Not-to-far-fetched news item: Emerging from his burrow on Sunday, Sen. Phil Berger saw his shadow, predicted that there would be six more weeks of third-grade for tens of thousands of North Carolina school children, and immediately crawled back into his burrow.
While above "news item" is fake, the prospect of a "Groundhog Grade" for NC third-graders and their families is all too real--and very much due to the ill-conceived meddling of Sen. Phil ("Punxsutawney Phil") Berger.
A while back, Punxsutawney Phil and his tea-party colleagues muscled through an education "reform" plan that requires third-graders to pass new reading proficiency tests. To give students the best chance of passing, most school districts are adopting a "portfolio" approach that subjects the students to 36 assessments.
Students who don't pass will be required to attend reading "camps" over the summer.
Those who don't attend the camps or fail the tests after the camps will get to do third grade over--and possibly over again.
Testing for the students is beginning and will continue for 12 weeks. It's hard to imagine much learning going on in the classrooms with students having to sit for the assessments and teachers having to conduct them.
It is estimated that somewhere between 37,000 and 75,000 students will fall short of the mark and be sent to the camps.
An analysis by the NC Department of Public Instruction estimated that at least $18.3 million would be needed to fund the camps if 37,000 students failed the tests. However, in their wisdom, Punxsutawney Phil and his colleagues (who appear to have failed third-grade math) only allocated $15.5 million, leaving local school districts to pick up the rest of their tab.
It also looks like 37,000 is an optimistic figure--last year, more than 50,000 students (about half of all third graders) were short of proficiency.
Under-funded schools during the regular year; a long, drawn-out testing regime that interferes with learning; and woefully under-funded remedial programs are all a recipe for disaster.
If you inflicted this on NC families, you'd be crawling back into your burrow too.
Showing posts with label edookayshun. Show all posts
Showing posts with label edookayshun. Show all posts
Monday, February 3, 2014
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Benefits from NC pre-school programs
A new peer-reviewed study by Duke researchers in the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management shows that North Carolina's Smart Start and More at Four (now the NC Pre-Kindergarten) pre-school programs substantially improve third-graders' reading and math test scores.
The researchers linked third-graders' scores on standardized Spring reading and math tests to the counties where those third-graders were pre-schoolers. They then calculated county averages of the per-child spending on the Smart Start and More at Four programs for the years that each child was growing up.
The researchers focused on the years when both programs were being ramped up and found that spending on both programs was significantly and substantially positively associated with math and reading scores. The results held even in complex multivariate models that also accounted for the children's personal and family characteristics, county-specific effects, and time-effects.
The research is important in establishing the effectiveness of both programs. In particular, it shows that both programs have impacts that reach several years into elementary school.
However, it also shows the consequences of recent actions by Republican General Assemblies to slash these programs. In 2011, permanent state funding for Smart Start was cut by one-fifth, and one-time budget cuts along with state cuts to local governments reduced spending further. That same 2011 budget also sharply cut the NCPK program. Although Gov. Perdue replaced some of those funds through temporary allocations, that relief was not maintained in the 2013-5 budget.
The consequences will appear later this decade when the current cohort of pre-schoolers reach third grade with weaker reading and math skills.
And as that noted educational authority, Speaker Thom Tillis, has pointed out, "Students who can read at grade level by the end of third grade are four times more likely to graduate than those who cannot."
So the decade that follows isn't looking so good either.
The researchers linked third-graders' scores on standardized Spring reading and math tests to the counties where those third-graders were pre-schoolers. They then calculated county averages of the per-child spending on the Smart Start and More at Four programs for the years that each child was growing up.
The researchers focused on the years when both programs were being ramped up and found that spending on both programs was significantly and substantially positively associated with math and reading scores. The results held even in complex multivariate models that also accounted for the children's personal and family characteristics, county-specific effects, and time-effects.
The research is important in establishing the effectiveness of both programs. In particular, it shows that both programs have impacts that reach several years into elementary school.
However, it also shows the consequences of recent actions by Republican General Assemblies to slash these programs. In 2011, permanent state funding for Smart Start was cut by one-fifth, and one-time budget cuts along with state cuts to local governments reduced spending further. That same 2011 budget also sharply cut the NCPK program. Although Gov. Perdue replaced some of those funds through temporary allocations, that relief was not maintained in the 2013-5 budget.
The consequences will appear later this decade when the current cohort of pre-schoolers reach third grade with weaker reading and math skills.
And as that noted educational authority, Speaker Thom Tillis, has pointed out, "Students who can read at grade level by the end of third grade are four times more likely to graduate than those who cannot."
So the decade that follows isn't looking so good either.
Monday, January 20, 2014
NC grading charter school applications on a curve
Basic grammar and punctuation skills might be requirements for students in North Carolina schools, but they aren't requirements for opening a charter school in the state--especially if you're the son of the NC Senate Majority Leader.
In nearby Rockingham County, Philip Berger Jr.'s Providence Charter School was just granted approval to begin taking public funds, despite an application that is riddled with errors.
The errors start on the second page, where the wrong date is used, but they continue.
For example, the application explains on page 9 that
In nearby Rockingham County, Philip Berger Jr.'s Providence Charter School was just granted approval to begin taking public funds, despite an application that is riddled with errors.
The errors start on the second page, where the wrong date is used, but they continue.
For example, the application explains on page 9 that
...students who aspire to earn a college degree...do not receive adequate attention or a challenging and demanding curriculum because of mindset that they are performing 'adequately'...because these students are viewed self-sufficient, little is demanded of them. We strive for excellence."Well, selective excellence that doesn't rely on attention to detail.
Thursday, January 9, 2014
UNC-CH failing athletes and taxpayers
Just when you think you've dug out the last of the academic and moral rot at North Carolina's "flagship" university, another chunk of the school's reputation crumbles.
