With no ACT, no PARCC, & no proficiency benchmarks
in our ESSA plan, is NAEP all we’ve got?
Mid-summer,
and a chance to reflect: Gaining ground? Inching forward?
In
several newsletters, I have challenged how districts, the state – heck, the
nation – cheer higher graduation rates (#162); how the Colorado Education
Initiative claims success in expanding Advanced Placement courses in dozens of
high schools (#137, #114, and #95); and how Colorado Succeeds celebrates progress
on the READ Act after one full year (#144). Each time, I am asking a basic question about how
we measure success. In the cases above,
it seems I measure progress differently from others.
A
few thoughts here as to whether Colorado has any agreed upon benchmarks to measure
progress. I conclude with a brief look at the long-term goals in Colorado’s
ESSA State Plan and ask if this newest way
to assess our progress is sound.
The Colorado State
Board of Education also wonders
Are we banging our head against a brick wall?
All
of us paying attention to public education ask if we see improvement, so I was
glad to learn that members of the state school board wonder too.
On
June 15, as the state board concluded its recent work reviewing and usually
approving of the proposals from schools and districts on year 5 or 6 of the
“accountability clock,” board member Steve Durham reflected on the big picture
of public education.
|
Jason Glass on national achievement gains
The new superintendent in Jefferson County Schools
offered a similar assessment, in 2015, after the first-year PARCC results
were released.
“Nearly 15
years after the passage of No Child Left Behind, which ushered in this era of
testing, big data and public shaming of so-called ‘low performing schools,’ …
our national achievement gains have actually slowed and reversed.” http://www.vaildaily.com/opinion/editorials/vail-daily-column-not-much-learned-from-tests/ (Nov,
17, 2015)
|
“I think if there’s any evidence of progress in the
last 50 years, progress - from a measurable perspective in terms of test scores
and those obvious things - it has been almost nonexistent – for all the pain
and suffering and all of the reforms - Dr. Schroeder (referring to state board
chair Angelika Schroeder) and I have disagreed about this, she thinks there is
some progress - but no one can characterize it as dramatic improvement.”
As
Colorado recently decided to end our participation in the PARCC assessments, we
will no longer be able to compare how our K-8 students perform against other
states still using PARCC. Such
comparisons had been among the goals behind joining one of the two consortiums,
PARCC or SMARTER BALANCED, several years ago—as over 40 states did; with
Colorado joining many other states withdrawing from PARCC, only 5 of the
original 24 PARCC states will participate in 2017-18.
Our shifts from CSAP to PARCC to
what-we-come up-with-next-year means that measuring and comparing student
performance over time is, well, a work in progress. The Colorado Department of
Education offers assurances that we will be able to compare how our students
do—year to year—at least within our
state. According to Chalkbeat Colorado:
“Colorado has already changed math and English testing twice
in the past decade, making comparing past results extremely difficult — if not
impossible. Officials say it won’t be the case now because this is essentially
a contract change. However, more significant test changes may need to be
considered after the state’s academic standards revision process is completed in
2018.” (http://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/co/2017/06/14/colorado-will-no-longer-give-parcc-english-and-math-tests-forging-its-own-path/).
A look back – CSAP and NAEP
Looking back 20 years, when CSAP was
introduced, can we see progress? Yes - CSAP/TCAP scores rose; e.g. in 1997, 57%
of Colorado’s 4th graders were proficient or advanced in reading; by
2014, the percentage reached 67%. A
closer look at 2005-2014, however–see Addendum
A—shows only small gains over those final 10 years.
We can
see improvement in individual schools, and certainly in specific districts like
DPS (see A Plus Colorado’s: Start with
the Facts, 2017 –page 4, “How Has
DPS Performance Changed Over Time?” http://apluscolorado.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/DPS-Report-Website-Version.pdf?ref=1725). But as
a state … what would we say? Especially
now that PARCC results indicate that throughout the CSAP/TCAP years we set the
bar for proficiency—let’s admit it—too low.
