(Getty Images)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

Listening recently to a local political candidate denigrate public education in Nevada was very disheartening. Not because of character flaws or perceived inability of the candidate. He, like most voters, believes that national and state school rankings based on standardized test scores accurately measure school quality and effectiveness.

Improving public education seems to be on the agenda of each local, state and national political candidate; even though they are powerless to do so. Their prescribed remedies for curing the ills of public schools are more harmful than helpful.

Those disaffected with public schools are misled by the illusion that individual differences in academic ability are due to school quality. There is no valid evidence that school environments or instructional practices are responsible for gaps in reading ability or standardized test scores.

Simply put, schools and districts with higher standardized test score averages have students that have higher test scores. The primary difference remains the composition of the student body. Since their inception, standardized test results have always favored wealth over poverty when comparing different populations of test-takers.

There is nothing more fallacious than national rankings from media sources such as U.S. News and World Report. U.S. News proudly proclaims, “Since 1983 they have provided education rankings and helped parents and students find the perfect school.”

This should be interpreted as: Buy a home in an upper-middle class or wealthy neighborhood and surround your children with high achieving students or send them to more selective private or charter schools that are more adept at excluding low achieving students, and your children will be in schools with higher test scores.

School ranks remain largely unchanged over the past four decades and consistently reflect the socio-economic demographics of student populations. Suburban schools outperform inner-city schools in every metropolitan area. Some regular public schools have been supplanted by magnet and theme schools that have siphoned-off higher achievers within their districts.

Common levels of performance are not attainable in any field. Statements whining about low proficiency rates in particular schools or districts demonstrate the desire to dismantle public education. Parents and many educators have been hoodwinked into accepting standardized test scores as effective measures of learning and academic success.

Editorial and opinion pieces stating that Henderson or Summerlin schools “outperform” Las Vegas or North Las Vegas schools are made based on state test score averages. Instructional differences between schools have little or no impact on test score averages. Demographics determine averages.

There are no proven instructional methods or academic interventions that overcome disparate academic outcomes when comparing student populations. Schools across the valley mirror the situation in other metropolitan communities.

Poverty has a major influence on test score averages. Other socio-cultural and non-educational factors, such as the number of English learners and special education students, and parent education levels influence test score averages.

About 70% of Nevada students reside in Clark County, so CCSD largely determines test score averages for the state. Because of disproportionality of the previous factors, Nevada will always be near the bottom when compared to other states.

Using the nationwide teacher shortage as an excuse for poor academic performance of schools with large numbers of students in poverty is misleading. Universal instructional methods would be in place if common outcomes were possible.

Teachers with reasonably sized classrooms can have a profoundly positive effect across many measures in education, but little impact on individual standardized test scores. Low test scores are not a valid reason to question the funding of public schools. About 80% of a public school budget is the cost of personnel.

Competitive salaries are a good first step in attracting and retaining quality personnel, but more aggressive and creative solutions are needed. Suggestion: Create a local pipeline of educators for CCSD by expanding partnerships with institutions of higher education across the valley to effectively and cooperatively train PreK – 12 teachers and other educational personnel.

It is important to stress the importance of funding preschool programs. Preschool education may be our last best hope to improve all academic outcomes, including test scores. Academic success for individual students is largely determined prior to entering kindergarten.

The issue is not just the misperception that standardized test scores are an accurate measure of school quality. Educators also need to stop pretending that they largely influence individual test scores. The public needs to stop pretending that the only policies that might improve academic performance are educational ones.  

The post Standardized testing is a flawed yardstick for assessing educational success appeared first on Nevada Current.

The bad news is that there is a growing shortage of quality educators. Hiring and supporting excellent educational leaders is becoming increasingly more difficult. (Getty Images)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

We are now entering “superintendent season.” Where political savvy often takes precedence over effective educational leadership in getting and keeping a district superintendent position. The two largest public school districts in Nevada are seeking superintendents because of recent resignations.

Superintendent search firms are advisable as most board members lack the ability to discern quality educational leadership. If there is sincere interest in serving the best interest of students, consultants will be hired that have consistently delivered quality leaders in other districts.

Internal promotions within a failing district cover and perpetuate past incompetence. Self-directed searches may reek of corruption.

In large public school districts across the country, particularly those serving high-poverty student populations, candidates frequently make empty promises to raise standardized test scores. Despite repeated career failures in achieving this goal, if hired, they often shift the responsibility of fulfilling this promise to principals and teachers.

Spoiler alert: Historically, no school or district has appreciably improved standardized test scores without a substantial shift in the demographic composition of the student population. Reversing the flow of students away from a school or district is a proven way to raise test score averages.

