I’m talking about yesterday’s release of the latest results for math and reading from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), better known as the Nation’s Report Card, the gold-standard test to measure what 4th grade and 8th grade students in different states are learning about important subjects. Without further ado, here are some good reads:

• Linking to a Colorado Department of Education news release, Ed News Colorado reports that our state’s 8th graders showed improvements in both math and reading, but 4th graders made “no significant change”
• Fordham’s Mike Petrilli speculates that the now-defunct national Reading First initiative may account for the better national showing in reading by 8th graders than 4th graders
• Kevin Carey of Education Sector notes continuing national progress in math scores, observes the stubbornness of the achievement gap, and raises the specter of how the results filter into national debates over reauthorizing ESEA and adopting Common Core standards
• Speaking of the achievement gap, Matt Ladner lays out how poor students and (more specifically) poor, African-American students did state-by-state on 4th grade reading; interestingly, Colorado — which continues to remain above the national average on overall NAEP scores — was below the mark in the former category
• Education Week blogger Michele McNeil takes a look at the results through the lens of states that won Race to the Top, and finds unexpected positive gains from Hawaii and Maryland, while also observing remarkable math gains among Washington, D.C., students — which would be a credit to the bold reform program of now-former Chancellor Michelle Rhee

That’s certainly a lot easier than diving into the data and coming up with original observations myself, at least for now. More time to ruminate later. But I thought you might find these initial insights interesting, at least as much as you can while reveling in last night’s election results.

The anxiety level in the room rose quickly after Rep. Tom Massey, R-Poncha Springs and chair of the House Education Committee, briefed the group on his idea for a bill that would hold back third-graders who are the furthest behind in literacy. [link added]

About five years ago my Education Policy Center friends hosted an event with a couple experts who explained some major reasons behind Colorado’s “reading crisis.” Not all kids will be reading as well at the 3rd grade as I am, unfortunately. Let’s hope the issue of teacher training doesn’t get overlooked in this policy discussion. Not surprisingly, though, the idea to end social promotion already has opposition:

Sen. Evie Hudak, D-Westminster, said, “Retaining a student is almost a guarantee they will drop out,” calling retention in grade “a death sentence.” Her comments were echoed by several other members of the task force.

Really? Not so fast. What the facts do show is that non-proficient readers in 3rd grade are eight times more likely to drop out than their proficient peers. And Florida has successfully shown that holding back 3rd grade students who don’t demonstrate basic literacy can be done effectively. A major peer-reviewed study shows the success of Florida’s policy:

Our findings suggest that retained students slightly outperformed socially promoted students in reading in the first year after retention, and these gains increased substantially in the second year.

All in all, I’m glad to see this issue moving forward, and hope yesterday’s discussion leads to some fruitful changes. Florida has shown that ending social promotion and providing scientifically-based early literacy interventions absolutely works. Kids need to learn how to read. Let’s not be afraid to follow another state’s success in this area. Kudos to groups like Colorado Succeeds who have emphasized this issue as a need for change.

Yesterday Harvard professor Paul Peterson wrote yesterday on Education Next about a new U.S. Department of Education report rating state math and reading standards for 4th and 8th grade. Though USDOE’s report didn’t acknowledge it, Dr. Peterson and his team had published very similar research — comparing state standards to the “gold standard” National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) — just a year ago:

Every state, for both reading and math (with the exception of Massachusetts for math), deems more students “proficient” on its own assessments than NAEP does. The average difference is a startling 37 percentage points.

Interestingly, the new USDOE report concludes:

All NAEP scale equivalents of states’ reading standards were below NAEP’s Proficient range; in mathematics, only one state’s NAEP scale equivalent was in the NAEP Proficient range (Massachusetts in grades 4 and 8).

A case of deja vu? Though the Education Next and USDOE studies used somewhat different methods to compare the data, they came up with almost the exact same answers. Peterson noted yesterday that the correlations between the findings for all states — not just Massachusetts — were statistically very high, with one notable exception:

Colorado is the one state where we provide substantially different rankings. Ednext ranked it 4th; the Department says it is 45th. I suspect the difference is due to a change in standards in Colorado, but I invite readers to throw light on the discrepancy.

Why did last year’s survey find our state among those with the highest math and reading standards, while the new government study places us among the lowest? I’m not sure how to explain that away. Colorado’s State Board of Education adopted new academic standards in 2009, but assessments have yet to make the transition. Is there something significantly flawed in either the state-reported data (Ed Next) or school sample data (USDOE), but only for Colorado? Could the feds be relying on old data? Frankly, I’m baffled.