Without PARCC to compare with other states, is NAEP
how we measure progress?
|
“NAEP,
a.k.a. ‘the Nation’s Report Card,’ is the only nationally representative and
continuing assessment of what America’s students know and can do in different
subject areas. Its two major goals are to measure student achievement and to report
change in performance over time. NAEP provides results for the nation as a
whole and for the states separately.”
|
A too-simple response to Steve Durham’s
point would be to note the progress for Colorado students on the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (see box) over 17 years.
NAEP
scores for Colorado students - % at or above proficient
|
|
1998
|
2009
|
2015
|
1990’s to 2015 - Scores up by
|
|
4th grade Reading
|
33
|
40
|
39
|
6 points
|
|
8th grade Reading
|
30
|
32
|
38
|
8 points
|
|
|
1996
|
2009
|
2015
|
|
|
4th grade Math
|
22
|
45
|
43
|
19 points
|
|
8th grade Math
|
25
|
40
|
37
|
12 points
|
Gains that, as NAEP likes to say, are “statistically
significant.” In math, up until 2009
anyway, impressive!
Then again, one looks more closely at NAEP scores over
the last decade, especially since 2009, and wonders if Durham’s concern (progress
seems “almost nonexistent”) isn’t well-taken:
|
|
Colorado NAEP scores – at or above proficient
|
Gain ’07 to ’15
|
||||
|
|
2007
|
2009
|
2011
|
2013
|
2015
|
|
|
4th grade Reading
|
36
|
40
|
39
|
41
|
39
|
+3
|
|
8th grade Reading
|
35
|
32
|
40
|
40
|
38
|
+3
|
|
4th grade Math
|
41
|
45
|
47
|
50
|
43
|
+2
|
|
8th grade Math
|
37
|
40
|
43
|
42
|
37
|
-
|
More disheartening is a
look at where we said we would be on
NAEP by 2015. In Colorado’s Race to the Top application (2009) to the U.S. Department
of Education, we set a series of goals for CSAP and NAEP scores. Our application envisioned Colorado students performing
as well or better on NAEP than Massachusetts students by 2015 - see Addendum B from AV#63 - Colorado’s RTTT Goal: … How credible …? (July
2010). Perhaps it was a good idea to use
the highest-performing state as our marker, but I described the goals as “illusory,” “impossible,” and “unreachable.” I recall an unpleasant conversation with a
CDE leader back then, who explained that the goals were “aspirational.”
No need to be a prophet to
see we would fall short, as the 2015 results, below, make clear. True, we did not win that RTTT grant; big
bucks from the federal government might have helped. By 2015 our students averaged 10% points below Massachusetts students on the four
tests, and over six years the gap between
Colorado and Massachusetts students widened
for 4th grade reading and 8th grade math. On those two assessments, Colorado’s scores declined between 2009 and 2015: from 40
to 39 on 4th grade reading; from 40 to 37 on 8th grade
math.
NAEP
scores - % at or above proficient
Reality
check
RTTT goal for 4th grade reading – climb from 40% proficient
in 2009 to 60% proficient.
Instead,
we declined by 1% - 39% proficient.
RTTT goal for 8th grade reading – climb from 32% proficient
in 2009 to 52% proficient.
Instead, 8th grade scores increased
by just 6% points to 38% proficient.
RTTT goal for 4th grade math – climb from 45% proficient in
2009 to 65% proficient.
Instead,
we declined by 2% - 43% proficient.
RTTT goal for 8th grade math – climb from 40% proficient in
2009 to 60% proficient.
Instead,
we declined by 3% - 37% proficient.
And let’s not
miss the larger point: on NAEP, in 2015, over 55% of Colorado students were NOT
proficient on all four assessments.
Is NAEP our sole remaining benchmark to
measure progress over time for K-12 schools in Colorado? Back in 1996, I used
NAEP and ACT Colorado scores in a report for the Gates Family Foundation to
measure progress, 1991-1995. As we shift
from ACT to SAT for high school assessments, and as we wait to see how well
2018 assessments can be used to compare to the CMAS scores of the past three
years, is NAEP the best we can do?
