Monthly Archives: June 2008

by | June 11, 2008 · 3:31 pm

New Library Public Hearing

Via Brenda Konkel, This Side of Town…

Here’s your chance to tell the decisions makers what YOU want!

The Library Board and the Surplus Property Committee will be holding a meeting solely to solicit public input prior to issuing a RFP for the downtown library. This is the only item on the agenda. The current proposal for an RFP would incorporate the new library into a larger mixed use building rather than the independent free standing building that currently exists. If you have thoughts about the future of the downtown library this is an opportunity to speak.

The Madison Public Library Board in conjunction with the Central Library Disposal Surplus Property Criteria and Selection Committee is seeking public input on plans for a new Central Library. The hearing will be Monday, June 16th, 6:30 p.m. at the Central Library at 201 West Mifflin Street.

I love libraries!

Here is what I want (to start, no order):

  • Sunday hours, year round.
  • Space to take the collection out of storage (I love finding obscure things on the shelves, with so much in storage that becomes less likely).
  • Comfortable and practical meeting rooms.
  • Nice reading/research rooms.
  • Spacious and flexible children’s room(s?).
  • Natural light.
  • I don’t mind sharing the library with the homeless and the down and out.  They are part of our community too.

What’s on your list?

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under AMPS, Best Practices, Local News, Take Action, Uncategorized

by | June 10, 2008 · 7:37 am

A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education

As promised, a task force associated with the Economic Policy Institute has released a framework for improving education. Here are the highlights from the press release:

1. Continued school improvement efforts. To close achievement gaps, we need to reduce class sizes in early grades for disadvantaged children; attract high-quality teachers in hard-to-staff schools; improve teacher and school leadership training; make college preparatory curriculum accessible to all; and pay special attention to recent immigrants.

2. Developmentally appropriate and high-quality early childhood, pre-school and kindergarten care and education. These programs must not only help low-income children academically, but provide support in developing appropriate social, economic and behavioral skills.

3. Routine pediatric, dental, hearing and vision care for all infants, toddlers and schoolchildren. In particular, full-service school clinics can fill the health gaps created by the absence of primary care physicians in low-income areas, and by poor parents’ inability to miss work for children’s routine health services.

4. Improving the quality of students’ out-of-school time. Low-income students learn rapidly in school, but often lose ground after school and during summers. Policymakers should increase investments in areas such as longer school days, after-school and summer programs, and school-to-work programs with demonstrated track records.

It reminds me of the video from the Educator Roundtable, in this post and this write up by eduwonkette of an American Education Research Association session, “Research on Neighborhoods and Communities: Implications for Research Methods on Social Contexts.”

It should go without saying that the this expansive view of inequality and education and what should be done about it is not “throwing in the towel,” making excuses for schools or conceding that inequality of educational outcomes is intractable (unlike the genetic determinists on the right). The broader, bolder approach realistically recognizes that educational inequality begins with childrens’ environment, living conditions and resources and seeks to address these inside and outside of school. Makes sense to me.

Become a co-signer to the statement. Work locally to make these things happen.

Thomas J. Mertz

BTW, this is post #300 on AMPS!

2 Comments

Filed under Accountability, AMPS, Best Practices, education, Equity, National News, nclb, Take Action, Uncategorized

by | June 9, 2008 · 7:52 pm

Too Late the Truth?

From “The Impact of the Adequate Yearly Progress Requirement of the Federal No Child Left Behind Act on the Great Lakes Region,” a study released by the Great Lakes Center for Educational Research and the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University.

From “The Impact of the Adequate Yearly Progress Requirement of. the Federal “No Child Left Behind” Act on Schools in the Great Lakes Region,” a study released by the Great Lakes Center for Educational Research and the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University.  See also “Many States Have Taken a “Backloaded” Approach to No Child Left Behind Goal of All Students Scoring ‘Proficient'” from the Center on Education Policy.

On June 24, The Department of Public Instruction will release the preliminary Adequate Yearly Progress Reports on schools and districts in Wisconsin, as required by the No Child Left Behind Act. My guess is that MMSD will have a higher number of “failing schools” this year. Think of Madison as being “ahead of the curve.”

AYP is not the best gauge of the work our district is doing; NCLB isn’t a good law and AYP is ridiculous yardstick.