CNN reports on the woeful literacy skills and achievement of athletes in public universities
And as the CNN story makes clear, UNC-CH has a lot of company.
Nevertheless, UNC-CH's admissions practices do a shameful disservice to the affected athletes. It's one thing to open the doors of opportunity as wide as possible. It's quite another to use the unpaid services of students whose limited reading and writing skills give them almost no chance of succeeding academically.
The practices are also a disservice to the state's taxpayers, who subsidize each athlete to the tune of thousands of dollars per year. Yes, boosters fund scholarships for the athletes, but those scholarships cover only a portion of the cost of attending the university. NC taxpayers kick in the rest.
Regrettably, UNC-CH will likely continue to do whatever skeevy things it is going to do. Students and alumni should be outraged that the value of their degrees are being tarnished, but they seem too busy trying to snatch up football and basketball tickets to notice.
While the school, the athletes, the students, and the alumni are content with this, there are no reasons why it has to be underwritten by taxpayers.
The UNC system, consisting of UNC-CH and its 16 sister schools, has minimum admission requirements that involve specified high school coursework (e.g., four years of English courses and two years of another language), minimum GPAs, and minimum test scores. The state should eliminate funding for all athletic scholarship students who fail to meet these requirements.
Better yet, UNC-CH should re-dedicate itself to its educational mission.
CNN reports on the woeful literacy skills and achievement of athletes in public universities
A CNN investigation found public universities across the country where many students in the basketball and football programs could read only up to an eighth-grade level. The data obtained through open records requests also showed a staggering achievement gap between college athletes and their peers at the same institution.and illustrates its case with UNC Chapel Hill.
As a graduate student at UNC-Greensboro, (Mary) Willingham researched the reading levels of 183 UNC-Chapel Hill athletes who played football or basketball from 2004 to 2012. She found that 60% read between fourth- and eighth-grade levels. Between 8% and 10% read below a third-grade level.Willingham is certainly an impeachable source, having contributed to the cheating scandal at UNC-CH. However, even if only a portion of what she has reported is true, she casts quite an indictment against the school and its athletic programs.
And as the CNN story makes clear, UNC-CH has a lot of company.
Nevertheless, UNC-CH's admissions practices do a shameful disservice to the affected athletes. It's one thing to open the doors of opportunity as wide as possible. It's quite another to use the unpaid services of students whose limited reading and writing skills give them almost no chance of succeeding academically.
The practices are also a disservice to the state's taxpayers, who subsidize each athlete to the tune of thousands of dollars per year. Yes, boosters fund scholarships for the athletes, but those scholarships cover only a portion of the cost of attending the university. NC taxpayers kick in the rest.
Regrettably, UNC-CH will likely continue to do whatever skeevy things it is going to do. Students and alumni should be outraged that the value of their degrees are being tarnished, but they seem too busy trying to snatch up football and basketball tickets to notice.
While the school, the athletes, the students, and the alumni are content with this, there are no reasons why it has to be underwritten by taxpayers.
The UNC system, consisting of UNC-CH and its 16 sister schools, has minimum admission requirements that involve specified high school coursework (e.g., four years of English courses and two years of another language), minimum GPAs, and minimum test scores. The state should eliminate funding for all athletic scholarship students who fail to meet these requirements.
Better yet, UNC-CH should re-dedicate itself to its educational mission.
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Failing NC's children
Republican-led budget slashing is crippling North Carolina's public schools and setting the stage for an entire generation to fail.
WRAL reports
Not only have teacher positions been cut, but the legislature has allowed the rising cost-of-living to erode teacher salaries. Just a few years ago, NC teacher salaries were near the average for the country. Now, average salaries are lower than almost every state.
The predictable result is that more teachers are racing for the exits. The WRAL article indicates that about one out of every seven NC teachers left their jobs last year, which was up from an already high one out of nine leaving two years ago. The losses include high proportions of experienced teachers. Many of the teachers are taking jobs in other states.
More students, fewer teachers, worse-paid and more dissatisfied teachers, less-experienced teachers, and cuts in other resources--they're all ingredients for educational failure.
Children get one shot at an effective education, and NC legislators are dooming this generation. Is it any wonder why Republicans are scrambling to dismantle student testing and standards? No sense documenting your own failure.
WRAL reports
Almost 17,200 additional students packed into North Carolina schools this year while the number of teachers dropped, according to new payroll data, leading to what some say are larger class sizes that inhibit learning.The article goes on to point out that the total number of public school teachers fell by 60. The losses would have been about 10 times that level if local school districts hadn't paid for replacement teachers out of their own funds. Overall, the number of state-funded teachers fell by 589.
Not only have teacher positions been cut, but the legislature has allowed the rising cost-of-living to erode teacher salaries. Just a few years ago, NC teacher salaries were near the average for the country. Now, average salaries are lower than almost every state.
The predictable result is that more teachers are racing for the exits. The WRAL article indicates that about one out of every seven NC teachers left their jobs last year, which was up from an already high one out of nine leaving two years ago. The losses include high proportions of experienced teachers. Many of the teachers are taking jobs in other states.
More students, fewer teachers, worse-paid and more dissatisfied teachers, less-experienced teachers, and cuts in other resources--they're all ingredients for educational failure.
Children get one shot at an effective education, and NC legislators are dooming this generation. Is it any wonder why Republicans are scrambling to dismantle student testing and standards? No sense documenting your own failure.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Our failing public charter schools
A struggling charter school in Kinston, NC fails spectacularly and leaves taxpayers, students, teachers, and two local school systems holding the bag. NC PolicyWatch reports
Where's the accountability?
State education officials want to know what happened to more than $600,000 in public education funding a Kinston charter school spent this school year despite only holding classes for 10 days.Two-thirds of a million state tax dollars to provide almost no education, while throwing numerous students back onto the local school systems at the last minute.