Some
will say yes, especially as we now see NAEP’s scores, especially in reading,
ring true – aligning so well with PARCC results. A bleaker picture than what CSAP scores had
suggested.
|
NAEP
|
PARCC
|
|
|
4th grade
Reading
|
39%
|
41.7%
|
|
8th grade
Reading
|
38%
|
40.9%
|
Others
will disagree, reminding us that only 2,200 Colorado students take the NAEP
reading test and another 2,300 the NAEP math test, in fewer than 100 Colorado
schools.[i] So even if NAEP is a useful benchmark, it won’t
do for accountability purposes. The tests are taken, according to CDE, by a
“representative sample of students at the state level”; still, NAEP results do
not give us information on how our students
are doing, in our school, our district,
and across our state.
CDE’s goals
– clear, measurable, credible?
In
June of 2016 the Colorado Department of Education presented four state-wide goals
in its Performance Plan (http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdecomm/cdeperformanceplan). Goal #1 is to expand pre-school services. Fine, but
there are no measures of student learning.
Goal #4 (“Graduate ready”) speaks of raising graduation rates over 90%
by 2019. In AV#162 I explained why I do not
believe graduation rates tell us anything meaningful about academic achievement
(“Higher graduation rates - Fake News”).
Low ACT scores and high remediation rates speak volumes.
Perhaps
Goals #2 and #3 can be measured, even though both are surely “aspirational”:
#2 – “Every
student reads at or above grade level by the end of third grade.”
#3 – “Every
student meets or exceeds standards.”
Consider #2. In its 2016
Performance Plan CDE included the dated information
from the 2014 TCAP assessment (3rd grade proficiency - 71.6%) and dated goals (“increase third grade
reading proficiency on TCAP … with the goal of nearly 85% proficient by 2018”).
It added: “With the new state assessment, the goals will be revised in
alignment with our ESSA plan.”
Revised?
How about repeal and replace! Two years of PARCC results tell us (have we
really come to grips with this?) that the
majority of 3rd graders are not reading at grade-level.
|
3rd grade reading
|
PARCC- Met or Exceeded Expectations
|
|
2015
|
38.2%
|
|
2016
|
37.4%
|
In
departing from PARCC, can we still use this baseline data? I hope so. If we can, will the state now give
us (what is not in our ESSA plan—see next section), meaningful goals for 3rd
grade reading proficiency? How about
… say, 40% proficient by 2018? 42% by 2019?
44% by 2020?
For
Goal #3, the state plan presented the
2015 PARCC results, well below the proficiency rates than CSAP/TCAP had been
telling us since the late 1990’s. (2016 scores were similar.)
|
PARCC - % of Colorado students at
Benchmark
|
|
|
Grades 3-9
|
2015
|
|
English Language Arts
|
40%
|
|
Math
|
31%
|
Again,
CDE’s Performance Plan looked ahead to ESSA: “The Department will establish
appropriately ambitious and attainable CMASS PARCC goals through the ESSA state
plan development, along with the 2016 assessment results.” But do they measure
proficiency? No.
ESSA - Another set of goals
Here
are Colorado’s GOALS found in the opening pages of the 150-page application (Section I – pp. 9-11) and detailed in APPENDIX A: Measurements
of Interim Progress (pp. 146-147).
|
|
Baseline Distribution of Current Year Data
|
Interim Target Year 2 on Baseline Distribution
|
Interim Target Year 4 on Baseline Distribution
|
Long-term Goal on Baseline Distribution
|
|
All students
|
50th
Percentile- ELA
50th
Percentile- Math
|
51st
Percentile ELA & Math
|
52nd
Percentile
ELA & Math
|
53rd
Percentile
ELA & Math
|
B.
Graduation Rates
|
|
Baseline Current Year Data
|
Interim Target Year 2
|
Interim Target Year 4
|
Long-term Goal
|
|
All students
|
82.5%
|
85.1%
|
87.7%
|
90.3%
|
C.
English Language Proficiency
|
|
Baseline Current Year Data
|
Interim Target Year 2
|
Interim Target Year 4
|
Long-term Goal
|
|
All students
|
12%
|
13%
|
14%
|
15%
|
What’s
this, we ask? 50th percentile in English and Math …? But as we have
just seen, recent data tells us only 40% are proficient in English for grades
3-9, less than one-third in math.