If the flaws in and political manipulation behind NCLB weren’t obvious already, an interview with former Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education Susan Neuman in the new Time magazine confirms what we already knew. Excerpts below.

There was always something slightly insane about No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the ambitious education law often described as the Bush Administration’s signature domestic achievement. For one thing, in the view of many educators, the law’s 2014 goal — which calls for all public school students in grades 4 through 8 to be achieving on grade level in reading and math — is something no educational system anywhere on earth has ever accomplished. Even more unrealistic: every kid (except for 3% with serious handicaps or other issues) is supposed to be achieving on grade level every year, climbing in lockstep up an ever more challenging ladder. This flies in the face of all sorts of research showing that children start off in different places academically and grow at different rates.

Add to the mix the fact that much of the promised funding failed to materialize and many early critics insisted that No Child Left Behind was nothing more than a cynical plan to destroy American faith in public education and open the way to vouchers and school choice.

Now a former official in Bush’s Education department is giving at least some support to that notion…

[T]here were others in the department, according to Neuman, who saw NCLB as a Trojan horse for the choice agenda — a way to expose the failure of public education and “blow it up a bit,” she says. “There were a number of people pushing hard for market forces and privatization.”

Neuman also regrets the Administration’s use of humiliation and shame as a lever for school reform. Failure to meet NCLB’s inflexible goals meant schools would be publicly labeled as failures. Neuman now sees this as a mistake: “Vilifying teachers and saying we are going to shame them was not the right approach.”

The combination of inflexibility and public humiliation for those not meeting federal goals ignited so much frustration among educators that NCLB now appears to be an irreparably damaged brand. “The problems lingered long enough and there’s so much anger that it may not be fixable,” says Neuman. While the American Federation of Teachers was once on board with the NCLB goals, she notes, the union has turned against it. “Teachers hate NCLB because they feel like they’ve been picked on.”

Is there a way out of the mess? Neuman still supports school accountability and the much-maligned annual tests mandated by the law. But she now believes that the nation has to look beyond the schoolroom, if it wishes to leave no child behind. Along with 59 other top educators, policymakers and health officials, she’s put her name to a nonpartisan document to be released on Tuesday by the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think tank. Titled “A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education,” it lays out an expansive vision for leveling the playing field for low-income kids, one that looks toward new policies on child health and support for parents and communities. Neuman says that money she’s seen wasted on current programs should be reallocated accordingly. “Pinning all our hopes on schools will never change the odds for kids.”

The right wing attack machine turned on Scott McClellan when he belatedly told the truth. We can expect the same treatment for Neuman.

Thomas J. Mertz

1 Comment

Filed under Accountability, AMPS, Best Practices, education, finance, Gimme Some Truth, Local News, National News, nclb, No Child Left Behind, Uncategorized

by | June 7, 2008 · 1:05 pm

The Teacher Project Film

From Public Schools Insights:

In this third and final installment of our interview, [Dave] Eggers announces his plans to create a new documentary depicting the professional lives of teachers. (You heard it here first.)

Eggers and Oscar-winning documentary filmmaker Vanessa Roth are collaborating on a film they hope will do for teaching what An Inconvenient Truth did for the environment. Featuring footage taken by teachers themselves, the film aims to offer a first-hand view of the challenges educators face every day–and to inspire greater public support for teachers’ work.

Eggers3.jpg

Eggers’ advocacy for public schools and educators took center stage at the TED (Technology, Education, Design) Conference, where “the world’s leading thinkers and doers gather to find inspiration.” (No, I wasn’t invited.) At TED, Eggers introduced Once Upon a School, a new project that shares stories about communities supporting public education and challenges adults across the country to become involved in their local public schools.

Hear Eggers describe his forthcoming documentary project and Once Upon a School in part III of Public School Insights’ exclusive interview

Hat tip to Jim Horn, Schools Matter.

Are We Better Off: Reading, Writing, and Landscaping, Mowing lawns, scrubbing bathrooms, selling stereos: How teachers make ends meet By Dave Eggers (Mother Jones).

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under "education finance", AMPS, Best Practices, Budget, Contracts, education, finance, National News, nclb, No Child Left Behind, School Finance

by | June 5, 2008 · 3:23 pm

Talkin’ Dropouts

James Brown, “Don’t Be a Dropout.”

Lots of news about dropouts and graduation rates recently.