Kinston Charter Academy, which opened in 2004 with the goal of educating low-income children in and around Lenoir County, voluntarily shut its door on Sept. 6, a few days into the new school year. The state Board of Education had been poised to try and close the charter school after hearing numerous complaints about financial instabilities at the school.
The sudden closure, two weeks into the school year, left the families of the 230 students in the K-8 school only a few days to enroll in nearby public schools in Lenoir and Pitt counties.
But it also brought up questions about what the school did with the $666,818 state education funding it received in July that was supposed to last through October. The school was also overfunded, receiving money to educate 366 students when only 230 students enrolled.
Where's the accountability?
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Greensboro's little white school houses
The charter school movement in North Carolina is intended to provide educators with flexibility to innovate and to open doors for all children to learn. However, many charter schools use this flexibility to subtly keep some children from finding those doors.
In Greensboro, this has led to one publicly-funded charter school--Greensboro Academy--being the whitest public school in all of Greensboro. Figures from the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction indicate that in the 2012-13 school year, 81.7 percent of Greensboro Academy's students were white. By way of contrast, just under 38 percent of public school students in Guilford County are white. Greensboro Academy's current composition represents progress of a sort; a few years ago just over 90 percent of its students were white.
Another publicly-funded charter school--Cornerstone Academy--isn't far behind with 74.0 percent of its students being white, essentially double the proportion of white students in Guilford County's public schools.
How do these publicly-funded schools achieve these remarkable numbers? The biggest factor is location. Public schools, including both charter and district schools, draw largely from their surrounding neighborhoods. Patterns of racial segregation in housing are reflected in racial segregation in school composition.
Greensboro Academy and Cornerstone Academy are both located near the northwest fringes of Greensboro (they're less than four miles driving distance apart), a section of the city that is predominantly white. For example, the district elementary school for children who live very near Greensboro Academy is Claxton Elementary, which is 59.7 percent white, and the district middle school is Kernodle, which is 64.5 percent white.
However, these locational choices are compounded by another factor--the lack of general school bus transportation to the schools. Parents at these schools are responsible for transporting or arranging transportation for their children. This makes it much harder for low-income parents, especially those who lack cars. The schools assist parents who want to locate car-pool partners, but this would still be a substantial barrier for those without cars in the first place. Additionally, neither school is especially walkable.
Charter schools are allocated a share of the state and local transportation funds, but part of their academic "flexibility" includes being able to use those funds for other purposes.
Put the schools' location and transportation barriers together and you have a dandy recipe for racial exclusion--all on the public dime.
Another publicly-funded charter school--Summerfield Charter Academy, the Howard Coble Campus--has just opened a few miles further out in this "underserved" area. Look for it to generate even more skewed demographics.
In Greensboro, this has led to one publicly-funded charter school--Greensboro Academy--being the whitest public school in all of Greensboro. Figures from the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction indicate that in the 2012-13 school year, 81.7 percent of Greensboro Academy's students were white. By way of contrast, just under 38 percent of public school students in Guilford County are white. Greensboro Academy's current composition represents progress of a sort; a few years ago just over 90 percent of its students were white.
Another publicly-funded charter school--Cornerstone Academy--isn't far behind with 74.0 percent of its students being white, essentially double the proportion of white students in Guilford County's public schools.
How do these publicly-funded schools achieve these remarkable numbers? The biggest factor is location. Public schools, including both charter and district schools, draw largely from their surrounding neighborhoods. Patterns of racial segregation in housing are reflected in racial segregation in school composition.
Greensboro Academy and Cornerstone Academy are both located near the northwest fringes of Greensboro (they're less than four miles driving distance apart), a section of the city that is predominantly white. For example, the district elementary school for children who live very near Greensboro Academy is Claxton Elementary, which is 59.7 percent white, and the district middle school is Kernodle, which is 64.5 percent white.
However, these locational choices are compounded by another factor--the lack of general school bus transportation to the schools. Parents at these schools are responsible for transporting or arranging transportation for their children. This makes it much harder for low-income parents, especially those who lack cars. The schools assist parents who want to locate car-pool partners, but this would still be a substantial barrier for those without cars in the first place. Additionally, neither school is especially walkable.
Charter schools are allocated a share of the state and local transportation funds, but part of their academic "flexibility" includes being able to use those funds for other purposes.
Put the schools' location and transportation barriers together and you have a dandy recipe for racial exclusion--all on the public dime.
Another publicly-funded charter school--Summerfield Charter Academy, the Howard Coble Campus--has just opened a few miles further out in this "underserved" area. Look for it to generate even more skewed demographics.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Cue the predictable response
...frankly if you want to take gender studies that’s fine, go to a private school and take it, but I don’t want to subsidize that if that’s not going to get someone a job. Right now, I’m looking for engineers. I’m looking for technicians. I’m looking for mechanics.”So complained North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory yesterday.
The governor has uncovered the ivory tower's dirty secret.
While the Republican legislature has bravely tried to grow the NC economy by firing teachers, police, and civil servants by the tens of thousands, the "educational elite" have undermined their heroic efforts and sunk the economy by graduating a flood of unemployable gender studies majors, Swahili speakers and navel-gazing philosophers.
Except, of course, that they haven't. The overwhelming majority of UNC system graduates complete career-oriented majors.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Higher education is a consitutionally-enshrined right in North Carolina
The local paper has a letter to the editor berating students protesting tuition increases at UNC for claiming a "right" to a college education.
However, the applicable document in this case is the North Carolina Constitution, which does provide such rights. Specifically, Article IX, section 8 states
Is the letter writer showing ignorance of his state's Constitution, or just effete entitlement to overlook rights and obligations that are inconvenient?
On this one, the UNC students are right, and the letter writer is wrong. Affordable higher education is a constitutionally-enshrined right in North Carolina.
