This is my weekly column for the Sunday, July 26 edition of the Hibbing Daily Tribune. It expands on some of the topics I was talking about last week. I expect this will be more like the beginning of the debate than the end.
The gap holding back our kids, our economy
By Aaron J. BrownAs the cloud of continued budget cuts and declining enrollment settles over school districts across northern Minnesota, many stakeholders are scrambling to determine which end is up. School boards watch as revenue declines and costs increase. Administrators are left to tell educators to do more with less. Educators, if they keep their jobs through all this, see more students and paperwork fill their classrooms. The students take the damage, only they won’t know that until 20 years from now when they compete in a harsh global economy against hundreds of millions of better prepared people.
If you ever wonder how regional economies disintegrate and people become embittered, that’s the recipe.
A few weeks ago I discussed the vast challenges Iron Range school districts face from a facilities and administrative standpoint. Since then there have been some encouraging developments. Nashwauk-Keewatin and Greenway are sharing more administrative services to cut costs. Virginia and Mountain Iron-Buhl districts are exploring serious collaboration efforts that may even include other nearby districts. These are necessary first steps, even if they cause some fear among justifiably proud alumni. However, more work is needed by all Range districts. The future is coming, one way or the other.
But consolidation and cost savings are just plain cruel if they don’t increase learning and student college preparedness. Recently we’ve been seeing the standardized test results for our local school districts pour in from the state education department. How are our schools doing? Pretty good, it seems. But based on what? Minnesota’s standards are generally strong compared to other states. But a recent Hoover Institute study shows that states have an almost arbitrary variation concerning standards. These numbers exist in a vacuum, failing to account for the economic needs for some proficiencies and the increasing competition from other nations with even higher educational standards.
And then there is this. How reliable are data from small sample sizes? What about the natural variations in groups from one year to the next that any teacher can tell you about? Indeed, the only true test of a K-12 education is whether the students are prepared for college or the workforce. Entrance exams from the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system would suggest that Minnesota schools across the spectrum are falling short. Our economic woes demonstrate that entering the workforce out of high school is highly problematic.
A colleague recently expressed to me the concerns she had about the gap in reading proficiency between poorer students and the overall average. Reading is the fundamental building block of an education and our economy. Whether you love or hate the internet as the cornerstone of tomorrow’s economy, reading remains the comment element of human communication and comprehension.
A recent report by KOOTASCA Community Action, an organization working with poverty issues in Itasca and Koochiching counties, shows what this means. For instance, in Nashwauk-Keewatin 3rd graders performed above average in 2007-2008 reading tests regardless of free or reduced school lunch eligibility (a key socioeconomic indicator). But by 8th grade not only was the overall average below the state average, but the achievement gap between lunch eligible students and the student body was a pronounced 22 percent. I don’t mean to pick on N-K. The same is true of most Itasca County schools, according to the report, perhaps most so in Grand Rapids – the county’s largest district.
Here in Hibbing, a modest but notable socioeconomic achievement gap of about 9 percent exists among all students in reading for the same year. In Chisholm, it’s about 11 percent. Over in Eveleth, the East Range Tech and Science charter school has managed to avoid the gap entirely, though it struggles with efforts to catch up to the state average.
So, boo-hoo, right? Poor kids should read better. It might be tempting for some to say that, but the real issue here is that socioeconomic gaps coupled with the vast weight of federal mandates on both overall results and special education creates a two-tiered system that is financially unsustainable. Just ask your local school board. Or even better, local taxpayers. There is blame to be shared, the state high on the list, but the problems are all laid out in front of us.
The best schools are those with the smallest socioeconomic gap in educational outcomes. That’s demonstrated in some of Minnesota’s highest performing schools today and exemplified by the history of the Iron Range. Even if the numbers are cooked (and they can be) closing the achievement gaps represents a universal good. For decades, dating from the organization of early 20th century immigrants into communities until the first collapse of the taconite industry in the 1980s, it could honestly be said that any student had an equal chance at success in an Iron Range school. Your family’s name, profession or ethnicity had less to do with the results. The Range’s economic recovery is dependent on a return to that status.
As the Iron Range trundles into uncertain times let us remember the most important lesson learned by our ancestors. No matter who lives here, we’re in this together. Let us act together on math, science, reading and all the other things that can give a poor Iron Range kid a chance in this big world.
Aaron J. Brown is a columnist for the Hibbing Daily Tribune. Contact him or read more at his blog MinnesotaBrown.com. His book “Overburden: Modern Life on the Iron Range” is out now.
