Dangerously Irrelevant

Regular readers of this blog know that I don’t always agree with Dr. Jason Glass, Director of the Iowa Department of Education. But I’m going to be one of the first to say how sorry I am that he’s leaving Iowa for his new position as Superintendent of the Eagle County (CO) Schools.

I have ongoing concerns about some of the directions that Iowa educational policy is heading. Like in other states, we have seen policy proposals in recent years that hurt kids, schools, and our state. From teacher ‘accountability’ to third grade retention to assigning schools letter grades, these policies play well to certain fringes of the ‘ed reform’ crowd but have nothing to do with transforming education in ways that facilitate deeper thinking, student agency, or relevance in a digital, global world. Unfortunately, our policymakers also are not immune to the influx of outside monies. When the Governor is a founding member of ALEC and the largest political donor in the last legislative race is StudentsFirst, Iowa can expect to face some significant issues regarding inappropriate outside and/or corporate influence on policies that affect its children, teachers, and schools. In a state where most educational professionals either don’t have an online voice or aren’t willing to use it, I have felt the need to sometimes speak against some of the lunacy.

For the most part I think that Jason has been a moderating influence on much of this. Despite the policy positions from above (or outside) for which he’s sometimes had to stand behind, he’s pretty middle of the road on most things. Every conversation that I’ve had with Jason has been nothing but congenial and respectful. In addition to his advocacy for strengthening the teaching profession, he’s been a strong supporter of competency-based education (which, along with technology, I believe has the greatest potential in our state for upending school as we know it). He has tried to help us learn from high-achieving school systems and he’s facilitated the expansion of online learning. He fostered the #iaedfuture Twitter hashtag (which has become an important channel for conversations about Iowa school policy) and has been exceptionally accessible to the larger public via his blog and Twitter. And he always, always is proud of and talks highly about the work that Iowa educators and schools are doing. One of our greatest strengths in our state is the tremendous interconnectedness and mutual support that Iowans and their educators give to each other. We have a long history of caring about education, we are small enough that everyone seems to know each other, and it’s relatively easy to get positive movements started. Jason has always understood this and, in his way, tried to leverage these strengths to do good things for kids and schools. Although I have expressed occasional concern about the possibility of Iowa becoming one of ‘those states’ (yes, Florida, Louisiana, Texas, New York, Tennessee, etc., I’m talking about you), we have a number of fantastic things happening here when it comes to education. Some are a direct result of Jason’s leadership. For others – such as the grass roots 1:1 computing movement or the burgeoning standards-based-grading awakening – he has known when to stay out of the way (a much less appreciated but critically important characteristic of effective leaders).

So I’m going to miss you, Jason. Thanks for taking the ACT with me. Thanks for the public Twitter exchanges that everyone saw and the private email exchanges that everyone didn’t. I hope you have a smooth transition back to a place that was once home and wish you the very best in your new role. And if you ever want some help or support on the technology front – particularly with your building- and district-level leaders – please don’t hesitate to get in touch.

3 Megabits per second (Mbps). That’s the peak download speed of Sprint’s 3G mobile phone service. That’s also how Iowa and the United States define ‘broadband’ Internet access: a minimum of 3 Mbps download speed and 0.75 Mbps upload speed. Only 66% of Iowans have access to even this minimal level of ‘broadband’ in their homes. Moreover, one out of every four Iowa businesses is not accessing so-called ‘broadband’ services.

Take a look the map below. See all of the areas that are light green, yellow, or tan? Those are areas for which the maximum – yes, maximum – advertised download speed (as collected by ConnectIowa) is 3 to 6 Mbps or less. That’s the same as Sprint’s 4G mobile phone service. And that’s maximum advertised speed, not even regularly available speed. Those of us with ‘broadband’ access know that these are very different.

