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

US News List of Top High Schools Out – You Agree?

For a third year, U.S. news and World Report has released its list of top high schools across the nation. The story is here.

Last year, in Iowa, 34 schools were identified as Bronze-level and 2 (including Ames High School) were identified as Silver-level.

As last year, no high schools in Iowa were identified as Gold-level this year.  The count in the most recent report is 3 Silver-level (IKM Manning HS in Manning, Washington HS in Cedar Rapids, and Williamsburg Jr-Sr High in Williamsburg) and 44 Bronze-level schools. AHS is not on the list this year.  A list of recognized schools, by state, can be found on the US News web site.

Here is a brief run-down of the data and methodology used in the process.

The report analyzed 21,786 public schools in 48 states and DC, with much of the data coming from the 2007-2008 school year.  The two states not included, due to incomplete data, were Nebraska and Oklahoma.

There was a three-step process used in reviewing the schools.

1) The first step involved looking at whether the students in a particular school were performing “better than statistically expected” compared to the average student in the state.  Reading and math were looked at as well as the percentage of low SES students enrolled at the school.

2) If successful in the first review, the second step involved looking at the school’s “least-advantaged students (black, Hispanic, and low income” to determine if they too were performing better than average for similar students in the state.  Again, reading and math proficiency rates were used.

3) The third step, only for those schools passing the first two, involved a review of indicators of college-readiness.  This involved both a review of the participation rate in Advanced Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate programs as well as how well students did on AP and IB tests.

After completing this 3-step process, the top 100 high schools were awarded gold medals.  The next 461 high schools earned silver medals.  A total of 1,189 high schools were awarded bronze medals.  Some 37 high schools earned honorable mention for high college readiness results but not fully meeting conditions in steps 1 & 2.

With the results of the report summarized, there are questions one could ask about this national comparison.

Even with a full year delay (the report just released used ’07-’08 data) and a focus on basics like math, reading and AP/IB results, the data set was still incomplete.  Any attempt at large group comparisons like this, whether in the education or the private sector, run into the issue of data availability. Did this impact results here?

There are also often questions about other variables not tracked.  For example, did size of the school, average grade size or class size vary among the various medal levels? 

Low SES (as determined by free- and reduced-lunch program participation) kids were examined in terms of how similar groups performed in their state.  Did the proportion of these groups vary among the various medal levels?

Of course there is also the issue of whether college preparedness is the best indicator of success.  A recent TIME on-line piece on the increased cost and decreased value of a college education raises a number of questions. Is college prep the primary focus for all high schools across the country?

 We as a society seem to have an inherent interest in knowing who or what is “the best.”  The trick, however, is figuring out how to “measure” what is best.  Whether you like or dislike the US News list may be tied to how well their definition of “best” fits with yours. 

It is for this reason that one of the most important things anyone can do when they are looking to find data to evaluate performance is to know what they want as an outcome, why the outcome is important and how they intend to collect and use the data for decision-making.

Dr. Dave

ITBS and ITED – What are They?

After the posting of the IASB assessment tool, I was asked what the Iowa Test of Basic Skills and the Iowa Tests of Educational Development were.

The Iowa Tests of Educational Development (ITED)

The ITED are a collection of tests given to high school students (grades 9-12) designed to evaluate a student’s skill in a variety of areas.  These areas include (but are not limited to): vocabulary, reading comprehension, spelling, computation, sources of information, mathematics, social studies and science.

The Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS)

The ITBS are a collection of tests given to students in grades K-8 designed to evaluate a student’s skill in a variety of areas. These areas include (but are not limited to): vocabulary, reading comprehension, spelling, capitalization, punctuation, math concepts and estimation, math computation, social studies, science, maps & diagrams, and reference materials.

Both tests focus on basic skills, are considered to be norm-referenced for interpretation purposes (though detail analysis of ITBS results could be considered criterion-referenced), and are closed-ended (multiple choice) in response format.  The primary difference is the level of student taking the test.

In Iowa (according to the reference below), ITBS for grades 3-8 and ITED for grade 11 are required for all students in all districts.

I hope this brief post addressed the question. 

Dr. Dave

If interested, there is also a recently produced resource – A Guide to District Assessment - produced by the Iowa School Board Foundation.  It covers a much broader range of assessments.  It it intended to be a tool that school boards and districts can use to develop a comprehensive assessment system to monitor student achievement.  It is available on the Assessment page of the blog.  Thanks!

Student Achievement Data Tool from IASB – Check it Out!

I attended my first annual meeting of the Iowa Association of School Boards (IASB) last week.  Hundreds of folks from across the state came together to hear the latest on school finance, student assessment, view vendor booths and reconnect with friends.

Among the sessions from which to choose was a session on student assessment and the new Iowa Core Curriculum.  Though it started with a connection to the core curriculum the session, like many others, turned a bit when the floor was opened for questions.