Instructional coaching, curriculum revisions, alignments to state standards, adjusting phonics content in reading programs, extended school days, tutoring programs, improved technology, and more have consistently fallen short in closing test score gaps.

School boards frequently base decisions on previously determined traits that do not necessarily reflect competent educational leadership. While it is critical to consider a diverse pool of candidates, the focus should be on those with proven and authentic accomplishments.

Have they established safe, cordial, productive learning environments? Do they form positive, collegial relationships with colleagues? Do they motivate faculty and staff to consistently serve the best interest of students? Do they like kids and do kids like them?

These are not questions for the interview. These questions should be answered long before an interview is offered. That is why reference checks should be done prior to formal interviews. It saves hiring committees many fruitless discussions.

The best indicator of future performance is past performance. Trusting the application package and a glib tongue as evidence of stellar achievements is naïve. Great interviews should enhance the prospect of being hired; not be the major deciding factor.

Heart-warming stories of overcoming difficult circumstances at an interview are not evidence of effective educational leadership. Nor are online university graduate degrees.

School board members, often motivated by personal and political agendas may seek district superintendents that can be more easily controlled, particularly in small-town and rural districts. Politically palatable decisions may compromise the best interest of students.

Educational decisions should be guided by reliable research and best practice. The intrinsic ability to make the people around you better people is a crucial aspect of leadership. Effective leaders have the confidence to surround themselves with others of high ability.

Is there evidence of real improvement of student outcomes? Increased student attendance, higher graduation rates, reduction of discipline and behavioral referrals, reversal of migration to other schools, improved personnel recruitment and retention are measures that should guide superintendent selection.

Are students, parents, teachers and colleagues sincerely disappointed in losing this person from their school district? You have to dig for this answer. 

The bad news is that there is a growing shortage of quality educators. Hiring and supporting excellent educational leaders is becoming increasingly more difficult.

In Clark County, the continued exodus of students from the school district has influenced test scores in a negative manner. Better test-takers are more likely to exercise school choice options or homeschool.

Board members should be seeking superintendent candidates that have the proven ability to create and maintain safe, cordial, productive learning environments. The main reason parents move their children is school culture. Better school environments lead to better test scores.

The post Public education needs educational leaders not politicians appeared first on Nevada Current.

Charter and private schools are currently making their sales pitches to attract students to their campuses. “Buy now” or a seat in our classrooms may not be available in the fall. (Getty Images)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

The tradition of discounted bed linens in January goes back to the 19th century. Deals on many items are offered to shoppers after the holiday season.

Similarly, shopping for new schools has also become a winter tradition around the country. Parents are avidly exploring educational choice options for their children. Charter and private schools are currently making their sales pitches to attract students to their campuses. “Buy now” or a seat in our classrooms may not be available in the fall.

Competition between regular public schools and charters has never been about providing better curriculum and instruction, although it is often marketed that way. It is simply about retaining and attracting students. There is nothing magic about the word “charter.”

Charter schools need to attract students with parents that have the means to transport them to school each day. That is one of the reasons students from lower-income families are less likely to shift to charters.

Note the millions of dollars of unused state funds reserved for charter school transportation in Nevada. It is less cost effective for charters to provide transportation. Fiscal responsibility and attracting parents that are able to contribute monetary support is essential to keeping their doors open.

While a few charters have made noble efforts to attract and serve students of poverty, they face two challenges. At-risk students are more costly to educate and often bring lower standardized test scores. These schools are then criticized for having lower test score averages, despite comparable or better instructional practices than comparison schools.

Private schools primarily enroll students that can afford the cost of tuition. Some students are afforded tuition reductions or waivers due to exceptional individual talent (particularly athletic). Overall, they predominantly serve those of wealth. 

Students from the middle class are more likely to exercise choice options. Migration of students from public schools increases segregation of students by family income.

Students transfer for two main reasons: school environment and academic challenge. Failures in these areas, not standardized test scores, threatens public education.

Every public school should provide a physically, mentally and emotionally safe environment for students and adults in the building. Respectful and cordial student behavior is essential to a school’s success. Positive interactions must be shaped each day with the realistic expectation that almost all students can thrive in a cooperative learning environment.

Public schools must accept the challenge of educating all students, recognizing individual differences in academic ability. Expecting equal or common academic outcomes is not realistic. It is not realistic in private or charter schools either.

Students learn at different rates and to different levels, with most academic potential developed before kindergarten. Initial gaps of academic readiness and ability expand over time. Some students require continual remediation to even stay close to grade level progress. 

