Comments on: Failing schools list on Monday

By: Tyler W. Cramer

Tyler W. Cramer — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 18:12:30 +0000

As a former member of the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System Advisory Board (”CALPADS”, enabling legislation first enacted in 2002, but implemented only last October), Eric Larsen’s comment is not only accurate, but exposes the fallacy of attempting to assess the efficacies and efficiencies of education reforms (or any other education inputs) based on traditional cross-sectional or status metrics (i.e. comparing last year’s 4th graders’ end-of-year achievement scores to this year’s 4th graders’ end-of-year scores).

Not mentioned but implied in Mr. Larsen’s comment are the effects of student mobility, which is typically much higher in so called “low performing schools” and distorts school-wide scores (i.e. when higher achieving students transfer in replacing lower achieving students who have left, or vice versa). More perversely, high student mobility burdens almost every education input from curriculum, pedagogies, instructional strategies, etc. to how many free and reduced price lunches need to be made each day.

“What gets measured gets done” (often attributed to management guru Peter Drucker) works only when progress toward specific objectives is measured and compared over time. Truly transforming schools in the face of the current budget crisis will require maximizing the efficiencies of resource allocation decisions, including making program cuts that will have the least effect on learning rates, especially for seriously underperforming students. Transformational reforms may or may not work, but we’ll really never know without longitudinal measures.

Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

By: a.p.

a.p. — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 16:18:41 +0000

A “school system” is made of students, teachers, administration and parents. It isn’t just made of teachers and administrators. As long as we evaluate parts of our system and not the system as a whole, we will maintain an inaccurate picture of its difficulties. The “adult” approach is to evaluate all parts of a failing system, and doesn’t scapegoat when convenient.

Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

By: Eric Larsen

Eric Larsen — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 00:11:00 +0000

It is important to note that we have no idea how much learning is occurring at these “persistently bad” schools. The children at these schools may be experiencing relatively good gains in achievement–greater gains, even, than schools that are considered successful. However, because the children at these schools entered school very, very poorly prepared, the school will nonetheless be labeled “bad.”

On the other hand, very little learning may be occurring at these schools. We simply do not know which scenario is the true one. Therefore, current school reform efforts put the cart before the horse. First we need a good measure of student learning, ideally based on year-to-year growth in achievement of individual students. Only after we have a good measure of student learning can we truly label a school as “bad” or “good,” and take the steps necessary to improve the truly low-performing schools.

Of course, before imposing a transformation on a school, it would be wise to have reason to believe that this transformation will be effective. As this blog entry notes, there is little evidence that any of these transformations can make a difference. But that’s another matter altogether . . .

Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity