Dec. 2, 2015
A matter of
trust: if the truth hurts, exaggerations hurt more
Three related issues: Trust, funding for K-12, and
test scores
Tests and money. Low scores for Colorado students on the 2015 PARCC
tests will lead some to connect a lack of funding to poor results; you cut $1
billion a year to education and expect us to do well?[1] Others will argue that if K-12 schools want
more funds, first they need to show better results. The chicken or egg question. Both “sides” of the debate raise the issue of
trust. Do we trust the value of the
tests, the validity of the scores, the motives of companies profiting from
these assessments? Do we trust the
schools to use taxpayer money wisely? Do we trust the state, the district, the local
school board to act in the best interest of our kids? A
variety of perspectives, but for all—trust is a key theme.
Unknowingly, trust has been a recurring theme in my recent newsletters.
In AV#136 I spoke of “my on-going concern about the ‘honesty gap’ in education.” Some will say I add to the mistrust by
raising doubts about statements from district leaders in Aurora, Adams 14, Pueblo,
and Sheridan; from the Colorado Education Initiative; and from those cheering the
(misleading) news about better high school graduation rates. Not my goal, but trust is again on my
mind. Addressed directly in my closing
remarks.
**
This white-haired senior citizen hopes
he is still of relatively sound mind. How childish it would be if he behaved like
a schoolboy back in the K-5 playground, taunting his buddies, “TOLD YOU SO!”
As we come to grips with the
PARCC results, I offer a look back at recent goals and results. Meant—not, I promise, as “I told you so”—but
as a cautionary note. About being
realistic. About the need to swallow
hard and speak honestly about how well our students perform. About the loss of trust when we present
false narratives about the miracles we will perform in a few years if we only…
Get $175 million.
NAEP
results – foreshadowing the PARCC scores
Colorado has participated in the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) for 25 years. For those
who think highly of the NAEP tests, Colorado’s scores have sent a more
troubling message than CSAP delivered, once the state assessment was first
given in 1997. (See details on Colorado’s NAEP scores vs. CSAP for 2003 and
2007, Addendum A.) “Proficiency” on the national test was always
tougher to achieve. (See report by
Achieve, Addendum B.) For example, between 2003 and 2009 roughly
two-thirds of Colorado students taking our state reading test scored
proficient; during those same years, on NAEP (based on just a fraction of Colorado
students[2]),
less than 40% of our 4th and 8th graders taking the test were
proficient. In math, while CSAP results told
us over 50% of our students were proficient, a much lower percentage—especially
for 8th graders—achieved that level on NAEP.
Last month we received Colorado’s
NAEP scores for 2015—as well as the state results on PARCC. On NAEP, less than 40% of our 8th
graders achieved proficiency in reading and math. Though disappointing to see the drop in both
subjects since the previous test in 2013, overall—the scores were fairly
consistent with those since 2007.
NAEP
scores - % at or above proficient
|
|
Colorado NAEP scores
|
U.S.
Average
|
||||
|
|
2007
|
2009
|
2011
|
2013
|
2015
|
2015
|
|
4th
grade Reading
|
36
|
40
|
39
|
41
|
39
|
35
|
|
8th
grade Reading
|
35
|
32
|
40
|
40
|
38
|
33
|
|
4th
grade Math
|
41
|
45
|
47
|
50
|
43
|
39
|
|
8th
grade Math
|
37
|
40
|
43
|
42
|
37
|
32
|
4 observations
for COLORADO:
·
“...all
children above average...”?
Hardly. We saw 50% achieve
proficiency on one test only, in one grade, one year—4th grade math in 2013. Overall, only 2 out of 5 students were
proficient in 2015.
·
2-3% point increase between 2007 and 2015 in
reading and 2% point increase in 4th grade math.
·
2-5% point decline between 2011 and 2015 in 8th
grade reading, and for grade 4 and 8 in
math.
·
THE MEDIA: Compare and contrast The Denver Post’s coverage of NAEP, 2011
vs. 2015 (Addendum C)
We must now adjust to PARCC
scores that—like NAEP—are lower, as they reflect higher expectations. This is one of the benefits, unpleasant as
the scores may be, of asking Colorado students to take an assessment that will
help us see how we are doing compared to at least five other PARCC states. (Last month, our first look: Colorado, New
Jersey, and Mexico - http://co.chalkbeat.org/2015/11/12/colorado-students-vs-new-jersey-students-and-6-other-charts-breaking-down-new-parcc-results/#.Vk4Ze_mrTIV.) It was
easier to dismiss the validity of the NAEP test when fewer than 100 schools and
only 4,500 Colorado students participated; last spring, most Colorado public
schools, and roughly 450,000 Colorado students, took the PARCC English and math
assessments. Now we can say comparisons
are more meaningful.
Lake Wobegon, where “… all the children are
above average”
“Colorado scores on ‘nation’s report card’ decline but
stay above national scores,”
Chalkbeat Colorado (10/27/15)
PHEW!!! Colorado can still claim we are ABOVE AVERAGE
nationally! However, NAEP continues to
say most Colorado students tested are not proficient, and now PARCC—more
aligned to our state standards – makes the same point. Thanks to Garrison Keillor and Prairie Home
Companion, we’ve chuckled about the “Lake Wobegon-effect” for decades. But the joke is on us. The truth hurts.
We try to digest the difficult
news, look ahead, and—I hope—set meaningful goals. In light of the grim news, please,
no spin. No boasting. No tall tales. It seems a habit. We see it in goals set five years ago.
I ask you to take a look back. In 2010, when Colorado submitted its Race to the
Top proposal to the federal government, among our goals, we asserted that—on the NAEP test by 2015—60% of 4th graders would be proficient
in reading, and 60% of 8th
graders proficient in math. (Bold mine.)
When I read that, I asked a CDE leader—in
my most ungracious way—what were they smoking when they wrote that?
No I didn’t. But perhaps that’s
what I implied.
The CDE official snapped at me as
if I had accused her of lying. Not my
point. But the impossibility of
attaining that goal was so apparent that I could not help but think of the oft-heard
scream from potty-mouthed tennis star John McEnroe to the umpire up in the
chair: “Can you be serious?!”
The just-released 2015 NAEP
results for Colorado reveal the folly of those “ambitious” goals.
National
Assessment of Educational Progress
%
Proficient and Advanced
|
|
Score –
2009
|
GOAL for 2015–
in Colorado’s RTTT application (2010)
|
Result – 2015*
|
GAP – Goal vs. Result
|
|
4th
grade Reading
|
40
|
60
|
39
|
-21
|
|
8th
grade Reading
|
32
|
52
|
38
|
-14
|
|
4th
grade Math
|
45
|
65
|
43
|
-22
|
|
8th
grade Math
|
40
|
60
|
37
|
-23
|
When writing that
application to the U.S. Department of Education, CDE could look at our scores
in 2003, 2005, and (as shown) for 2007 and 2009, yet still we presented these
remarkably “aspirational” goals.
The RTTT
application also presented CDE’s goals for 2014 in reading and math on our
state assessment. In the summer of 2010
I titled my newsletter: “Colorado’s RTTT
Goal: 85% proficient and advanced by 2014 – How credible is that?”(AV#63). Here are those goals, and the results:
Colorado
State Assessment Program (CSAP)/ Transitional Colorado
Assessment Program (TCAP)
%
Proficient and Advanced*
|
|
Score
(CSAP) 2009
|
GOAL for 2014–
in Colorado’s RTTT application (2010)
|
Result (TCAP) 2014
|
GAP – Goal vs. Result
|
|
Reading
|
68.3
|
85
|
68.9
|
-16.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Math
|
54.5
|
85
|
56.4
|
-28.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Raising
doubts about our leaders’ credibility
Just
following one of my role models: Peggy Noonan
MD: You were tough on George W. Bush when
he vowed in his second Inaugural to rid the world of tyranny—and you called
Obama’s 2014 State of the Union delusional. What does re-election do to our
leaders?
PN: All but the most stubbornly sturdy of
them can be affected by the daily world they live in, which is too
heightened, too full of over-the-top adoration and denunciation. You have to be a pretty tough customer not
to let all that affect your thinking.
From interview in Time
Magazine with Michael Duffy (11/16/15)
|
Wait a minute, you say: such
goals were based in part on the $175 million we might receive from the federal
government if our state was named a winner of the Race to the Top funds.
Furthermore, after losing that competition, we had a recession, budget cuts,
“the negative factor” … much less for professional development for teachers, fewer
supports for kids, bigger classes, etc. etc.
True.
Still. Were the goals ever realistic—even if $1 billion had
suddenly been showered our way?
Why
look back? “The Janus Effect”
|
From
The Leadership Challenge,
by
James M. Kouzes & Barry Z. Posner
From
ch. 5 - “Reflect on your past”
“… to be able to envision the
possibilities in the distant future, to enhance your ability to be
forward-looking, look first into the past.”
|
Why look back this way, dredging up a five-year old “vision for
Colorado”? One that brought not a penny,
one so far removed from today’s top issues? Does it
really matter if what the state, or a superintendent, or a nonprofit leader,
said then, looks foolish, or false, now?