Maybe someone should also remind the Republican legislature, which seems to have forgotten its Constitutional obligations to higher education.
The front page of the Feb. 11 News and Record shows a picture of students protesting the university budget cuts. What caught my attention were the signs proclaiming “Education is a right.” No, it is not! It is an earned privilege (after public secondary school). Where in the U.S. Constitution are individuals guaranteed the right to an education? It is this Constitution that ensures your right to protest.The letter writer focuses on the U.S. Constitution, which is indeed silent about a right to higher education.
Is it ignorance of the Constitution or just plain effete entitlement? Is it a reflection of the public education system’s failure to teach basic civics and how our great nation was created to operate? Be aware that the government governs only at the pleasure of the people. Government does not afford rights to the people, as we are all born with inalienable rights that government neither grants, affords nor can legally infringe. Read the Bill of Rights. The Constitution limits the powers of the federal government. During our liberal/progressive periods, this is lost by the public and our leaders.
This limit escapes our university students, apparently. It is the era of entitlements that led our young people to believe someone else (taxpayers) is obligated to ensure their higher education.
However, the applicable document in this case is the North Carolina Constitution, which does provide such rights. Specifically, Article IX, section 8 states
The General Assembly shall maintain a public system of higher education, comprising The University of North Carolina and such other institutions of higher education as the General Assembly may deem wise. The General Assembly shall provide for the selection of trustees of The University of North Carolina and of the other institutions of higher education, in whom shall be vested all the privileges, rights, franchises, and endowments heretofore granted to or conferred upon the trustees of these institutions. The General Assembly may enact laws necessary and expedient for the maintenance and management of The University of North Carolina and the other public institutions of higher education.Section 9 states
The General Assembly shall provide that the benefits of The University of North Carolina and other public institutions of higher education, as far as practicable, be extended to the people of the State free of expense.And Section 10 states that the funds from escheats will be directed toward financial aid for needy in-state higher-education students.
Is the letter writer showing ignorance of his state's Constitution, or just effete entitlement to overlook rights and obligations that are inconvenient?
On this one, the UNC students are right, and the letter writer is wrong. Affordable higher education is a constitutionally-enshrined right in North Carolina.
Maybe someone should also remind the Republican legislature, which seems to have forgotten its Constitutional obligations to higher education.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
"Tebow" bill in Virginia would disadvantage public-school students
Virginia's House of Delegates has recently passed a bill that would have the effect of allowing home-schooled children to participate in public-school sports teams. In principle, the legislation is a good idea. Public-school sports teams are publicly-financed, and home-schooled children should be allowed to participate on the same basis as other children. To do otherwise is to discriminate against home-schooling.
An op-ed in this morning's Washington Post argues that the legislation will result in some public-school children losing their spots on sports teams and that some of these children may be more deserving because of their ties to the school. The author is right that some existing public-school students will be displaced, but students are also displaced when new students enroll in a school or when the distribution of talent changes at a school (e.g., when other students work out harder and out-compete them). No student is guaranteed a spot on a school team, and a hard fact of life is that limited spots will mean that some students will be left aside. So, my concern isn't with fair competition from home-schooled students.
The concern instead is about unfair competition. Student athletes are subject to a host of requirements regarding their academic progress and behavior. The academic requirements include course grade and GPA standards across the entire curriculum and on a quarterly or semester basis. In Virginia, public-school students must also pass standardized tests across a broad set of subjects to advance in some grades and subjects.
The Virginia bill applies some standards to home-schooled students. In particular, these students would have to show evidence of academic progress for two consecutive years and would also be subject to some disciplinary standards. However, the home-school standards are much weaker than the public school standards. For example, annual academic progress for home-schoolers can be demonstrated by passing the math and language arts sections of a national standardized test at the 23 percentile. Thus, home-schooled students don't have to master the same breadth of subject material as public-school students and don't have to show the same consistency in performance (are subject to a single annual measure rather than period-by-period measures).
Similarly, the disciplinary requirements are different. Parents are not required to maintain the same standards within their homes or report any in-home disciplinary problems. Short of the child coming to the attention of law enforcement, there would be no record of disciplinary issues.
My guess is that most home-school students would be able to meet the public-school standards (just as most public-school students do). However, the lax rules for home-school students mean that some could be advantaged relative to public-school students.
The different standards also create some perverse incentives. The Washington Post op-ed complains that allowing home-school students to participate in public-school sports could encourage more home-schooling. However, we don't want unfair restrictions on sports participation to drive decisions to home-school. If unfair restrictions are keeping some students in public schools, a shift to more home-schooling when the playing field is leveled could be a good thing. There is nothing perverse about the incentives created by a level playing field.
Problems might arise, however, from students shifting into home-schooling to evade the behavioral and academic restrictions placed on other students. Sadly, there are unscrupulous public-school sports coaches and unscrupulous parents who will bend the eligibility rules to get children onto particular sports teams. For example, residency rules for children are frequently an issue. Under the proposed Virginia rules, a coach could encourage parents to remove a child with marginal academic or behavioral performance from a public school, substitute a marginally-qualified tutor for instructional purposes, and still have the child participate in sports.
The Virginia legislation purports to be fair and even-handed but does not appear to be. The Virginia Senate has a chance to correct some of these problems by applying equivalent standards to home-school and public-school students.
The proposed legislation also has a sunset clause and would expire on June 30, 2017. The Virginia Senate would do well to maintain this clause but also require an independent evaluation of the effects of the legislation on student outcomes.
An op-ed in this morning's Washington Post argues that the legislation will result in some public-school children losing their spots on sports teams and that some of these children may be more deserving because of their ties to the school. The author is right that some existing public-school students will be displaced, but students are also displaced when new students enroll in a school or when the distribution of talent changes at a school (e.g., when other students work out harder and out-compete them). No student is guaranteed a spot on a school team, and a hard fact of life is that limited spots will mean that some students will be left aside. So, my concern isn't with fair competition from home-schooled students.