Education Week just published their Diplomas Count report. It is pretty alarmist. Graduation rate scholars Jim Heckman, Paul LaFontaine, Larry Mishel, and Joydeep Roy raised some issues with how Education Week counted (hat tip to eduwonkette, one of my new favorite education bloggers):

In our examination of the data and methodologies available to estimate high school graduation rates we have found that insights can be gained from household surveys and from administrative data on student enrollment and diplomas granted. However, we find the measures of graduation rates in Education Week’s Diploma Counts project, computed from diploma and enrollment data, to be exceedingly inaccurate. The main problem is the assumption that the number of students enrolled in 9th grade is the same as the number of students entering high school. This assumption artificially lowers the estimates of current graduation rates, especially for minorities who are more likely to be retained (repeat 9th grade). This measure also artificially reduces the growth of the graduation rate over time because the practice of grade retention has grown over time, again, especially among minorities.

The resulting errors are sufficiently large to artificially lower the graduation rate by 9 percentage points overall and by 14 percentage points for minorities. Grade retention also differs sharply across states and localities, distorting geographic comparisons. Last, these measures do not reflect the ultimate graduation rates of a cohort of students because the data do not capture diplomas provided by adult education and other sources than schools.

Paper from Heckman and Lafontaine, here; Paper from Mishel and Roy, here.

The Wisconsin State Journal editorialized in favor of adopting the graduation rate measure endorsed by the National Governor’s Association (NGA) as a single national standard (Leslie Anne Howard of the Dane County United Way had an op. ed., mostly in support of this position). There is much to be said in favor of national statistical standardization, but if the adopted standard is flawed, you open the door to a new set of problems. The NGA measure is largely based on the one used by Florida. Sherman Dorn notes some “troubling issues” with the Florida rate calculations:

  • The inclusion of alternatives to standard diplomas in the graduation numbers, with no public disaggregation
  • The exclusion of alleged transfers and movers from the base (creating an adjusted cohort) without any data quality checks to ensure that transfers really show up at a private school or in another state
  • The exclusion from the base (adjusted cohort) of students who drop out and immediately enroll in GED programs (as transfers to adult programs)

He also has some nice general thoughts on what to look for in graduation rate calculations here and here (lots more on his site, browse around or do a search; his posts are very accessible for those of us who are not steeped in the swamp of grad rate measures).

Information on how Wisconsin calculates dropout and completion rates. Many of the issues noted in the critiques of the various measures are present with Wisconsin’s. MMSD posted am 81.8% “regular diploma” completion rate in 2006-7, but there are great disparities among the rates for white students (90.4%), African American students (61.6%) and Hispanic students (60.8). The 2006-7 dropout rate was 2.699%, also with pronounced racial disparities (data can be accessed here).

Finally, this story in the Cap Times on Operation Fresh Start, (which has a GED component). By the way, I think this is a fine use of Wal-Mart’s money, but I still wish our legislators would get them to pay their fair share of taxes (some recent progress, but a long way to go).

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under "education finance", Accountability, AMPS, Best Practices, education, Equity, Local News, National News, nclb, No Child Left Behind, School Finance, Uncategorized

by | June 4, 2008 · 3:52 pm

Equity Policies — Learning from Others

I’m still working through what did and did not happen with Equity at Monday’s MMSD Board of Education meeting (video here, starting at about the 2 hour and 25 minute mark) and how and why things did and did not happen. The very short version is that the Board passed a policy that did not include the “Considerations” or any implementation regulation or guidance, but thanks to an amendment by Maya Cole does improve upon the draft version’s reporting clause (for more information and my pre-meeting thoughts, see this post).

One of the canards that was part of the discussion was that (Equity) policies can or should not include implementation guidelines or regulations. Policies and implementation plans come in many forms; there is no one right way. For that reason, I’m going do a series of posts on what other districts are doing in this area.

My opinion is that Madison is doing much and isn’t doing enough. Madison is doing much because many of the programs and procedures in place embody equity ideals. Madison isn’t doing enough because there is not a systematic focus on equity related issues and much of what goes on is simply “current practice” and note the result of any clear commitment. Focus and commitment could be derived from a policy or (like in Brookline, MA) a specific initiative. Whatever you think is best, it is always good to know what other districts are doing as a basis for comparison.

