If VAM is statistically invalid for classroom teachers who provide direct instruction in classes that instruct students in tested material, how could the use of VAM be valid in ANY way for SpED, Music, Art, PE, MS Science, MS Social Studies, the majority of HS content areas, etc. etc.? By my back of the envelope calculation a majority of teachers could not be measured by VAM even it it WAS a statistically valid calculation. My fear: Lamar Alexander and other reformers will solve this problem by giving more tests to more children in more subjects.
Originally posted on Diane Ravitch's blog:
This is the executive summary of the statement of the American Statistical Association on the use of value-added assessment to evaluate teachers. Please share it with other teachers, with principals, and school board members. Please share it with your legislators and other elected officials. Send it to your local news outlets. The words are clear: Teachers account for between 1 and 14% of the variation in test scores. And this is very important to remember: “Ranking teachers by their VAM scores can have unintended consequences that reduce quality.”
ASA Statement onUsing Value-Added Models for Educational Assessment
April 8, 2014
Many states and school districts have adopted Value-Added Models (VAMs) as part of educational accountability systems. The goal of these models, which are also referred to as Value-Added Assessment (VAA) Models, is to estimate effects of individual teachers or schools on student achievement while accounting for differences…
View original 288 more words
Peter Greene, who blogs at Curmudgucation, wrote an insightful blog post that Diane Ravitch excerpted on her blog yesterday. Titled “100% Charter Fail” Greene’s post made the point that the for profit charters do NOT want to take over all the schools, they are only after the easiest portion of the market. Greene writes (with my emphasis added):
It’s telling that while chartercrats are cheering on complete charter conversions for cities from York, PA to Memphis, TN, no charter chains have (as far as I know) expressed a desire to have a whole city to themselves. The preferred model is an urban broker like Tennessee’s ASD or the bureaucratic clusterfarfegnugen that is Philadelphia schools– charter operators can jostle for the juiciest slice of the steak and try to leave the gristle for some other poor sucker.
It’s not even that charters are worried about how successful they will look…. the numbers that they are most attentive to are the ones on the bottom line, and that’s why no charter operators in their right minds would want a 100% charter system that they had to be responsible for.
He then offers these insights on why the “free market” will not work in public education:
Here’s one more reason that free market economics do not belong in public education– in the free market, all customers are NOT created equal. All customers are NOT equally desirable to businesses. And the free market deals with these undesirable customers very simply– it doesn’t serve them. (This is why, for instance, when you hire FEDex or UPS to deliver a package to your uncle on some back road in Bumfargel, PA, FEDex and UPS turn around and hire the United States Postal Service to deliver it for them.) In a charter system, those High Cost Students become human hot potatoes.
“Well, we’ll just require charters to serve a certain segment of the population in our 100% charter system,” you say. And I will remind you of one other critical difference between charters and true public schools. True traditional public schools do not say, “It’s too hard to turn a profit in this business environment, so we are just going to close our doors.” Traditional public schools are in it for the long haul. Charter operators are in it as long as it makes business sense to be in it. If they don’t like the deal you’re offering them, they don’t have to stay.
I especially liked his Post Office analogy because it reinforces my notion that small towns think of their public school the same way they think of the Post Office: both serve as community hubs and community identities. It is noteworthy that both the school consolidation efforts and the post office closures hit a stone wall in the small New England communities where I worked as a consultant for the past two years: people in those communities were explicitly willing to pay a premium price to retain the schools that identified their community as distinct from a larger nearby community.
My observation that I shared on both blogs:
For profit charters don’t want to take over the whole market any more than Walmart wants to… Do you see a Walmart in Scarsdale? In New Trier? In Radnor PA? Conversely do you see any Walmarts in poor urban neighborhoods? Walmart is willing to cede the upscale market and abandon the urban poor to make as much profit as possible on the mass market. For profit charter operators think the same way. They’ll go after the market of engaged urban parents and middle class neighborhoods and towns that are seeking relief from high taxes. The for profit charters are not cherry picking to destroy public education, they are cherry picking to make money.
One concluding observation: The charter cheerleaders need to look at who charter schools are leaving behind before they make claims about charter expansion, choice, and vouchers being a “civil rights” issue. The poor children with disengaged parents, the disabled children who will pull down test scores, and the remote rural communities will be left behind and the public schools in affluent communities will continue to thrive and become more exclusive as their housing prices rise correspondingly. Charters, choice, and vouchers are all about rewarding investors and shareholders… not about helping children.