Many of the questions focused on resources that might be available for districts (of varying sizes) to use to help make sense of achievement data.  Many of the ideas centered around getting staff, teachers and administrators all focused on assessment and the use of assessment data to improve instruction. 

To help districts look at Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) and Iowa Test of Educational Development (ITED) results, the IASB put together an Excel tool that district could use to examine their performance.  The tool can be found at the IASB web site where the side-bar on the left of the page lists Student Achievement as the top item under the Information Center.

At the bottom of the Student Assessment page, there is a heading listed IASB Resources and Tools.  The IASB’s Student Achievement Data Tools is currently listed near the top of the items.

To download the actual tool, you will need to click the “Click here to access the tool.”  The site warns you that it may take a while to download the tool.  This is because the tool actually contains the available ITBS/ITED data for all districts in the state going back a few years.

As shown in the image, there is a pink set of cells that can be adjusted.  Selection for school district, topic (reading or math) and grade allow for many combinations to be explored.  

There are tabs at the bottom of the spreadsheet when it opens.  The tabs contain information on Board Roles, the most current (08-09) data, 5-yr historical data, and a cohort option.  The cohort options follows a group over time.  For example, results for a 4th grade group in 08-09 would be tied to 3rd grade results in 07-08.

In addition to connections to the new core curriculum, the interest in assessment is tied to one of the main purposes of a school board – a focus on student learning.  Tools like this one should help school boards and districts get a better handle on how students are performing. 

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

Kindergarten Expectations Concern Some Educators

In a story titled, Pressure-Cooker Kindergartern, the Boston Globe touched on pressures being placed on our youngest kids and teachers.  The story describes the experiences and frustrations teachers, including 38 year veteran.

The writer shares that the world of kindergarten portrayed in Robert Fulghum’s, All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten, no longer exists. 

Quickly disappearing are the days where youngsters learn new things and how to interact with each other through doing – playing, experiencing, etc.  According to a report titled “Crisis in the Kindergarten: Why Children Need to  Play in Schools,” (8-page summary here) kindergartners are being treated similarly to older kids – with hours of drilled practice in math and literacy.  A quote from the summary reads -

Too many schools place a double burden on young children. First, they heighten their stress by demanding that they mater material beyond their developmental level.  Then they deprive children of their chief means of dealing with that stress – creative play.

The concern is that initiatives aimed at improved accountability have set in motion approaches to learning that are moving farther and farther away from best practice.  The story outlines an instance where flyswatter with a hole in it becomes a ‘word-swatter’ and captures the attention and imagination of kids in ways a typical reading lesson can’t.

There is also a concern expressed that kids are tested and assessed to often, taking away from instructional time and creating an atmosphere of pressure and stress that teachers often struggle to key off the kids.

A passage in the story touches on the impression kids may be getting.  A section of the story touches on throughts from a psychologist and early childhood expert.

When children are required to do academics too early, he says, they get the message that they are failures. “We are sending too many children to school to learn that they are dumb,”

Clearly, there is pressure on schools to educate kids.  With that as an expectation, there is certainly a need to collect enough information to determine if teachers are being successful.  However, the primary goal should be to see that students learn. 

It seems clear schools across the country are putting more and more pressure on young kids and those who teach them.  However, when accountability systems interfere with learning or lead to practices that are contrary to known best practices, student learning must take priority. 

Dr. Dave

First, Iowa’s “Core Curriculum” – National Standards Next?

An article in the Washington post today outlined efforts to create a national set of common curriculum standards.

Titled, “46 States, DC Plan to Draft Common Education Standards,” the article outlines work by the National Governor’s Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers to create a single set of academic benchmarks.  As the lead paragraph states -

Forty-six states and the District of Columbia today will announce an effort to craft a single vision for what children should learn each year from kindergarten through high school graduation, an unprecedented step toward a uniform definition of success in American schools.

Currently, all but Texas, Alaska, Missouri and South Carolina have signed on.

Some are concerned over a nationally mandated standards leading to schools being controlled by Washington.  Others feel the alignment would help with identifying states that are falling behind as well as streamline textbooks and professional training in support of the national curriculum.

Work appears to be progressing quickly, with a goal of having “readiness standards” for high school graduates in reading and math unveiled by July.  There clearly are many things to be worked out, among which is testing.

The work is focused on developing the standards.  The standards would then need to be adopted by states.  A companion to this would be the need to realign state testing – something that can be time consuming and expensive.

In Ames, we have seen how the issues of funding and the recently adopted Iowa Core Curriculum have focused discussion on the possible need to trim class offerings (only at the elementary level so far) that are not part of the Iowa Core.  If money continues to be tight, the district may need to focus resources on curricular areas being tested.

It will be interesting to see (and important to follow) how closely the new Iowa Core Curriculum aligns to the National Standards being drafted and to monitor the extent to which differences will impact both the state’s and ACSD’s curriculum and testing.

Dr. Dave

Direction of National Education – Tougher Standards?

In a recent New York Times article titled, “Education Standards Likely to See Toughening,” the author suggests clues to the new administration’s approach to education are tucked away in recent stimulus bill language.