The concern instead is about unfair competition. Student athletes are subject to a host of requirements regarding their academic progress and behavior. The academic requirements include course grade and GPA standards across the entire curriculum and on a quarterly or semester basis. In Virginia, public-school students must also pass standardized tests across a broad set of subjects to advance in some grades and subjects.
The Virginia bill applies some standards to home-schooled students. In particular, these students would have to show evidence of academic progress for two consecutive years and would also be subject to some disciplinary standards. However, the home-school standards are much weaker than the public school standards. For example, annual academic progress for home-schoolers can be demonstrated by passing the math and language arts sections of a national standardized test at the 23 percentile. Thus, home-schooled students don't have to master the same breadth of subject material as public-school students and don't have to show the same consistency in performance (are subject to a single annual measure rather than period-by-period measures).
Similarly, the disciplinary requirements are different. Parents are not required to maintain the same standards within their homes or report any in-home disciplinary problems. Short of the child coming to the attention of law enforcement, there would be no record of disciplinary issues.
My guess is that most home-school students would be able to meet the public-school standards (just as most public-school students do). However, the lax rules for home-school students mean that some could be advantaged relative to public-school students.
The different standards also create some perverse incentives. The Washington Post op-ed complains that allowing home-school students to participate in public-school sports could encourage more home-schooling. However, we don't want unfair restrictions on sports participation to drive decisions to home-school. If unfair restrictions are keeping some students in public schools, a shift to more home-schooling when the playing field is leveled could be a good thing. There is nothing perverse about the incentives created by a level playing field.
Problems might arise, however, from students shifting into home-schooling to evade the behavioral and academic restrictions placed on other students. Sadly, there are unscrupulous public-school sports coaches and unscrupulous parents who will bend the eligibility rules to get children onto particular sports teams. For example, residency rules for children are frequently an issue. Under the proposed Virginia rules, a coach could encourage parents to remove a child with marginal academic or behavioral performance from a public school, substitute a marginally-qualified tutor for instructional purposes, and still have the child participate in sports.
The Virginia legislation purports to be fair and even-handed but does not appear to be. The Virginia Senate has a chance to correct some of these problems by applying equivalent standards to home-school and public-school students.
The proposed legislation also has a sunset clause and would expire on June 30, 2017. The Virginia Senate would do well to maintain this clause but also require an independent evaluation of the effects of the legislation on student outcomes.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Pope's misinformation for UNC alumni
The John W. Pope Center for Higher Education Policy can be faulted for a host of sins, but a lack of ambition is not among them. Not content to mislead and misinform state lawmakers to cut public funding for North Carolina's public university system, the Pope Center also operates a misleading web-tool to also discourage private donations from some alumni.
Pope: UNC Greensboro has a free speech rating of "Red"
Translation: A free-speech group objects to UNCG's policy on discriminatory conduct--specifically to the statements
Pope: UNC Greensboro has a grade of "B" in ACTA's "What Will They Learn" assessment.
Translation: Another group has marked UNCG down for allowing students with SAT or ACT writing scores in the top decile to opt out of its first-year English 101 composition class. Students would still have to take an additional "Reasoning and Discourse" class and also complete two additional "writing-intensive" classes. The group also objects to UNCG allowing students to take courses like Western Civilization, Introduction to Greek Civilization, and Europe 1400-1789 in place of a course on either U.S. History or U.S. Government. In addition, the group objects because UNCG doesn't require students to take Economics (okay, they've got a point there).
Describing this as a "what will they learn" index is odd. At one end of the distribution (tied for worst in the state), our sister school, UNC Chapel Hill, gets a "D" from the group. UNC Chapel Hill students seem to learn a lot (just ask one of them). At the other end of the spectrum, getting "A's" are the University of Texas -- San Antonio, which graduates a whopping 27% of its students, the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma, which graduates 32% of its students, and Kennesaw State University, which graduates 41% of its students. The distinction between putting an extra requirement in the undergraduate bulletin and actually learning something seems lost on the Pope Center.
Pope: UNC Greensboro received a rating of "Unbalanced: Democratic" for faculty political balance.
Translation: Pope explains
Pope: UNC Greensboro has a 6-year Graduation Rate of 52 percent. The national average for 4-year schools is 63.2 percent.
Translation: The 52% statistic listed for UNCG is the percentage of students who started their careers at UNCG in 2003 and who completed their degrees at UNCG by 2009. The 63.2% statistic is not comparable and appears to be the proportion of students who start at a four-year institution seeking a bachelor's degree and ever attain one at any institution. At UNCG, just over a fifth of students transfer. UNCG (and other colleges) don't track graduation rates for their former students. The 63.2% statistic appears to come from a completely different data series based on a government survey (the kind of government spending other folks in the Pope Empire routinely object to). The comparable statistic for students completing a bachelor's degree at the same four-year institution they started at is 55.5%; for public institutions, the comparable statistic is 53.5%.
Incorrect and misleading statistics? Just another day at the office for the folks at the Pope Center.
Did you attend a North Carolina college or university?I went to the Alumni Guide for my institution, UNCG, to see what dastardly things my colleagues and I were doing. Below I post some of the Pope Center's statements, along with English translations.
If so, you undoubtedly receive frequent pleas from your school for financial support. Does your school deserve your donations?
Find out using this Alumni Guide to North Carolina colleges. Select your college or university from the list below to answer a short survey to determine whether your giving priorities line up with your alma mater’s current activities and performance.