In a case that could have national implications, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that the state has “…no legal obligation to provide a quality public education to students” in a school district that the state turned over to a charter school that has not improved its performance. This overturned a lower court decision that the State has a “broad compelling state interest in the provision of an education to all children.”
Kary L. Moss, executive director of the American Civil Liberties of Michigan who filed the suit on behalf of eight students of nearly 1,000 children attending K-12 public schools in Highland Park, MI, stated that “This ruling should outrage anyone who cares about our public education system. The court washes its hands and absolves the state of any responsibility in a district that has failed and continues to fail its children.”
The suit, which named as defendants the State of Michigan, its agencies charged with overseeing public education and the Highland Park School District, maintained that the state failed to take effective steps to ensure that students are reading at grade level.
“Let’s remember it was the state that turned the entire district over to a for-profit charter management company with no track record of success with low performing schools,” said Moss. “It is the state that has not enforced the law that requires literacy intervention to children not reading at grade level. It is the state’s responsibility to ensure and maintain a system of education that serves all children.”
Why could this have national implications? As noted in earlier posts, school districts in “failing districts” are often taken over by the State who, presumably, have the ability to overcome the effects of poverty more effectively than the local school boards and, increasingly, States look to privatization as the answer (e.g. Newark and Camden NJ; Philadelphia PA; Chicago IL, to name a few). If State’s are not responsible for providing a quality education, who is? Are parents in affluent districts the only ones who will have their children attending quality public schools? Will for-profit schools be allowed to continue to operate even if they fail to get results?
While I am not well versed in the structure of MI’s court set up, I have to assume their Supreme Court will have the find say on this… and I assume the MI State “…agencies charged with overseeing public education and the Highland Park School District” will continue to argue that they are not responsible for ensuring that every child gets a quality education.
Here’s my final question: how can the state defend it’s willingness deny a quality education to all children while at the same time wresting the control of “failing schools” from local boards who are more than willing to make every effort to achieve that goal?
On the one hand I feel bad posting twice in one day about gun violence, but this article in the Washington Post merits a post of its own. After digging around on Google I’ve learned that six states, OK, MO, IL, TN, AR, and NJ, specifically mandate active shooter drills for schools while 26 other states require general school lockdown or safety drills. Last year 10 State legislatures considered legislation that mandate “active shooter drills” as outlined in this synopsis written by Lauren Heintz for the National Conference of State Legislatures:
Since the Newtown, Conn., school shooting tragedy in December 2012, state lawmakers have been working on strategies to strengthen K-12 safety and preparedness. One of the most common responses has been to add “active shooter” or “school intruder” drills to the list of general emergency drills that 32 states already require schools to conduct for earthquakes, fires, tornadoes and other potential disasters.
Lawmakers in 10 states—Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Tennessee—have introduced such legislation since last year. The bills tend to address only general requirements for the drills, such as how many must be conducted each year and who needs to be involved, rather than specifically what should occur during the drill. Like the laws requiring schools to conduct general emergency drills, the proposed “active shooter” measures give districts and schools the flexibility to implement the type of drill they determine is best for them, from simple discussions and table-top exercises to full-scale operations involving emergency and law enforcement personnel.
To address concerns that the “active shooter” drills might unduly frighten children, the National Association of School Psychologists has created guidelines for the drills.They include recommendations that school officials steer clear of potentially traumatic stimuli, such as blank bullets or fake blood; collaborate with an outside expert to conduct the drills; and focus on communicating the purpose of the drills with students and families well in advance.
The mandatory active shooter drills provide zealous police forces with an opportunity to use their acting talents as the Washington Post article referenced above indicated. That article featured this picture from an “active shooter drill” staged earlier this year in NJ:
The picture raised a number of questions in my mind:
- Who took the picture?
- Who gave authorization for this to occur?
- Who authorized the picture?
- Why are the policeman smiling?
- Were parents smiling when they received panicked texts from their children?
- How did administrators handle the influx of panicked parents?
- Were the CHILDREN smiling afterwards?
- How did teachers and school personnel handle the panicked children afterwards?
- Were the TEACHERS smiling afterwards?
- How did administrators deal with the teachers who were stunned by the unannounced drill?
