Author Archives: Andy Spears

Posted on by

About Those Numbers

I posted last week about the Education Equality Index, first posting their press release and then some analysis based on a post from Bruce Baker.

Today, Education Cities and GreatSchools issued the following statement acknowledging some of the limitations of their data:

“Education Cities and GreatSchools have identified limitations in the interpretation of state-level Education Equality Index (EEI) scores. Our goal is to highlight states, cities and schools that are more successfully closing the achievement gap than others. We are confident that school-level and city-level EEI scores are highlighting success stories across the nation, but we have concluded that the state-level EEI scores are not the best way to compare states. Because states’ absolute EEI scores are highly correlated to the percentage of students in the state who qualify for free and reduced-price lunch, we have removed the rankings of states based on the EEI score and pace of change pending further review. We want to ensure that the EEI adds value to the national conversation about the achievement gap, and we plan to further develop the EEI by exploring the possible incorporation of additional national measures. We welcome feedback and will continue to work to improve the Education Equality Index and its methodology over time.”

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport

Posted on by

Stewart on Opting-Out

Nashville State Representative Mike Stewart talks about the decision he and his wife made to refuse standardized testing for their daughter this year.

He told Nashville Public Radio:

Parents are rallying in other parts of the state as well, and Rep. Mike Stewart, D-Nashville, is among them. He and his wife decided to opt out their daughter after speaking out against it themselves.

Stewart says, “We just felt like, we’re telling people these tests are so wrong. We should step up and opt out. We should live with our convictions.”

Stewart also noted:

“Testing has it’s place [but] it has gotten completely out of control to where the tests are driving what is going on in the classroom year round.”

As far as keeping up with how many students opt-out, WPLN reports:

School districts are not required to keep track of opt-out numbers because the state doesn’t officially recognize it as an option for students. Blank answer sheets are simply referred to as “irregularities.”

What do you think? Are you a parent “opting-out” or refusing testing this year? Are you a teacher who thinks TNReady’s rollout has caused too much stress? Should districts refuse to administer TNReady Phase II as was discussed by the Murfreesboro School Board?

Let us know!

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport

 

Posted on by

Is That Even Legal?

Charles Corra examines the potential legal issues with Tennessee’s charter schools in light of the Washington State Supreme Court ruling saying that state’s charter law was unconstitutional.

He starts with this note:

I recently tweeted about an article published in the Nashville Bar Journal called “Tennessee’s Waltz With Charter Schools,” which commented on the potential unconstitutionally of Tennessee’s charter school legislation.

Then adds:

Similar to Washington, Tennessee’s charter schools are also private entities that contract with a school board and cannot be managed by for-profit entities.  The author also points out the similarity with funding between Washington and Tennessee charter laws: that the money follows the student. What is important in the article is the discussion that follows regarding the variance in success rates between charter schools (i.e. some performed well while others did not), which could be attributed to the freedom that charter schools have with how they allocate resources. The takeaway here is that, based on a study the author delves into, there are inconsistencies in management, operation, funding, and student achievement among charter schools in Tennessee.

The points, as Corra makes it, is that because of the way Tennessee charter schools are operated and funded, they could be in violation of established precedent regarding equal educational opportunity. No challenge to this law has yet been made, but the issues raised in the Washington case may merit attention by Tennessee lawmakers.

Read Corra’s full analysis of this issue.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport

Posted on by

The Biggest Losers

Grace Tatter over at Chalkbeat has a breakdown of Governor Haslam’s BEP changes. While this year’s budget includes an influx of dollars, it also freezes BEP 2.0.

Tatter explains:

Though the governor’s plan nixes BEP 2.0, it permanently increases the state’s spending on English language learners (funding ELL teachers at a 1:20 student ratio and translators at a 1:200 student ratio), and special education students, technology and teacher pay, especially when it comes to teachers insurance. For years, the state only paid for teachers to have 10 months of health insurance. Last year, the General Assembly mandated that the state provide for 11 months of insurance. Haslam’s proposal this year finally gives teachers’ year-round insurance.

