As we continue to do outreach as a staff, we’ve heard a recent uptick in comments and concerns about the norm-referencing that occurs in the Student Growth Percentiles (SGP) methodology which is at the heart of the revised Index proposal.  Recently, stakeholders – through our AAW feedback process, through WSSDA regional meetings, and most recently, through our conference call with ESD superintendents – have asked questions about why the move toward norm-referencing, instead of an alternative means of measuring student growth that sets objective standards of year-to-year growth.  After all, it seems we are less concerned with whether your growth is “above average,”; what we really care about is whether you are getting the academic growth you need to be successful — to be, in that famous phrase, “college and career-ready” by the time you exit high school. Continue reading »

No comments yet

Dear colleagues:

As the legislature considers significant new investments in K-12 education, we need to ensure that these investments result in improved outcomes for children. One certain way to achieve this is by strengthening high school graduation requirements.

Our school system should prepare students for the next step in life, whether it’s additional education and training, or direct entry into the workforce. Too often, however, students leave the K-12 system without the knowledge and skills they need to take the next step towards gainful employment. And too often, our minority students are left behind disproportionately. Continue reading »

No comments yet

When we look at the changes the K-12 system would undergo to fully implement the 24-credit Career- and College-Ready Graduation Requirements, it becomes clear that requiring 3 credits of science is a key change. Other changes remaining to be implemented, such as 2 credits of world language and an additional arts credit, are flexible credits—classes that students may substitute with other classes if they work better for the student’s education and career goals as described in the student’s High School and Beyond Plan.  But the additional credit of science is a core credit, one of the 17 mandatory credits in the Career- and College-Ready framework.

Three credits of science, with 2 laboratory credits, would not only help prepare all students for a full range of post-secondary options, but would also support a technologically prepared workforce in our state. Continue reading »

No comments yet

As many of you have read in the news lately, the Washington Policy Center has issued a series of A – F grades using our Achievement Index. For a number of reasons, the State Board opposes this approach. We testified against the bill in the state legislature, and we do not use A – F grades in our current Index framework. Board member Kris Mayer wrote a letter in opposition to this approach; it can be read here.

An Index, comprised mostly of test scores, is very useful as an initial evaluative screen. It helps us understand which schools are struggling, but not necessarily why. You can’t label a school or its staff a “failure” by merely looking at test scores in a spreadsheet. You need to understand something more about the school and why the data tells the story it does. Continue reading »

No comments yet

Senior Policy Analyst Linda Drake walks through the flexible options within the State Board of Education’s 24-credit framework for career-and college-ready graduation requirements.

These requirements were approved by the State Board at their November, 2010 meeting, but full implementation of the framework is pending legislative authorization and funding. The State Board of Education will only support moving forward on these requirements when they have been approved and fully funded by the legislature.

No comments yet

The Global Challenge States, generated from Washington Learns, comprise the top eight states on the Progressive Policy Institute’s New Economy Index [NEI, 2002].  They were identified for the purpose of creating a meaningful comparison group that more closely approximates our state’s socio-economic situation.
You’ll notice that in the first graph, our performance on NAEP substantially exceeds the national average except for 4^th grade reading, where WA is still on top but the margin is narrow.

This comports somewhat with the results in the 2^nd graph, in which our 4^th grade reading scores are on an overall downward trend since 2005, even before the transition from WASL to MSP.  I continue to argue that 4^th grade literacy scores should be a focus going forward.

Re: NAEP, In each case, our performance lags behind the unweighted average of the Global Challenge States.  For graduation rates, our performance falls below both unweighted averages (NAEP and national), which is somewhat anomalous; it will be interesting to see if that trend continues beyond the first year of the comparable 4 yr cohort data.

-Ben

No comments yet

I recently had the occasion to look at Washington’s achievement data on two key performance indicators: 4^th grade reading, and 8^th grade math.

