Last June, I wrote an item on Edwize about how scores had increased in New York State’s Big Five city districts during the first year of CFE funding. After CFE funds reached our schools, scores went up in New York City, Rochester, Buffalo, Yonkers, and Syracuse. In fact the growth in these cities generally outpaced the growth for the state, and did so after years of indifferent progress. I also pointed out that though the New York City’s Children First reforms had been in place for five years, passing rates in NYC didn’t move much over the first four of them. Then, in the first year of CFE, scores went up.
At the time, I emphasized that “one year of data is hardly conclusive,” and I would say the same is true about two years of data. Still, let’s look at year two of CFE. Scores are now available for ELA.
The pattern holds. First, like last year, students in CFE’s Big Five showed terrific progress, whether we look at passing rates or scale scores. And again, these cities outpaced the state as a whole.
What is more, in NYC the gains under this single year of CFE again outpaced the gains made during Joel Klein’s first four years, before we had the cash.
Here are the details:
NYC before and after CFE
(Gains in percent of students proficient students)
| Grade level* | Before Children First Reforms 2000-2003 (3 years) |
After
Children First, but before CFE 2003-2007 (4 yrs) |
Second Year
CFE 2009 (1 year) |
| Grade 4 | 10 | 3.5 | 9 |
| Grade 8 | 0 | 9 | 12 |
*Historical data is only available for two grades.
One Year Scale Change in the Big Five Under CFE
| Scale Gains Over One Year | Starting/Ending Scale Score | |
| Buffalo | 8 | 643/651 |
| Syracuse | 7 | 643/650 |
| NYC | 7 | 655/662 |
| Yonkers | 6 | 653/659 |
| Rochester | 5 | 646 /651 |
| All state publics | 4 | 664/668 |
One Year Change in Proficiency the Big Five under CFE
| One-year Change in % Proficient | Starting/Ending Percent Passed | |
| Buffalo | 12 | 42/54 |
| Syracuse | 11 | 42/53 |
| NYC | 11 | 58/69 |
| Rochester | 9 | 47/56 |
| Yonkers | 9 | 56/65 |
| All state publics | 9 | 68/74 |
As I pointed out last year, I have no more faith than the next teacher in these tests as reliable indicators of what kids do. I don’t think small jumps from one year to the next mean much for a particular child, or for a small group of children. And, I think big jumps mean just as little or even less. I also know — and in fact the state has pointed out — that our tests are not terribly useful for measuring achievement or progress in the tails (for high and low achievers). Still, comparisons are useful, and teachers have argued for years that it would take better resources if we wanted better results.
Will the progress hold? I don’t know. I don’t even know if the money will hold. And there are so many variables, so many things between ourselves and our students, that sometimes it seems a miracle that we can do anything at all. Still, it’s worth noting that two years of funds had brought two years of gains to places where — without funds — other large scale reforms have fallen flat.
It would be nice — very nice really — if we could continue this radical experiment (getting resources to the places that need it) for at least a few more years.
Score data can be found here.
2 Comments:
1 Jeanne Gumbleton
· May 14, 2009 at 4:52 pm
There is a discussion going on at http://www.tinyurl.com/Op2LearnFB regarding Brown vs. Board of Education’s 55th Anniversary. How far have we really come in providing access and quality in education for every child?
2 Joe C.
· Jul 25, 2009 at 11:10 pm
After much research and perusing through online educational blogs concerning funding for education, it seems as though there is a majority consensus that believes that school funding is highly correlated with the overall state-test performance of students in the fourth and eight grades. The general belief is that if the state government provides the public school systems with larger amounts of funding (money), the overall testing performance of students in these public schools will improve to some degree. While this correlation is promising and points to a brighter future for education in public schooling, it is my belief that the research studies that were conducted to arrive at this correlation allowed for far too many confounding variables to be prevalent throughout the research. Ultimately, these confounding variables (which researchers do not take into account) could have skewed the conclusions that point toward the correlation between funding and improved state test scores.
There are numerous other factors that can be the cause for the higher levels of achievement on state-tests. A positive factor that can be having a result is an increase in teacher accountability in the classroom. A negative factor that I believe is the culprit for the rise in state test performance is the increase in educators who “teach the test” rather than teach a well-balanced curriculum. It is easy to imagine that something as simple as money can miraculously increase the intellectual level of students and aid them in becoming literate. However, money can only provide educators with more resources to help make higher levels of knowledge and literacy possible.
“Teacher accountability” is a concept that is sometimes overlooked when assessing the success of students in public schools. Very recently, “teacher accountability” has become a major topic of discussion amongst parents and school officials. Even President Barack Obama has placed “teacher accountability” at the forefront of the issues that are in need of restructuring in the educational system across the country. The idea behind the concept is that teachers are very rarely rewarded for doing a good job, or punished for failing to achieve certain goals. Teachers are given a great deal of responsibility, but far too infrequently have to own up to the results of their successes or failures. Now that this issue or concept has become more main stream in our society, it can definitely be a factor that has caused teachers to improve their teaching techniques. If such an improvement has occurred, then the emergence of “teacher accountability” in the classroom can be the positively correlated factor associated with the higher tests scores on state tests.
Another factor that is often overlooked as a variable that may directly affect student achievement scores on state-tests is the curriculum on which teachers are focusing their attention. Many teachers who have state testing looming over their heads base their entire curriculum on the goals associated with the state tests. This is a disadvantage for the students because a test-based curriculum is not well-balanced and does not touch upon non-test subjects that may be the strong points for some of these students. However, in order to appear like a successful teacher, who yields a high passing rate on state tests, many educators focus primarily on the state testing subjects throughout the year. While such a tactic may in fact cause a boost in state test scores, it clearly has no relation to state funding, and, therefore, may be a confounding variable to the aforementioned study.
While funding may not be at the top of my list of factors that have contributed to the increasing levels of achievement on state testing, it can be a direct cause if the money provided to the schools is used in a productive way. One way that funding can help to improve the test scores of students in the public school system (showing a positive correlation between state funding and state test scores) is if the money is used effectively on supplemental educational tools such as educational technology (computers, projectors, smart boards, etc…) that helps to increase the literacy levels amongst students who experience them. Much research has concluded that the incorporation of educational technology (such as the use of computers by students and PowerPoint by teachers) in the classroom, can lead to the development of higher levels of achievement in tasks associated with recall and recognition (Bartsch & Cobern, 2003). Tasks that require students to recall information and recognize key terms or phrases are very prevalent throughout state testing. Therefore, state funding can provide public schools with technological resources that can have a direct result on the student achievement scores for the state exams.
Funding is a very valuable asset for public schools and teachers alike. However, far too often, the money is used ineffectively, or seen as the savior of all of the problems that plague the education system in America. What teachers, school officials, parents, and politicians need to realize is that money helps, but it is not the answer to educational problems. The answer is effective teaching techniques and supplemental educational technology that help to increase levels of literacy in the classroom. By incorporating these tools in classroom instruction, teachers can help students achieve higher state test scores while simultaneously teaching a rigorous, well-balanced curriculum. This is how funding should be used, and this is how funding can have a positive relationship with student test scores.