As a teacher who taught in the St. Paul Public schools for half my life, I agree totally that every child deserves a quality education. A literate, educated population is critical to our country’s success. My grandparents were Finnish immigrants who settled in the Babbitt area in the early 1920s. Their English skills were limited, but they supported the children’s education the best they could. The rural school their seven children attended provided them the opportunity to learn the skills they needed to succeed. The family was committed to each other and had a strong value for education. The rural northern Minnesota schools of the 1920s had few resources, but my grandparents expected the children to study and succeed. Every child deserves access to a quality educational system that has high standards for all students. Schools, families and community organizations need to work together to provide the support students need to succeed.
I had a sick feeling in my stomach after reading “Let us act together on math, science, reading and all the other things that can give a poor Iron Range kid a chance in this big world.” Some administrators would focus solely on these three because they can administer a standardized test to gauge their progress. They get money to plug the gaps in their programming based on these scores. But sometimes, money isn’t available and had decisions have to be made. Talk to a social studies, art, or phy-ed teacher and they will tell you that their curriculum is getting squeezed out because the funding follows the test scores.
The federal No Child Left Behind law (NCLB) says math, science, and reading are core subjects. What no one wants you to know is that NCLB also classifies social studies, music, and physical education as core subjects. By selectively administering standardized tests to gauge progress in only three subjects (math, science, and reading), we are setting our kids up for failure. Unfortunately, the only way an administrator can successfully advocate for more resources to fix a problem is if he/she measures the extent of that problem with a test. If you only test three subjects, you can only justify asking for money for those three areas. That’s why Title I programs have been such a huge success. Based on test scores, schools have identified a need and put resources forward to benefit kids through programs like after-school reading curricula and remedial math training. We don’t need more tests just to have more tests. We need tests that are appropriate for what we want to measure. And what we measure is what we value.
Aaron, in a previous post regarding the consolidation question in Nashwauk-Keewatin, you wrote that “No school district that fails to offer at least two of the three in band, music and art should even bother operating.”
Our current system, no matter how much we push only for math, science, and reading, will not prepare students for a career and lifelong learning. This must change. We’ve got to be clear that education costs money. Unlike many video game or online newspaper websites, there is no free version of education that gets you the same result as if you had paid in full. But it gets easier. How Minnesotans choose what to pay for or what we don’t pay for reflects who we are and what we want the future to be. The NCLB statute values social studies and the arts as much as any other area. If you value it, find a way to measure it, and then pay for it. That’s the way it is.
Hey Paul,
Thanks for your thoughts on this. I respect your viewpoint. I would hope that my comments about the region’s deficiencies in reading wouldn’t negate my earlier comments about the importance of the arts: band, music and visual art. I still believe both sentiments to be true.
Paul-you have an excellent point, and there is nothing preventing MN from testing in the other core subjects, some other states do.
Aaron-ever wonder if our area school systems wasted a lot of time either fighting NCLB, or thinking it would go away before they would have to change business as usual?
Here’s a link to a good explanation of how Minnesota’s state test scores stack up against the NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) measures.
http://www2.edtrust.org/edtrust/summaries2009/Minnesota.pdf
I find the MCAII scores sobering and disappointing, but the NAEP performance is really scary.
Hey Toni —
My limited experience has been that any new educational reform from the past 40 years, NCLB included, has been treated as temporary until proven otherwise. Some initiatives are good, some bad (NCLB), but all are instinctively held at arms length. Standardized tests are, as I’ve said, snapshots not only of the students, but of the people writing the questions. Like a T-Rex, the real observation is in movement — up or down … in this case, down. Or at least lately.
Aaron-I’m surprised at your wholesale description of NCLB as “bad.” Is there anything on the tests our kids shouldn’t know? Is there something wrong with requiring schools to teach all kids, and holding their feet to the fire by specifically reporting how children of color or living in poverty are doing?
Standardized tests are just a snapshot. But we can look at a snapshot and say “wow, I didn’t know I looked that fat” then get to work and lose 20 pounds. Or, we can look at a snapshot and say “I’m not having any more pictures taken.”
There are plenty of things I don’t like about NCLB, but I don’t think that MN would have adopted meaningful standards without it. President Clinton signed “Goals 2000” into law in ’94 and the standards movement began in earnest for those states that took it seriously (no loss of federal funds if you didn’t). Minnesota didn’t adopt statewide standards until ’03, when forced to by NCLB. We didn’t get into compliance with Science standards until this spring, 8 years into NCLB.
Toni: Don’t know if you got this site, but its got all the raw ed data you could shake a stick at, complete with reports like the one you gave me. It’s handy but a shame, really. Its been my experience that not many people know about this, or how to use it.This is where all our data goes to die. But wait, it’s really helpful when talking about what we were just talking about!
http://nces.ed.gov/
Check out the state data profiles. You can even compare state-by-state on most of the figures (including NAEP data).
