Technical Education

An article in yesterday’s New York Times reminds us that the common definition of “achievement gap” is quite limited. We usually define it in terms of proficiency on state tests. (In other words, how many kids passed?) We seldom define it in terms of absolute performance on those tests. (How well did kids do?) You can raise the cut score on the state test and watch your gaps widen overnight, but your absolute achievement gap won’t have changed a bit. That’s what happened in New York State.

It’s an object lesson for every state in the country and a reminder that we always need to keep both definitions well in mind.

Young teachers aren’t buying it, either. That’s one of the main findings from a recent Public Agenda poll of teachers from three generations. “Generation Y” teachers are very skeptical of ideas that dominate current debates on school reform. This finding does not bode well for the reform agenda. It suggests that policy makers and pundits may be alienating the very people who must carry out the reforms.

The poll results tell us that resistance to some of the big reform ideas is by no means confined to old union stalwarts. The younger folk don’t believe test scores should be the main determinant of teacher pay. They believe it should be easier to remove bad teachers, but they don’t tenure should go the way of the dodo.

It’s at least as interesting to note what the young ‘uns do want. They want staff development, help with discipline, constructive feedback on their teaching, and the chance to collaborate with their peers.

Read the full post…

Earlier this week the California Department of Education awarded (though only temporarily) $315 million in School Improvement Grants to over 100 schools in 31 districts. These grants are designed to reform persistently low-achieving schools, so this is great news, right? Over 100 low-performing schools have a better chance to improve.

The problem is that California identified 188 persistently low-achieving schools back in March, which means that not all the schools that need this money got it.

Now, this was a competitive grant program. Districts containing schools identified as persistently low-achieving applied for the funds to reform them, knowing that the state would decide whom to fund. So we knew going in there would be winners and losers.

The kicker is how they chose the winners:

[S]tate officials gave priority to those [districts] that requested grants to help turn around all campuses on the list.

Read the full post…