Those clues suggest that when the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act goes through a Congressional rewriting later in 2009, efforts will be made to toughen requirements on “teacher quality and academic standards” as well as “intensify it focus on helping failing schools.”

Within the stimulus law, funding for education was added ‘on the fly’.  Seeking to build partnerships, governors will play a much larger role – but will be required to commit to several ‘assurances’ to receive funding.  As reported, assurances governors must make include:

• a pledge to improve the quality of standardized tests and raise standards,
• a promise to enforce a requirement that a state’s most effective teachers will be assigned equitably to all students – rich and poor, and
• a pledge to build a data system that would link teachers and students to test scores.

There is also $5 billion put aside in a “Race to the Top” fund to reward states that make good on their pledges.  Together with the assurances, the fund will, “…help us get states lining up behind this agenda” said Education Secretary Arne Duncan.  Providing additional funding will address a concern expressed by many over the years - the current NCLB is strong on requirements but weak on resources. 

There has also been concern expressed regarding the reliance on numbers to evaluate education.  Diane Ravitch, an education historian, said “Obama’s fundamental strategy is the same as George Bush’s: standardized tests, number-crunching; it’s the NCLB approach with lots of money attached.”  The administration approach has also raised some concerns with teacher unions, especially the assurance touching building data systems and the misuse of information.

It’s probably too early to tell where much of this will actually end up.  But it will be interesting to watch how the various players interact and react at things more forward.

It does appear, however, Iowa would be well served by checking all of the requirements attached to stimulus monies before taking any!

Dr. P

Student Data & Teacher Quality – Not as Simple as it Sounds

It appears the newly elected President is taking a three prong approach to teacher quality . The strategies seem straight forward: “rewarding good teachers”, “improve professional development and mentoring for new and less effective teachers”, and “new processes to remove ineffective teachers.”

The article points out that not all of the pieces of this approach may be supported by teacher unions.  Knowing this, the president will “speak out against current standardized tests so loathed by educators.”

The use of student performance data is not really a new concept.  Similarly, the discussion of using student performance data to evaluate teachers is not a new one.  Issues of testing, curriculum alignment, student ability, remediation and dismissal (as well as others) have kept the practice from wide-scale use.

As in any field, terminology and approaches discussed with student testing can be confusing.  For example, the phrase ”standardized testing” is often used interchangably with “norm-referenced testing.” 

In this case of these two terms, ”standardized” describes the method by which the testing is done and “norm-referenced” refers to how peformance is evaluated (in this case comparison with a group).  In the article, I believe concern rests with the use of “norm-referenced” tests being used to evaluate teachers, more so than the tests are given in a consistent, or “standardized,” manner.

Using data to track and evaluate teacher performance - the idea is a good one, but as is often the case, things are not always as simple as they sound.

Dr. P

Report Highlights Issues Surrounding International Testing

In the recently released report, “How Well Are American Students Learning”, the first section – titled “The Use and Misuse of International Assessments” – reviews the Programme of International Student Achievement (PISA) assessment.  Whether one agrees with the author that serious deficiencies in PISA make it “inappropriate for benchmarking,” the report highlights potential issues facing those working to ‘align’ curriculum.  

Curriculum alignment is the process of ‘aligning’ what is “assessed in the classroom” to what is actually “being taught in the classroom” to “the content that is to be taught.”  We’ve all heard or experienced something like:
   * That wasn’t in the book?
   * We didn’t cover that in class?
   * Why do we have to do this is 1st period didn’t?
   * Why are we covering this again?
All highlight potential ‘mis-alignment.’ 

The Brown Center report reviewed the science portion of the PISA and found questions assessing student attitudes and values as well as science knowledge.  Given disconnects between attitude and performance have been documented (i.e.,  relatively low-scoring American eighth graders have much higher confidence in their math abilities than much higher-scoring Singaporean eighth graders), the report questions the value in such questions in assessing ability. 

When using a test to evaluate how a student, or a nation, is performing it is important to understand the content and purpose of the test.  Does the test cover what we teach?  What age group typically takes the test?  Is it built to test mastery (meeting certain criteria) or assess general knowledge?  Is the test itself valid and reliable? 

As schools are held to higher levels of accountability, assessment will remain important.  Yet in classrooms there are shifts in content focus (i.e. phonics vs whole language), differences in instruction (teachers utilizing different levels of group work, work sheets, homework), and many different types of testing.  Match that with Iowa’s new core curriculum and you can see many areas where ‘mis-alignments’ can take place.

Curriculum alignment is important because it parallels the concept of “systems-thinking.”  Changing one thing impacts other things.  Awareness of this fact should help guide any decision making process.  

So remember – Changes and decisions made in isolation can lead to problems.

Dr. P

PS – The PISA is the assessment featured in “How the World’s Best –Performing School Systems Come Out On Top” – one of the few resources used to support the recent creation of the district’s philosophy statement.