Unacceptable

Today I'd like to introduce you to John Kuhn, superintendent of the Perrin-Whitt Consolidated Independent School District in North Texas. Kuhn is a life-long advocate of public education and public accountability. This weekend, at the National Save Our Schools Rally in Washington DC, he spoke passionately about the vital need for great public schools, the critical importance of a no-excuses public attitude toward educating America's kids, and what it will really take to create the equitable education system our great country deserves. For now, as we work toward those goals, Kuhn says, "I stand before you today bearing proudly the label of unacceptable because I educate the children [private schools] will not educate.... I am unacceptable and proud of it!"

Make no mistake: unacceptable as he is according to current educator grading methods, Kuhn is not an apologist for bad teaching; he is only asking for appropriate systems of evaluation. In April, Kuhn appealed to his state legislature for a two-year moratorium on high-stakes testing. When one representative asked Kuhn why he thought teachers shouldn't be graded, he wasn't prepared with his answer. However, he recognized that this is a question that keeps coming up for educators, and being unprepared to answer makes us look, in his words, "like [we] are just whiners who don't want to be held accountable at all." So he thought about it and developed an articulation, not of why teachers shouldn't be graded, but of how the state has become a bad teacher and, thus, an irresponsible grader.

His emphatic and empathetic response to this question provides a useful starting point for all of us who believe teachers should be graded, but fairly. It's only a starting point, as some folks pointed out in the comments. It is up to the rest of us to develop our own articulations of how to create better forms of teacher accountability, how to fairly evaluate teachers and push them toward achieving greatness. Until we put meaningful teacher evaluation, support, and development systems in place, we must join Kuhn in proudly bearing the label of unacceptable.

Watch where you put that yardstick!

On the theme of What Gets Measured Gets Improved, here is some very exciting news from the great state of Utah: State lawmakers are considering replacing grade-specific high-stakes tests with adaptive tests that allow students to demonstrate what they actually know and have learned, even if they are performing well-below or well-above grade level. This is encouraging news for all students and teachers, most especially those involved in education of exceptional students in special education and gifted and talented programs.

Two major problems of traditional grade-level tests limit their usefulness as measures of individual student progress. First, tests vary, often greatly, in content and rigor from one grade to the next, making them meaningless for tracking learning from year to year. Second, the tests fail to measure the progress of exceptional students. In New York, if a student is reading on a kindergarten level in third grade and improves to a first-grade reading level by fourth grade, that student's year of progress is obscured and diminished by a Level 1 score ("Not Meeting the Standard") on the state test. Meanwhile, a third grader capable of seventh-grade math could score a Level 4 ("Meeting the Standard with Distinction") for three years in a row without making any individual progress at all.

Computer adaptive tests solve these problems by adapting to students' abilities regardless of grade level. Basing questions on student performance during the test, the software allows more-advanced students access to more-advanced questions and less-advanced students access to questions at their current level of academic function. This targeted testing provides students and educators with meaningful data about how much students actually know and can do. Paired with software to analyze test results and provide students and educators with individualized "next steps," computer adaptive testing could give students and teachers an incredibly useful tool for growth and development: the feedback loop.

How big of a deal is this? The Deseret News quotes State Board of Education member Dave Thomas's statement to the Education Interim Committee: "This is the biggest change we've seen in public education in the last decade.... It really puts Utah at the forefront.... And I mean right at the forefront." I agree. For now, Utah is the only state with an adaptive test pilot program because it's the only state with a NCLB waiver. State legislators will consider adopting the program statewide during the 2012 legislative session.

Keep an eye on this one; if computer adaptive testing is allowed to develop and improve in Utah, the innovation could spread to New York State to support the development (and boost the morale!) of under-recognized students and teachers right here at home.

Links

Thomas Goetz's excellent Wired Magazine article

Harnessing the Power of Feedback Loops

Molly Farmer's Deseret News report

Utah lawmakers mull ditching CRTs in favor of adaptive tests

Celebrating independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (sic) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

~ Declaration of Independence of the United States of America

Sharona Coutts and Jennifer LeFleur at ProPublica recently published the results of their incredibly thorough analysis of recently released survey data from the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights. Unsurprisingly, the analysis revealed a national correlation between race and access, and a more striking correlation between wealth and opportunity. Disparity differs by state, however, and some states (Florida is the major dark horse here, with Texas close behind) seem to be leveling the field in terms of providing equal access to higher-level courses across richer and poorer districts.

It is intriguing that Florida and Texas are the leaders in equality of educational access, especially because they are far from the top according to another measure: the states are ranked 32 and 35, respectively, out of 52 (50 states plus D.C. and overseas military bases) in terms of student performance on national standardized tests. Meanwhile Kansas (ranked 16) and Maryland (8) are among the states providing the least equality of opportunity. Are poorer kids in Maryland scoring higher than their economic peers in Texas, or, more likely, are the scores the result of a higher prevalence of poverty in Texas relative to Maryland?

The available data do not yet show whether [more] equal access to higher level coursework at the high school level in Florida and Texas is translating into higher rates of high school graduation, college enrollment, and success at the college level. ProPublica promises future articles on the subject as more information becomes available. I would also be interested to know just how wide the economic gaps are in each of these states. Does equity of access correlate with economic parity, or are the most accessible states making gains in spite of, or in response to, great economic disparity? How will recent gains in educational access affect the national standings of states like Florida and Texas in future rankings based on national standardized tests. Finally, to what extent is the success of Florida and Texas replicable?

One final, unrelated note on the theme of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness: check out this story of a kid who, with the support of those around him, is taking his own "walk down freedom's trail."

On Wednesday Ed Nerd returns to the topic of leadership; check back for part 2 of Raise up your staff.