It’s important to note here that districts are already paying for year-round insurance for teachers, now they will receive some funding for it. The state funds teacher insurance at 45% of the projected cost for a district’s BEP-generated teaching positions. Until last year, it funded 45% of this cost for only 10 months, now it will shift to 12 months. It’s also worth noting that every single district in the state hires teachers beyond the BEP-generated number. Typically, around 12-15% more than what the BEP formula generates. Districts cover the full cost of salary and insurance for all teachers hired beyond the BEP number.

If districts only hired the BEP number of teachers, they could reduce local costs, but they’d also likely have some pretty unhappy parents on their hands. So, yes, the Governor’s proposed changes do direct additional funds to districts. But the changes do not address the underlying problem with the BEP. Doing so would cost another $250 to $300 million. That would be the cost of adjusting the ratios by 10-15% for teachers. That’s not to mention nurses, counselors, and other positions. And it doesn’t include capital funding.

The BEP Review Committee has been highlighting these deficiencies for years to no avail.

Additionally, Tatter mentions:

Another carryover from BEP 2.0 is the eventual elimination of a “cost differential factor,” known as CDF, that 16 districts in five counties receive to address a higher cost of living. Reducing the CDF would cut state spending by about $34.7 million. Almost half of that money would have gone to Shelby County Schools and the municipal districts in Shelby County. Other counties that would be impacted are Davidson, Anderson, Williamson and Sullivan.

While BEP 2.0 envisioned elimination of the CDF, it also envisioned the state covering 75% of teacher salaries for BEP-generated teachers. The Haslam changes makes the current 70% permanent.

Here are the districts losing money under the CDF elimination. The CDF is cut in half for the upcoming year and then completely eliminated in 2017-18.

Shelby
             30,873,136
Davidson
             17,570,727
Williamson
             11,073,924
Bartlett
                2,111,966
Collierville
                2,007,525
Germantown
                1,411,972
Franklin SSD
                1,260,978
Arlington
                1,169,503
Millington
                   672,030
Anderson
                   473,867
Oak Ridge
                   320,368
Lakeland
                   243,331
Sullivan
                      78,161
Clinton City
                      72,903
Kingsport
                      54,638
Bristol City
                      30,682
Total
69,425,713

It’s not clear whether these changes will impact the current lawsuits regarding funding adequacy. And the additional funds still don’t address the unfunded RTI mandate.

The ultimate impact of the changes will take a few years to determine. However, without significant structural changes, it is difficult to see this “new BEP” adequately meeting the needs of Tennessee’s schools.

More on the BEP:

Bill Dunn Wrong

They Noticed

Clay County and the Broken BEP

Why is TN 40th?

About BEP 2.0

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport

Posted on by

Analytical Gap

 

Earlier today I posted a press release on the Education Equality Index and its claims about schools in Memphis.

I posted the release without comment or analysis.

Fortunately, Bruce Baker provided some analysis regarding this index and other attempts to compare achievement gaps among schools from different states.

Here’s the bottom line: Income gaps explain achievement gaps. That is, states with relatively large income gaps tend to have relatively large achievement gaps. Likewise, states with more income homogeneity tend to have smaller achievement gaps.

I wrote about this on a Tennessee-specific level when talking about the achievement gap and BEP funding increases:

Additionally, during this same ten year time period, the gap between the highest and lowest scores among districts is clearly explained by the gap in per pupil expenditures among those districts. You spend more, you get better results. The impetus for all this spending was the new BEP formula that sent more money to all school systems. Those districts already at the top were most able to take advantage and boost ACT scores while those at the bottom saw an increase in the number of students taking the ACT, resulting in the statewide slight ACT decline Dunn references.

The districts at the top in spending tend to also be the districts with the highest incomes. Thus, TCAP results often serve as good indicators of the relative income level of Tennessee school districts.

