Fixing Comparability is Essential

This post was first published on the National Journal's Education Experts blog in response to these questions about Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act:

What is an appropriate way to regulate equitable funding for schools? Is this an area that requires federal involvement? Should school districts be allowed some leeway (like the current 10 percent variation) in resource levels for different schools? Or should the funding be absolutely equal? What should be included or excluded in comparisons between school resource levels?

My response:

Current comparability requirements – put into place to ensure that Title I dollars enhanced funding, not supplanted funding, for the most needy students and schools – do nothing to prohibit the uneven distribution of teachers between Title I and non-Title I schools because school districts are allowed to show comparability through student-to-staff ratios or teacher salary schedules, not expenditures like actual salaries.

Particularly troubling, the regulations for calculating student-to-staff ratios include both teachers and paraprofessionals. This means there could be, for instance, a Title I elementary school with 40 staff members, but almost half of them are paraprofessionals, compared to a non-Title I school with 40 staff members, nearly all of whom are certified teachers. Under federal law these two schools would be “comparable.”

Another scenario: A Title I school’s teaching staff may be predominantly comprised of first- or second-year teachers, whereas the non-Title I school has experienced teachers. There’s nothing equitable about either situation. We know that teacher effectiveness matters, and experience certainly plays a role in effectiveness. We also know that experienced teachers prefer lower-poverty schools for a number of reasons – among them perceived better general working conditions. So why wouldn’t policymakers establish federal equitable funding requirements that help to ensure that students in low-income schools have the same access to equitable resources as their peers in higher-income schools? Helping to ensure an equitable education for all children is a role for the federal government.

There are currently some options on the table for making comparability more meaningful. My colleague, Jennifer Cohen, from the Federal Education Budget Project at the New America Foundation has written a great deal on the comparability requirement in Title I. Most recently she wrote on the changes proposed in the latest draft of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. She writes that under the new draft:

Comparability would truly become a measure of funds spent, rather than a comparison of easy to document but hard-to-quantify resources. Second, [the proposal] requires that expenditures in low- and high-income schools be equivalent – not within 10 percent. This would give districts far less leeway in variations in funding for their schools. While a 10 percent difference may seem small, it can mean the difference between several teaching positions in some schools or a faculty of less experienced teachers. But most importantly, the Harkin bill closes what has come to be called the ‘comparability loophole’ that allows districts to ignore variations in teacher compensation due to years of experience in their per pupil expenditure calculations for Title I and non-Title I schools.

Closing the loophole is a critical piece to helping ensure that low-income schools receive sufficient funds to either compensate more experienced teachers or implement other programs to support student learning and improve achievement.

Funding Woes Put Kindergarten at Risk

This piece, "Funding Woes Put Kindergarten at Risk," first appeared on Huffington Post.

On again, off again -- that is the best way to describe funding for full-day kindergarten. Unfortunately, in these tight budget times, an increasing number of districts appear to be considering the "off again" option.

Many likely think that kindergarten is fully funded through the K-12 public education system. But in fact it is not. The majority of states only require that districts offer half-day kindergarten, according to a2010 report by early education expert Kristie Kaurez at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. In the school districts that do offer full day, there is no guarantee that it's free. In many communities, parents must pay -- usually via a sliding fee scale based on their income levels -- if they want their children to be able to stay through the end of the school day.

This month, states and local school districts are deeply emerged in budget decisions for next school year. With stimulus funds running out and with no money to fill the gaps left behind, reverting to half-day kindergarten often emerges as a way to save money. School districts in Arizona, Texas and Pennsylvania, to name a few, are now considering doing just that.

Even as they put full-day kindergarten on the chopping block, district leaders readily acknowledge the research that says children who attend full-day K learn more and have better learning outcomes, especially disadvantaged children. Experts in early education see full-day K as an important piece of preparing children to be able to read by the end of third grade (an important predictor of whether they will graduate from high school). And studies have found higher academic achievement levels in math and reading by children who attended full-day K when compared with children who did not.

A full day also allows teachers to make more time for child-centered play and hands-on activities, two important approaches to learning that many parents worry are missing in today's kindergartens.

The good news is that full-day kindergarten has been salvaged in many recent cases, often byparent advocacy. Parents of soon-to-be kindergarteners are attending school board meetings - orhosting rallies -- in droves to express their consternation about the possibility kindergarten cuts. When this happens, school districts generally find ways to stave off cuts or even to expand free full-day kindergarten offerings.

Earlier this year, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett proposed a budget that reduced the state's spending on K-12 education by more than $1 billion partly by cutting the state's Accountability Block Grants, which districts use to pay for full-day K. Several school districts across the state adopted local budgets that cut their kindergarten budgets, reverting to half-day programs.

Even Philadelphia, with more than 10,000 kindergartners and a high population of at-risk children, passed a budget that scaled back kindergarten to a half-day program.