According to Akamai, the average connection speed in the U.S. is 7.6 Mbps but the average speed for Iowa is only 6.0 Mbps. Out of 12 states in the Midwest, Iowa’s average Internet connection speed is 11th, better than only Kansas. Even worse, Iowa’s broadband adoption rate dropped 11% from 3rd quarter to 4th quarter in 2012, the only state with a quarterly loss greater than 10%. Most states had adoption rate gains, not losses.

When most of Iowa has anemic Internet access, that doesn’t bode well for economic viability. When most regions in Iowa have Internet access that at best is what we get on a smartphone, that’s not a platform for economic, workforce, and entrepreneurial success.

Today the Internet is essential infrastructure, supporting the ability of individuals and organizations to innovate, build, sell, and serve. Everything is moving to the Web but right now Iowa is far, far behind what it needs for a hyperconnected, hypercompetitive digital, global economy.

Want to stop Iowa’s ‘brain drain?’ Want to provide a ‘world class education’ for Iowa students? Want to make Iowa more entrepreneurial, innovative, and globally relevant? Fix this.

Brandon Busteed says:

Every student in the world, from pre-K to higher ed, needs:

• Someone who cares about their development
• To do what they like to do each day
• To do what they are best at every day

That’s it. It should be the new bill of rights for all students – and frankly, all people – worldwide.

via http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brandon-busteed/the-new-bill-of-rights-for-all-students_b_3306642.html

We already have some schools that are organized around these principles. They’re amazing, incredible, energizing places of learning. Now, if we could just get policymakers, educators, and parents on board so that we can scale…

Mike Wiser at The Quad-City Times reported today on the controversy here in Iowa around connecting student test scores to teacher evaluations (aka ‘value-added modeling’ or ‘VAM’). Last week I shared the research and prevailing opinion of scholars supporting why this should not be done.

In the article, notes that ‘teacher accountability has to be be part of it, or it’s not reform.’ This is consonant with policymakers’ general willingness to ignore the rating volatility concerns associated with VAM. As Amrein-Beardsley, et al. (2013) noted:

Policymakers have come to accept VAM as an objective, reliable, and valid measure of teacher quality. At the same time, [they ignore] the technical and methodological issues.

There appears to be a blind faith by many legislators in the objectivity of VAM, even though the actual data show that there is extremely high volatility in teacher ratings from year to year. Somehow policymakers are able to dismiss that rating instability as unimportant, even though it has tremendous impacts on teachers’ lives and reputations and public faith in the educational system. When Teachers of the Year are being rated ‘unsatisfactory’ by VAM systems, parents are rightfully suspicious. When high-achieving schools are rated as ‘needing improvement’, the public rightfully suspects that something’s not right. It’s important to note that legislators are not asking other professions to accept evaluation schemes in which 30 to 50 percent (or more) of their ratings fluctuate widely and completely randomly.

Of greater concern to me, however, is the response of Tom Narak, lobbyist for the School Administrators of Iowa (SAI). SAI represents all of the principals and superintendents in the state and is supposed to be knowledgeable about educational research and policy. Yet Mr. Narak says about VAM, “Why wouldn’t you? It’s the way (evaluations) are going now.”

Well, Mr. Narak, here are a few big reasons why we wouldn’t:

