Citizen Netmom Welcome Guest | Login or Register

Mixed messages abound in the education world these days.  We want to graduate more students, but we want to make it harder to graduate; we want to add math, science, and foreign language requirements (read: add teachers), but we don’t want to increase funding for education.  And those are just a couple of examples from high school.

Higher Ed is in a similar predicament.  The goals are noble and good, but the means to achieve them are dwindling.  To wit:

• Tennessee must increase our percentage of college graduates.
• Remedial courses should be taught at community colleges, not universities.
• High school students could take remedial courses at community colleges while in high school, there by lessening the pressure on K-12 systems to hire more teachers, and also lessening the need for developmental courses at 4-year schools.
• And yet, 524 staff members at Board of Regents schools have accepted a buyout offer to save millions in salaries and benefits, but will result in fewer experienced instructors, larger classes, and fewer course offerings.

Anyone who has recently been a college student, or any parent of a college student, knows that one of the biggest challenges to graduating on time is to get into the classes one needs, when one needs them.  Offering more sections, more frequently, would undoubtedly improve the college graduation rate.  Offering fewer sections (with more students in each) less frequently cannot possibly yield improvement in the graduation rate — it will have the opposite effect.

But to keep it simple, the analogy is thus:  jump as high as you can.  Next, you must jump 50% higher… so dig a hole, stand in it, and try again.

Let me know if this works for you.  Like my physics major and rugby player daughter tells me, “gravity sucks.”

Everyone knows a little about test phobia: the dream of showing up for class and realizing that the biggest test of the year is that day (and you didn’t study), the clutching fear of a test that you’ve studied for but fear nonetheless, the simple fear of failure.

What if you took a test, then found out after the fact that the grading scale had been dramatically changed?  That instead of needing an 69 to pass, you’d have to get an 80 — but you already turned it in?

That’s what Tennessee school systems are facing right now.  Sometime in the next few weeks, Tennessee will issue our State Report Card.  This shows, for the state as a whole, for every district, and for every school, how well our students did on the TCAP tests last April.  It also shows the TVAAS (value added) score — how much students improve from year to year, not just how well they did this year.

Last April, the test that the kids took (grades 3-8) was pretty much the same test as they’ve taken for the last decade.  What’s different is that the grading scale has changed: kids have to score higher to attain the desirable “proficient” or “advanced” designations.  With the grading scale raised, it’s almost certain that fewer kids will attain such scores, making it appear that a higher percentage of our students are something less than proficient.  If that happens, the value-added grade could actually be negative.

It will appear, on the surface, that our students’ performance has declined.  For those of us who are aware of the change in the grading scale, we’ll know to look more closely to see what happened with the raw scores, not just the grade, but my fear is that most people won’t know the difference.

Next year will be worse, as the grading scale will remain higher, but the test will be made markedly harder as well.

Neither of those things is inherently bad.  More is required of today’s students to be competitive in the world, and we’re teaching them more in preparation for that fact.   The downside is that the school system is judged annually on these scores (they have No Child Left Behind implications as well), and if the public doesn’t realize that the rules of the game changed mid-stream, then the system is subject to intense criticism.  That’s a morale-buster for the teachers, and makes it tougher to obtain the public funding for education that is required.

Every school system in Tennessee is subject to the change in the rules, so it shouldn’t have a huge impact in comparing one school (or one school system) to another.  Where the change in rules impacts the most is in making comparisons of how the same school did in 2007 to 2008 — a measure of improvement.  For the next few years, that measure will be badly flawed.

We will rise to the challenge and meet or exceed the new standards.  It just won’t happen immediately, and we all need to be prepared for that.

This morning’s Knoxville News-Sentinel reports that hundreds of families are exercising their option to transfer out of “high priority” schools, or those not meeting standards established by No Child Left Behind.

It’s not difficult to see that most of the transfers are out of East Knoxville schools, and into West Knoxville schools — Farragut High is particularly hard-hit, with 155 new transfer students.  Since Hardin Valley Academy opened, Farragut no longer suffers the extreme overcrowding that was a problem in years past, but they do have a shortage of staff to accommodate that many new students.  What will they do with the surplus of teachers in other schools?  Transfer them to Farragut, where more teachers are now needed?

If that’s the case, will anything really change?