Here’s what Baker has to say:

But these assertions – both the old and the new – presume that comparisons of achievement gaps, either by race or income, between states are valid. That is, they validly reflect policy/practice differences across states and not some other factor.

Quite simply, as most commonly measured, they do not. They largely reflect differences in income distributions across states, a nuance I suspect will continue to be overlooked in public discourse and the media. But one can hope.

Achievement gap analysis is interesting and it tells us something. But, as Baker points out, it is important to be clear about what such gaps reveal.

For more on education politics and policy, follow @TNEdReport

Posted on by

Opting for Questions

Charles Corra over at Rocky Top Ed Talk has some questions about the Opt-out movement that appears to be gaining some traction in Tennessee:

To opt-out or to not opt-out? There seems to be an intense, festering degree of distrust with the state testing system in Tennessee (with good reason, based on how TNReady fared this year).  However, is that enough to justify a lack of no confidence?  Is testing essential to acquiring data and helping to properly identify the needs and focus areas of a school, of a particular student?

The article notes that students are refusing tests on a larger scale, though solid numbers are difficult to obtain. Perhaps the failures of TNReady have called attention to the testing challenges many schools and students face?

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport

 

Posted on by

Memphis Schools Closing Large Achievement Gap

According to a new index created in partnership with Education Cities and Great Schools, schools in Memphis have an achievement gap that is among the largest in the nation. However, data indicate a closing of the gap in recent years.

Here’s the press release:

According to the Education Equality Index (EEI), a first-of-its-kind tool released today, the achievement gap between students from Memphis’ low-income families and their more advantaged peers is significant, but also narrowing at one of the fastest rates in the nation. Between 2011 and 2014, Memphis’ achievement gap narrowed by 19 percent, meaning significantly more students from low-income families now have access to a more equal playing field.

“There is much to celebrate in Memphis, as the achievement gap is narrowing more quickly than in 90 percent of major U.S. cities,” said Ethan Gray, founder and CEO of Education Cities. “While we, as a nation, have a long way to go to ensure our most vulnerable children have the opportunities they need to thrive, we celebrate the many schools in Memphis that are closing the achievement gap, proving that greater equality is possible.”

The Education Equality Index is the first national comparative measure of the achievement gap at the school, city, and state levels, and identifies the regions where children from low-income communities are most likely to attend schools usually only available to their more advantaged peers. Funded by the Michael & Susan Dell Foundation and developed in partnership by the foundation, Education Cities, and GreatSchools, the EEI features school, city and state-level data covering the nation’s 100 biggest cities in 35 states.

The Education Equality Index also identifies the top 10 schools in Memphis with small or nonexistent achievement gaps that serve a student population where the majority are from low-income families. Power Center Academy Middle School and High School both rank among Memphis’ top 10 schools.

“Closing the achievement gap for me is knowing my daughter can attend college without taking remedial classes, without being challenged with social and study life,” said Memphis parent Angela King, whose daughter attends Power Center Academy Middle School.  “She received a safe and nurturing education while focusing on her deficits.  We feel privileged and honored to have been a part of a program that has holistically met the needs of my daughter and every scholar at PCAMS and PCAHS.”

Key findings from the Education Equality Index include:

  • Memphis’ EEI score of 28.3 puts the city 70th out of the 100 largest cities in the U.S. for which data is available.
  • The achievement gap in Memphis narrowed by 19 percent between 2011 and 2014, a pace quicker than 90 percent of major U.S. cities.
  • Tennessee’s EEI score of 41.5 indicates that its statewide achievement gap is smaller than in 24 of 35 states for which data is available — including Kentucky and Missouri.
  • The achievement gap in Tennessee narrowed by five percent between 2011 and 2014, meaning that today more students from low-income communities have access to schools that are helping them achieve at similar levels to their more advantaged peers.