• Because year-to-year ratings for teachers are randomly varying 30%, 40%, 50%, or even higher [Di Carlo; Economic Policy Institute; Baker; National Education Policy Center]. In other words, extremely high percentages of teachers’ evaluations have absolutely nothing to do with their actual performance. As lobbyist for the administrators responsible for evaluating teachers, this should be alarming to you, not dismissed out-of-hand. Do you want principals and superintendents to send the message to their teaching staffs that they don’t care if evaluations are fair?
• Because even when student test scores are averaged over 3 to 5 years, random variation in teacher ratings still results in over 25% to 48% of teachers being rated inaccurately [U.S. Department of Education; Di Carlo]. In other words, when it comes to rating instability, looking over a longer time frame helps some but not a lot.
• Because the National Research Council, the National Academy of Education, the American Educational Research Association, RAND, the Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University, the National Education Policy Center, James Popham, Gerald Bracey, Robert Linn, and many, many other of our most-respected scholars and research organizations all have looked at the research and said vehemently that we shouldn’t. In short, it’s a “who’s who” of educational policy and research – the folks we have trusted to inform us on policy decisions – all unilaterally aligned against VAM systems because of their volatility and unfairness.
• Because when VAM systems are implemented, predictably ludicrous and harmful results occur. These policy decisions have real consequences for our teachers for whom we supposedly have such great respect.
• Because even if we could devise a fair VAM system (which right now no one seems to be able to do), research shows consistently that the contribution of teachers to overall student test scores is 10% to 15% at most. The rest is attributable to other school factors or non-school factors. Any VAM system that imputes greater teacher responsibility than that small percentage would be highly unethical.
• Because holding teachers ‘accountable’ for random variation and/or factors outside of their control violates both the equal protection and due process rights due teachers under the U.S. Constitution.

If Mr. Narak and SAI are going to take a policy position on teacher evaluation, they should be up on the research I cited last week. In fact, on April 21 I e-mailed Mr. Narak the research noted above. Apparently, like many legislators, he and SAI don’t seem to care that the teacher evaluation systems for which they’re expressing support are inherently unfair and probably illegal? Would they feel the same if we were talking about the principals and superintendents whom they represent?

“Dear principal, 33% of your year-to-year evaluation will be completely random. Even though what you did this year isn’t substantially different from what you did last year, you may end up being rated highly or you may be rated near the bottom. Despite the extreme rating instability, there will be real consequences for you depending on the results. Good luck.”

Our teachers deserve evaluation systems that are fair. If they’re not fair, they’re unethical. If they’re not fair, they’re illegal. And right now, despite their intuitive appeal and legislative popularity in certain circles, VAM systems are unable to meet the basic principle of fairness and thus should not be supported by SAI or any other knowledgeable educational organization or policymaker.

[I'll also note as an aside that some states are starting to talk about evaluating administrators based on student test scores. If we are rightfully concerned about volatility in teacher ratings, wait until we remove the connection to students one additional step and try to tie scores to administrators. In other words, SAI, be careful for what you advocate because the principals and superintendents you represent are next…]

Finally, I’ll close with a plea to Jason Glass, Director of the Iowa Department of Education (DE), to publicly release the research that he has which supposedly supports VAM. Over the past months Jason has said repeatedly that DE and the Governor were not advocating for VAM approaches. And yet, here at the end of the legislative session, we somehow find ourselves discussing VAM systems and both DE and the Governor are supporting them. Whatever research Jason has, it’s going to somehow have to address the concerns noted above. Given that leading scholars and our most respected educational research/policy organizations are familiar with and have summarized the literature base and yet still strongly advocate against VAM, I’m skeptical. But, hey, maybe he’s got a bunch of dispositive studies with which both I and they are unfamiliar…

—–

I recognize that this post likely is going to make me unpopular with SAI (and even more unpopular than I already am with DE), which I regret because I’ve had good relations with them for a long time. But when the weight of the evidence is overwhelmingly against the policy position for which they’re advocating, I can’t just sit by and say nothing, not when it has very real, negative consequences for Iowa educators. John Ewing, President of Math for America, notes:

Of course we should hold teachers accountable, but this does not mean we have to pretend that mathematical models can do something they cannot.

I’ll state emphatically that we absolutely, under any circumstances, shouldn’t pretend that mathematical imprecision in evaluative processes has no impact on teachers’ lives and the fairness of our educational systems.

As always, I await your thoughts…

Should teachers be evaluated by students’ standardized test scores? While that idea seems to make intuitive sense, my newest resource on value-added measures (VAM) highlights the rating volatility, legal issues, and other concerns that have led our most trusted assessment experts and educational research/policy organizations to vehemently advocate against evaluating teachers with student test scores:

• Value-added measures

As we make policy, our teachers deserve our thoughtful, informed consideration. I hope this resource is helpful to you.

