By Steve Poftak
March 18th, 2010
Lane Glenn, vice president of academic affairs at Northern Essex Community College, had an astounding quote in yesterday’s Globe:
“The fear is, of course, that we’ll be asked to do what our K-12 colleagues have been asked to do, come up with seven to eight important things and then teach to the test,’’ Glenn said. “We’re not interested in that.’’
He’s speaking in reference to a plan by MA public higher ed institutions to put new accountability measures in place.
Its a good goal, but Glenn’s disdain of K-12 accountability standards reflects an almost comical level of ignorance.
Massachusetts’ strong accountability standards have been a key part of a larger effort that has shown undeniable results — world class performance on key performance tests (TIMSS, NAEP) and the potential to unpack that data to inform education practices.
If that’s what measuring 7 or 8 important things gets us, count me in.
Meanwhile, Massachusetts public higher education continues to limp along, spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a yearly basis, but utilizing performance measurement standards that have methodological flaws (like bouncing between 4, 5, 6-year cohorts, sometimes in the same document) and barely even touch on the topic of academic quality (preferring graduation and transfer levels) beyond performance on the nursing exam. Examples of the current measurement system are here, here, and here.
I hope that the Commonwealth is able to strengthen public higher ed accountability measures.
But deriding the work that has been done on K-12 measures, when their own house is hardly in order, is not a good start.
By Jim Stergios
March 17th, 2010
There is little to add to today’s Globe editorial on academic standards other than to applaud the detail and effort that went into hearing out all sides and making the right, nuanced judgment. “Don’t let national ed reform push down standards in Mass.” is a strong piece:
MASSACHUSETTS JUMPED wholeheartedly into the fight to raise academic standards when other states were content to maintain a low profile and low expectations. Now, the Obama administration and the National Governors’ Association are trying to prod those other states into action by setting national standards for achievement in English and math. If the federal government starts awarding grants for adopting those standards, Massachusetts could stand to gain — but not if it is required to lower its own curriculum standards in the process.
State officials should dedicate themselves to ensuring that the still-evolving national standards are high enough to meet Massachusetts’ level. If not, the state should be prepared to go it alone.
Massachusetts can be proud of its decade-long head start on raising requirements, crafting curricula, and testing content. The gains came at great expense in time, commitment, and taxpayer dollars. And the investment, for the most part, has paid off. Massachusetts students rank at or near the top of national and even international tests.
Such progress could be disrupted by a shift to national standards even if they purportedly match the level of those already in place. Significant adjustments in topics to be covered, for instance, could require time-consuming investments in rewriting courses and retraining teachers. To be sure, Massachusetts school districts here have some important lessons to learn from other states, especially about bringing low-income and special needs students up to speed. But the problem is with the implementation ofstate standards, not the standards themselves.
I am really pleased that Mitch Chester and Paul Reville are hanging tough on this issue, though the Commish has no reason to lash out and suggest anyone (Shhh, I think he means us) is going “isolationist.”
But even the toughest critics are playing a constructive role. The conservative Pioneer Institute, for example, has pored over proposals and highlighted where they fall short. Early drafts of the national standards, note Pioneer researchers, taught too few mathematical topics, including equations and formulas, in the elementary grades. A Pioneer analysis of the latest draft offers a strong case for adding the necessary math skills needed to prepare students for Algebra in 9th grade. The Pioneer study also takes issue with the national standards writers for ignoring dictionary and explicit vocabulary skills, which could prove “a recipe for reading failure at the high school level.’’
I am hoping the Globe is right in noting that
The Obama administration isn’t going to force states to adopt the new standards.
which I would translate as saying that the Obama administration won’t continue to talk up the use of Title I funds. (Frankly, even if they do, I don’t believe for a second that Congress will allow the Prez to do that.)
But it is implying that uncooperative states could hurt their chances for federal grants. There ought to be a way that Massachusetts can qualify for such funds without making unnecessary curriculum changes. The final standards aren’t due for a few months. Massachusetts should continue to provide help. But if the final product is disappointing, there is no course but to walk away.
