays
3. Shorten Spring Break (3 days)
4. Add time to the existing days

Dr. Taylor shared that the last item, adding time to existing days, was a relatively new option. It was first proposed several years back when late season weather events had eliminated most viable options. 

In the supporting information, Dr. Taylor summarized Iowa requirements, input from the Department of Education, and results of a survey conducted of staff and parent groups. The table below is taken from the presentation slides that were used during the discussion.

Results from SurveyMonkey Survey
	Add days to the end	Class on Saturdays	Spring Break	Add 45 Minutes
Parents N=62	23.3%	1.7%	34.4%	41.0%
Staff N=450	27.3%	12.2%	21.0%	43.3%

 

The proposal brought forward suggested adding “30 minutes to the regular schedule beginning March 29″ for the remainder of the year. 

Earlier in the meeting, several folks got up during the open forum portion of the meeting (including students) who spoke on the issue.  One of the main points made was that the adding of 30 minutes to each day would add just a few minutes to each period – thus having minimal educational impact.

Discussion among board members seemed to lean in a similar direction. There seemed general agreement that adding full days would be preferable given the educational impact. The added value of adding days was reinforced during discussion of the impact of professional development delivered in “minutes” vs larger blocks of time.

Dr. Taylor informed the board that the teachers’ union would have to be on board with any decision that was made.

Understanding the interest in wrapping up the school year before the start of summer activities (June 7th), the board’s general direction was to have Dr. Taylor go back to the teachers’ union and discuss the support for combining both concepts – adding several days at the end of the school year yet adding 30 minutes to only the number of days necessary to wrap things up prior to June 7th.

Dr. Taylor was given the flexibility to discuss and seek approval with the union various options that accomplished the general goals outlined.  The board will likely see this come back in short order.

Dr. Dave

Ames Tribune Story 

Ames News On-Line Story

Teaching All Students – One at a Time

Like most folks, with everything that has been going on, there is often very little time for recreational reading.  A smile came to my face when I read the cover of the February 2010 issue of Education Leadership when it was delivered.

Like many periodicals, Educational Leadership – a publication of ASCD (formerly the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development) – is centered around a main theme.  The main theme for the February 2010 issue listed on the cover is, “Meeting students where they are.”

Among the many articles was one titled “ONE KID AT A TIME.“  In it, Carol Ann Tomlinson, professor and chair of Educational Leadership, Foundation and Policy at the Univ of Virginia in Charlottesville, reflects how todays teachers, armed with theories of education, find themselves honing in on the few that fit in the real world of today’s classroom. Early in the piece, she writes -

“Great teachers approach their craft with humility. They know there is no instructional strategy, textbook, lesson plan, classroom management approach, motivational method, or timetable that will work for every individual in the kaleidoscopic mix of learners they encounter daily. They know enough about theory and research to chart a course for learning, but they also know that the journey will almost never go as planned.”

In her own journey toward developing an approach to personalized instruction, it was a combination of theory, research and learner-focused practice that led her to her approach to meeting and teaching each learner – an approach current practice would call differentiated instruction.

Tomlinson goes on to talk about things like:

• connecting content with students’ interests,
• finding the right starting point, and
• giving permission (to learn)

I’m not sure there’s much debate surrounding the notion that we are creatures of habit.  We learn through repetition. We learn by doing.  Now some folks are extremely gifted and can pick things up immediately or effortlessly, but I think the premise holds. 

I have to believe the author also believes this as well given she wrote -

I have learned the most about teaching by studying the students I teach.

This is a straight-forward statement with powerful meaning.   The process of observing students as they learn is both challenging and rewarding at the same time.  Challenging in that it may take several attempts and approaches before the student can make connections and yet so very rewarding when learning occurs.

Dr. Dave

Report – Students Not as Competent as Believed

In an on-line Associated Press story titled, “States set low bar for student achievement,” the Department of Education reported that students that “many states declare students to have grade-level mastery of reading and math when they do not, . . .”  The findings come from a comparison of state standards to those in the federally funded National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

Among the findings in the report -

• A total of 31 states had 4th grade reading proficiency standards that were rated below the basic standard on the NAEP.
• Some 17 states had 8th grade reading proficient standards that were rated below the basic standard on the NAEP.
• Ten (10) states had 4th and 8th grade math proficiency standards that were rated below the basic standard on the NAEP.

The report is being used as another reason states should adopt a set of national standards being developed by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers.

The story focuses on where state standards map against the NAEP standards, though the report focused on another question.  (A link to an executive summary of the report, titled “Mapping State Proficiency Onto NAEP Scales: 2005-1009,”  is on the National Center of Educational Statistics (NCES) web site.  A pdf of the entire report is also available on the site. )

A piece on the NCES site tries to explain how mapping standards to the NAEP allows for comparisons.

As pointed out in a NY Time article, even though some states had increased the rigor in their standards, according to the study nearly twice as many lowered their standards. 

Both the AP story and the NY Times story suggest pressures to meet achievement targets set in the No Child Left Behind legislation may have led to the lowering of standards.  The point being that by lowering standards states were able to report that a larger group of their students met achievement milestones in the legislation. 