In
section IV of the ESSA application, under Accountability, we read: “To ensure that student privacy is maintained, Colorado has transitioned
to the use of mean scale scores.” CDE
has explained this shift to me—see Addendum
C for a more complete explanation found in the full 150-page plan. It sounds well-intentioned: “This creates
accountability for students that are struggling greatly and currently nowhere
near meeting benchmark.” Maybe Colorado’s plan is “ambitious” enough and clear
enough for the U.S. Department of Education to approve. (Interesting to see a few
state plans already facing some tough questions[ii]. Will we be next?)
And
yet the benefits of this transition to mean scale scores are not clear to
me. I value the research and analysis of
Bellwether Education Partners. Their criticism of Colorado’s ESSA plan (see
excerpts in Addendum D) may seem
harsh, but I believe this outside perspective deserves a wide reading by
Colorado policymakers. “… the state’s plan does not set long-term
goals for students’ early preparation, includes average scale scores rather
than a proficiency measure, and does include any goals for college and career
readiness.”
CDE
will raise objections to several points made by Bellwether; moreover, I am sure
anything written to fulfill federal regulations is bound to be a bit of a
mess. But if it is fair to call “our
long-term goals … disconnected from the state’s vision”—as seems true (measuring
proficiency on one, using mean scale scores on another), surely we can do
better.
My
conclusion is that our ESSA plan brings us no closer to clear achievement goals
we can understand and rally around and measure ourselves against, year after
year.
|
State ESSA
plans: Just BS, or reform's BFF? (PODCAST
- July 5, 2017)
This podcast with Chad Aldeman of Bellwether Education Partners offers
a fun and informative exchange with Michael J. Petrilli and Alyssa Schwenk of
the Thomas B. Fordham Institute on the long-term goals required for ESSA. Listen to Petrilli mock the “utopian goals”
in many state plans: “‘Every subgroup is going to magically be at the same
level in 5 or 10 years.’” [NOTE: Colorado’s plan is a perfect example; see
the final section in Addendum C
and the stated goals for our ELL, Black, and Hispanic students in a few years.]
Petrilli continues: “… why even pretend that those goals matter? … they
[state policymakers] can’t be honest; if everything goes right we will see
incremental progress for kids and we will slowly see some slight narrowing of
the achievement gaps – that is the best case scenario. And if you’re a policymaker you just can’t
come right out and admit that.” https://edexcellence.net/commentary/podcasts/state-essa-plans-just-bs-or-reforms-bff?utm_source=Fordham+Updates&utm_campaign=2ddb0a4fe8-
_term=0_d9e8246adf-2ddb0a4fe8-70657489&mc_cid=2ddb0a4fe8&mc_eid=c7b7dd90d4
|
Does it even
matter whether we have clear, measurable goals for the state?
Do
teachers and individual schools really care about all this? Probably not. We can only have an impact on the learning
that takes place in our classroom and
our building. It mattered to me as a member of a School
Accountability Committee (SAC- 2002-04) to help our school establish meaningful
CSAP goals. As an English teacher, I
certainly shared with my classes the CSAP results from the previous year, and I
set my own goals for each year’s group. Where
school leaders and teachers feel accountable, goals matter. But beyond our building, 21-page state
performance plans and 150-page documents (and long-winded newsletters) are easy
to ignore.
But as one interested in education
policy and the big picture, I believe we should establish clear and meaningful
goals for Colorado. All of us who hope we
are making a difference would value a reliable benchmark to see if there is
progress. Critical, don’t you agree, if
we are to decide whether to “stay the course”? Or if, instead, we have to
acknowledge: even we are “inching forward,” it simply is not good enough.
***
Addendum A -
Did we see progress during the 15 years using CSAP and TCAP?