“
… let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late”
(Bob
Dylan, “All Along the Watchtower”)
|
“Acknowledge
the need to substantially improve. Just bragging about the districts you
outperform has two insidious effects: Trust erodes with parents and employers
who aren't fooled….” Tom Coyne, “10 steps to improve student learning,” Denver Post, 11/22/15.
|
Why? Because trust always matters. Because we
get off easy by saying—“Oh, we didn’t really
mean it.” Because leaders in the
education community hurt our cause
the more we mislead, overstate—or worse.
We show little respect for teachers, parents, and voters who recognize—let’s
be blunt—our phony claims.
What do I suggest
for education policy? Especially if our cause includes making the case for more funds—as I believe it
must?
To earn trust,
let’s be truthful. Two years ago, Colorado
Amendment 66, the Tax Increase for Education Initiative, lost handily, 899,927 to 496,151. Many arguing for the tax increase claimed it
would boost transparency. Sen. Mike
Johnston, a sponsor of the legislation calling for the ballot initiative,
stated: "We’ll have for the first time the metrics where a
taxpayer, a voter, a legislator will be able to see clearly what return they
got and be able to change the investment if they want to.” (https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Tax_Increase_for_Education,_Amendment_66_(2013)#Supporters).
Almost 900,000 Colorado voters
might have responded: Well, that would be
nice, but we don’t believe it. Why? In part because we have learned not to
believe much that we hear from education leaders.
This
Independent voter is fully aware of our state’s partisan divide around more
taxes for K-12 education. Many fear we
are paralyzed. Public policy–for
education or any vital issue in our state—is so complex, only a sanctimonious fool
would suggest we follow an old proverb. So I will: “Honesty is the best policy.”
Another View is a newsletter by Peter Huidekoper. Comments
are welcome. 303-757-1225 / peterhdkpr@gmail.com
Addendum
A – NAEP vs. CSAP – % proficient or advanced
2003 – Colorado students
|
|
CSAP
|
NAEP
|
GAP between
CSAP & NAEP score
|
|
4th grade Reading
|
63
|
37
|
26
|
|
8th grade Reading
|
66
|
36
|
30
|
|
4th grade Math
|
No Test given
– under development
|
34
|
|
|
8th grade Math
|
38
|
34
|
4
|
2007 – Colorado students
|
|
CSAP
|
NAEP
|
GAP between
CSAP & NAEP score
|
|
4th grade Reading
|
64
|
36
|
28
|
|
8th grade Reading
|
63
|
35
|
28
|
|
4th grade Math
|
71
|
41
|
30
|
|
8th grade Math
|
46
|
37
|
9
|
Addendum
B – NAEP vs CSAP - Achieve report
“Proficient
vs. Prepared: Disparities Between State Tests and the 2013 National Assessment
of Educational Progress,” (May 2015)
“Frequently,
states’ testing and reporting processes yield significantly different results
than the data collected and reported by the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP). While NAEP, the Nation’s Report Card, scores are the gold
standard for measuring student achievement and serve as a yardstick for state
comparisons, NAEP results are generally not known by students and their
families, who rely on their state test results to know how they are performing.
… Far too often, state test results mislead
the public about whether students are proficient. Parents, students, and
teachers deserve transparency and accuracy in public reporting. (May 2015) (Bold mine)
Addendum
C – A sign of the times, then and now – The
Denver Post’s look at NAEP results
2011: Top story in Denver and the West section, Nov. 2,
2011 - headline across the entire page:
Eighth-grade scores pick up
Kevin Simpson’s article emphasized the “significant improvement” for 8th
graders. He asked for and included comments
on the meaning of the NAEP results for Colorado from U.S. Rep Jared Polis and
Senator Michael Bennet, as well as from Paul Teske, Dean, and Robert Reichardt,
education policy researcher, of the School of Public Affairs at the University
of Colorado at Denver.
2015: The Denver Post
prints a Washington Post story on the results for the country https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/us-student-performance-slips-on-national-test/2015/10/27/03c80170-7cb9-11e5-b575-d8dcfedb4ea1_story.html, and reprinted the opening paragraphs of the Colorado Chalkbeat story on the results
for Colorado, a careful analysis written by Melanie Asmar (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29037183/colorado-scores-nations-report-card-decline-but-stay?source=infinite-up).
[1] “ … the
state's funding cuts to education of nearly $1 billion per year since 2010 ….” (Denver
Post, “Colorado's education
formula that cuts funding ruled constitutional,” 9/21/15)
[2] CDE: “ In Colorado, 2,200 fourth-grade students in 98 public
schools and 2,300 eighth-grade students in 94 public schools participated in
the math and reading tests.” http://www.cde.state.co.us/communications/20151028naep