Pope: UNC Greensboro has a free speech rating of "Red"
Translation: A free-speech group objects to UNCG's policy on discriminatory conduct--specifically to the statements
UNCG will not tolerate any harassment of, discrimination against, or disrespect for persons. UNCG is committed to equal opportunity in education and employment for all persons regardless of race, color, creed, religion, gender, age, national origin, disability, military veteran status, political affiliation or sexual orientation.The same group rates 65 percent of the colleges and universities that it surveyed as also "severely restricting free speech and open debate." Only four percent of colleges and universities meet with the group's approval.
Pope: UNC Greensboro has a grade of "B" in ACTA's "What Will They Learn" assessment.
Translation: Another group has marked UNCG down for allowing students with SAT or ACT writing scores in the top decile to opt out of its first-year English 101 composition class. Students would still have to take an additional "Reasoning and Discourse" class and also complete two additional "writing-intensive" classes. The group also objects to UNCG allowing students to take courses like Western Civilization, Introduction to Greek Civilization, and Europe 1400-1789 in place of a course on either U.S. History or U.S. Government. In addition, the group objects because UNCG doesn't require students to take Economics (okay, they've got a point there).
Describing this as a "what will they learn" index is odd. At one end of the distribution (tied for worst in the state), our sister school, UNC Chapel Hill, gets a "D" from the group. UNC Chapel Hill students seem to learn a lot (just ask one of them). At the other end of the spectrum, getting "A's" are the University of Texas -- San Antonio, which graduates a whopping 27% of its students, the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma, which graduates 32% of its students, and Kennesaw State University, which graduates 41% of its students. The distinction between putting an extra requirement in the undergraduate bulletin and actually learning something seems lost on the Pope Center.
Pope: UNC Greensboro received a rating of "Unbalanced: Democratic" for faculty political balance.
Translation: Pope explains
This category measures the number of professors in the economics and political science departments who are registered Democrats versus the number who are registered Republicans. Ratios of greater than 5:1 are considered "Very Unbalanced." Ratios between 5:1 and 1.5:1 are considered "Unbalanced." A ratio of 1.5:1 or less is considered “Balanced.” Data were gathered from the North Carolina State Board of Elections.So, in one breath, Pope criticizes UNCG for not forcing students to take government and economics classes. In the next, it decries those faculty as being unsuitably democratic. It's really hard to win with these folks.
Pope: UNC Greensboro has a 6-year Graduation Rate of 52 percent. The national average for 4-year schools is 63.2 percent.
Translation: The 52% statistic listed for UNCG is the percentage of students who started their careers at UNCG in 2003 and who completed their degrees at UNCG by 2009. The 63.2% statistic is not comparable and appears to be the proportion of students who start at a four-year institution seeking a bachelor's degree and ever attain one at any institution. At UNCG, just over a fifth of students transfer. UNCG (and other colleges) don't track graduation rates for their former students. The 63.2% statistic appears to come from a completely different data series based on a government survey (the kind of government spending other folks in the Pope Empire routinely object to). The comparable statistic for students completing a bachelor's degree at the same four-year institution they started at is 55.5%; for public institutions, the comparable statistic is 53.5%.
Incorrect and misleading statistics? Just another day at the office for the folks at the Pope Center.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Pope Center says there are too many UNC students; the data say there are too few
Earlier this year, the John W. Pope Center for Higher Education Policy recommended a host of budget cuts for the UNC system, based in good part on false and misleading statements about enrollment growth.
Are these enrollments unnatural or unsustainable? Let's stick with the Pope Center's high-watermark enrollment figures from Fall 2009, as these are the most favorable to its case.
Nationally, enrollment in 4-year institutions grew 37.8 percent from 9.36 million students in Fall 2000 to 12.91 million students in Fall 2009, so UNC's enrollment lagged the general growth in demand for post-secondary education and skills (of course, reporting that college enrollments in the U.S. grew 37.8 percent and UNC's almost did too makes for a very different headline).
Another indicator is the growth in enrollments in two-year institutions. From 2000 to 2009, enrollment in North Carolina's public two-year institutions grew 48.3 percent from 38,369 to 56,896.
We can also consider UNC enrollments relative to the size of the potential student population. There's no perfect measure for this because enrollments include graduate students, non-traditional students, and returning students, but the number of 18-24 year-olds is a general benchmark. The Census Bureau estimated that there were 930,000 18-24-year-olds living in North Carolina in July 2009. So, in Fall 2009 there were 0.239 UNC students per 18-24 year-old living in the state. Nationally, there were 0.253 four-year public-institution students per 18-24 year-old. Far from over-serving its population, the UNC system enrolls fewer students relative to the numbers of youths and young adults.
We can also use the Pope Center's comparison of students relative to the general population. In North Carolina, there were 0.0235 UNC students for every state resident in Fall 2009; nationally, the figure was 0.0251 public-four-year students. Put another way, in Fall 2009, there were 42.5 North Carolina residents potentially supporting each UNC student. Nationally, there were only 39.8 people supporting each public university student.
Jobs in North Carolina and elsewhere demand increasing amounts of skills. North Carolina's youths will have to compete with workers from other states and other countries whose skills are increasing. The state's lower--and now falling--enrollment rates put them and the state at a competitive disadvantage.
The problem in North Carolina isn't too many public university students, it's too few.
In recent years, expansionist policies have pushed the UNC system far beyond its natural limits.Enrollments at the schools in the UNC system did grow substantially from 2000 to 2009, though by slightly less than the figures that the Pope Center reported (from 162,761 students in Fall 2000 to 222,322 students in Fall 2009, an increase of 36.6 percent). The Pope Center, however, chose not to report that enrollments in Fall 2010 fell to 221,727 students. Since their report was posted, enrollments fell further to 220,305.
...The recent rate of growth in the university population is unsustainable. The population of North Carolina grew approximately 16 percent between 2000 and 2009; over that period, UNC enrollment grew 38 percent. This growth places an increasing burden on taxpayers to subsidize additional students...