States will likely never come out and admit adjustments to standards were made to help meet targets.  However, the process does bring home a couple of key points.  First, when someone says everyone has reached or must reach the ‘bar’ (i.e., all kids must succeed), one should ask – ‘how high is the bar?’  Second, when student assessment becomes ‘high-stakes’ one should look to make sure the effort doesn’t bring about unintended consequences.

Dr. Dave

Recession Shortens School Year in Hawaii – Gains?

In a recent AP story it was reported that Hawaii has chosen to close schools on Fridays for the rest of the school year.

At a time when President Obama and his Education Secretary have pushed for more schooling, the impact of the economic downturn has states searching for innovative ways to make ends meet.

The agreement, approved by 81 percent of voting teachers, has the following aspects:

• 17 furlough Fridays during which schools will be closed
• a concurrent pay reduction of around 8 percent
• a guarantee of no layoffs for two years
• a postponement of random drug testing for teachers

 

In a circumstance of odd timing, a story that ran recently (10/19) in the Washington Post was titled, “Report: Federal aid created or saved 250,000 education jobs.”  Strangely missing, was any mention of jobs that have been lost (like the over 380 teachers laid off in DC) or who are at risk in the coming year – a point that did not go unnoticed by the author.

 

In the case of Hawaii, given no teachers were ‘lost’ as part of the agreement I wonder if they would be counted among the ‘saved.’ 

 

A better question to ask might be – What will states do when the stimulus funding runs out?

In Iowa, with a state budget propped up with stimulus funds, revenues dropped enough to warrant a 10% across the board cut.  In the next budget cycle, stimulus funds will not be available. This will leave a significant hole in funding.  Matching this with feared continued drops in projected state revenue, the state could face a pretty wicked 1-2 punch.

I understand the interest in selling the positive effects of stimulus funding and the impact that numbers like 250,000 can have.  If 250,000 education jobs have been created or saved only to lose them in the next year or two, what have we gained?  If we have the teachers but instructional time and achievement drops, are we focusing on the wrong measure of success?

Dr. Dave

Reforms to Improve Learning: More School?

President Obama recently stated he felt students don’t spend enough time in school.  In an AP article that ran yesterday (Sept. 27), the President was quoted as saying, “..the challenges of a new century demand more time in the classroom.” 

Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education, feels the current public school schedule is based on an agrarian economy and that most kids no longer need time to work in the field.  The story touches on the issue of time kids spend in school - 

“Young people in other countries are going to school 25, 30 percent longer than our students here,” Duncan told the AP. “I want to just level the playing field.”

The underlying assumption of course is that if students in the US spend more time in the classroom achievement will improve.  Fortunately, the reporter did background research and reported the following -

Kids in the U.S. spend more hours in school (1,146 instructional hours per year) than do kids in the Asian countries that persistently outscore the U.S. on math and science test – Singapore (903), Taiwan (1,050), Japan (1,005) and Hong Kong (1,013).  That is despite the fact that Taiwan, Japan and Hong Kong have longer school years (190 to 201 days) than does the U.S. (180) days.

The numbers in the article highlight the importance of knowing how ‘time in school’ is defined.

• IF the focus is the number of school days, since those countries spend more days in school, you may conclude more school days should be added to the school year.
• IF the focus is the number of hours spent on instruction, since those countries spend less time on instruction, you may conclude that less time should be spent on instruction.  

Of course, we could always try both approaches and spend more days AND less time (which would better match what is actually happening in those countries), but that would shrink the average school day – which seems contrary to what many are proposing.

Rather than telling us we need to spend more time in the classroom, could it be the numbers are telling us we need to be more efficient and effective with the time we have?

Dr. Dave

Program Works to Build Connections and Partnerships

Last week, a friend of mine sent me a note via Facebook regarding an article that ran in the Des Moines Register on what research says about empowering parents when it comes to the education of their children.

The on-line version of the story titled, “Research tells schools to empower parents,” talks about a new program called Iowa Sustaining Parent Involvement Network.  According to the story, approximately 20 schools across Iowa have started the program.

As has been discussed here in the past, as researchers struggle to find what works when it comes to educating kids, more and more are investigating the “soft” side of learning.  The research has been very positive. As stated in the article -

Research has shown that students whose families play an active role in their education most often are more prepared to enter school, get better grades and perform higher on state standardized tests.  A lack of parental involvement has been shown to lead to misbehavior, poor grades and higher dropout rates.

This is consistent with findings in works previously cited here, like A New Wave of Evidence – The Impact of School, Family, and Community Connections on Student Achievement.   

Some who have looked elsewhere for improvement strategies often seemed surprised at the impact connections, relationships and partnerships have on learning.  Ron Mirr, of the Iowa Parent Information Resource Center, has another take regarding getting parents to be a partner in their child’s education - 

“It’s not a complex idea; it’s complex in doing.” 

Remembering that at its core learning is a human experience, it makes sense that human interaction plays a vital role.  It shouldn’t be surprising that consistent, supportive and coordinated efforts by parents, family, staff, teachers, volunteers and community members to help guide children as they learn can reap huge rewards.

Dr. Dave