Today’s post is from Charlotte-Mecklenburg, NC School District. Like MMSD, CMS is a founding member of the Minority Student Achievement Network.

Here is the entirety of CMS’s “Equitable Educational Opportunities” policy:

The Board of Education is committed to providing equal access to excellent educational opportunities for all its students in all its schools.

The provision of such opportunities for all students is expected to require providing additional resources and implementing innovative strategies to schools serving students with additional educational needs, particularly students at risk of academic failure. Such resources and strategies may include, but are not limited to: differentiated staffing; smaller class sizes; increased instructional supplies and materials; expanded and renovated facilities; innovative family and community involvement initiatives; upgraded technology; comprehensive co-curricular activities; supplemental guidance and counseling; enhanced professional development; and preschool educational opportunities.

In determining whether all students are being provided with such opportunities, the Board of Education shall adopt baseline standards in the following areas: educational opportunities; student achievement; instructional materials and supplies; media equipment and resources; technology; facilities; faculty; teacher/student ratio; and family and community involvement.

On an annual basis, aligned with the annual budget process, the Superintendent shall present to the Board of Education the following: recommendations related to the baseline standards in the areas listed above; assessment of whether all students are being provided equal access to excellent educational opportunities; strategies for ensuring that all students are provided such opportunities; determination of the amounts of funding and resources needed to provide such opportunities; and recommended allocation and reallocation of the funds and resources needed to provide those opportunities.

On an annual basis, aligned with the annual budget process, the Board of Education shall do the following: comprehensively review and revise the baseline standards in the areas listed above; assess whether all students are being provided equal access to excellent educational opportunities; direct the Superintendent to develop strategies for ensuring that those opportunities are being provided; determine the amounts of funding and resources needed to provide such opportunities; seek and direct the Superintendent to seek the funds and resources needed to provide such opportunities; and allocate, reallocate and direct the Superintendent to allocate and reallocate the funds and resources needed to provide those opportunities.

The Board and Superintendent shall appoint a committee to help facilitate the annual analysis of the provision of equal access to excellent educational opportunities for all its students in all its schools. The Superintendent shall establish and implement regulations and strategies designed to accomplish the requirements of this policy.

This is much, much more specific in implementation and reporting than what Madison has adopted. I like it.

For more equity related policies from CMS, click here.

For more on the equity work in CMS, click here, 2006 PowerPoint here.

Thomas J. Mertz

1 Comment

Filed under "education finance", AMPS, Best Practices, Budget, education, Equity, Local News, Uncategorized, We Are Not Alone

by | June 4, 2008 · 11:35 am

Quotes of the day

From Milwaukee Public Schools, 2006-7 School Report Card (click to see full report card). When value added is implemented in MMSD, we can expect similar reporting. Note that the gray areas are \

From Milwaukee Public Schools, 2006-7 School Report Card (click to see full report card). When value added is implemented in MMSD, we can expect similar reporting. Note that the gray areas are “error bands,” indicating 95% confidence intervals.

From an email sent by a DPI employee to Peter Sobol of the Monona Grove Board of Education.

… The WKCE is a large-scale assessment designed to provide a snapshot of how well a district or school is doing at helping all students reach proficiency on state standards, with a focus on school and district-level accountability. A large-scale, summative assessment such as the WKCE is not designed to provide diagnostic information about individual students. Those assessments are best done at the local level, where immediate results can be obtained. Schools should not rely on only WKCE data to gauge progress of individual students or to determine effectiveness of programs or curriculum.

From the WCER Value Added Research Center (contracted with MMSD and MPS).

Benefits of Value-Added Methods

Value-added methods “get the story right” by correcting for errors in the test scales, identifying and adjusting for bias in the administration of the test, in student participation, or in classroom treatments. In addition, one of the overriding goals of the work is to be transparent and fair. It is in everyone’s interest for schools to be as productive as possible for all students.

All teachers should be able to deeply understand and discuss the impact of changes in practice and curriculum for themselves and their students. Leaders should be able to make resource allocation decisions (money, staffing, etc.) informed by the best available data. Value-added methods can both showcase high levels of achievement as well as reward those who have mastered the art of improvement.

The MMSD value added analysis will rely on WKCE tests.

Anyone see a problem?

