A recent federally-sponsored report comparing scores on NAEP tests (National Assessment of Educational Progress)for public and private school students has received considerable attention, particularly by those opposed to school choice programs. By issuing the report on Friday afternoon, generally considered the best time to bury embarrassing news, the Bush education department gave credence to the notion that the report undermined school choice.
In essence, the report found little significance difference between results at the two groups of schools when adjusted for measured student characteristics, although generally the private schools did better before the adjustment was made.
This result should not be especially surprising. Controlling for student demographics certainly helps in making a fairer comparison. But one question left unanswered is which students within a democraphic group get sent to private schools. Are they the most able students whose parents are looking for a more competitive environment? Or are they struggling in public school and have parents who are desparately searching for an alternative, as seemed to be true of many participants in the Milwaukee choice program? Unfortunately with NAEP data there is no information on students' previous performance.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Saturday, July 01, 2006
More control on lower performing schools
Under the somewhat misleading headline, "MPS to take back control of teaching," this morning's Journal Sentinel reports that a number of low performing schools will be required to give "60 to 90 minutes a day on reading and 30 to 45 minutes on math" under the direction of the administration. Despite the rather sweeping headline, it appears that only 19 schools are covered by this program.
The schools were chosen based both on low test scores and low growth on scores by individual students from one year to the next. Including the latter measure makes it less likely that schools were singled out just because they served academically needy students. Even if students start low, their scores should improve over time.
The article says little about how the central administration hopes to improve skills in reading and math, and that is a concern. Picking effective reading and math programs has not been an MPS strength in the past. Perhaps the best approach would be to try a variety of programs and carefully monitor which ones work with the target population. The article does note that MPS intends to intensively monitor student progress. Ideally the central administration will apply the same tests of effectiveness to its own programs as to the schools.
The schools were chosen based both on low test scores and low growth on scores by individual students from one year to the next. Including the latter measure makes it less likely that schools were singled out just because they served academically needy students. Even if students start low, their scores should improve over time.
The article says little about how the central administration hopes to improve skills in reading and math, and that is a concern. Picking effective reading and math programs has not been an MPS strength in the past. Perhaps the best approach would be to try a variety of programs and carefully monitor which ones work with the target population. The article does note that MPS intends to intensively monitor student progress. Ideally the central administration will apply the same tests of effectiveness to its own programs as to the schools.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)