Colorado CSAP/TCAP – 2005 - 2014 - % proficient and advanced
|
|
2005
|
2006
|
2007
|
2008
|
2009
|
2010
|
2011
|
2012
TCAP
|
2013
TCAP
|
2014
TCAP
|
Change
between 2005 and 2014
|
(GOAL for
2014 stated in Colorado’s RTTT application)
|
|
READING
|
66.3%
|
67.6%
|
67.2%
|
67.8%
|
68.3%
|
68.4%
|
67.9%
|
69.3%
|
69.5%
|
68.9%
|
+2.6% pts
|
85%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MATH
|
50.6%
|
52.4%
|
53.1%
|
53.2%
|
54.5%
|
54.9%
|
55.6%
|
55.8%
|
56.7%
|
56.4%
|
+5.8% pts
|
85%
|
From 2008-2013 – “not much change” (2014)
“Since 2008, scores from the TCAP and its predecessor, CSAP, have gone
up and down slightly, adding up to not much change in a state at the forefront
of testing and considered a leader in education reform.” Eric Gorski, Yesenia
Robles: http://www.denverpost.com/2014/08/14/colorado-students-show-slight-decline-in-state-tcap-results/
“…the lack of notable academic
progress over 10 years…” (2014)
During a discussion at a
Colorado State Board of Education meeting Thursday in Denver, some members said
the lack of notable academic progress over 10 years and a large achievement gap
between low-income students and more affluent students are disturbing.
"It's very, very
troubling," said Denver board member Elaine Gantz Berman… "What we
see is very bleak data here…. Sometimes we inch up, sometimes we inch down ...
but we're not making the kind of gains that need to be made if we're going to
be competitive….”
4th grade proficiency –
increase by 10% points … but then – stagnation or a decline (2014)
A 2011 analysis of CSAP scores
by I-News and Chalkbeat Colorado found that fourth-grade proficient and
advanced levels in reading increased by 10 percentage points, from 55 to 65
percent, over the 15-year run of the CSAPs.
But that analysis also found that almost all the reading gains came in
the first 10 years of testing, with most districts either stagnating or falling
slightly since 2006.
Addendum B: From page 6
of AV#63 – Colorado’s RTTT Goal: How
Credible….? (July 2010)
(NOT ABLE TO TRANSMIT THIS PAGE HERE - See hard copy of Another View #164.)
Addendum C - From Colorado ESSA Plan – pages 50-51
4.1
Accountability System.
- Indicators. Describe
the measure(s) included in each of the Academic Achievement, Academic
Progress, Graduation Rate, Progress in Achieving English Language
Proficiency, and School Quality or Student Success indicators and how
those measures meet the requirements described in 34 C.F.R. §
200.14(a)-(b) and section 1111(c)(4)(B) of the ESEA.
- The description
for each indicator should include how it is valid, reliable, and
comparable across all LEAs in the State, as described in 34 C.F.R. §
200.14(c)….
|
Indicator
|
Measure(s)
|
Description
|
|
i. Academic Achievement
|
Mean scale score
|
The mean scale score for each state-required
content assessment in 3rd through 11th grades, in English Language Arts,
mathematics, and science is included in the Academic Achievement indicator.
This includes both traditional assessments and those aligned to the state’s
alternate assessment standards for students with the most significant
cognitive disabilities. To ensure that student privacy
is maintained, Colorado has transitioned to the use of mean scale scores.
This methodology has several other advantages over percent at benchmark (Polikoff,
2016) including that the
performance of all students is reflected in the accountability metrics, not
just those students who are close to the proficiency cut-scores. This creates accountability for students that are
struggling greatly and currently nowhere near meeting benchmark, as well
as for students who are above benchmark that can reach even higher levels.
Mean scale scores provide similar performance inferences for school
accountability as percent at benchmark. Finally, the percent of students scoring
at benchmark will be reported publicly, as long as student data privacy is
maintained.
As state assessments are administered to meet
federal requirements, they are subjected to the process of peer review by The
U.S. Department of Education (USDE). This process ensures that assessments
used for state summative reporting are aligned with the state’s academic
content standards and are “valid, reliable, and consistent with relevant,
nationally recognized professional and technical standards for the purposes
for which they are used” (USDE,
2015). Colorado submitted
the current battery of state assessments for peer review in 2016 and has
received ratings of “substantially meets” for all assessments. Colorado will
be working with the consortia and the USDE to provide the additional evidence
requested.
Since all public schools in Colorado annually
administer the same required state assessments to all students, school-level
results should be comparable statewide.
|
|
ii. Academic Progress
|
Median student growth percentile
|
The median student growth percentile for each
of the CMAS English Language Arts and mathematics assessments in 4th through
9th grades will be included in the Academic Progress indicator. When an
aligned system of high school assessments are fully implemented, Colorado
plans to report median growth percentiles for high schools as well.