The top 10 Memphis schools with small or nonexistent achievement gaps that serve a student population where the majority are from low-income families are:

  • Delano Elementary School
  • Ford Road Elementary School
  • Freedom Preparatory Academy
  • Hollis F. Price Middle College High School
  • Jackson Elementary School
  • John P. Freeman Optional School
  • Middle College High School
  • Oakshire Elementary School
  • Power Center Academy (High School)
  • Power Center Academy (Middle School)

As detailed in the EEI, there are hundreds of schools across the nation where low-income students are achieving at levels that match or even exceed their more advantaged peers — proving that all children can excel in school when given the opportunity.

“Equality of opportunity is an American ideal,” said Ethan Gray, founder and CEO of Education Cities. “The Education Equality Index shows that while we, as a nation, have a long way to go to ensure our most vulnerable children have the opportunities they need to thrive, there are schools in almost every city proving that equality is possible.”

This is the first in a series of releases intended to identify the practices that are closing the achievement gap at the quickest pace. To see more data from the Education Equality Index and use the interactive online tool, visit www.educationequalityindex.org.

About Education CitiesEducation Cities is a non-profit organization that convenes, advises, and supports a network of cities in their efforts to increase the number of great public schools. Learn more at www.education-cities.org.

About GreatSchools

Founded in 1998, GreatSchools is a national, nonpartisan nonprofit helping millions of parents find high-quality schools, support great learning, and guide their kids to great futures. GreatSchools offers thousands of articles, videos, and worksheets to help parents support their children’s learning. Last year, GreatSchools had more than 56 million unique visitors, including more than half of all U.S. families with school-age children. Headquartered in Oakland, California, GreatSchools partners with cities and states across the country to promote access to school quality data to families, particularly those in high need. Through its GreatKids program, GreatSchools promotes parenting for education success and teacher-parent collaboration.

About the Michael & Susan Dell Foundation 

The Michael & Susan Dell Foundation is dedicated to improving the lives of children living in urban poverty around the world. Headquartered in Austin, TX with satellite offices in New Delhi, India and Cape Town, South Africa, the Dell family foundation funds programs that foster high-quality public education and childhood wellness, and improve the economic stability of families living in poverty. The foundation has committed more than $1.2 billion to global children’s issues and community initiatives to date. Learn more at www.msdf.org.

 

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport

Posted on by

Ready to Score

An elementary principal in Sumner County puts TNReady in perspective:

I hope our students grow into adults who don’t remember their TNReady scores. But I sincerely hope these same students see a relationship between hard work and performance, a correlation clearly revealed through standardized tests like TNReady. I hope our students remember we loved and supported them unconditionally, regardless of test performance. We want to celebrate students’ academic “wins” and help them grow through what might feel like intellectual “losses.” Keep in mind, we sacrifice the opportunity to accomplish either if we don’t play the TNReady game, or at least some sort of similar game.

Read more about why this leader thinks TNReady is important and also about the context of this and other state tests.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport

 

Posted on by

Corra Talks Cash

Over at Rocky Top Ed Talk, Charles Corra talks about the importance of investment in schools, using the fairly extreme example of Detroit Public Schools as a cautionary tale.

Corra concludes:

DPS’s situation is certainly an extreme one, but clearly not unrealistic.  The legislature in Tennessee needs to look at DPS’s crisis as a warning  – school funding is critically important and should not be overlooked.  Yes, an entire state being underfunded by $500 million is certainly a big difference from a city school district being in debt $350 million, but the point still stands – funding matters, and its not a game.

While he notes that the DPS example is extreme, it is worth noting that the legislature is in the middle of some serious school funding games, with some lawmakers attempting to abdicate the state’s responsibility to fund schools.

Yes, school funding matters. And being $500 million behind as a state is problematic, especially during a growth period when we have a surplus of $1 billion.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport

Posted on by

Flexible Validity

Commissioner of Education Candice McQueen today provided additional information on how teacher evaluations would be handled in light of the flexibility the department is granting educators in light of TNReady troubles.