I have a lot of unanswered questions about this whole process.  One of those is, if the students transferring out of failing schools are the ones whose parents are most interested in education, does that leave behind the students whose parents are least interested, thereby making the danger of the failing schools falling further behind, much greater?

Another question is, will the transfer numbers sufficiently change the demographics of the school such that it raises the sub-group numbers at the receiving school to the level where they “count,” will the receiving school fail next year?  For those not well-versed in the mechanics of NCLB, a sub-group (economically disadvantaged, african-american, hispanic, native american, asian/pacific islander, English as a second language (ELL), or special education students) only counts for NCLB purposes if there are 45 or more students in that sub-group.  So, if Acme High School only had 35 English language learners last year, but due to transfers, has 50 this year, then those students’ performance will count this year where it didn’t last year.

Those aren’t all of my questions, but it’s enough of a start to make one’s head hurt.

Lastly, Knox County is offering transportation to the transfer students.  Given the distance from, say Carter High School in Northeast Knox County to Farragut in deep West Knox County, it’s probably at least a 30-minute ride by car (without morning traffic).  That means it’s probably a 1.5 hour bus ride… and a whole lot of extra transportation cost for the school system.

NCLB brings some very positive changes to education, most notably, close tracking of data for all students, and making that data very public.  Unfortunately, it also brings more sticks than carrots, and I’m not at all certain that the “sticks” being used are truly going to effect meaningful improvement.   Change, yes — but not all change is good.

Over the past week, there was a guest column and a couple of letters to the editor (all from the same page of talking points, not surprisingly) alleging that our school system has been in decline under the direction of our Superintendent.  I would link to it, but I’m not inclined to assist in the publicity efforts of a small group of women whose sole goal is to get rid of our school system’s CEO.

At the Board meeting last night, data was presented that shows, rather definitively, that in fact the opposite is true: by a variety of measures, we’ve made significant gains.  Impressive gains, even.

The graduation rate is up.  TCAP scores are up.  The average ACT score of ORHS students is up.  And yes, the number of students taking AP classes is up.

Our challenges are far from over, but it’s clear to me that we are on a path of achievement, and that we have the right leadership in place to accomplish set goals and objectives.

For the last month or so, the subject of school rankings has been a hot topic in Oak Ridge.

Last month, we learned that we didn’t make the Newsweek ranking, where we’ve enjoyed a spot for the last several years.  A bit later, we learned that we do actually qualify for the ranking, but didn’t get the paperwork in on time.  Somewhere between the two, there’s been a lot of talk (and ink) about whether the Newsweek ranking is a valid measure of quality, and whether it matters.

Like most things, the truth is in the middle.

Yes, the rankings do matter to a lot of us.  Businesses use them to recruit top staff, realtors use them to sell homes in Oak Ridge, and those of us with children at the high school take some measure of comfort in knowing that the high standard of academic performance remains so.   From this mom’s perspective, if a significant percentage of the kids at the high school are taking college-level courses, it surrounds our own kids with a kind of positive peer pressure to do well.  To study.  To put academics ahead of some of the other high school social distractions.

On the other hand, is the Newsweek ranking a realistic measure of quality?  Well, yes and no.  It measures the ratio of AP tests taken to the number of graduates in a given year.  It doesn’t measure the number of tests passed, nor the number of classes taken, so it’s subject to some skew: some kids take the AP courses, but don’t take the test.  The $83 fee to take the test may be something of a barrier, particularly if a student knows that that particular course won’t count toward their intended major.

If you want to measure the quality of the AP program, you’d count the scores acheived on these AP tests.  If you just want to measure how many students are exposed to the rigor of a college-level course, you only have to count the courses taken, not the tests taken.

Even so, counting anything to do with AP tests is only one measure.  It’s important to a lot of us, but it’s still only a snapshot of one component of a good high school education.

There are other rankings, certainly.  US News does one that Oak Ridge has never been on (that I know of), but that one predominantly measures how well minority subgroups perform.  To me, that is even less accurate as a reflection of overall quality than the Newsweek ranking based on AP tests taken.

Over the last few weeks, I’ve given considerable thought to the idea of rating high schools, and how one might devise a ranking sytem that really means something across the board.  To do so, I think you’d have to be able to measure one thing:  how well does this school prepare students for the next step in their lives — whatever that step may be?  At ORHS, most students go on to college.  Some enter the military.  Some enter vocational training, and others enter the workforce.

