Common Core

Jacki and I attended a panel at the American Enterprise Institute yesterday on the Jay Greene report I blogged about earlier this week. Marcus Winters, co-author of the report, was presenting along with Jane Hannaway from the Urban Institute and David Figlio from the University of Florida.  It was a very collegial affair, even though the report attracted substantial criticism.  Figlio lauded the researchers for the positive trend they found in science proficiency.  But he added that the report didn’t prove that the increase in science test scores was causally linked to the increase in math and reading scores.  He characterized as “modest” the strength of the authors’ correlation of science scores with those in reading and math. That correlation is the key evidence the report puts forward to assert that testing in high-stakes subjects doesn’t hurt students’ performance in low-stakes subjects in the state of Florida.

When the Q and A began, I suggested that calling science a “low-stakes” subject in Florida was misleading (which was sort of a position the panel had coalesced to in the course of its deliberations).  After all, a school’s overall performance on the FCAT (Florida’s Comprehensive Achievement Test), which tests students’ reading, math, and science proficiency is a key factor in determining what grade the school receives under the state’s A+ assessment system. Science scores started counting toward the A+ determination just this year but—as Hannaway pointed out—”the writing was on the wall” for some time with regard to science scores carrying real stakes in Florida. And Figlio, who lives in the state, noted that students’ performance on the science part of the FCAT has made front page news since the test began. Marcus didn’t disagree with my assertion that science was a high-stakes subject in Florida, but suggested that reading and math were “higher” stakes.

A little later Amber Winkler, research director for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, questioned the validity of using prior reading and math scores as a proxy for prior science scores. Basically, in order to gauge whether or not an increase in science scores had occurred, Greene and Winters constructed a faux science “score” using 2001-2002 math and reading results so that they would have a measure to compare with 2002-2003 science scores. Asked by Winkler how commonplace it was in studies such as these to construct prior scores in one subject from those in another, Winters responded that he “wasn’t sure as they’d never had that problem before.” Winkler told me she wondered why the researchers hadn’t just waited until they could compare science scores to science scores.

NOTE: When I wrote about this report earlier this week, I criticized Greene for asserting in a blog he’d written promoting the report that its findings would “debunk” and prove “unfounded” statements made by CC co-chair Diane Ravitch and Fordham President Checker Finn. He’s now complained (see comment below) that he never used the words quoted above. I of course never said he used those particular words and hence did not put quotes around them when I used them. Any reader of his original posting (which he’s copied into his comment below) can see that that was precisely the inference he was trying to make when he quoted Diane and Checker at length on the narrowing issue and then asked people to read his report “to find out whether these concerns are supported by the empirical evidence from Florida.” Well, we’ve read the report and our concerns are far from allayed. Enuf said.

The Manhattan Institute came out with a report Tuesday that looks at gains in science achievement among a small group of Florida fifth-graders. It was somewhat cheekily promoted earlier this week by co-author Jay Greene as offering evidence that claims of narrowing the curriculum under NCLB were unfounded. I say cheekily because Greene specifically cited statements by Common Core co-chair Diane Ravitch and Fordham president Checker Finn as examples of the kind of claims this research would debunk. But the study’s findings don’t back up Greene’s spin. Not even close. The study found that, for students enrolled in a school receiving an “F” grade under Florida’s A+ assessment system, science proficiency increased about a .08 standard deviation. The authors claim that there is “some evidence to suggest” that that gain was enabled by increases in student math and reading. But as their strongly qualified language signals, the evidence offered up is far from convincing. And there are numerous other possible explanations for the increase in science proficiency—including the fact that performance on the science test carries stakes within Florida’s A+ system and that NCLB now requires science testing. Even though performance on science tests are not “high-stakes” under NCLB (as scores don’t count toward AYP), the scores do count toward the grades schools receive within the state—and all of this testing undoubtedly affects the emphasis given science in Florida classrooms. So science testing is “high-stakes” in Florida. This could very well explain the increased science proficiency Green et al. identified. The Manhattan Institute study might have been more interesting if they had looked at a subject entirely overlooked by Florida’s A+ system and by NCLB, such as history. That would’ve been difficult to do but it would’ve really given us something to talk about.

Lynne

My family participates in a nannyshare. For those who might not be up on modern daycare arrangements, let me explain that a “share” is when families—typically two—share the services of a nanny. One of the fun side-benefits of a share is that you get to know other families quite well. The father of the other child in our share right now is a DC public school teacher. He left a lucrative job as a corporate attorney a few years back because he loves learning—history, in particular—and thought he could make a great contribution in the classroom. Anyone who meets him sees that he just oozes with the energy and enthusiasm that can make a great teacher. But, in talking about my work for Common Core, he admitted that he’s been frustrated to see how the pressures of testing have thwarted his efforts to convey important knowledge to his students. The way he explains it, every year after the winter break, word goes out across the school that the teaching of social studies must halt. The reason is that early January is the point in the school year when every class turns into a test-prep class, no matter the grade and no matter what subject the teacher normally teaches. He’s allowed to resume teaching social studies in April, after testing season has passed, but says that it is difficult to get his students to pick up the narrative once again. Students undoubtedly also take the subject less seriously, since they see their school doing so. No matter how many studies you read about the narrowing of the curriculum, hearing one teacher’s story is sobering.

Lynne