First, the email from McQueen, then some thoughts:

Dear educators,

Thank you for all of your thoughtful questions in response to Gov. Haslam’s proposal to create evaluation flexibility during our transition to TNReady. Last month, we shared an overview of the governor’s proposal (here). Earlier this week, the legislation began moving through the legislative process, so I’m writing to share more detailed information regarding the proposal, specifically how it is designed to create evaluation flexibility for you.

The department has developed an FAQ document on Evaluation Flexibility for Teachers (here) which provides detailed information regarding how this flexibility will affect teachers in different subjects and grades. I encourage you to closely read this document to learn how the flexibility applies to your unique situation.

Meanwhile, I wanted to share a few highlights. The governor’s proposal would provide you the option to include or not include results from the 2015-16 TNReady and TCAP tests within the student growth component of your evaluation, depending on which scenario benefits you the most. In other words, if student growth scores from this year help you earn a higher evaluation score, they will be used. If they do not help you earn a higher score, they will not be used. The option that helps your score the most will automatically be incorporated into your evaluation. This applies to all grades and subjects, including science and social studies.

Because Tennessee teachers will meet over this spring and summer to establish scoring guidelines and cut scores for the new assessment, achievement scores will not be available until the fall. TVAAS scores, however, will be available this summer because cut scores for proficiency levels are not required to calculate growth scores.

You can follow the progress of the governor’s proposal as it moves through the legislative process at the Tennessee General Assembly website (here). If you have additional questions about how this may apply to you, please contact TEAM.Questions@tn.gov.

We hope this evaluation flexibility eases concerns as we transition to a new, more rigorous assessment that is fully aligned to our Tennessee Academic Standards, as well as navigate the challenge of moving to a paper-based test this year. Thank you for your ongoing commitment to Tennessee students, as well as your continued flexibility as we transition to an assessment that will provide us with better information about our students’ progress on the path to college and career readiness.

My thoughts:

While flexibility is good, and the TVAAS waiver is needed, this sentence is troubling:

TVAAS scores, however, will be available this summer because cut scores for proficiency levels are not required to calculate growth scores.

The plan is to allow teachers to include TNReady TVAAS scores if they improve the teacher’s overall 1-5 TEAM rating. That’s all well and good, except that there can be no valid TVAAS score generated from this year’s TNReady data. This fact seems to have escaped the data gurus at the Department of Education.

Here’s what I wrote after analyzing studies of value-added data and teacher performance when using different types of assessments:

If you measure different skills, you get different results. That decreases (or eliminates) the reliability of those results. TNReady is measuring different skills in a different format than TCAP. It’s BOTH a different type of test AND a test on different standards. Any value-added comparison between the two tests is statistically suspect, at best. In the first year, such a comparison is invalid and unreliable. As more years of data become available, it may be possible to make some correlation between past TCAP results and TNReady scores.

This year’s TNReady-based TVAAS scores will be invalid. So will next year’s, for that matter. There’s not enough comparative data to make a predictive inference regarding past TCAP performance as it relates to current TNReady performance. In other words, it’s like comparing apples to oranges. Or, pulling a number out of your ass.

IT’S WRONG!

But, there’s also the fact that in states with both paper-based and online testing, students score significantly higher on the paper tests. No one is talking about how this year’s mixed approach (some 20,000 students completed a portion of the test online on day one) will impact any supposed TVAAS number.

How about we simply don’t count test scores in teacher evaluations at all this year? Or for the next three years? We don’t even have a valid administration of TNReady – there have been errors, delays, and there still are graders hired from Craigslist.

Let’s take a step back and get it right – even if that means not counting TNReady at all this year — not for teachers, not for students, not for schools or districts. If this 11 hour test is really the best thing since sliced bread, let’s take the time to get it right. Or, here’s an idea, let’s stop TNReady for this year and allow students and teachers to go about the business of teaching and learning.