The progress of other students should not be slowed with the hope that everyone will catch-up or achieve at a common level. Students with above average abilities should receive appropriate pace and level of instruction. An easy fix for advanced students is to allow them to walk down the hallway for higher grade level mathematics instruction.

The most challenging role in public education is that of an effective building principal. This position requires an exceptional level of commitment to a daunting list of responsibilities. A primary responsibility is the creation and maintenance of a safe, cordial, productive learning environment.

An additional responsibility for public school principals has developed over the past couple of decades. Due to the expansion of charter schools, principals must competitively “market” their schools to retain and attract students. It is frustrating to lose students to another educational institution.

It should be easy to tout better personnel, resources, programs, extra-curricular activities and facilities. But diligent effort is needed to communicate and meet with parents and students. Targeting district and area feeder schools, holding open houses and supervised walk-throughs during school days are a few suggestions.

The winter sale for student enrollments is on now. It is imperative to counter false narratives and phony comparisons. Time to sell the virtues and advantages of public school education at the ultimate bargain price. “Quality public education, always free!”

The post The winter sale for student enrollments is on now appeared first on Nevada Current.

Most educational outcomes are related to family incomes. (Getty Images)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

Feigned concern over national and state test scores or school ratings seems to be a ritual each fall. Unfounded criticism falls like leaves on public schools because of disparity in student test scores that are beyond their control. It is usually political blather presenting no viable solutions.

This summer the superintendent in the Clark County School District stated his “goal” is a “5 to 7 percent increase every year” in third grade proficiency scores on the annual state assessment. In November, The Washoe County School District superintendent revealed a strategic plan (in a very dynamic presentation) to improve proficiency rates in grades 3-8; from currently under 40 percent up to 75 percent by 2026.

Annual promises by educational leaders to raise test scores, like Linus promising the arrival of The Great Pumpkin on Halloween, will go unfulfilled. They have neither the means to improve scores or political will to reveal the shortcomings of using standardized test scores to measure educational quality.

Why would seasoned educational leaders pretend this is possible? Especially after admitting, in Reno, this has never been done in Nevada? Score gains of this magnitude have never happened in any public school district across the country except through blatant cheating.

It is mathematically improbable as well. In any measured activity, half are above average and half below. If proficiency levels are preset at the 60th percentile, only 40 percent can be deemed proficient.

Despite sounding credible to those hopelessly naïve and overly optimistic, there are no proven academic interventions, curriculum revisions or alignments, technology tools or instructional practices that substantially increase individual standardized test scores.

Standardized test scores are the primary measurement across education; commonly perceived as accurate measures of learning and academic achievement. Often cited as evidence of school and instructional quality, they are neither.

Standardized tests are intended to measure individual abilities, not student populations. Tests are designed to create a range of scores and used to rank and sort students. Preset score levels limit the number of proficient test-takers.

Test-taking ability emerges in early elementary grades. Individual student rank remains within a limited range after third grade; generally unaffected by educational setting.

Test score averages reflect socio-economic demographics and are poor measures of learning. Curriculum, instruction and other school factors have little effect on standardized test scores.

Learning is more effectively measured by classroom assessments. Once a year, state or national tests cover a broad span of material that are assessed with a timed exam in the spring. Time limits are largely responsible for the distribution of ranked scores. Scores rely on the individual ability to comprehend and process questions quickly and accurately.

Results are usually released in the fall, after students have moved on to the next grade level. Meaningless, cumulative scores, leave students with no idea which exam items were missed or why. This is one reason why standardized tests flop as learning tools.

Poverty negatively influences health, economic and educational outcomes. When comparing test scores, schools with lower average scores consistently display higher rates of poverty along with higher numbers of English language learners and special education students.

Racial differences reflect socio-economic differences when comparing test score averages. Black, Hispanic/Latino and Native American students are more likely to come from impoverished conditions and most educational outcomes are related to family incomes. Racial comparisons only perpetuate negative stereotypes.

Students in low-income communities are more likely to have unqualified or unlicensed teachers. But, even the best teachers are unable to overcome initial academic achievement gaps and create common proficiency levels on standardized tests.

State school rating systems use standardized test scores to measure school quality. The Nevada School Performance Framework (NSPF) is Nevada’s school rating system. It’s a star-rating system where one star is the lowest rating and five stars is the highest rating. Again, based on test score averages determined by demographics.

Amaze your friends! Using maps of the Clark and Washoe County School Districts that indicate NSPF star ratings for regular public schools, put your finger on a school and analyze the socio-economic conditions of the surrounding areas. Boldly predict each time that neighborhoods around four and five star schools have higher household incomes than those around one and two star schools.