But as a sign of the importance of the full-day program -- and after hearing from unhappy parents -- Philly's superintendent Arlene Ackerman found ways to continue to fund it. In early June, Ackerman announced the restoration of full-day K and explained that money from the federal Title I program, which is designed to help disadvantaged children, would be redirected to fund the full day. (To get into the policy weeds for a moment: It turns out that the governor's budget opened the door for Title I money to be used this way because Title I funds are not allowed to supplant funds for education programs covered by state dollars. When the state withdrew its funding of the Accountability Block Grants, the state effectively withdrew its support of full-day K, which meant that Title I dollars were permitted to fill the hole. Of course the question now looms: Which Title I-funded programs lost money at the expense of this one?)

Another example comes from Arizona, where last year the state legislature voted to cut full-day K funding to save $218.2 million. Without help from the state, many school districts had to rescind their full-day programs. But again, some districts found ways to pay for it on their own. Additional school districts are planning to bring it back for the 2011-2012 school year.

Then there's the confusing news out of Indiana, where Governor Mitch Daniels proposed a budget plan to expand full-day kindergarten. Many families initially cheered when the Indiana General Assembly passed his proposal. In a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, Governor Daniels explained that part of the new education funding "will be used to complete the job we started of making full-day kindergarten available to every 5-year-old."

The new funding, however, was directed to the state's full-day K grant program, which is not funded to cover all children and which has a per-pupil funding formula that only covers half of a day. Local school district leaders were the ones who had to clear up the confusion for families. "[In Indiana], we still fund kindergartners as half children, not as full children," says Mary Louise Bewley, director of school and community relations for Indianapolis Public Schools. The state is not alone: 16 states fund kindergartners at half the amount of first graders.

It's time to get serious about fixing these disparities so that funding formulas to provide the equivalent per-pupil funding for kindergarten and first grade. As noted above, research shows that full-day kindergarten plays a key role in getting children on a trajectory -- as early as possible -- for success in school and life.

So I applaud states and school districts that are maintaining or enhancing their commitment to full-day K. And I challenge those states and school districts that have yet to make the investment to change their tune. Even in a difficult financial situation, we can't afford to slide backwards when it comes to providing a strong early education for young children.

Classroom Visits

A few weeks ago I presented at the Education Writer's Association, a national professional association for journalists who specialize in education. I participated in a panel called "Teaching Teachers to Teach Reading" and spoke about the preparation of teachers for the early grades of elementary school.

One of the questions from a reporter in the audience was about visiting classrooms and how to tell if a teacher has created a literacy-rich environment.

Those of us on the panel jumped on the question responding with things to look for: children's work displayed, vocabulary words posted, objects labeled, and classroom libraries located where children can easily reach a book and that include non-fiction and fiction books. All important things.

After the panel, I started thinking about reporters visiting classrooms and looking for these examples of what makes a literacy-rich environment. Taking a literacy expert along would make this trip a lot easier, as they would identify and describe the good and not so good practices happening in the classroom.

Vouchers in DC

The DC Opportunity Scholarship program was revived in the full-year continuing resolution that Congress passed and the Senate signed to keep the government running through the rest of the fiscal year.

The program provides vouchers for students who attend struggling schools to attend private schools.

Since Speaker Boehner was sworn in as Speaker of the House in January, reinstating the voucher program has been his pet project. (The Opportunity Scholarship program was ended in 2010.)

Vouchers for children to attend private schools are a waste of money. Private schools don’t necessarily guarantee a better education. In many cases, they don't cover the full cost of attending a private school.

Funding from the federal government would be better spent to improve the traditional and charter public schools in Washington, DC, where the majority of students will continue to attend.

What Can the U.S. Learn from Finland

On Early Ed Watch I wrote about attending a screening of The Finland Phenomenon, a new documentary made by Bob Compton about Finland’s educational success.

I said that there are lessons for individuals states and school districts about how Finland “selects and trains its teachers, develops its curriculum, structures the school day and provides equitable education for all students.”

I wanted to delve a little deeper here and highlight how Finland prepares teachers. First, according to the film, prospective teachers in Finland are carefully selected-- not just anyone can enter a university to become a teacher. Prospective teachers complete a five year preparation program and upon completion they have earned a master’s degree.

I am particularly impressed by the amount of time prospective teachers spend observing master teachers and observing one another teach. Schools are like laboratories where teacher candidates discuss what they saw master teachers do and what they might have done differently.

In Finland, teachers are really seen as researchers, constantly observing their students to determine whether they’ve grasped the concept being taught or not. And if they aren’t getting it, Finland teachers are equipped with an array of tools to differentiate learning, targeting students’ specific needs.

Some say that the United States won’t ever be like Finland. We have a much higher poverty rates and a much more diverse population. Not to mention, the U.S. is a much bigger country with individual states primarily responsible for education.

All true, but does it really matter? When it comes to teacher preparation, I don't think it does. And by the way, Sweden, a country with similar economic and population characteristics to Finland, doesn't score close to Finland.