The best of all outcomes is, again, to use the national standards as a floor, or simply to offer financial incentives for states to improve on recognized national and international assessment vehicles. Said it once, twice, 30 times, I know, but it is the right way to promote continued experimentation.
And look in the coming weeks for the Pioneer analysis the Globe mentioned!
By Jim Stergios
March 17th, 2010
The Cato Institute just released a brief history of public-sector unionization and some recent data. The recommendation is as you might predict–a ban on collective bargaining in the public sector–but that is hardly an extreme position unless you think North Carolina and Virginia alien territory. After all, they do in fact ban it.
Yeah, I know. But it is worth a read!
By Maria Ortiz Perez
March 17th, 2010
Some interesting poll results that the Association of Government Accountants (AGA) released last month on public attitudes towards transparency*.
Availability of government financial management information continues to be very important to the public.
- Approximately 75% thought it was ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ important across all government levels.
- 51% reported not being satisfied with federal financial management information, 49% with state and 40% with local.
- Availability of government financial management information is most important to older adults (ages 55 and older), more affluent households (100k per year and more), and college graduates.
% of respondents who are getting financial management information from the government’s website
- 16% t for the federal government (though only 11% say they’ve visited recovery.gov.)
- 15% for state government
- 12% for local government
With financial management information from the government at hand
- 71% said they would use this information to influence their vote
- 50% said they would use this information to contact their representative
If you are interested in this topic, Pioneer Institute has created a couple of online tools: for state government data (Massachusetts) visit www.MassOpenBooks.org . If you are interested in getting data from municipalities, then visit www.MassCityStats.org
*The summary information of the poll, taken Dec 2009 can be found here: http://www.agacgfm.org/downloads/SurveyWhitePaper10.pdf
By Steve Poftak
March 15th, 2010
Please, please, my friends at the Greenway — don’t get too precious about vetting what foods are healthy enough to be sold on the Greenway. You need to draw people, put whatever people want to come and eat.
I’m all in favor of healthy, local options on my own dime but you need an infusion of people, not a monument.
This quote gives me pause:
“You can imagine people squeezing fresh lemons or fresh oranges,’’ said Nancy Brennan, executive director of the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway Conservancy. “You can imagine high-end grilled cheese sandwiches with local cheese as the centerpiece of really good bread.’’
I can also imagine families and workers that would rather have something tasty and affordable.
And while I’m working the Greenway-Food beat — I like that the Globe is supporting the notion of a public market near Haymarket. I hope that they can build it and populate it in a way that works with the existing Haymarket (read low-cost, high volume, and occasionally spotty quality) not against it. Haymarket thrives on the vast number of bargain shoppers and the Public Market should serve as a complement, not a yuppified counterpoint.
By Maria Ortiz Perez
March 15th, 2010
Some sad news from Lawrence: Wilfredo Laboy, the school superintendent has been fired and may face more serious charges for stealing public money —he is the 3rd Lawrence superintendent being sacked from the job for mismanagement in 13 years.
The verdict? Laboy didn’t like transparency or accountability and he clearly lacked professional ethics. A deadly combination if you ask me.
What is surprising is that the State hasn’t put in place some serious management controls in Lawrence while knowing that communities across the state are paying 69% of the costs of Lawrence’s city government and 98% of its education costs.
But instead of going on and on about how wrong Laboy was, how we should have seen this coming, how frustrated we are all with corruption in Lawrence, I would like to raise a question: what is the actual impact on school children and their performance?
I am surprised I haven’t read much about that. If someone, be Laboy or the other two superintendents that preceded him, is mismanaging school funds for years, how does that impact the kids? Does this undermine their chances of success? Does this mean they get to grow believing that no one will truly ever care about their future?
Right now, people in Lawrence can either look at Laboy with disdain, whisper among themselves that it is for the better that he is gone and move on with their day. Or they can start demanding that whomever replaces is a competent and honest individual that will run the department with the children’s interest as a top priority.
Too naive? Add to that some transparency, accountability and management controls. A recipe for success, if you ask me.