- Would the police have arrived before the shooter and his hostage left the school in a REAL “event” of this nature?
- How would police handle a shooting event if their was already carnage in the school?
- Do we need to legislate drills for cleaning up wounded bodies since most shooting incidents occur without warning and end within minutes?
- Who thought this was a good idea?
- Who drafted the legislation that mandated these drills?
I’ve got a catchy phrase for this kind of legislation: No Child Left Unafraid. I’ll be watching the legislative docket in NH to make sure I get an opportunity to weigh in any legislation they consider about this!
My daughter posted Maria Konnikova’s New Yorker article on gun violence research on Facebook with this synopsis:
This article is worth a read. It provides strong scientific evidence that really debunks the prevailing theory that mental illness is the main cause of gun violence. In actuality, it’s a much more complex mix of factors.
The article IS worth a read and provides an overview of research done by Jeffrey Swanson, a medical sociologist and professor of psychiatry at Duke University on gun violence incidents over the past several decades. His research demonstrates that there is not a causal link between mental health and gun violence. One of the telling sections of the article was this:
(Swanson) found that the occurrence of violence was more closely associated with whether someone was male, poor, and abusing either alcohol or drugs—and that those three factors alone could predict violent behavior with or without any sign of mental illness. If someone fit all three of those categories, the likelihood of them committing a violent act was high, even if they weren’t also mentally ill. If someone fit none, then mental illness was highly unlikely to be predictive of violence. “That study debunked two myths,” Swanson said. “One: people with mental illness are all dangerous. Well, the vast majority are not. And the other myth: that there’s no connection at all. There is one. It’s quite small, but it’s not completely nonexistent.”
Swanson concludes that laws linking mental illness with gun purchases are unsupportable if the purpose is to commit violent acts like school shootings, though his research did show that preventing mentally ill people from acquiring guns might have an impact on suicides. Near the end of the article Swanson did offer his thoughts on gun control and mental health:
If Swanson had his way, gun prohibitions wouldn’t be based on mental health, but on records of violent behavior—not just felonies, but also including minor disputes. “There are lots of people out there carrying guns around who have high levels of trait anger—the type who smash and break things,” he said. “I believe they shouldn’t have guns. That’s what’s behind the idea of restricting firearms with people with misdemeanor violent-crime convictions or temporary domestic-violence restraining orders, or even multiple D.U.I.s.”
So how would Swanson’s ideas prevent school shootings? One possible means might be to restrict the availability of firearms to students who engage in violent behavior in school or who have a history of drug and alcohol use. Such preventative measures would require school disciplinary records to be shared with whoever is charged with enforcing gun restrictions… a concept that has obvious privacy issues… This poses some thorny questions. Why are we reluctant to identify students who are arguably at risk to commit violent crimes using firearms while at the same time being willing to install surveillance cameras that arguably impinge on every student’s privacy? Why are we reluctant to restrict access to weapons and at the same time impinge on the public access to schools by having armed guards and/or security locks at the entry way? And lastly…. why are we concerned about the liberty of gun owners but not concerned about the liberty of school children?
Nick Kristoff’s column in today’s NYTimes poses this question: “Do Politicians Love Kids?“. My answer is: “Yes…. but… they love shareholders more!”
Kristoff’s column focuses on the need for universal prekindergarten, an issue he believes both parties can support. The column offers James Heckman’s research as evidence along with lots of statistics comparing our nation’s preschool programming with our “competitors”.
But, as noted in earlier posts on this issue, I believe Republicans and “school reform” advocates will use the expansion of prekindergarten as an opportunity to expand “choice” and expand the privatization movement that has burgeoned under NCLB, RTTT, and in urban districts under the control of business minded neo-liberal and/or conservative mayors. This led me to leave the following comment:
Given the Republican majority in the House and Senate and a handful of sympathetic neo-liberal Democrats here’s the likely pre-kindergarten scenario: vouchers. Instead of putting prekindergarten programs under the aegis of public school systems Republicans and “school reform” Democrats will advocate for “parental choice” and use the funds to open privatized programs instead of expanding the mission of “failed government schools”… and the shareholders of these programs will benefit while urban neighborhood schools and small rural schools wither.
Politicians love kids… but they love shareholders even more… because kids can’t vote or make campaign contributions but shareholders can.