| « 100% Bull$#!% (Part 2) | Barack Obama on "What's Possible" (Updated 5/31) » |
100% Bull$#!% (Part 1)
06/03/08
12:53:28 pm, Categories: Announcements [A] Two weeks ago, the Center for Education Policy published what we have come to refer to here at Swift & Change Able as "The Little Study That Cried Wolf".
The report raises the specter of increasing numbers of schools that will not make adequate yearly progress (AYP) under NCLB because their Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) are back-loaded, i.e., much more growth is expected between now and 2014 than had been expected in previous years, in order to meet NCLB’s goal of "100% Proficiency."
The CEP report misleadingly states that "States with backloaded trajectories are likely to have more difficulty meeting their AMOs" in the years to come. This is misleading because AMO’s are no longer going to matter much in calculating AYP. In fact, in the out-years, states that have back-loaded their AMOS are likely to have an easier time making AYP.
Welcome to "Safe Harbor," the new AYP. Under NCLB’s Safe Harbor, a district or school only has to reduce by 10% the percentage of students in any subgroup who are not proficient.
Let’s look at how this would work for 3rd grade reading in Pennsylvania, one of the states that the CEP cites as having highly back-loaded AMOs.
The AMOs (blue line) set a very steep climb expected for all Pennsylvania students, just as dramatized in the CEP report.
But the Safe Harbor provision of NCLB sets a much more modest set of expectations for Pennsylvania’s minority students, who last year scored relatively low on state tests (the statewide Safe Harbor goals are calculated based on 06-07 data and appear in red).
Last but not and least, the yellow line represents the new Safe Harbor-driven AMOs for a low-income, high-minority elementary school in Philadelphia (we used data for a real school, but see no reason to single it out here).
In the Year 2014, the school could meet AYP if only 61% of its students were proficient in reading (and 39%, more than 1 in 3, were not). In other words, students in this school would not even have to meet this year’s AMO let alone 100% in 2014.
CEP does mention Safe Harbor at the end of its report, but it does so very offhandedly and vaguely (and look ma, no charts). But make no mistake, Safe Harbor (aka the poor man’s growth model) will be the central driving force in determining which schools make AYP in the years to come.
More soon. Stay tuned….
Trackback address for this post
Trackback URL (right click and copy shortcut/link location)
8 comments
Comment from: john thompson [Visitor]
Great analysis. I've always suspected that the real AYP would look something like your chart, but your graphic said it so well.
So again I have to ask. Why are you still so supportive of NCLB? You don't think that an NCLB II would produce the same type of loopholes?
So again I have to ask. Why are you still so supportive of NCLB? You don't think that an NCLB II would produce the same type of loopholes?
06/05/08 @ 08:39
Who said it was a loophole?
I helped write the provision, John.
This IS one of the reasons I support NCLB. It is much more reasonable than you and others seem to think. It gives credit for growth and sets reasonable interim goals. NCLB sets the minimum levels of performance. PA is free to set higher goals for Philadelphia schools. Do you think it should or shouldn't?
I would ask: Why do you oppose NCLB it if you know so little about how it really works? The safe harbor provision is six years old and no secret in the ed policy world.
Has it ever occurred to you that a lot of your frustration has more to do with the way your school and district are run, which from your reports seems to be less than satisfactorily to say the least, especially from the emails you send me that you ask me not to publish, than it has to do with NCLB and other federal laws?
I helped write the provision, John.
This IS one of the reasons I support NCLB. It is much more reasonable than you and others seem to think. It gives credit for growth and sets reasonable interim goals. NCLB sets the minimum levels of performance. PA is free to set higher goals for Philadelphia schools. Do you think it should or shouldn't?
I would ask: Why do you oppose NCLB it if you know so little about how it really works? The safe harbor provision is six years old and no secret in the ed policy world.
Has it ever occurred to you that a lot of your frustration has more to do with the way your school and district are run, which from your reports seems to be less than satisfactorily to say the least, especially from the emails you send me that you ask me not to publish, than it has to do with NCLB and other federal laws?
06/05/08 @ 08:52
Comment from: Judith [Visitor] · http://www.lausd.net
Safe Harbor is an important relief for many schools and districts but NCLB is flawed in many ways.
The major flaw with NCLB is that it is statistically impossible to meet 100% of any thing 100% of the time.
Another flaw is that it is not a value added model and does not give credit for growth (no matter how large) if it is not at the set target.
Benchmarks need to be set by the individual school based on where they are and who they are teaching.
I could go on and on but that is all for now.
The major flaw with NCLB is that it is statistically impossible to meet 100% of any thing 100% of the time.
Another flaw is that it is not a value added model and does not give credit for growth (no matter how large) if it is not at the set target.
Benchmarks need to be set by the individual school based on where they are and who they are teaching.
I could go on and on but that is all for now.
06/05/08 @ 09:44
Judith - I think you missed the entire point of the piece. Was 100% Bull$#!% too subtle?
1) NCLB does no require 100%.
2) NCLB does give credit for growth through its "Safe Harbor" provision. Actually, it gives credit for very SMALL growth.
I could go on and on but that is all for now.
I leave you and John with the following quote from the late Bruce Lee:
"I'm pointing at the moon and you're looking at my finger".
You guys gotta get out of the NEA Matrix and see reality rather than the illusion.
06/05/08 @ 10:30
Comment from: David [Visitor]
If the percentages are true, how come you've never before called out the President, Secretary or members of Congress for similarly stating that NCLB will result in 100% proficiency in 2014. As you've shown here, only 61% of Penna. 3rd graders have to be proficient by 2014.
Where has your outrage and truth telling been as the administration disingenuously claimed what you knew to be false and incorrect numbers for years?
Where has your outrage and truth telling been as the administration disingenuously claimed what you knew to be false and incorrect numbers for years?
06/05/08 @ 15:22
Who's outraged? Who said anything would "result"? 100% is a goal. Clinton had the same goal when he was Pres. Catch up on your history sometime and get back to me. And read my past posts and see if you don't think we spread praise and criticism equally around. Didn't your mom ever tell you: "measure twice and cut once". And always count to 10 before you spout off.
06/05/08 @ 15:58
Comment from: Cheryl Sattler [Visitor] · http://www.ethicallc.com
Thanks,Charlie, for a coherent explanation of safe harbor - long overdue. To me, the questions at the heart of the reauth are much more difficult than differentiated accountability - i.e., what expectations are really reasonable for students with disabilities (once we get that group down to students who really belong there, not just kids who haven't been taught to read) - do we need more disaggregation inthis category - and how can we align what we know about how long it takes kids to learn academic English with accountability.
06/05/08 @ 19:08
Comment from: Art [Visitor]
Very important perspective in this article.
The NCLB "safe harbor" rule requires both a 10% reduction in the number of students not meeting standard and progress on at least one of the other indicators in addition to the state test
The "safe harbor" provision also existed in previous incarnations of ESEA, but in different form than NCLB. In earlier versions, the "safe harbor" was protection against reduction in the amount of Title 1 / Chapter 1 funds going to a school.
The NCLB "safe harbor" rule requires both a 10% reduction in the number of students not meeting standard and progress on at least one of the other indicators in addition to the state test
The "safe harbor" provision also existed in previous incarnations of ESEA, but in different form than NCLB. In earlier versions, the "safe harbor" was protection against reduction in the amount of Title 1 / Chapter 1 funds going to a school.
06/08/08 @ 10:43
This post has 933 feedbacks awaiting moderation...
Comment feed for this postLeave a comment