And I don’t like to be in the oddball state. But I would be glad if someone got to the bottom of it so we could know the truth. As for whether it was worthwhile for the USDOE to reproduce very similar work already done by private researchers just to find a major discrepancy for Colorado… well, that’s the million-dollar question.

Yet can what sustain and build on those reading skills as students reach 8th grade and beyond? Take a glimpse at what has gone on the past few years in a small corner of the New York City Public Schools (New York City? I can almost hear some of you ask in the voice of disgruntled Texas cowhands. Yes, the Big Apple!). In a New York Daily News op-ed, Sol Stern highlights the success of the three-year Core Knowledge Language Arts (CKLA) program piloted in 10 Bronx and Queens elementary schools:

After the first year, [then school chancellor Joel] Klein announced the early results: On a battery of reading tests, the kindergartners in the Core Knowledge program had achieved gains five times greater than those of students in the control group. The second-year study showed that the Core Knowledge kids made reading gains twice as great as those of students in the control group.

At the relatively minuscule cost of $300,000 per year, keeping this program alive should be a no-brainer. At least that’s what you’d think. Too often success in student learning is far from the most important metric in making K-12 budget and program decisions.

For those of you who aren’t deeply familiar with Core Knowledge, Robert Pondiscio explains the theory behind the action:

Comprehension is highly correlated with general knowledge—the more you know, the greater your ability to read, write, speak and listen with fluency and comprehension. Thus an essential component of reading comprehension instruction must be a focused commitment to build broad background knowledge in a coherent manner from the earliest days of schools–precisely what CKLA seeks to do.

Colorado is blessed to have a number of Core Knowledge schools — most of them of the public charter variety. In fact, Core Knowledge is one of the categories you can use to search for a school near you on our School Choice for Kids site. I count seven within a 10-mile radius of me right now!

If you are looking into a Core Knowledge (CK) school for your child, realize that not all features and results are necessarily the same. Take a closer look. See how much the school uses the CK curriculum and embeds it into the philosophy of learning and action. All part of the process of choosing the best school to suit your child’s educational needs.

In 2007, after four years of operation, Life Skills was in danger of having its charter revoked and being shut down. The State Board intervened to save the school after the DPS board’s vote based on legitimate concerns with poor results that showed up on testing measures. As Denise at Colorado Charters noted back then, new principal Santiago Lopez had already taken steps to improve the school. And Alan at Ed News Colorado came around to seeing Life Skills as a “special case” that deserved to stay open:

If DPS had a viable alternative for these kids, one that was being drained by the existence of Life Skills, I’d favor shutting down the school. But these are kids DPS has given up on, and vice-versa. What possible harm is there in giving them another chance, even if it’s less than ideal?

This week’s visit to Life Skills demonstrated that the Denver charter remains on course with Lopez at the helm. State and district performance measures raise concerns. Yet students come in way behind, and most show average or better academic growth results. The attendance rate is only 53 percent, which represents a significant improvement from before the current principal’s tenure.

It goes to show a large part of the battle is getting these at-risk students — about three-fourths of whom come from all over the city, and the rest from surrounding districts — to show up and take responsibility for their success. And while some still slip through the cracks, the hard work and incentives used by Lopez and his staff are having an impact. Those who attend consistently are making up serious ground on their academic deficits, and many are graduating and taking a significantly improved change of course in life.

In particular, the success stories presented by recent and soon-to-be Life Skills graduates at the Wednesday event show that the school is making an unmistakeably profound impact on some of their students’ lives. All the best in the future to Chantelle and Regis and others who shared their compelling testimonials. What about the students who don’t cut it, in spite of all efforts, you say? Each case is sad, yet as Alan pointed out a few years ago, the system already had set them aside.

As a charter school, Life Skills has the freedom to restructure and redesign the learning experience in a way that gives otherwise discarded teens and young adults a better chance to succeed. That in itself is no magic formula. But a supportive and visionary board, strong school leadership, a capable and committed staff, and the tools to deliver an engaging curriculum thankfully means more success stories. As long as students continue to choose this alternative option and the school stays on its current trajectory, Life Skills will continue proving its worthy role in the metro Denver community.

Anyway, the reason I bring up the topic is a brand-new Education Sector report titled Growth Models and Accountability: A Recipe for Remaking ESEA. The report’s hook and chief case study is Denver’s Bruce Randolph School, and a significant chunk of the report is focused entirely on (you guessed it) the Colorado Growth Model. That’s why my Education Policy Center friends gave it such close attention. Co-author Kevin Carey was kind enough to spend a few minutes on the phone with Ben DeGrow to explain a few things and answer some questions.