Colorado has been using student growth
percentiles calculated using a quantile regression model for many years. This
normative metric describes a student’s observed progress in comparison to his
or her academic peers. A number of research papers have been published
exploring various facets of the student growth percentile model, its underlying
calculations, aggregation possibilities, and uses for making school and
district accountability inferences (Betebenner, 2009; Castellano, 2011; Dunn
& Allen, 2009; Furgol, 2010). Additionally, the model was approved by
USDE for use as part of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) growth pilot in 2009,
and has been adopted by numerous other states for various accountability and
reporting purposes. When used and interpreted appropriately, growth
percentiles are a valid measure of student learning and system improvement
and demonstrate comparable technical qualities to other measures used for
accountability reporting.
Growth calculations are based on the required
state assessments; as long as a large and sufficiently representative
statewide sample of individuals is included, the student and aggregate
results are comparable across all state systems (e.g. schools).
|
**
More details
from Colorado’s ESSA plan and our long-term goals; an excerpt from the Appendix,
MEASUREMENTS OF INTERIM PROGRESS - page 147, figure 43:
A.
Academic Achievement. English Language
Arts and Math
|
Subgroups
|
Baseline Distribution of Current Year
Data
|
Interim Target Year 2 on Baseline
Distribution
|
Interim Target Year 4 on Baseline
Distribution
|
Long-term Goal on Baseline Distribution
|
|
All students
|
50th
Percentile- ELA
50th
Percentile- Math
|
51st
Percentile ELA & Math
|
52nd
Percentile
ELA & Math
|
53rd
Percentile
ELA & Math
|
|
Economically disadvantaged students
|
18th
Percentile- ELA
19th
Percentile- Math
|
51st
Percentile ELA & Math
|
52nd
Percentile
ELA & Math
|
53rd
Percentile
ELA & Math
|
|
Children with disabilities
|
1st
Percentile- ELA
1st
Percentile- Math
|
51st
Percentile ELA & Math
|
52nd
Percentile
ELA & Math
|
53rd
Percentile
ELA & Math
|
|
English learners
|
16th
Percentile- ELA
19th
Percentile- Math
|
51st
Percentile ELA & Math
|
52nd
Percentile
ELA & Math
|
53rd
Percentile
ELA & Math
|
|
American Indian or Alaska Native
|
18th
Percentile- ELA
16th
Percentile- Math
|
51st
Percentile ELA & Math
|
52nd
Percentile
ELA & Math
|
53rd
Percentile
ELA & Math
|
|
Black
|
19th
Percentile- ELA
15th
Percentile- Math
|
51st
Percentile ELA & Math
|
52nd
Percentile
ELA & Math
|
53rd
Percentile
ELA & Math
|
|
Hispanic
|
21st
Percentile- ELA
20th
Percentile- Math
|
51st
Percentile ELA & Math
|
52nd
Percentile
ELA & Math
|
53rd
Percentile
ELA & Math
|
Addendum D
An Independent Review of ESSA State
Plans, by Bellwether Education Partners* (6/27/2017)
(Bold mine)
From Executive Summary
This batch of ESSA
plans marks another radical shift. As a country, we’re moving away from
criterion-referenced accountability systems—where all schools are held to the
same, predetermined criteria—to norm-referenced ones, where schools are
compared to each other instead of to some external criteria. This change has
given states the freedom to adopt more rigorous, and more honest, state
standards and assessments, but it has also created a disconnect between the
standards for students and the standards for schools. As one peer put it,
states are now putting “the engine of a Mercedes in a Ford Taurus body.” That is, states have done the hard work of
adopting more rigorous standards and more sophisticated assessments, but
they’re only holding schools accountable for their place in relative ranking
systems. Those systems ignore information on whether or not students are on
track to succeed in college and careers. https://bellwethereducation.org/sites/default/files/Bellwether_ESSAReview_ExecSumm_Final_0.pdf
From Colorado –Project Overview (9 pages)
Under Weaknesses:
Colorado is
proposing to shift to an entirely normative approach, where all indicators and
the accountability system itself are based on relative performance, not a
predefined standard. That approach may
not be sufficiently clear to parents, educators, or other stakeholders, and it
means the accountability system has no incentives aligned to the state’s
professed goal of college and career readiness for all students. The state also
lacks coherent goals for its schools, and the ones provided are disconnected
from the state’s long-term vision. As a result, the system does not provide
schools clear signals about how they need to improve, and it’s particularly
problematic for those students who have been historically sidelined as a result
of their race, class, and/or life circumstances. (page 1)
Under Plan Components: Each state’s plan has been rated on a
scale of 1 (“This practice should be avoided by other states”) to 5 (“This
could be a potential model for other states”).