Are these enrollments unnatural or unsustainable? Let's stick with the Pope Center's high-watermark enrollment figures from Fall 2009, as these are the most favorable to its case.
Nationally, enrollment in 4-year institutions grew 37.8 percent from 9.36 million students in Fall 2000 to 12.91 million students in Fall 2009, so UNC's enrollment lagged the general growth in demand for post-secondary education and skills (of course, reporting that college enrollments in the U.S. grew 37.8 percent and UNC's almost did too makes for a very different headline).
Another indicator is the growth in enrollments in two-year institutions. From 2000 to 2009, enrollment in North Carolina's public two-year institutions grew 48.3 percent from 38,369 to 56,896.
We can also consider UNC enrollments relative to the size of the potential student population. There's no perfect measure for this because enrollments include graduate students, non-traditional students, and returning students, but the number of 18-24 year-olds is a general benchmark. The Census Bureau estimated that there were 930,000 18-24-year-olds living in North Carolina in July 2009. So, in Fall 2009 there were 0.239 UNC students per 18-24 year-old living in the state. Nationally, there were 0.253 four-year public-institution students per 18-24 year-old. Far from over-serving its population, the UNC system enrolls fewer students relative to the numbers of youths and young adults.
We can also use the Pope Center's comparison of students relative to the general population. In North Carolina, there were 0.0235 UNC students for every state resident in Fall 2009; nationally, the figure was 0.0251 public-four-year students. Put another way, in Fall 2009, there were 42.5 North Carolina residents potentially supporting each UNC student. Nationally, there were only 39.8 people supporting each public university student.
Jobs in North Carolina and elsewhere demand increasing amounts of skills. North Carolina's youths will have to compete with workers from other states and other countries whose skills are increasing. The state's lower--and now falling--enrollment rates put them and the state at a competitive disadvantage.
The problem in North Carolina isn't too many public university students, it's too few.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Our schools are great; yours stink
Gallup has released results from its annual poll of Americans' perceptions of their public schools. In the poll, respondents are asked to assign a grade--A, B, C, D or F--to the schools. Overall, the vast majority of respondents give the nation's public schools a grade of C (53 percent) or worse (26 percent). The results are consistent with a trend of increasingly negative views regarding schools.
An interesting result, however, appears when people are asked about their local schools--the ones that they fund and that their children attend.
Only 27 percent of respondents give their local schools grades of C or worse; 71 percent give them A's or B's. Views regarding local schools also trend in the opposite direction from views regarding schools as a whole. According to respondents, their local schools have become better over time.
The disparity is even more pronounced when parents are asked about the schools their children attend. For this group, 77 percent rate their children's schools as good or better, again with a generally increasing trend.
Results like these are fairly common. People despise Congress but love their own representatives. Other drivers are awful, but few people rate themselves that way.
Objective results indicate that the local view is closer to being accurate. Long-term trends in reading and math scores from the National Assessment of Educational Progress have shown improvements for most age groups and especially for the youngest groups. Gains have been particularly pronounced for students from minority groups and students with less-educated parents.
Maybe it's time to cut the public schools a little bit of a break and stop villianizing educators. According to the people who seem to know best (local citizens and parents) and according to objective standards, "our" schools are both good and improving.
An interesting result, however, appears when people are asked about their local schools--the ones that they fund and that their children attend.
Only 27 percent of respondents give their local schools grades of C or worse; 71 percent give them A's or B's. Views regarding local schools also trend in the opposite direction from views regarding schools as a whole. According to respondents, their local schools have become better over time.
The disparity is even more pronounced when parents are asked about the schools their children attend. For this group, 77 percent rate their children's schools as good or better, again with a generally increasing trend.
Results like these are fairly common. People despise Congress but love their own representatives. Other drivers are awful, but few people rate themselves that way.
Objective results indicate that the local view is closer to being accurate. Long-term trends in reading and math scores from the National Assessment of Educational Progress have shown improvements for most age groups and especially for the youngest groups. Gains have been particularly pronounced for students from minority groups and students with less-educated parents.
Maybe it's time to cut the public schools a little bit of a break and stop villianizing educators. According to the people who seem to know best (local citizens and parents) and according to objective standards, "our" schools are both good and improving.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Shady economics survey from the John Locke Foundation
This week John Locke Foundation mailed surveys to academic economists in North Carolina asking them to assess economic portions of the state's 2009 high school civics and economics test and U.S. history test. The survey is a good example of the shady methods that are used by some partisans to influence policy.
The letter of introduction and instruction begins
Additional non-neutral framing appears later in the letter.
The survey form itself asks about six test questions: four drawn from the civics and economics test and two drawn from the U.S. history test. The questions appear to be very selectively chosen.
Each test actually contains 80 questions. From the civics and economics test, there are at least two dozen questions that bear directly on economics. From the U.S. history test, there are another dozen that ask about economic knowledge or reasoning and several more that address political economy issues.
Thus, from the 160 questions on the two tests and from 3-4 dozen questions that address economic issues in some way, the Locke Foundation has selected six.
Anybody who has ever developed a test knows that different questions are better at discriminating students' knowledge than others. This why tests include many questions and why pass criteria are based on answers on the full test or test section, not a subset of answers.
Education researchers further know that there are formal statistical procedures for testing the validity and reliability of questions. Those procedures would also involve evaluating the whole set of questions in a domain.
There are additional problems besides the survey's framing and selectiveness. The formatting of the survey form pushes respondents toward indicating that the questions have problems.
Consider the first item on the survey asks about question 14 from the civics and economics test:
Respondents are also pushed toward these responses from the letter of instruction which told them that they are to "assess the quality" of the questions and that they have "question evaluation options ... to consider." The check boxes are the only entries on the survey form that explicitly allow for assessment.