So, how would one accurately measure successful preparation for that variety of paths?

There was an excellent op-ed piece in the New York Times yesterday: “The  case for working with your hands.”  It begins with the demise of things like shop programs in public schools, shifting students to preparation for working in a knowledge economy.

It’s a long, thoughtful piece that makes for excellent reading on a day when many have a day off.

There has been some discussion of this phenomenon even in Oak Ridge, where an overwhelming majority of our graduates do go on to college.  Although we have five career academies at the high school (preparing students either to continue studies in college, or to begin working in the field right out of high school), there is a sense in the community that we don’t do enough for the non-college bound.

Reading “The case for working with your hands,” a couple of things struck me: one, he’s right.  There is a level of satisfaction,  challenge, and use of intellect in working with one’s hands, whether creating something, or fixing something.  It’s why I like to sew, or to take things apart and repair them.  But the second point that stuck with me was, the author’s attainment of a PhD and subsequent studies enabled him to sample a variety of professions, including high school teacher, executive director of a policy organization in DC, and a writer of abstracts of academic journal articles before settling on his life’s calling in motorcycle repair.

Don’t get me wrong — I’m not suggesting that one must get a PhD to be successful in motorcycle repair (or any other such field that is typically thought not to require any college degree).  But to be good at it requires critical thinking skills that are honed through education.  And quite possibly, he derives greater satisfaction from his work because he has other things to compare it to.

The plumber I most often use once told me that he enrolled in medical school, but dropped out after realizing that’s not what he wanted to spend his life doing.   He likes being a plumber; he solves problems, and gets a feeling of having accomplished something tangible each day.

This meandering train of thought continued as I spent the afternoon playing mechanic’s assistant (we’re still working on it).  What I want for the kids graduating from our high school is to be sufficiently prepared to have options after graduation:  the option to work doing something meaningful and fulfilling, the option to pursue higher education, the option to succeed in a technical school, which might lead to either work or more  education.  Or both.

A satisfying life is one where learning never stops, even after the end of formal schooling.

Hunger: stop fighting it:
In Knoxville, the schools are taking pretty serious measures to deal with the growing problem of childhood obesity.  Students are being led through calisthenics in academic classes and offered "healthy choices" in the lunchroom (were there any other choices to begin with?  If so, why?).

The problem, as I see it, is this: the problem didn’t originate at school, and it’s not likely to be fixed at school.  Parents getting off the couch and setting decent dietary and lifestyle examples tends to work much better.

A new take on the "crack tax":
In Nashville, the Legislature is moving on a law that would impose a $1,000 fine for baggy pants… and of course, some idiot has already written in the comments that " for something like this, it’s better to impose disciplinary action in schools…" because naturally, if the schools are in charge of making sure your child isn’t obese, they should also be in charge of making sure they’re properly dressed.

And teaching them about the birds and the bees.  And "character education."  And on, and on, and on.  Who needs to be able to read, write, or calculate anyway?  They say that those who do not study the past are doomed to repeat it, but with the current state of affairs, I’m wondering if that’s such a bad thing.

I don’t know that I’d want to live through the black plague or anything, but maybe living through the 1950s wouldn’t be so bad.  Maybe I’ll get to, because I’m young enough to have not lived through it, but old enough that it was not considered history yet  when I was in school.

With all these responsibilities heaped upon the schools, wouldn’t it be better if the schools just took them at birth?  But if we’re going to go that far, shouldn’t the schools be able to decide whose DNA gets contributed?  Seems fair.

*  *  *
Schools are very good at teaching children math, English, science, and to some degree, social studies.  They’re pretty good at providing exposure to music, art, and the basics of lifelong fitness.  In the upper grades, studies can be specialized or expanded.

But schools are not your children’s parents.  If you want them to be healthy, teach them healthy eating and exercise habits at home.  If you want them to appear neat and respectable, do not buy them (or allow them to wear) clothes that represent the worst of MTV.  Come to think of it, don’t let them watch MTV — have you seen the garbage on there??

Let the schools do what they were designed to do, but remember, they’re your kids.  Do your part.

State Rep. Harry Brooks, Chairman of the House Education Committee, has opined via WSMV in Nashville that school systems should not use the federal stimulus funding for personnel.

That money can only be used for certain things, and lawmakers said since the money disappears in two years, it shouldn’t be used for personnel.
"If you were to use the money for a staff person, that staff person goes away in two years or you have to find the money to continue it," Brooks said.

