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
Lynne,
Maybe you missed my response to the last blog topic (although considering it was the only post, it should have been hard to miss).
But this “Cheeky” post confirms what I wrote last time, so it bears repeating:
“Common Core just sounds like it’s part of some jealous rivalry between History and Literature on one side and Math and Reading on the other, with both sides claiming their own tests are more important than the others.”
Let’s get off the high horse, please. Stop the balkanization of knowledge. It’s time educators looked at the big picture, and not just whatever academic territory they claim as their own.
Obsessed with maintining strict categories of knowledge, schools continue in the counterproductive way of teaching that sees only subjects (math, reading, science, history, english) and misses the big picture.
For instance, the history of mankind is inextricably linked to our scientific progress, just as our scientific progress is linked to war, social conditions, and politics.
Truly intelligent and productive people are those that can see the interconnections between many different topics, and who can synthesize disparate ideas and skills into something new.
So come on down from your Ivory Towers. You’d think from that great height you’d be able to see the big picture, and help students see it too. But unfortunately, your Ivory Towers have no windows.
I’m afraid that you are attributing to me words that I never wrote. I never wrote that claims of narrowing of the curriculum were “unfounded” nor did I ever write that the study “debunked” claims made by Diane Ravtich and Checker Finn.
What I did was frame the issue that to which the new evidence speaks. And, as I have also written: “this study is not “the last word on the ‘narrowing of the curriculum.’” But to the extent that it shows that another part of the curriculum (science) benefits when stakes are applied only to math and reading, it alleviates the concerns Checker and Diane have expressed.”
And here is the full text of what I posted. Let me know if you find anything resembling “unfounded” or “debunked.”
“Keep your eyes peeled for the release tomorrow by the Manhattan Institute of a new study on the effect of high-stakes testing on achievement in low-stakes subjects. The study, led by Marcus Winters and co-authored by me and Julie Trivitt, examines whether achievement in math and reading comes at the expense of science on Florida standardized tests. Because there are meaningful consequences for performance in math and reading, but not for the rest of the curriculum, many people have worried that schools would improve their math and reading results by skimping on science and other subjects.
These concerns are not just coming from the usual critics of school accountability. Even accountability advocates have expressed second thoughts. For example, Chester Finn writes in the National Review Online: “Do the likely benefits exceed the ever clearer costs? Boosting skill levels and closing learning gaps are praiseworthy societal goals. But even if we were surer that NCLB would attain them, plenty of people — parents, teachers, lawmakers, and interest groups — are alarmed by the price. I don’t refer primarily to dollars. (They’re in dispute, too, with most Democrats wrongly insisting that they’re insufficient.) I refer to things like a narrowing curriculum that sacrifices history, art, and literature on the altar of reading and math skills…”
Diane Ravtich has similarly stepped on the high-stakes brakes, expressing concern about the crowding out of other academic subjects and activities: “a new organization called Common Core was launched on February 26 at a press conference in Washington, D.C., to advocate on behalf of the subjects that are neglected by the federal No Child Left Behind legislation and by pending STEM legislation. These subjects include history, literature, the sciences, the arts, geography, civics, even recess (although recess is not a subject, it is a necessary break in the school day that seems to be shrinking or disappearing in some districts). I serve as co-chair of CC with Toni Cortese, executive vice-president of the American Federation of Teachers.”
To find out whether these concerns are supported by the empirical evidence from Florida, tune into the Manhattan Institute web site tomorrow to see the study.”