It's only if the respondent has carefully read a shaded box on the survey sheet that the respondent would see buried in the middle of a paragraph directions that say that he or she can also circle a letter if that appears to represent the answer. The survey is putting a lot of faith in people's willingness to read directions.
I called Terry Stoops, the Director of Education Studies at the John Locke Foundation and the letter author, to relate these concerns. Mr. Stoops was kind enough to take the call and patiently listen. Throughout the call, he expressed confidence in the appropriateness of all of the aspects of the survey instrument.
I'm, in turn, confident that the survey is an exercise in providing a social-science veneer to a pre-ordained conclusion. I strongly recommend that my economics colleagues not participate.
This is not to say that test questions shouldn't be reviewed or that they can't be improved. However, there are much better and less shady ways of going about it.
The letter of introduction and instruction begins
In an effort to improve high school economics education in the state, we are asking you and other experts from colleges and universities across North Carolina to assess the quality of selected questions from the state's high school civics and economics and U.S. history tests. To test these questions, we added question evaluation options for you to consider.This paragraph taints everything that follows. The first sentence frames the survey as "an effort to improve high school economics education." The wording implies improvements are needed and that the respondent should help by finding things that need improvement.
Additional non-neutral framing appears later in the letter.
Over 100,000 public high school students took the North Carolina end-of-course civics and economics test last year. According to the NC Department of Public Instruction, seven out of ten students passed the test. Unfortunately, pass rates say little about what high school students know and the testing instruments used to assess that knowledge.So again, the letter is framing the survey negatively and, worse, signalling the respondent that the test is unreliable ("Unfortunately, pass rates say little about what high school students know").
The survey form itself asks about six test questions: four drawn from the civics and economics test and two drawn from the U.S. history test. The questions appear to be very selectively chosen.
Each test actually contains 80 questions. From the civics and economics test, there are at least two dozen questions that bear directly on economics. From the U.S. history test, there are another dozen that ask about economic knowledge or reasoning and several more that address political economy issues.
Thus, from the 160 questions on the two tests and from 3-4 dozen questions that address economic issues in some way, the Locke Foundation has selected six.
Anybody who has ever developed a test knows that different questions are better at discriminating students' knowledge than others. This why tests include many questions and why pass criteria are based on answers on the full test or test section, not a subset of answers.
Education researchers further know that there are formal statistical procedures for testing the validity and reliability of questions. Those procedures would also involve evaluating the whole set of questions in a domain.
There are additional problems besides the survey's framing and selectiveness. The formatting of the survey form pushes respondents toward indicating that the questions have problems.
Consider the first item on the survey asks about question 14 from the civics and economics test:
1. A person opened a booth at a flea market to sell paintings this is an example of which factor of production?You can see how the format of the question prompts the respondent to identify a problem. In particular, the check boxes, which are set apart from the test question, prompt particular negative responses.A. Capital
B. Entrepreneurship
C. Natural Resources
D. Machinery
☐ None of the above
☐ Two or more of the above
☐ Defective or misleading question
☐ Comment (optional) _____________
Respondents are also pushed toward these responses from the letter of instruction which told them that they are to "assess the quality" of the questions and that they have "question evaluation options ... to consider." The check boxes are the only entries on the survey form that explicitly allow for assessment.
It's only if the respondent has carefully read a shaded box on the survey sheet that the respondent would see buried in the middle of a paragraph directions that say that he or she can also circle a letter if that appears to represent the answer. The survey is putting a lot of faith in people's willingness to read directions.
I called Terry Stoops, the Director of Education Studies at the John Locke Foundation and the letter author, to relate these concerns. Mr. Stoops was kind enough to take the call and patiently listen. Throughout the call, he expressed confidence in the appropriateness of all of the aspects of the survey instrument.
I'm, in turn, confident that the survey is an exercise in providing a social-science veneer to a pre-ordained conclusion. I strongly recommend that my economics colleagues not participate.
This is not to say that test questions shouldn't be reviewed or that they can't be improved. However, there are much better and less shady ways of going about it.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Birthers are just the tip of the know-nothing iceberg
There are days where my belief in rationality is really put to the test.
My very sensible brother-in-law, who has adopted Texas as his home state, sent the following along.
One wonders how many of these folks were in the audience yippin' and yawin' at Tom Tancredo's recent plea for higher voting standards.
My very sensible brother-in-law, who has adopted Texas as his home state, sent the following along.
Nearly a third of Texans believe humans and dinosaurs roamed the earth at the same time, and more than half disagree with the theory that humans developed from earlier species of animals, according to the University of Texas/Texas Tribune Poll.This would be just an interesting cultural note were it not for the influence that Texans have in the national textbook market.
...Most of the Texans in the survey — 51 percent — disagree with the statement, "human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals." Thirty-five percent agreed with that statement, and 15 percent said they don't know.
Did humans live at the same time as the dinosaurs? Three in ten Texas voters agree with that statement; 41 percent disagree, and 30 percent don't know.
One wonders how many of these folks were in the audience yippin' and yawin' at Tom Tancredo's recent plea for higher voting standards.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Not making the grade in C++
Looks like the upcoming knowledge-based economy might not be so knowledgeable.
Nationally, the portion of schools that offer an introductory computer science course has dropped from 78 percent in 2005 to 65 percent this year, and the corresponding decline in AP courses went from 40 to 27 percent, according to a survey by the Computer Science Teachers Association.That's okay, computer programming is a crap job anyway.
In the spring, the College Board, citing declining enrollment, canceled its AP computer science AB class, the more rigorous of its two courses in the subject.
The result of sporadic or skimpy computer science training is that a generation of teenagers great at using computers will be unlikely to play a role in the way computer technology shapes lives in the future, said Chris Stephenson, executive director of the New York-based Computer Science Teachers Association.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)