Are you ready to rethink your acceptable use policies (AUPs)? If so, here are some resources for you:

• Rethinking AUPs

Let me know what you think (and what you might add to the resource lists). I’m always on the search for student and/or employee AUPs that focus more on empowered use rather than hammering on safety/security concerns. We need more AUPs that emphasize YES! instead of NO!

Image credit: Bigstock, man pressing yes button

One of the Iowa Department of Education’s favorite phrases is ‘evidence-based,’ as in “schools and educators should be adopting ‘evidence-based’ practices.” That makes sense on its surface, right? So when the DE issued a press release today touting two Iowa districts that had adopted the National Institute for Excellence in Teaching’s (NIET) Teacher Advancement Program (TAP) – which focuses on teacher leadership and performance-based teacher compensation – I started digging around in Google Scholar for research about the program. I don’t live in the world of teacher leadership/compensation and thus don’t know much about TAP other than that it appears to support the DE’s policy proposals this legislative session (and that Dr. Brad Buck, an amazing school leader that I greatly respect, is the superintendent of one of the two districts). For all I know, TAP could be amazing or it could be puffery…

What did I find?

• A study from Stanford University finding small positive student learning impacts in math and none in reading
• A study from Vanderbilt University finding positive student learning impacts in math at the elementary level and negative student learning impacts in math in grades 6-10 (when controlling for selection bias)
• A dissertation in Louisiana that found no student learning impact in elementary English / Language Arts
• A study by Mathematica finding no student learning impact in math, reading, or science in the Chicago Public Schools (after 4 years)

And, of course, on its web site I found research from NIET itself claiming that TAP is awesome. Indeed, there’s a plethora of publications on TAP’s web site from NIET; agencies such as the Milken Family Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, or the Gates Foundation that have funded TAP; and ideologically-oriented educational organizations. But despite TAP’s claims of ‘a decade-long track record of growth and success in raising student achievement in high-need schools‘ (page 19), the evidence from independent researchers is decidedly more mixed and leans much more pessimistic when it comes to student learning outcomes.

So is TAP ‘evidence-based’ or puffery? Given the greater preponderance of negative findings by outside, independent scholars, it appears to be extremely arguable. Given that uncertainty and its own call for ‘evidence-based’ practices, should DE be basing its 2013 education reform package on the TAP model? (and should it be touting the model via press releases to the Iowa public and media, which know even less about all of this than I do?)

We already know that DE is willing to ignore decades worth of peer-reviewed research when it conflicts with its policy advocacy (see, e.g., recent incidents regarding 3rd grade retention and cutting elementary school recess). I don’t know if TAP falls into this category of willful blindness or not. But I am wondering if the studies listed above were ever presented to those in decision-making positions so that they could make a truly informed decision.

I hope that the initiatives go well for the two Iowa districts that are trying TAP. Their educators are going to invest a great deal of time, energy, and money in the model. Hopefully they will see the results for which they are striving. Until I see further independent research supporting TAP (send it if you’ve got it; maybe I missed some!), right now I’m less sanguine about whether we should be basing tens of millions of dollars statewide to implement the model here in Iowa.

Got any thoughts on this?

[Note that there's also a bigger question here that's always worth considering: What should we do if/when our own governmental agencies fail to apply the same standards to themselves that they wish to apply to us?]

Image credit: What’s your superpower?

Everyone wants children to be able to read. But unpacking that educational goal – and the political rhetoric that often surrounds it – may require a bit more digging and critical analysis. Here’s an example…

In the 2004-2005 school year, 18 4th graders took the state reading test at Charter Oak-Ute Elementary. Only 14 were deemed proficient, for an AYP percentage of 78%. That apparently sparked a 7-year quest to raise test scores.