I chose these data points because they represent key transition points in each student’s educational career.  Research tells us students who are not reading at grade level by the end of 3^rd grade have difficulty catching up thereafter.  Indeed, 3^rd grade reading proficiency is a strong statistical predictor of high school graduation.   Similarly, middle school math represents a key transition point– students not achieving math proficiency in middle school are less likely to be college and or career-ready by the end of high school, and qualify for the high-skill, living wage jobs (many of them STEM-related) Washington is having difficulty filling.

Which Story Do We Believe?  Juxtaposing State vs. National Data on Math and Reading

In my review, one finding sticks out.  On state assessments, the Washington Report Card has more students achieving proficiency reading in 4th grade (67.3%) than math in 8th grade (50.4%).  However, when comparing scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the inverse is true – Washington actually has a greater percentage of students proficient in 8^th grade math than 4^th grade reading: 40% compared to 34%.  WA also outpaces the nation by a wider margin in 8^th grade math as well (see chart below).

So, the state and national data seem to tell conflicting stories, both in terms of the relative ranking of 8th grade math versus 4th grade reading, and in terms of how many kids are actually achieving ‘proficiency’.  And the disparity is not trivial.  For example, national NAEP Reading data suggests about half as many kids are achieving “proficiency” (MSP: 67.3% vs. NAEP: 34%).

So what is going on here?  What is our biggest ‘transition point’ problem – middle school math or early reading?  How do the state and national definitions of ‘proficiency’ differ, and which is to be trusted?

As it turns out, there are a few thing going on.  And Washington is not unique among states in this situation.

For one, Washington’s definition of ‘proficient’ is less rigorous than that utilized by NAEP, although our relative standing among the states is much different in 8^th grade math than 4^th grade reading.

Figure 3 below shows a ranking of states produced by the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES), comparing WA’s standards to equivalent scale scores on NAEP.  I have put stars next to Washington in each case, and you will see WA ranks 16^th in Reading, with a proficiency standard that is below NAEP ‘basic’, and far below NAEP ‘proficient’.

But in 8^th grade math, it’s a much different story (See Figure 3).   Washington’s 8^th grade math standard is considerably more rigorous than NAEP ‘basic’ and comes closer to NAEP ‘proficient’.   It’s also noteworthy that we ranked 2nd in the nation on this comparison.

From this, It would appear that our 8^th grade math standards are simply more rigorous than our 4^th grade reading standards.  This would seem to explain why our relative math/reading proficiency rates flip-flop in the state-to national comparisons.  So maybe our performance in Math, in objective terms, isn’t really all that far behind our performance in Reading.  Indeed, maybe it isn’t behind at all.

CHART 1 – WASHINGTON COMPARED TO THE NATION ON 4^TH GRADE READING AND 8^TH GRADE MATH – NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS (NAEP) 

Additionally, aside from WA’s ranking, it is striking how widely varying the definitions of ‘proficiency’ are state-to-state.   A student could be deemed ‘proficient’ in Reading if they live in Portland, Oregon, but considerably below proficiency if he or she lived just across the border in Vancouver, WA (note that Oregon ranks next-to-last among the states on the Reading standard).   That is, in essence, the strongest argument there is for Common Core.

CHART 2 – WASHINGTON COMPARED TO OTHER STATES – STATE STANDARDS EQUIVALENCE TO NAEP SCALE SCORE – 2 GRAPHS: 8^TH GRADE MATH AND 4^TH GRADE READING 2009 (SOURCE, NCES)

I’m left with a few lasting impressions.  First, I have a renewed appreciation of the need for Common Core – such widely divergent definitions of ‘proficiency’ across the states present real equity issues for students.

CHART 3 – NAEP SCALE EQUIVALENTS OF STATE GRADE 8 MATHEMATICS STANDARDS FOR PROFICIENT PERFORMANCE, BY STATE: 2009

But I also have a real curiosity as to whether our first test results from the Common Core assessments  reveal the same relative dearth of proficiency in 8^th math vs. 4^th reading.  The low math scores, relative to reading, have garnered a lot of attention, and driven a lot of policy decisions in this state over the past decade.  But could it be that the new test results, scheduled for 2014-15, turn the conventional wisdom about math performance in this state on its head?

2 comments