Archive for May, 2009

It’s Baaaack!

Tuesday, May 19th, 2009

Well, we won – sort of. Several weeks ago, we said that Senator Jay Rockefeller would be reintroducing the 21st Century Skills Incentive Fund Act. With co-sponsors Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and John Kerry (D-MA), Rockefeller has made it official. The new and improved 21st Century Skills Incentive Fund Act drops any direct references to the Partnership for 21st Century Skills. The previous legislation made P21 the gatekeeper of hundreds of millions in federal funds. But we fear P21′s hand remains here, despite the omission of their name. For example, the one-sentence description of the bill reads: “To create a new incentive fund that will encourage states to adopt the 21st Century Skills Framework.” Well, the only such framework we’re aware of is authored by P21. So the original purpose of the bill remains: To promote 21st century skills, P21-style. If there were any doubt, Rockefeller erased it in his floor statement, during which he listed all of the P21 member states and – of course – heaped praise on West Virginia for their embrace of P21′s framework. So we’re still talking about pledging a half-billion (yes that was a “b”) in taxpayer funds, along with tax breaks to business, to import 21st century skills into classrooms nationwide. Undoubtedly with the well-paid help and guidance of P21. Gee, the more I write about this the less it strikes me as a win. Tell us what you think. And watch this space for updates on the bill if it manages to make its way out of committee. One final thought: Why don’t good ideas get this kind of support?

Lynne Munson

Posted in 21st Century Skills | 1 Comment »

Imperiling Education in the Bay State – Under Cover of Night

Monday, May 11th, 2009

Today Massachusetts students rank at the top on NAEP and outscore students from most other nations-and other states-on TIMSS. But all of that could be changing.Our readers know that Massachusetts is one of ten states currently working to reshape their standards and assessments around the framework put forth by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills. We and many others, including the folks at the Pioneer Institute, a Massachusetts-based think tank, and the editorial boards of both the Boston Globe and Boston Herald, are surprised that a state with such a successful education system would want to imperil it by embracing the latest education fad. And-in part because this effort has come under such withering criticism-we’ve been watching closely to see how the commonwealth implements P21′s program. What we didn’t expect is for the commonwealth’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) to sneak 21st century skills into Massachusetts classrooms basically under cover of night.

Last week the Pioneer Institute learned that bureaucrats at the DESE have snuck 21st century skills into the statewide Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) without telling anyone-effectively changing the content of Massachusetts education without public or legislative input. Last fall DESE incorporated a 21st century skills emphasis into an RFR they issued to update and administer MCAS. They did this without gaining the approval of the state’s chief education policymaking group, the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE), or the state legislature. Prospective contractors were required to include in their bids assessments of 21st century skills that are aligned with the hotly debated recommendations of the state’s 21st Century Skills Task Force, even though the BESE has not adopted them. Indeed, the RFP was developed last summer and released last fall, before the BESE had received the task force’s recommendations. The five-year contract for $146 million was just awarded to Measured Progress, an organization that sits on the board of the Partnership for 21st Century Skills.

The state’s two largest newspapers have already registered their shock at DESE’s overreach. A handful of fad-chasing bureaucrats should not be allowed to dictate what Massachusetts students should know and be able to do. This decision cannot stand.

Lynne Munson

Posted in 21st Century Skills, Assessment | 2 Comments »

Ravitch Blogs Here on NAEP Results: Data Suggests NCLB Slows Student Progress

Monday, May 4th, 2009

Readers of this blog know we’re NCLB skeptics. So we were more than a little suspicious when we saw NCLB boosters crediting the law for the recent uptick in NAEP scores. Common Core co-chairman Diane Ravitch also was skeptical, so she mined the data and found the real story: NCLB is slowing achievement. Especially for minorities. Read her analysis here:

There are many ways to interpret the latest test scores released by the National Assessment of Educational Progress, which is why press reports have been so inconsistent. The New York Times pointed out that racial gaps were not narrowing, which was the point of No Child Left Behind. The scores showed higher performance since the 1970s, but the biggest gains were made by black and Hispanic students in the 1970s and 1980s. Margaret Spellings saw the scores as vindication of NCLB, saying that the results were best in grades 3-8, where the law focused.

The first thing that the public should understand is that there are two different versions of NAEP. There is “Main NAEP,” which tests American students (national, states, and certain cities) every other year in reading and mathematics at grades 4 and 8 (and occasionally tests other subjects as well, such as science, history, civics, writing, etc.). The other version of NAEP is called “Long Term Trend,” which tests only reading and math and is given nationally (not by state and not by city) every four years. Unlike Main NAEP, Long Term Trend NAEP tests students at ages 9, 13, and 17. The latest release is not Main NAEP (which will report later this year on the 2009 testing) but Long Term Trend NAEP. The results of Main NAEP and Long Term Trend NAEP are not precisely the same, because the tests are not precisely the same. Whereas Main NAEP is periodically revised to reflect state frameworks and professional consensus, Long Term Trend NAEP has essentially the same questions and content across many assessments (content has been periodically updated to remove obsolete items, such as a reference to “green stamps” or some technology that has disappeared).

So let’s take a look at the scores. At age 9, reading scores were up significantly from 2004 to 2008 by four points, from an average of 216 to 220. But the scores preceding NCLB increased even more from 1999 to 2004 (five years rather than four) by seven points. So the rate of progress did not increase and possibly decreased after NCLB. At age 13, reading scores were up significantly from 2004 to 2008, from 257 to 260. This is a finding that conflicts with Main NAEP, where eighth grade scores have been flat for the past 20 years. It should be noted, however, that the average score for age 13 (260) is identical to the score posted in 1992. So while there was a gain from 2004 to 2008, that gain takes achievement back to where it was 17 years ago. At age 17, reading scores are also up significantly, from 283 to 286. But too soon to pop the champagne corks, because this score is lower than it was in several previous assessments. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, it was 290.

In mathematics, there was a significant gain for 9-year-olds, whose scores rose four points from 2004 to 2008. But this was a smaller gain than the one posted from 1999-2004, which went from 232 to 241. The 13-year-olds saw a significant gain too of two points (from 279 to 281), which was smaller than the previous assessment, which was five points higher (from 276 to 281). The scores of 17-year-olds did not change. Indeed, they have barely budged since 1973. With the exception of a brief fall and rise in the 1980s, math scores at this age have been flat.

As for the racial gaps, the biggest improvement occurred between 1999 and 2004, when the gap between black and white students was reduced by 9 points, from 35 to 26 points. Since NCLB, from 2004 to 2008, the gap has shrunk by 3 points, from 27 to 24 points. At age 13, the black-white gap shrunk by four points, from 25 to 21; but from 1999 to 2004, it narrowed by seven points, from 29 to 22. At age 17, the black-white gap is 29 points, larger than in 2004, and much larger than it was in 1988, when it was only 20 points.

Thus, when one looks at the patterns, it suggests the following: First, our students are making gains, though not among 17-year-olds. Second, the gains they have made since NCLB are smaller than the gains they made in the years preceding NCLB. Third, even when they are significant, the gains are small. Fourth, the Long Term Trend data are not a resounding endorsement of NCLB. If anything, the slowing of the rate of progress suggests that NCLB is not a powerful instrument to improve student performance.

Diane Ravitch

Posted in Assessment | 1 Comment »