These data are rarely a part of the conversation because, frankly, it takes time to wade through them. It’s worth it though, to get it right!
Educators have a reputation for not being taken seriously. That’s partially because it’s so easy to point to what we do and say “back it up. Oh, you can’t?” Now we are collecting data and backing up what we say and appropriate pedagogy based on needs diagnosed through assessment.
To Toni’s point about “snapshot”: Standardized tests ARE just a snapshot, but they are increasingly being used as formative assessment at the beginning of the year to establish a baseline for evaluation at the end of the year. Administrators who are worth their salt test at the beginning and the end, and importantly, early enough to get their data back before christmas to make meaningful changes mid-stream. Before NCLB and the accountability movement, there was no incentive to back up what educators did or make the case for changing what they didn’t do.
This is just another piece of the pie. Testing, like Outcome-based education (ring a bell with “standards, anyone?) was popular in the late 80’s. Strategies like this (and others like Multiple intelligences-based teaching, along with Bloom’s taxonomy, etc) swing back and forth. Education practice is like a pendulum what goes around once will come around again. The testing, however, regardless of everything else, is here to stay. Let’s use it properly!
Paul-glad to see I’m not the only person using the nces web site. Couldn’t agree more about using tests and data to inform practice.
Aaron…A important topic. It needs good debate and fast action. However, policy makers should consider the following recent study before simply promoting increased spending…
U.S. Spending on Public Education
Answering whether spending more on public education improves academic achievement begins with establishing how much the United States spends on public education. The National Center for Education Statistics in the U.S. Department of Education publishes extensive data on education in its annual Digest of Education Statistics. The evidence about education spending and achievement leads to the following important lessons:
• American spending on public K–12 education is at an all-time high and is still rising. Polls show that many people believe that a lack of resources is a primary problem facing public schools. Yet spending on American K–12 public education is at an all-time high. Approximately $9,300 is spent per pupil. Real spending per student has increased by 23.5 percent over the past decade and by 49 percent over the past 20 years.
• Continuous spending increases have not cor¬responded with equal improvement in American educational performance. Long-term measures of American students’ academic achievement, such as long-term NAEP reading scale scores and high school graduation rates, show that the performance of American students has not improved dramatically in recent decades, despite substantial spending increases. The lack of a correlation between long-term education spending and performance does not suggest that resources are not a factor in academic performance, but it does suggest that simply increasing spending is unlikely to improve educational performance.
• Increasing federal funding on education has not been followed by similar gains in student achievement. Federal spending on elementary and secondary education has also increased significantly in recent decades. Since 1985, real federal spending on K–12 education has increased by 138 percent. On a per-student basis, federal spending on K–12 education has tripled since 1970. Yet, long-term measures of American students’ academic achievement have not seen similar increases.
• Education reform efforts should focus on improving resource allocation instead of simply increasing funding. The high and increasing percentage of funding that is allocated to non-classroom expenditures is evidence of the need to improve resource allocation in the nation’s public schools. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, only 52 percent of public education expenditures are spent on instruction. This percentage has been slowly decreasing over recent decades.
Conclusion
Taxpayers have invested considerable resources in the nation’s public schools. However, ever-increasing funding of education has not led to similarly improved student performance. Instead of simply increasing funding for public education, federal and state policymakers should implement education reforms designed to improve resource allocation and increase student performance.
Aaron–Thanks for your analysis of this issue & thank you to Paul & Toni for adding to the debate. I have just one comment to Paul’s concerns regarding missing out on other important content area in education. When kids reach about 4th grade in our schools, they are no longer “learning to read” in school, but need to “read to learn” in all other subject areas. I had the opportunity to hear Willard Daggett of the International Center for Leadership in Education speak when he was in the area last Winter. He emphasizes continuing to teach reading in all content areas to allow our kids to continue to improve their skills even though they no longer take “reading” as a class. This emphasis can be a step toward closing the gap that is currently growing between 3rd and 8th grade.
Yes, thank you all for your contributions to this topic.
Toni, on NCLB it isn’t that I disagree with the importance of the topics tested, it’s the idea that tests should be held supreme that comes with it — and the toothless funding.
Anon, you make some good points. Education funding shouldn’t be compared to gas for an education machine because it doesn’t work that way. In some situations, you can deliver a good education for not a lot of money. In others, however, it takes a vast amount of money to deliver such an education. Regional differences (rural vs. urban) and student differences (special needs, etc.) do matter. I don’t think funding should come without reform, but reform without funding won’t work either.