By Steve Poftak
March 15th, 2010
I’m not sure how much of this is political theater or unrelated events, but both Connecticut and New Hampshire are pretty seriously considering border tolls.
It seems pretty certain that Massachusetts would respond by putting up a border toll on I-93 (seeing as how the Pike tolls largely act like a border toll now on the short piece of I-84 in our state).
Drivers are not going to like it, but it will leave each state with more transportation money. The last piece of the puzzle would be a move to open-road tolling, which seems to happening here.
By Jim Stergios
March 15th, 2010
Jamie Vaznis leads the Globe with a story that really needs a lot of attention — no matter what your view is. We’ve said it many times before: High academic standards are the lifeblood of high student achievement in our public schools — all of our public schools. We love public charters because they are effective delivery mechanisms, but would we want charters without high academic standards? No thanks. That’s one of the principal reasons why charters in other states often are as ineffective as their district school peers.
You’ve seen my view on standards in many a blog post, so let’s applaud others for theirs — and let’s hope they remain strong on this issue. First kudos go to Anne Wass:
“In principle, national standards make sense because a child in Mississippi deserves to be taught at the same level as a child in Massachusetts,’’ said Anne Wass, president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association, the state’s largest teachers union. “But if the standards lower things in Massachusetts I wouldn’t think that is good.’’
I like the clarity of her position. That’s important from the head of the state’s largest teachers’ union. And it contrasts with the view from Glenn Koocher, ED of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees, who
said he found the standards to be “comprehensive’’ and on par with Massachusetts.
We’ve analyzed the proposed standards backwards and forwards, and they are not. See the Wurman/Stotsky op-ed in the Saturday Globe for a very brief summary of the proposed common core standards’ failings.
And, finally, a garland for Massachusetts Ed Secretary who has committed publicly to rejecting the common core standards if they are not as rigorous as the Massachusetts standards — and also for using our leadership role nationwide to push the needle in the right direction. That’s tough when you have to negotiate standards among 48 states but worth trying.
Reville said that Massachusetts has been held up as a model in the writing of the national standards and that the drafters have been receptive to the state’s recommendations for changes after previous drafts were made available. For that reason, Reville said he believes Massachusetts can still shape the final version.
“Since we are leaders in this area, we have a civic responsibility to participate in the process, but in the end we will have to make a decision [whether] to endorse these standards,’’ Reville said.
Let’s hope, as the political pressure is applied from DC, that the Secretary proves his mettle.
By Jim Stergios
March 14th, 2010
The editorial on the national standards in today’s New York Times is uninformed as to beggar belief. “National School Standards, At Last” argues that:
The countries that have left the United States behind in math and science education have one thing in common: They offer the same high education standards — often the same curriculum — from one end of the nation to the other.
The problem with the proposed national standards is not that they would be uniform, though there are good reasons to fear what they would mean for states like Massachusetts, which have used federalism to push ever higher. The principal problem is that the proposed standards are not high at all.
The Times goes on to call the new standards “rigorous”. The Times says that the standards are “based on intensive research” and that they “reflect what students must know to succeed at college and to find good jobs in the 21st century. They are internationally benchmarked…”
All of these statements are half-truths at best. So is the claim that the proposed standards are “vertically aligned, building in complexity each year.”
Worst of all, the editorial is stale in its view of what has happened in this country since the 1983 “Nation at Risk” report. I understand that the Times writes for the country, but big parts of this country have advanced really great standards that would be weakened with the thin gruel that the NGA and CCSSO are pushing.
In essence the Times is arguing that it is better to have academic standards than not to have any. That’s a view that might have been valid back in 1983, but while the Times editorial board slept, many states have spent billions, expended political capital, and engaged citizens in years of debate in order to implement high standards.
States have led the way, and the federal government would be in error, and states would have to be stupid, to let these new proposed common core standards replace all of the states’ effort. Especially in places like Massachusetts, where our standards are higher, and where we have demonstrated what works.