It’s safe to say the authors of the Education Sector reports are high on the Colorado Growth Model as exemplary for other states to follow. As the report notes, a consortium of 14 states has inexpensively done just that, thanks to Colorado’s use of open-source software to display the data for public consumption. Carey and co-author Robert Manwaring gave our state’s growth model lofty praise for user-friendliness and accessibility:

Colorado stands out for the ease with which policymakers, principals, school board members, parents, and other stakeholders can access the information.

Interestingly, while more accessible than in its first iteration, SchoolView.org (on which Colorado Growth Model data is hosted) still has some progress to make in this area. My Education Policy Center friends haven’t been as keen on the site’s user-friendliness, but it was a good opportunity for some conversation.

Carey observed the “dilemma” of wanting to keep the academic performance information simple, but noted that seeking to make it too easy can lead to a “simplistic” model that may be lacking in fairness and accuracy. He also acknowledged that, largely because of different concerns and questions, the “best way to present data for parents is not necessarily the same as for policy makers.” That may be a big part of the rub.

I’m still hoping for a way to identify school performance that presents the information in a manner that a broad swath of parents can understand while maintaining the Growth Model’s integrity. You know. Something that sort of combines the wonderful School Choice for Kids website’s yin with SchoolView.org’s yang. I’m young. I can dream big.

In the course of the conversation, Carey made a salient point: “None of this information is good unless you use it to make schools better.” Getting good, valid information about school performance is crucial, but how do we go about making them better? Keep reading the blog, as we go on striving to figure that out together.

Statewide, 73 percent of third-graders scored proficient or better — 67 percent proficient and 6 percent advanced — on the 2011 Colorado Student Assessment Program reading test, up 3 percentage points from last year.

More telling, though, than the big sweeping numbers is identifying the pockets of success. And nothing jumps off the page more than the fact that all 3rd graders at Harrison School District 2’s Wildflower Elementary in Colorado Springs are at least proficient in reading, as reported by the local Gazette:

…52 percent of its third graders scored in the advanced category — the highest of any school in Colorado.

It’s particularly noteworthy because 74 percent of Wildflower students come from low income families and are therefore considered at risk for falling behind and dropping out of school in upper grades.

“We are so excited, it’s a miracle,” said Wildflower principal Wendy Birhanzel.

Now this isn’t the time or place for me to opine on the existence of miracles. But maybe we could get at the nuance in the principal’s justifiably enthusiastic remark. Rather than look for divine intervention, there should be plenty of school officials, principals and teachers across Colorado demanding to know: What exactly are they doing at Wildflower? What can we learn and adopt from what they’re doing? In other words, principal Birhanzel’s school is a great and truly logical place for the lieutenant governor to go on his statewide tour to promote third-grade literacy.

Another place to look is at district leadership — where we already know Harrison 2 under superintendent Mike Miles has courageously and persistently advanced thoughtful and wide-ranging education reforms — among them a revolutionary teacher evaluation and compensation program. (Interestingly, the first and only other Colorado district to trade the old teacher salary schedule for real compensation reform, Eagle County Schools, registered some positive results from the latest CSAP news, too.) Harrison 2 also is considering a 5-year plan for further action, including ending social promotion to 4th grade for students who cannot read. Not that it would affect Wildflower Elementary this year!

But as the Gazette article points out, and easily verified by a search on Ed News Colorado’s database, not all of the district’s 16 elementary schools mimic Wildflower’s outstanding results — about half of them declined from the previous year (though the district overall made a slight increase). So what’s going on? What makes the difference there? Wherever three out four students are low-income, and half the school is “proficient” at reading while the other half rates “advanced,” there is a remarkable story to tell.

As honorable mentions, 95 percent of the 3rd-graders at the local James Irwin Charter School registered proficient or above, while Harrison 2’s Bricker Elementary and Monterey Elementary made tremendous leaps ahead in reading proficiency. Hats off to these schools as well. Overall, though, Colorado still has a long ways to go.

A couple weeks ago the co-chairs of the State Council on Educator Effectiveness presented their recommendations to the Colorado State Board of Education. One of the presenters expressed a hopeful confidence that the 50 percent of teacher and principal evaluations based on observed performance would match up with the 50 percent based on student growth.

