When I competed in the NATO Swimming and Diving Competition
in Sindelfingen, Germany in the early 1980's I wrote to my future bride about
my amazing accomplishments. I was totally honest about my achievements… and
totally misleading at the same time:
these characteristics also describe the nature of the constant battle
between states over their "rankings" in education and student
achievement.
As
a nation we seem to be fascinated with the practice of ranking almost
everything! It seems that every local publication produces their rankings of food
establishments or coffee houses or hamburgers, for example. Nationally we rank
communities on crime, education, "friendliness" and honesty,
pollution, "livability" and almost any other measure you can imagine!
At the same time, however, it is abundantly clear that such measures often
project a measure of precision that is patently absurd.
For
the record, in the 10 Meter Platform Diving event I achieved Third Place, and
in the 1 Meter Diving Competition I received Fifth Place. The statements are a
bit misleading, however. When asked to compete as part of the US Team in this
competition I informed the coach that I really was NOT a good diver, by any
measure! He quietly informed me that my ENTRY into the two diving categories
would earn points for our team, and that he simply had no other divers. This
leads to the misleading part of my accomplishment. I didn't have to actually do ANYTHING other than dive! Unless I was disqualified, I would win
points for my team because there were only going to be two other contestants in
the 10 Meter and 4 other in the 1 Meter classes. I would get points for the
team without really doing anything, although diving from the 10 Meter Platform
was more challenging that I could have imagined! In fact, I was almost
embarrassed to surface after each dive. I placed dead last in both events, but
I survived, and the US team won the overall competition.
What
does this story have to do with the very serious educational "competition"
between states, and within states as well? In much the same way as I was able to win
points for my team by simply taking part in the events, some states are able to
win a high position in state "rankings" on the National Assessment of
educational Progress (NAEP) by simply…being. What do I mean by this? One of the most clearly recognizable patterns we find in
testing is that family income seems to account for a lot! States at the top of
the rankings on NAEP tend to have more wealthy students, and fewer students qualifying
for free meals. Mississippi and
Louisiana share the dubious honor of having the highest percentage of students
in their public schools coming from low-income homes. And both states "bring up the rear" when it
comes to the NAEP rankings. Should anyone really be surprised by this
relationship?
Perhaps
we should ask whether the respective rankings on NAEP actually represent a
measure of the quality of teaching in the states or the quality of the school
boards or some other school-related measure. Or perhaps we should ask whether
the ranking simply corresponds to other measures of the quality of life such
as, well, how about poverty! Louisiana and Mississippi are perennial "bottom
feeders" on national measures of the quality of life of children when it
comes to early childhood measures before these children ever enter the
schoolhouse doors! Why is their no righteous anger when the annual "Kids
Count" report is released by the Annie E. Casey Foundation and Louisiana
is either in last or second to last place in those factors that we know impact our
children's educational attainment and success in later life. As the 2011
report notes on page 24 "Children
who are nurtured and well cared for in the first five years have better social-emotional,
language, and learning outcomes." Does it take a degree in rocket
science to see that how we care for children in their first five years is going
to impact academic achievement for our schools?
We
need to keep in mind one thing, and it is very important in understanding
another problem with the rankings between states on NAEP. The scores and
rankings released annually and debated in the media and in the legislature are based on public schools only. Why is
this important? Private and parochial schools are much less likely to admit students with severe physical, emotional, or
mental handicapping conditions. They are much less likely to admit large numbers of students coming from the
lowest income families. They are much more
likely to use academic achievement tests in their admissions policies than
they are to use "means testing." For this reason, as more and more students in a given area
are admitted to private and parochial schools, the more likely it is that the
public schools in the same area are going to find themselves much lower in
achievement-based rankings than other similar areas without private and
parochial schools. This finding is true of states as well, of course.
It
is for this reason that the ranking of states in the Kids Count report is
even more damning for Louisiana. It reports on factors for all children. Yet those
children that arrive in our public schools throughout Louisiana face challenges
at a significantly higher rate that the Kids Count report suggests, for the higher
percentages of private and parochial schools in Louisiana are skimming off
those students who are likely to have more resources than average, not less.
I
admitted the truth about my diving achievements (pun not intended, but valid) to
my future wife in a letter just a few days after my initial letter. When are
the media and the powerful political "reform" forces in our states
going to "fess up" to the truth about the rankings in education? When
are they going to recognize and admit the truth?
The
measures such as "Letter Grades" and "School Performance
Scores" they are using to "damn" public education in Louisiana
or particular school systems, are not
legitimate rankings, but are instead a rank, odious and misleading set of
measures that are being used to condemn our students, our teachers, and our
communities. These same myths of "failure" based on these rankings
are leading to a future of failed "status quo" reforms that are based
on false premises, and less likely to improve education for all children than
almost any measures recommended by groups like the Annie E. Casey Foundation in
their 2011 Kids Count report:
A vast body of research shows that
high-quality early childhood development programs for disadvantaged children
and their families are one of the most cost-effective investments for reducing
the harmful effects of economic hardship. These programs include an array of
home visiting and parenting support programs for families with infants and
toddlers and comprehensive pre-kindergarten programs for three- and
four-year-olds. (p.24)
Don't
expect to find "charter schools" or "value-added" measures
in the Annie E. Casey report. They aren't there. What is there in the report is
evidence-based findings of researchers drawing from data from around the
country that how we measure student achievement, and rank the states, or
districts around the country is not really
a measure of teaching and
learning in schools, but is instead a measure of who shows up at the public
schools in each state.
Will
you stand up and be counted as one who no longer allows the media and the
"reformers" to damn your schools, and your state, in the interest of
their politics and profit? Get informed! Get involved. Get real! And get ready,
for the rank rankings will continue until we call them out for what they are!
Dive in!
These "Reformers" need to listen up ! But the truth sometimes hurts !
ReplyDeleteYour diving example also illustrates the misconceptions that can be conveyed by coarsening of parametric to nonparametric statistics, or from interval or rational to ordinal data. If the winning diver scored 10 and you scored 8, then third place conveys some merit. If the winning diver scored 10 and you scored 2, then third place is misleading. This coarsening is very common in reporting educational statistics.
ReplyDelete