The Globe editorial board on February 3, entitled “Obama’s education plan errs in abandoning ‘proficiency’ goal,” demonstrated far greater knowledge of education reform – which is only normal given this state’s experience and the Globe’s strong hand in supporting hard reforms like high standards, accountability and charter schools. The piece was on the Obama administration’s “retreat”
from a deadline to bring every child in 98,000 public schools to academic proficiency by 2014. What was seen as an attainable goal in the Bush years is now a “utopian goal,’’ according to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.
The editorial closes strong:
The Obama administration wants to replace universal proficiency with a mandate for all students to leave high school “college or career ready.’’ What that means isn’t entirely clear yet. But it would be a setback for standards-based education in America if the new requirement relies heavily on so-called “21st century skills’’ – global awareness, media literacy, and critical thinking – that are now the rage in education circles.
…
Massachusetts manages to promote proficiency without punishing students who can’t reach that grade on the challenging MCAS test. Schools are required to create specific “education proficiency plans’’ for such students that include intensive classes in areas of academic weakness. If students show good progress in these classes, they remain on track to graduate, even without achieving MCAS proficiency.
In Massachusetts, where students rank at or near the top of national assessments, educators regularly produce students who are “college or career ready.’’ The Obama administration could learn a thing or two by taking proficiency standards as seriously in Washington as they are taken here.
Let’s hope the new editor of the Globe’s editorial pages Peter Canellos continues to stand strong for what is best for Massachusetts and does not simply buy the view of the Mother Ship in New York.
By Jim Stergios
March 14th, 2010
The MetroWest Daily today also published a different op-ed piece by Ze’ev Wurman and Sandy Stotsky on the national standards. The piece makes the point that the standards effort started out as a voluntary for states. But
President Obama just announced that signing on to once voluntary standards would be a condition for receipt of federal funding, even though the standards aren’t even complete and recent drafts are woefully deficient.
In short, the “Common Core College Readiness” standards wouldn’t get you into college. Our review of a recent draft finds that they fail to meet the requirements of almost all the nation’s state colleges and universities.
The standards are not benchmarked against those in high-achieving countries. As a result, requirements at higher grade levels lag one-to-two years behind academic standards in those countries.
The math drafts cover too few topics to adequately prepare students for college. The standards place topics in the wrong grades and dumb down critical stepping stones to college success.
High school math teachers will look in vain for course standards in Algebra II, pre-calculus, or trigonometry. The drafters deem algebra, which the prestigious National Math Advisory Panel identified as the key to higher math study, as an outdated organizing principle.
The English language arts (ELA) standards aren’t much better. They often show little increase in difficulty from grade to grade and contain few substantive requirements.
Neither the so-called top-level college- and career-readiness ELA standards nor the tests to be based on them would require students to demonstrate familiarity with the major authors and works of American and British literary history. That familiarity is what allows them to be educated readers of the nation’s seminal political documents.
The top-level standards aren’t really academic standards at all, just content-free generic skills.
Some states, like Connecticut and West Virginia, have implemented standards similar to these drafts, with predictable results. Rather than improving student achievement and narrowing achievement gaps, they’ve had exactly the opposite effect. In recent years, Connecticut reversed course and adopted standards modeled on Massachusetts’ content-rich curriculum frameworks.
States like Massachusetts have the most to lose. …
A thoughtful, deliberative process was used to develop strong state standards. The process by which draft national standards have been developed leaves the distinct impression that the U.S. Department of Education, National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers knew they had something to hide when they formed the Common Core State Standards Initiative. For months, no membership lists were available for the standards development committees, even though their work was proceeding.
Rather than giving this important topic the deliberation it deserves, the process is being rushed. Standards are to be developed and implemented in less than a year, and this important work is being undertaken by people who lack the necessary qualifications for writing K-12 math and ELA standards. Recently we learned that only three weeks will be allowed for public feedback before the standards would be finalized.
With Minnesota, Virginia, California and Texas all shaking their heads at this national standards effort, you’ve got to wonder if it is imaginable for state officials to join. After all, these states all have weaker standards than our own. Will we be willing to throw away the nation’s highest standards?
Previous Posts