The good news, as reported by Education Next, is that new research by Thomas Kane and colleagues shows creating such an effective evaluation system can be done — because in a sense, the Cincinnati Public Schools’ Teacher Evaluation System (TES) already has done it:

We find that teachers’ classroom practices, as measured by TES scores, do predict differences in student achievement growth….

…[C]onsider a student who begins the year at the 50th percentile and is assigned to a top-quartile teacher as measured by the Overall Classroom Practices score; by the end of the school year, that student, on average, will score about three percentile points higher in reading and about two points higher in math than a peer who began the year at the same achievement level but was assigned to a bottom-quartile teacher….

The results presented here constitute the strongest evidence to date on the relationship between teachers’ observed classroom practices and the achievement gains made by their students. The nature of the relationship between practices and achievement supports teacher evaluation and development systems that make use of multiple measures. Even if one is solely interested in raising student achievement, effectiveness measures based on classroom practice provide critical information to teachers and administrators on what actions they can take to achieve this goal.

In other words, Colorado’s SB 191 has all the potential to make a positive difference in identifying and keeping effective classroom teachers. A close and careful look at Dr. Kane’s research on Cincinnati’s TES certainly is in order. It can be done. And there’s no reason why Colorado can’t allow for the creation of an even better aligned system.

By the way, you know I’m not the only one who is pushing for this new system to succeed. Have you heard of the group Step Up Colorado? It looks like they are launching a media campaign to help ensure public support for effective implementation of SB 191:

Good for them.

Now, naturally, I don’t write much about schools of education. At my age it’s really quite a bit trying to follow teachers and schools, without keeping frequent tabs on who’s teaching the teachers that teach in our schools. Still, it’s an important issue — a HUGE issue, really. Just as a major example, why is there such a large-scale problem with equipping elementary instructors in teaching literacy and math? It’s truly exciting to see NCTQ take on this large task.

Unsurprisingly, there has been some pushback. NCTQ explains that many education schools “do not intend to cooperate” with a national review process that — to its credit — is being conducted very transparently. Education Week Teacher Beat blogger Stephen Sawchuk has been covering the story of four states (Georgia, Kentucky, New York and Wisconsin) that have refused to “participate voluntarily” in the evaluation. The Eduwonk wisely notes that such obstruction represents “a remarkably counterproductive strategy.”

Further into the Education Week post, Sawchuk points out something else a little troubling:

The situation is murkier in Maryland, Colorado, and California, where public university officials have sent letters to NCTQ and U.S. News requesting changes to the review process, but haven’t yet declined to take part willingly.

NCTQ shows that only one of 15 Colorado education schools has complied with their research request and that they have followed up with 11 open records request to get what they are looking for. I hope Colorado comes along and that a productive agreement can be reached. We don’t have nearly as much information as we should about how different ed schools are doing. Nor is the overall track record of these schools what they should be for them to pursue the stonewalling strategy to any effective end.

To find out more about the evaluation and what NCTQ is looking for, not only go to their website but also listen to last week’s presentation she made at the Donnell-Kay Hot Lunch — Ed News Colorado has posted the 40-minute podcast.

• Jeb Bush’s Stellar Education Reform Record Worthy of Colorado Emulation (July 2008)
• Bolstering the Case for Jeb Bush’s Education Reform Success (October 2009)
• Florida Keeps Star Role Among States in Improving Student Test Scores (March 2010)
• CSAP Scores Get Little Attention, But Call for Expanding School Reform Approach (August 2010)

If Colorado policy makers read the report and follow the Florida formula, frankly I don’t care who gets the credit. The Denver Post story focuses heavily on two planks of the Colorado Succeeds report’s five-plank recommendation: 1) End promotion from 3rd grade to 4th grade until students prove basic literacy skills; and 2) Improve the Colorado Growth Model with clearer, easier-to-understand letter grades and other consequential refinements.

Overlooked in the article are the other three key recommendations from the Colorado Succeeds report:

3) Create financial incentives for school success by linking additional funding to improved student achievement

4) Examine programs that will strengthen school choice by creating positive, bottom up competitive pressure on district schools to improve performance in order to compete for students
5) Consider opportunities to expand access to high-quality curriculum and instruction through virtual educational offerings

In any case, it’s very hard to argue with success. The report features numerous colorful tables and graphs to demonstrate this, one of which is highlighted in the Post story:

The real story is among Latino students. Colorado’s average fourth-grade reading score for Latinos improved by 3 points over the past decade, while Florida’s scores improved by 25 points.

Our state could do a lot worse than follow in the footsteps of the Sunshine State.