There is no reason why the U.S. can’t rethink the way teachers are selected and prepared. Doing so would likely have a major impact on teacher retention, as teachers would feel that they are truly ready to meet the needs of their students. We can’t stop there though. There are also many things we can learn from Finland about supporting and developing teachers.

A Role for Teach for America

Last month, I, and about 11,000 other people, attended the Teach for America 20^th Anniversary Summit. I attended as an invited guest.

I was struck by the extraordinary energy in the room focused around the notion of providing every child living in the United States an opportunity for an excellent education. TFA is about more than just teaching, it is about creating a corps of educational change agents.

While the majority of TFA corps members do not continue teaching in the classroom, a significant number stay in the field, with the goal of transformation. Corp members have gone on to start charter school networks or other educational non-profits, lead schools or school districts, be elected to office, and to help shape education policy at the local, state, and federal level. And in another 20 years, Kaya Henderson, TFA alumni and Chancellor of DC Public Schools, believes the “woman in the White House will be a Teach for America alum.”

We need more advocates of equitable, high-quality education in decision-making positions. But we also need them in the classroom. Teach for America is not the answer to our country’s teacher retention challenges, but there is a distinct possibility that the organization’s alumni will help us find the solution.

What Does ‘Formative Assessment’ Mean, Anyway?

A new report on “next generation” assessment systems is stirring up some important questions about how assessment tools should be used to provide feedback to teachers and students. The report also provides a tightened definition of the educational buzzword that refers to that feedback loop: “formative assessment.”

The report “Formative Assessment and Next-Generation Assessment Systems: Are We Losing an Opportunity?,” written by Margaret Heritage of the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing (CRESST), was released earlier this month at an event hosted by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).

Early educators may find the report interesting because, although summative assessments like statewide tests are not given in the early grades, formative assessment is increasingly becoming important for educators working with children of all ages. The report describes in-depth what formative assessment should look like in practice and explains how the information obtained can help them to differentiate their instruction to meet students’ individual needs.

The paper comes in the wake of the U.S. Department of Education awarding grants to two large consortia -- the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) – to develop assessments to accompany the new Common Core standards that have been adopted by more than 40 states. (One of them, PARCC plans to develop assessments for K-2 students – we’ll post an analysis of their plans in the near future.)

In the paper, Heritage questioned the grant winners, criticizing their use definition and discussion of formative assessment.

According to Heritage, formative assessment is a process of continuously gathering evidence about learning that helps a teacher identify how a student is doing and adapt lessons to help the student reach a specific learning goal. According to her research, feedback plays a significant role in formative assessment for both teachers and students. Teachers gain feedback from their assessment of student progress and students receive feedback from conversations with their teacher about how they are progressing and what they can do to improve.

Heritage criticized the Race to the Top assessment proposals for putting forward more tools and more measures to support formative assessment. She stated there is a widespread “assumption that formative assessment is a particular kind of measurement instrument, rather than a process that is fundamental and indigenous to the practice of teaching and learning.”

But wait, you might be asking: Shouldn’t teachers use some type of measurement instrument to obtain evidence about a student’s learning? Here’s where Heritage made another distinction. She suggested that the instruments (tests and quizzes) used at the end of chapters or units are actually interim assessments, for which, , there is little or no evidence of a positive impact on student learning.

It stands to reason, of course, that even interim assessments would provide at least some type of feedback to teachers about what students are learning and inform teachers as to how they should differentiate their instruction to meet students’ learning needs.

One key difference between the two, though, at least as Heritage explained it, is that formative assessment is more of a check-in with students while learning is occurring, not when a specific unit or topic is complete. Formative assessment actively engages students in their own learning. When used this way, Heritage said, “Student learning gains triggered by formative assessment were amongst the largest ever reported for educational interventions.”

(But there has been past criticism that the research has been oversold. In a 2009 post on Education Week’s Teacher Beat blog, Stephen Sawchuck, reported that not all researchers agree on how the results from studies on formative assessment have been interpreted. He wrote that Randy Bennett, president of the Educational Testing Service, suggested it might be time to take a closer look at the practice of formative assessment and that research that supports it, as some studies had various procedural issues. Sawchuck pointed out that formative assessment, while promising, is not a “silver bullet.” It is safe to say, however, that this is true for every other individual education reform too.)

At the CCSSO event, attendees and panelists discussed the difference between formative assessment and tests used for interim or benchmarking assessments at the CCSSO event. One panelist even suggested changing the name of formative assessment to “formative instruction” because of the fear by many educators that formative assessment just means more tests. The majority of panelists commented that this might only add to the confusion.

If you want to read more about this debate, check out Education Week’s Curriculum Matters blog and story by Catherine Gewertz. And if you are interested in seeing a clip of formative assessment in action, click here.

This post originally appeared on Early Ed Watch.