Isn't Oregon the same state that screwed up the math tests this year after screwing up the science tests a few years ago?

Yup.

So, what makes ANYONE on Earth believe in these meaningless numbers?

Mr. Leader's (can I call you Sid?) comments raised an issue that I only alluded to in the original. If it were up to me, we wouldn't do the ratings at all at the state or federal level. Any engaged and remotely conscious parent should have a pretty good idea as to whether or not their kid is learning (for instance, by the time your kids are in high school, and excepting "scientists," one should notice that their kid knows more than they do about science. If this isn't happening, there is cause for alarm). Moreover, having these positions only adds to the glut of administrators already on staff at any given school, an unknown, but likely sizeable chunk of whom amount to a kind of bureaucratic (ass-covering) detritus.

So, on that level, I agree with Mr. Leader (Sid?).

At the same time, I don't seriously see these ratings going away, whether the demand comes from parents or politicians looking for an accomplishment on which to hang their hats. Assuming them to be a reality, we may as well build the best possible mousetrap, as well as one that will provide useful information on how our teachers are doing.

Jeff, You say, "Any engaged and remotely conscious parent should have a pretty good idea as to whether or not their kid is learning..."

That is a major part of the problem. The percentage of "engaged and remotely conscious parents" seems to be going in the wrong direction.

Bailie FINALLY makes a relevant point. Final-freakin-ly!

Parents are children's main teachers since the average school kid spends 18% of their waking hours a year at school and the other 82% at a place called home when you factor in weekends, holidays and summers.

I've worked from the Hills to the Hood and back again in this town and until we start switching FAMILIES around, schools like Whitaker and Ockley Green are... sad to say... destined to fail.

If the parents had vouchers, you wouldn't need the ratings. The parents would figure it out.

And please, stop the blame the parents routine. Don't orphans deserve as good an education as anybody else?

Funny thing about vouchers: just like everyone can't attend Harvard, everyone can't go to that same "super-great" school in Beaverton. The thinking behind vouchers assumes 1) there's sufficient space in enough popular schools to cover demand - in a phrase, ain't gonna happen; 2) that the parents out there, especially the ones raising the "problem" kids (y'know, the kids the privates don't have to accept, thereby protecting their sterling repuations), will take the time and effort to vet the best school. As with anything, some parents will and some won't; the thing is, with the one's who don't, you've still got their kids to educate.

As for the "blame the family" angle, it's not so much a matter of "blaming" anyone. It's more to do with accepting the reality Sid Leader mentioned up the line: kids spend the majority of their time at home and the habits, good and bad, that they take from that environment carry through. It's coping with the reality of that problem.

As for T. A. Barnhart's contribution, there's really only so much the government can do to save people from their own perversity. Society isn't always to blame and government's not always the solution. The best they can do is provide a framework (which is what I suspect you're getting at), but it's very important to accept that there are limits.

Here I promised myself that I'd stop commenting....

But Suzanne's comment gets at a wart on the underbelly of the whole student testing movement: it's not just what we teach kids, but how we teach them, especially to think and express themselves. The push to standardized tests does pose the threat of producing "standardized kids" and that is something to be nervous about.

At the same time, I must confess that I'd feel better knowing that kids learn some minimal requisite skills in the public school system. I don't have big demands here; after, functioning literacy and basic math I count the rest as gravy. Mind you, I love gravy...

It appears that even thoughtful and well-educated people have been bamboozled by NCLB and the standards and accountability movement.

First let me say that "value added" is just a fancy way of saying academic growth as measured by test scores. Thanks to the Northwest Evaluation Association's development of RIT equal interval scores, the state of Oregon is fully capable of measuring student improvement on achievement tests from year to year, just as Dallas does. In fact, before NCLB, the state did just that: it factored in yearly aggregate improvement for individual schools in determining a school's "grade" on the state report card. Now, the state only reports the percentage of students meeting or exceeding NCLB fixed standards.

The bigger problem with test score-based accountability is the idiocy of equating student performance with school performance, especially using NCLB's fixed standards. Test scores are highly correlated to socio-economic status. Whether a school is "performing" or "underperforming" is almost entirely dependent on the kinds of students it serves.

I could go on and on, but it would probably serve you better to read any of the many, many posts I have written about schools, NCLB, and the testing mania it has spawned.

Something I have never understood about NCLB.

Suppose Jon and Sue start school a year apart, with Jon older. Under the current testing system, is Jon's class measured against Jon's class, or is "improvment" really measured by whether Sue's class did as well as Jon's class?

If it is the second, the system makes no sense.

Thank you, Terry. Oregon, in spite of our 14 year slide, is a better assessor of educational progress than the NCLB/Borg. As a parent of 3 school-aged children and an elementary teacher, I have never been more convinced that education is a three-legged stool: parents/student/teacher, with the student taking an increased responsibility for outcomes as he/she grows.

It always, always, always starts with the parents. If you make the decision to bring a life into this world, you'd better damn well be ready to stand up and take responsibility for the trajectory of that life. I do.