 

That falls into the usual philosophy — with which I wholeheartedly agree — that it’s bad practice to use non-recurring funds for recurring expenses, as it just delays the problem — or creates a bigger problem in the future.   

But in this case, the stimulus is needed because tax revenues for the schools are down, due to the economic recession.  In Tennessee, schools are funded in large part by sales taxes, which are the first to fall in a recession.  What if the stimulus funds were used not to create new jobs (for which we would have to find a supporting funding source two years from now), but to avoid job losses among existing staff?

That, it seems, would fit with the intent of the stimulus — to keep people employed, so that they continue buying groceries, appliances, cars, and houses, which in turn strengthens the economy.

Most of the federal stimulus funds are designated for economically-disadvantaged students, or those in special education.  Thus, it seems to me that the most appropriate use would be to use those funds to continue programs like extended contracts, where teachers are paid a small stipend to do extra things like before- or after-school tutoring (of particular benefit to special ed or economically disadvantaged students).

This year, the State has already advised that 100% of extended contracted funding will be cut.  If the stimulus funds would allow us to continue these programs through two years until the state and local economies begin to recover, would that not be an acceptable use?

The University of Tennessee is grappling with extraordinary budget challenges, and the future looks grim.  A few changes may strengthen the university long-term, but most will negatively impact students, employees, and the state as a whole.

As outlined in this morning’s News-Sentinel, they’re looking at laying off 700 people.  They’re raising tuition by 9%.  For our family though, Peterson’s proposal to remove the tuition cap is the most damaging.  For clarification, a "full time" student is defined as one taking 12 semester hours; that’s three or four courses, in most cases.  However, one must take at least 15 hours per semester to graduate in four years — more than that in some majors.

A student taking 18 hours (like my two) would see a 50% increase in tuition even before the 9% increase.

Peterson’s rationale is that removing the tuition cap would be an "efficiency measure, aimed at discouraging students from registering for classes they may drop too late for other students to get enrolled."  However, a more logical way to accomplish that would be to charge students an additional fee — say $50 or $100 — for dropping any class after the add deadline (typically about a week and a half after classes begin).

It’s not just a few high-performing students who would bear the brunt of this change: 51% of all full-time undergraduate students took 15 or more hours in Fall 2007 (the most recent data publicly available).  Those 51% would see a minimum 25% increase, in addition to the 9% across-the-board increase.

I acknowledge that the highest-paid administrators have voluntarily taken a 5% pay cut, and applaud them for starting there.  However, the draconian changes proposed to tuition rates and the elimination of the most cost-effective instructors will cut too deeply into the university’s core mission.

That will, in turn, cut deeply into the State’s efforts to improve overall.

At the very least, the State needs to increase the lottery scholarship amount, commensurate with any tuition increase.   But the tuition cap should be left alone.

The Tennessee School Boards Association Leadership Conference concluded this morning, followed by the opening of the TSBA Convention.

The Leadership Conference was excellent: I attended one session on utilizing the data gathered from value-added testing, and another on effective leadership techniques.

A perennial feature of the TSBA Convention has always been the exhibit hall, but it does seem that the number of exhibitors has dwindled in recent years.  In fact, as I left the hall this afternoon, it occurred to me that this year’s exhibitors seem to fall into three categories: those providing design/construction services (or products supporting such), companies providing outsource services like transportation, food service, and janitorial, and insurance companies.

We used to see things like curriculum content providers, educational hardware and software, and more actual education-related goods and services.  This year, I don’t think I saw a single one of those.

As much fun as it was to see our new high school to completion, I don’t think we’re going to be ready for another aggressive building project anytime soon.   It’s not that it’s not needed — our preschool facility is in dire condition — but the money just isn’t there to do it.

I am looking forward to tomorrow’s meetings, particularly a presentation from Stephen Smith on the new Legislature and what to expect.  Unfortunately, there is a feeling of resignation that elected superintendents will again be proposed, and that it is more likely to pass.

I think that’s a horrible idea.   But, it’s better to know what’s likely to be at the forefront this year than to forge ahead blindly, hoping for the best.  Actually, given the recent revenue reports in the state, I’m just hoping to avoid the worst.

My dream is for one year — just one — where we could fund everything that’s needed and just a few wants… but that seems unlikely to occur anytime soon.