I’ve been working on a long post about the basics, benefits and limits of Value Added Analysis. Still a lot of work to do on that. Till then, here are two recent stories from Education Week (registration may be required).

New Uses Explored for ‘Value Added’ Data

Scrutiny Heightens for ‘Value Added’ Research Methods

Thomas J. Mertz

1 Comment

Filed under Accountability, AMPS, Best Practices, education, Local News, Quote of the Day, Uncategorized

by | June 2, 2008 · 3:49 pm

Part of the story on property taxes

The Cap Times picked up an A.P story on a Legislative Fiscal Bureau report on property taxes. The article says in part:

Taxes paid to schools are by far the largest chunk of a homeowner’s tax bill. They increased 7.4 percent this year.

The biggest thing missing here is that the delay in the state budget resulted in $79.3 million in school funding being shifted from state general revenues to local property taxes. As the report notes:

If the 2007-8 school taxes are reduced by the $79.3 million in additional school levy tax credit funding, a net school tax levy increase of $199.5 million (5.3%) would result.

So 5.3% not 7.4%. This shift was a one time thing (we hope).

Real increases for 2007-8 in combined state and local school spending are about 3.7%, or half of the quoted 7.4%, The 2007-9 budget deal also included a $264 (2.8%) increase in per member revenues, and increases in some categorical aids; but moved further away from the 2/3 state funding leg of the “three legged stool, leading to a more permanent increase in the percentage of school revenues dependent on local property taxes. Instead of 66.6% support, this year the state will provide about 63.0% and next year (without the school tax levy credit games) 64.9% (calculations based on this LFB paper). These are aggregate estimates and the ratios for individual school districts vary greatly. Madison gets about 41% of of our revenues from the state.

Some other things of note in the report released today.

  • Residential taxpayers paid 71% of property taxes (same as last year)
  • The share of property taxes paid by the manufacturing sector dropped from 3.4% to 3.3%. This share is already lower than the real property value because of the “manufacturing and equipment exemption.”
  • The total value of taxable property in Wisconsin increased 6.2%; net tax levies increased 6.0%; gross tax levies by 6.3%.

As Paul Harvey would say “Now you know the rest of the story.” I just wish the wire services and papers would do better on this.

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under Elections, Uncategorized, We Are Not Alone

by | June 2, 2008 · 10:26 am

Gender inequality and the math gap

A very interesting study appearing last week in the journal “Science” relied on a test from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). It assessed over 275,000 15 year old teenagers in 40 countries. One of the most fascinating conclusions of this study was that, despite the usual reported gap in math and reading scores between boys and girls, the explanation for such a discrepancy could perhaps lie not in biology but instead could have more to do with gender equality. John Timmer from Ars Technica reports:

On average, girls scored about 2 percent lower than boys on math, but nearly 7 percent higher on reading, consistent with previous test results.

The researchers, noted, however, that the math gap wasn’t consistent between countries. For example, it was nearly twice as large as the average in Turkey, while Icelandic girls outscored males by roughly 2 percent. The general pattern of these differences suggested to the authors that the performance differences correlated with the status of women. The authors of the study built a composite score that reflected the gender equality of the countries based on the World Economic Forum’s Gender Gap Index, data extracted from the World Values Surveys, measures of female political participation, and measures of the economic significance of females.

Scandinavian countries such as Norway and Sweden score very high on gender equality measures; in these nations, the gender gap on math performance is extremely small. In contrast, nations at the other end of the spectrum, such as Turkey and Korea, had the largest gender gap. The correlations between gender equality and math scores held up under a statistical test designed to catch spurious associations. The authors even checked out the possibility of genetic effects not linked to the Y chromosome by examining whether genetic similarity between various European populations could account for these differences, but they found that it could not.

The frightening thing, from a male perspective, is that a lack of gender equality also seems to be holding down girls’ reading scores. Female superiority in reading tests is slightly lower than average in Turkey, but the gap is actually wider in countries with greater equality between the sexes. In Iceland, for example, girls outscore boys by well over 10 percent.

The math gender gap thus joins a long list of differences in test scores that were once ascribed to biology, but now appear to be caused by social influences. The study, however, leaves us with yet another question of this sort: why do boys appear to read so poorly? We clearly can’t ascribe it to social inequality, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t due to some other social factor.

Robert Godfrey

Leave a comment

Filed under AMPS, Gimme Some Truth, National News