My aim is to be a life-changing learning catalyst for all of my students. And for some of them I will be. I can still name every elementary school teacher and nearly every public school teacher I've ever had.

Can we set aside this endless conversation about testing (yes, I'm fine with testing) and get to the heart of the matter? Fight for school funding. The children of Oregon and those of us on the front lines are being slowly choked to death.

I am sick to death of it. My children deserve better and my students deserve better. Every Oregonian that sends a representative or senator to Salem that continues this path of strangulation can go straight to hell.

Let's get a few numbers right, shall we?

My child is in the grasp of the PPS by 8:10 AM and departs at 3:05. This translates into approximately 7 hours/day in school, far more than the 18% of waking hours noted above.

Sid is of course counting summer vacations and weekends as "at home" time but what makes you presume these are good times to judge the efficacy of schools.

And got to tell all of you, as a parent with three kids in schools, it is much, much harder to evaluate progress and value added than anyone here assumes.

Last point: for parents contemplating changing schools, or moving from one district to another, rankings can be valuable.

...state education spokesman Gene Evans note that Oregon, provided the Feds' blessing, hopes to move to a single, reconciled rating system next year. On one level, this is welcome news: ending this ratings "pissing match" between the states and the Fed makes sense. But would the gains such a change outweigh the losses if the move entails embracing NCLB?

I'm Gene Evans, and Oregon is NOT interested in "embracing" the inaccurate and unfair accountability system of NCLB. The Oregon school report card is a much more comprehensive look at school performance, but it does not disaggregate data to uncover the lack of progress with minority, disabled and disadvantaged students. Oregon is seeking a THIRD way, taking the best of both state and federal systems and creating a fair, accurate, sensible NEW system.

Paul's comment about school "rankings" illustrates what I mean about well-educated people being "bamboozled" by school accountability. Test scores tell you nothing about school performance. They do, however, tell you quite a bit about the students attending a school.

Some time back, I proposed a Lincoln - Roosevelt experiment. Take all of Lincoln's students and move them to Roosevelt. Move all the Roosevelt students to Lincoln, but don't change anything else about the schools. In other words, keep running the same programs with the same staff in both schools. After a year, even maybe two years, check the results of the reading, writing, and 'rithmetic tests the state mandates.

I can guarantee you that Roosevelt would emerge as the "best" high school in the city, and Lincoln among the worst.

To paraphrase James Carville, "It's about the students, NOT the schools, stupid!"

NCLB is the brainchild of an admitted alchoholic and cocaine abuser who was born on third base, but thinks he hit a triple.

There are 3,000 PPS teachers.

None think NCLB is a good idea.

N-o-n-e.

christopher, Since you raised the subject.

You say, "Can we set aside this endless conversation about testing (yes, I'm fine with testing) and get to the heart of the matter? Fight for school funding. The children of Oregon and those of us on the front lines are being slowly choked to death."

What do you suggest for school funding? I believe there is adequate funding in Oregon K-12. We (Oregon) individually compensate our K-12 employees about $400 million per year more than Washington and about $500 million more than the 25th ranking state in individual teacher compensation. This is equivalent to hiring and financing 5,000 additional teachers, having complete school years and programs.

The question is, "Why should/does Oregon individually compensate K-12 employees higher than almost all other states, at the expense of having more teachers, complete school years and programs".

The academic results certainly don't correlate to the high individual compensation.

The interesting data presented by NEA(June 2005), is that Oregon K-12 teachers could have salaries frozen for five consecutive years, and still be paid more than the 25th ranking state in salaries alone. This is much more dramatic if a person compares Oregon's highest ranking benefits package to the other states.

Terry posted above: 'First, let me say that "value added" is just a fancy way of saying (year-to-year) academic growth as measured by test scores.'

The "value added" testing Rob Kremer recommends is to test children at the start of a school year and at the end of the year. In this manner we find out how much learning took place in the school year by individual students and as classroom groups.

In another post Terry proposes a test: "Some time back, I proposed a Lincoln - Roosevelt experiment. Take all of Lincoln's students and move them to Roosevelt. Move all the Roosevelt students to Lincoln, but don't change anything else about the schools. In other words, keep running the same programs with the same staff in both schools. After a year, even maybe two years, check the results of the reading, writing, and 'rithmetic tests the state mandates.

I can guarantee you that Roosevelt would emerge as the "best" high school in the city, and Lincoln among the worst."

Terry's thinking here is that the demographic composition of the student body is more important in comparative results than the faculty, learning environment, programs etc. Terry overlooks a very important ingredient. That is the nine years of K-9 preparation of kids in the elementary and middle schools of the Lincoln cluster as opposed to the Roosevelt cluster and the effects of those years on the students.

I am reminded of the "discovery" announced last year that middle schools in the Jefferson cluster were using a pre-algebra program that was incompatible with the algebra program being taught at Jefferson. We can't blame those shortcomings, or differences in teacher experience levels between clusters, on demographics.

<h2>NCLB is making it difficult to make excuses for the Achievement Gap in the public schools which purport to be the "great equalizer".</h2>