Shearon shares his POV

Dave Shearon (a former MNPS BOE member from 1998 to 2001) made some very helpful observations in two recent posts to the NashvillePTOTalk list. I think they deserve broader publication and he has generously given me permission to post them here as he's no longer including MNPS issues on his blog.

I've been a little confused by MNPS getting "A's" on value-added even though we are losing ground to the state. So, I did a little investigating.

An "A" only means that a school or system is not doing significantly worse at helping students make gains than the state average from 1998. That's right, 1998 is the measuring stick, so it makes perfect sense that, with the vast majority of schools getting better, MNPS could be doing a poorer job of improving and still make A's.

Of course, this means that our students -- at all pre-achievement levels -- are losing ground to their peers across the state. For example, the 25th percentile for 3rd graders in 2002 for MNPS corresponded to the 22nd percentile for the state. Today, those students are at the 16th percentile. Our 50th percentile was the state's 44th, and today it's the 36th. Our 75th used to http://tinyurl.com/2cf6rr.

Members of the public can only see this data at the system level. Board Members, Dr. Garcia, and anyone to whome he gives a password can see similar data (and much more) for individual schools. Thus, if our leadership wanted to, it is possible for them to report on many additional views of our performance. For example, they could report, if they wanted to, on how zoned schools are doing compared to the academic magnets at helping high-achieving students to gain knowledge and skills in exchange for the time they spend sitting in class. This could be similar to the study I produced in 1999 (http://tinyurl.com/ekxuk) or they might find a better format. But it could be done relatively easily.

There are other interesting results that can be pulled from the online data available to Board members and the administration. For example, they could look at the effect of high concentrations of beginning or ineffective teachers in some feeder patterns. (http://tinyurl.com/ys454f) When I did my study, it meant requesting paper copies of a thick bundle of school-level reports, entering that data into spreadsheets and doing the anlysis. Today, it's just a password and a few clicks for any Board member.

In fairness, I should note that any Board member who undertook such an effort would open themselves up to attacks on three fronts.

First, they would be accused of not being supportive of the system. Many in the system and many parent and community supporters treat hard but fair questions as "attacking public schools."

Second, although I think access could be given to a Board member only down to the school level, for example, the system available to Dr. Garcia and those he designates (other administrators, principals for their own schools, etc.) goes to the teacher and even the student level. This leaves the Board member as a possible suspect if confidential data becomes public. Note: the kind of performance analysis I am suggesting is not confidential.

Third, some analyses would leave the Board member subject to accusations of mis-placed priorities. This line of attack sounds like "As long as low-achieving students are struggling, how can you be concerned about whether we're wasting the time of those who are already doing well?" For "low-achieving", feel free to substitute "minority", "poor", "ELL", "special-education" or any other categorization. The truth is that ALL parents want their children to be engaged, happy, and learning at school and Board members SHOULD represent ALL parents.

To me, the political risks to Board members are the price of leadership. We should have better information on how ALL our students are doing than we do today, and the fact that we don't is the responsibility of the Board.

David N. Shearon, JD, MAPP
Nashville, TN
Contributing monthly to www.pos-psych.com

and Dave continues in this second post:

I think it is fair to say we have not made the stunning gains that the PR campaign of MNPS has tried to claim and that we have made NO WHERE NEAR the jaw-dropping gains that Dr. Garcia claimed for his former district when he was being recruited.

Further, the data suggests that, at least through 2005 (the last year this study was updated), we weren't helping students learn as much between grades 3 and 8. Now, does this apply to every group of students, or is it weighed down by group differences such as increased ELL. Or, put another way, are early high-achieving, non-FARM students doing as well now as they were in 2008? Impossible for us to determine, but Dr. Garcia or his staff or a Board member could provide the answer.

Yes the state standards for proficiency are weak, and thus AYP under NCLB is weak, though we're not even achieving it. Remeber that AYP is based on a minimum cut score that creates no pressure to be concerned about high-achieving students (or those so far below the system determines they won't make it).

David N. Shearon, JD, MAPP
Nashville, TN
Contributing monthly to www.pos-psych.com

But are they learning?

In the middle of the fuss about dress codes and balanced calendars the measure of the real missions of public schools may get overlooked. Some are opining that's exactly the goal--distraction from the facts about whether these children are actually learning.

10 days late the state Department of Education will finally make this data available at 3:00 p.m. today (note this use of the late Friday news cycle tactic). Hopefully, reporters will take the weekend to go through this and lead with legitimate information Monday and not just MNPS press release quotes.

Metro Nashville Public Schools will hold their own Q & A just prior at 1:15 p.m. in the Board of Education room on Bransford Avenue.

"We expect to see information showing improved achievement in our district," said Paul Changas, district director of assessment and evaluation.

"A lot of data has been reported. What we have seen has been encouraging, but there are still a lot of areas that we need to address."Tennessean

Yes, indeed. I'm looking forward to the comparisons that the Save Our Students folks promised Nashvillians last spring. I'm convinced they will bring essential context to these numbers while providing accountability that the system has sorely needed. And we'll know better whether Superintendent of School Pedro Garcia actually earned his new three year contract.

Every state should do this

The Kansas State Board of Education is taking a serious look at its participation in NCLB (No Child Left Behind). They're not alone. Some 15 other states have done or are doing the same.

The education board has been sharply divided between moderates and conservatives on numerous issues, but it has agreed within the next couple of months to take a look at what the impact would be if the state disengaged from NCLB and refused the federal funding associated with it. The board also will explore trying to get Congress to change the law. Lawrence Journal World

From Reason Online:

Often, state governments do not care because they have an incentive to maximize their budgets, not their effectiveness. For example, a federal law may provide 10 percent more funding in return for following regulations that will require the entire 10 percent to be spent on staff dedicated to filling out compliance form

It's foolish not to regularly evaluate whether the money and control are worth participating no matter what the program. I'm a big fan of accountability when you're working with other people's children and money but that accountability doesn't have to come from the feds. As a transplanted northerner to Tennessee I love Utah's stand in their NCLB debate that education is a states rights issue

NCLB has certainly been frustrating for the education professionals, the families and the public. Those of us outside the system are tired of NCLB being THE excuse for every failing. If it's so bad, then, why are we still participating?