Right every time! You will be the hit of the party. Note: this trick works in metropolitan public school districts across the country. Feel free to transport this trick across state lines.

Lower-income urban neighborhoods produce lower test score averages than higher income suburban neighborhoods. Magnet and charter schools situated in low-income neighborhoods may seem like exceptions because of higher test score averages. An illusion. School test score averages are contingent on the composition of the student body.

Magnet schools draw from district-wide attendance areas and have more selective admission requirements, many times based on test scores. Charter schools offer a different setting with mostly similar educational practices but usually attract students without a need for school provided transportation. Lack of personal transportation is an indicator of poverty.

Poverty also increases the likelihood of being in an English language learner or special education program. Most charter schools avoid students in these programs and those that have behavioral issues. Charter schools that nobly take on the responsibility of educating students that are more challenging have lower test score averages.

Educators need the political courage to admit they have little influence over standardized test scores. Better test-takers in classrooms and schools account for higher test score averages. We need to quit pretending otherwise.

The post Empty promises: The illusion of test score improvement in public education appeared first on Nevada Current.

Requiring high schools to start later in the morning will not effectively address the perceived sleep needs of teenagers. (Getty Images)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

The Nevada State Board of Education recently passed a regulation requiring later start times for Nevada public high schools. This unfunded mandate is unneeded and unwanted.

The issue supposedly being addressed is the rampant sleep deprivation among adolescents. The Board believes moving to later start times at high schools will effectively address sleep deficits and improve academic performance. This is based on the faulty premise that the causal effect of sleep deficiencies are school start times.

Start times are not the cause of sleep deficiencies. Requiring high schools to start later in the morning will not effectively address the perceived sleep needs of teenagers.

For decades, teenagers have not received the recommended amount of sleep. Caffeine intake, social media, texting and video games add to the sleep deficit. This is a social and family issue that is not solvable through political or educational methods.

As students transition from kindergarten, through elementary grades, to middle school and high school, increased levels of maturity and commitment are necessary for academic success. This includes the individual responsibility to protect one’s own health and well-being. Enabling poor personal habits will not improve student outcomes.

The school experience should help build resilience and work ethic. The goal is to help high school students successfully transition to adulthood and create cooperative, productive citizens. Most employers, colleges and the military do not cater to individual sleep needs.

Alarmingly, State Board members chose to ignore the pleas of both the Nevada Association of School Boards (NASB) and the Nevada Association of School Superintendents (NASS). Every county public school district in Nevada is against this mandate. It is sheer arrogance for the Board to put impractical idealism over the experience and expertise of professional educators. 

Idealistic intentions aside, there is a lack of evidence that this regulation will improve student outcomes; although it may seem like a noble idea. Without substantial proof of efficacy, this is a misguided decision based on scanty research. 

Studies presented to the Board were not widely shared outside its membership. There was little public discussion as to the rationale of the decision and no compelling evidence presented to support it. The flippant phrase that “this is a no-brainer” (a quote from the Board president) failed to assuage the valid concerns of practicing educators. Dissent has been blocked by some individual Board members.

There was no clear support for implementing later start times for high schools in any of the studies. Most were unrelated to the causal effects of school schedules. The studies had self-described limitations and imprecise conclusions. The only common thread of the studies is that adults do not believe teenagers get enough sleep each night.

One study half-heartedly recommended later school start times but came with two major caveats. First, a need for pilot programs at a few selected schools to test efficacy before full implementation. Second, that strict protocols be in place to accurately measure effects on student outcomes. These important recommendations have been ignored.

Negative impacts on transportation, athletics and extracurricular activities, student jobs, family daycare, zero hours, four-day school weeks and school communities have been expressed to the Board. These concerns far outweigh any potential benefits to a minority of the student body.

Without preestablished measures of success or failure, this regulation is a political charade. As with most legislative or bureaucratic educational initiatives in Nevada, this is clearly aimed at the Clark County School District (CCSD); and comes at the expense of the other county school districts.

Transporting students is already problematic in Clark County. Addressing this mandate creates more difficulties and expense for the district. Possible options will not help high schools meet the needs of students and parents, and may disrupt elementary and middle school schedules.

Enough circus music is playing inside CCSD. There is no need for the State Board to add a fourth ring to the district.

The Board’s disregard of input from educators, NASB and NASS is perplexing. Delaying high school start times will not result in measurable improvement of academic outcomes. Board members should immediately rescind their approval of this regulation.

The post Changing high school start times will not solve teenage sleep issues appeared first on Nevada Current.