Today the Iowa Department of Education (DE) touted Charter Oak-Ute Elementary as one of the 5 schools (out of 1,409 in the state) that’s supposedly proving that poverty does not equal destiny. In fact, DE boldly said on its home page:

It may be well known that high-poverty schools will have lower proficiency rates than their more affluent counterparts. Sure, it’s well known. But it is wrong.*  [yes, that was our Department of Education dismissing decades of peer-reviewed research on student learning outcomes in high-poverty schools]

What did Charter Oak-Ute Elementary do to warrant DE’s publicity? Well, in 2011-2012, 19 of its 21 3rd grade students passed the reading test - for an AYP percentage of 90%** – despite 58% of its students receiving free/reduced price lunch. [for reference, the average statewide reading proficiency for 3rd graders is 76%]

From 14 of 18 students to 19 of 21 students. If Charter Oak-Ute Elementary had kept its reading proficiency percentage steady, only 16 3rd graders would have passed the state reading test last year. So it essentially moved the needle for 3 students. In seven years.***

By now many of you may be wondering, “What did this elementary school do to bump up these 3 kids’ reading scores?” Well, according to its principal:

[Teachers and students] weren’t happy with some of the things we had to drop, such as morning recess time because we really don’t need that.

That’s right. Among other interventions, the school cut recess. For 7- and 8-year-olds.

Never mind statements against cutting recess from the National Association for the Education of Young Children and the American Academy of Pediatrics. Never mind the research that shows how recess breaks maximize children’s cognitive performance or shows recess is important for children’s learning, social development, and health (“no research clearly supports not having recess”) or connects recess to good classroom behavior. Never mind children’s needs for breaks, exercise, and play. Never mind our childhood obesity epidemic, particularly for low-income kids.

And, apparently, never mind DE’s own admonitions for schools to adopt ‘evidence-based practices.’ Whether proposing 3rd grade retention or cutting recess (FYI, for both the research is heavily AGAINST them), DE is beginning to show that is willing to hold up and/or advocate for practices that are anything BUT ‘evidence-based.’

A high-poverty school that gets rid of elementary school recess to feed the always-hungry maw of ever-increasing test score goals should raise concerns for us. Because it’s yet another example of the kinds of dehumanizing microaggressions that happen all too often to children who are in poverty and/or of color. And it’s not what we in Iowa should be encouraging. Because if DE is willing to tout this recess-cutting school as doing what it needed to raise reading scores, the writing is potentially on the wall for ‘whole child’-oriented practices in larger school districts that have even greater concentrations of children in poverty. Yes, that means you, Des Moines, Waterloo, Sioux City, and Davenport (and others)…

I’m concerned that we’re becoming one of THOSE states. In Iowa we always have prided ourselves as being more enlightened than many of those states in which districts were cutting art, music, recess, physical education, foreign language, and other aspects of school necessary to provide well-rounded schooling experiences for children. We took pride in doing our best to attend to the needs of the whole child – for every child. But that commitment to children – and our recognition of decades of child development research – appears to be waning.

So put February 25, 2013 down on your calendar as the day when not only did Iowans learn that one of our own schools cut recess to improve test scores but also that our own Department of Education was willing to brag about it. Welcome to the new #edreform in Iowa.

* At least it’s ‘wrong’ for the 5 schools out of 1,409 that DE cherry-picked [please ignore the other 1,404]
** DE said it was 92%?
*** Of course this ignores ordinary year-to-year variation, differences between cohorts of students, random measurement error, etc. 

David Warlick says:

The fallacy of competitive education is its obsession with remembered right answers. The fallacy of right answers is that today success depends less on right answers and more on finding good answers and using them to accomplish meaningful goals. What does the game of school do to children who are more inclined to find and invent good answers than memorize correct answers?

….

As long as we race [to the top], scoring points by teaching the same answers for the same tests to every child, then we’re perfectly preparing a generation for its own history.

via http://davidwarlick.com/2cents/?p=3967

Did you miss the action last night from the Iowa House of Representatives discussion on education reform? No worries. Here’s my summary!