Goals: Are the state’s vision, goals, and interim targets aligned,
ambitious, and attainable? Why or why not?
Bellwether’s
report gave Colorado its lowest score on this component, a 1 out of 5.
Colorado’s long-term goals are disconnected from the state’s vision.
The vision lays out the priorities of all students demonstrating readiness for
school, third-grade reading proficiency, meeting or exceeding standards
throughout their schooling years, and graduating high school ready for college
and careers. However, the state’s plan
does not set long-term goals for students’ early preparation, includes average
scale scores rather than a proficiency measure, and does not include any goals
for college and career readiness. The enumerated long-term vision is also
disconnected from the state’s system for classifying school performance.
Colorado has not set clear long-term goals or interim targets to reach
its vision. Instead, the state has proposed a confusing percentile-based system
that intends to raise the statewide performance from the 50th to the 53rd
percentile. The goal to increase the average scale score from the 50th to the
53rd percentile statewide in six years is (1) difficult for parents, educators,
and the public to understand; (2) does not set strong expectations for all
schools and all groups of students to improve; and, (3) may not be ambitious
improvement because the plan does not provide any information about the
percentage of students meeting grade-level standards at that performance level.
Each of these factors goes against best-practice research on goal setting.
As written, Colorado
expects children with disabilities, who currently score at the 1st percentile
statewide, to score at the 53rd percentile in six years. That would be an
impressive gain, but Colorado also expects Asian students, who currently score
at the 82nd percentile statewide, to regress backward to the same 53rd
percentile within six years.
In contrast, Colorado has set graduation rate goals using objective
data on past performance. The state set a goal of increasing its graduation
rate to 90.3 percent within a six-year time frame, based on its analysis of
what the state has achieved in recent years. But unlike the percentile
approach, which is normative, graduation rate gains are based on actual,
observed changes over time against a predefined threshold. The state should
apply a similar approach to its achievement goals.
Lastly, Colorado’s
plan lacks information and specificity about historical English-language
proficiency performance, goals, and interim targets. (page 3)
--
Note also Bellwether’s low scores (2
out of 5) for Colorado’s plan for the sections on accountability indicators and academic
progress.
[i] “Participation Facts: • Nationwide: 137,400 public
school fourth- grade students in 7,230 schools participated. • Nationwide:
135,100 public school eighth-grade students in 5,670 schools participated. •
Colorado: 2,200 public school fourth- grade students in 98 schools
participated. • Colorado: 2,300 public school eighth-grade students in 94
schools participated.” (http://www.cde.state.co.us/assessment/naepsummaryreading4and8
[ii] Letter from U.S. Department of Education of Delaware
on its ESSA plan: “Because the proposed long-term goals for academic
achievement are not ambitious, DDOE must revise its plan ….” https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplan17/deprelimdetermltr.pdf
ALSO -
Every Student Succeeds Act
Consolidated State Plan - Frequently Asked Questions June 16, 2017 – from U.S.
DOE -
5. If the statute does not define certain terms, such
as “ambitious” long-term goals, “substantial” weight of indicators, or “much
greater” weight of certain indicators over others, who determines the meaning
of those terms? In cases where the statute does not define a specific term, a
State has significant discretion to determine how it will define that term. In
accordance with the Secretary’s responsibility to review State plans, the
Secretary is obligated to make a determination as to whether a State’s proposed
definition, on its face, is reasonable. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/essastateplansfaqs.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment