February 14, 2008 by Tom Armstrong.

The Investment Slowdown (WSJ)

The Real Obama (You’ll be happy you read it)

Grappling with an Inflation Dilemma

Exxon Profits (Because Exxon deserves defenders)

Posted in General post | No Comments »

February 14, 2008 by Tom Armstrong.

Reader asks in response to this post:

Isn’t NCLB about creating standards? In other words, under NCLB benchmarks have been introduced with which schools and individuals can be evaluated. Without such benchmarks, statements such as “standards have increased” or “standards have decreased” are meaningless. Empirical, observable benchmarks should be welcomed. This is what NCLB did, so I’m not sure why introducing a method for evaluating the success of the education system should lower standards.

This is a valid belief, but only if you don’t know how the system works (I was also once fooled by the good intentions of NCLB). Benchmark is used several times above, but that “benchmark” is the problem. States are feel to create their own benchmarks, and those benchmarks are ever changing, so they are not valid or reliable measurement devices. I wrote this a few weeks ago on NCLB to explain why NCLB is lowering student achievement in our schools, not improving it.

Here are some key points:

• NCLB requires schools to demonstrate improvement in student test scores on an annual basis. States, since they are free to design their own tests, are watering them down. That is, states are making tests easier to pass, and this is occurring nationwide. States have also been lowering passing grades on the state tests and permitting longer time to complete the exams. Because the states are free to administer tests that are watered down, they can manipulate the data. These states can report that student achievement is improving when, in fact, nothing has changed but the definition of passing. For example, a state could create an easier test with a lower passing score, and this would be reported as success. How convenient. Only in government is failure reported as success.

• Schools are also asked to report annual progress in their graduation rates. Several techniques are being used by the schools to meet this requirement, and not one of them has anything to do with helping students succeed in school. Some schools are now promoting their own grading scales. The grading scales are staring at the lowest possible passing grades—70% for many schools. When the lowest grade on the scale is still passing, nobody can fail. This tends to promote high graduation rates.

• States are developing and promoting “alternative” diplomas. For example, my state of Tennessee has an alternative diploma that requires 21 credits for graduation. Prior to NCLB, my school district required 28 credits for graduation and would not offer this diploma; we are now pleased to offer this 21-credit diploma. Now we are cutting an extra year of education from graduation requirements, but our graduation rate is obviously improving. Our graduation rate goes up (which is reported as progress), but student achievement continues to drop—all thanks to the incentives created by NCLB.

• NCLB leaves loopholes so schools only have to test students who can pass the tests. For example, high-school juniors must take a writing assessment, which is typically organized through junior homerooms. Schools are excluding from the tests those students in those junior homerooms who lack enough credits to be juniors. The next year those students will be in senior homerooms and thus be excluded from the writing assessment. So schools have found ways to improve their text scores by excluding test takers who are most likely to fail. 

Posted in General post | No Comments »