Lots of people criticize standardized tests for focusing too much on math and reading, claiming that tests end up forcing schools to narrow the curriculum to those two subjects.

Curriculum narrowing may occur from time to time, but it is far from necessary. Indeed, it’s counterproductive for a school just to focus on a separate subject called “reading” at the expense of other background knowledge in many other subjects. After all, most reading tests require a student to read various essays, and essays have to be about something.

Banal, I know, but this is the key point: students who have a lot of background knowledge about the essay’s subject, whatever that might be, will do better at “reading.” Past the point of decoding letters, reading is inseparably tied to background knowledge.

As cognitive scientist Dan Willingham says:

Remarkably, if you take kids who score poorly on a reading test and ask them to read on a topic they know something about (baseball, say, or dinosaurs) all of a sudden their comprehension is terrific—better than kids who score well on reading tests but who don’t know a lot about baseball or dinosaurs.

In other words, kids who score well on reading tests are not really kids with good “reading skills.” The kids who score well on reading tests are ones who know a lot about the world—they have a lot of prior knowledge about a wide range of things–and so that whatever they are asked to read about on the test, they likely know something about it.

Thus, as E.D. Hirsch wrote, state reading tests should be explicitly tied to material that students have been learning in their particular grade. The problem is that the tests usually are “random,” and “not aligned with explicit grade-by-grade content standards.” Instead, “children are asked to read and then answer multiple-choice questions about such topics as taking a hike in the Appalachians even though they’ve never left the sidewalks of New York, nor studied the Appalachians in school.”

Hirsch notes that if “reading passages on each test were culled from each grade’s specific curricular content in literature, science, history, geography and the arts, the tests would exhibit what researchers call ‘consequential validity’ — meaning that the tests would actually help improve education.”

For example, if kids in 4th grade have been learning about how the telegraph and the pony express affected westward expansion in the United States (that’s content standard H.6.4.16 in Arkansas), then a good reading test might have an essay on that very topic, or any of the many other topics studied in the 4th grade curriculum.

If that were the case, not only would reading tests be more fair — as they would cover material that everyone had been taught in school — they would actually reinforce all of the other subjects, rather than narrowing the curriculum. The best way to prepare for a good reading test would be simply to teach all the things that kids need to learn about history and science and the arts.

The question I’ll address in the next post is whether Arkansas Benchmark reading tests come anywhere near this ideal.

Arkansas’ application for Race to the Top funds can now be found here on the ADE website.  I’m sure composing it was a long and tedious process for those involved, and I’m impressed that there are people out there who can navigate through such intense bureaucratic jargon.

We haven’t fully digested it yet.  At first glance, it reads more like a brag sheet of what Arkansas has done for the past decade.  That’s to be expected.  Unfortunately, the document seems to be pretty thin when it comes to demonstrating any new specific innovations or any new legislation that has been forged that will lead to future reforms.

One item that is worth mentioning shows up in the section that defends Arkansas’ charter school cap (charter caps are discouraged by RTTT goals).  Arkansas’ application states that:

As of the date of this submission, no applicant for an Open-enrollment charter has had its application denied due to the existing “cap” of 24. While no applicant State or State agency can guarantee the future adoption of any type of legislation, we anticipate that, as has occurred in the past, when the number of high-performing Open-enrollment charters approaches the current “cap” the question of increasing or eliminating the cap to accommodate additional high-performing Charter will be given serious consideration.

This might be news to State Board members.  As we’ve mentioned before, State Board member Brenda Gullett told the press that the charter cap was was the basis for how selective she is when considering applicants.

I also thought it was entertaining when, in response to a question on the RTTT application that asked specifically for:

“The number of charter schools allowed under State law and the percentage this represents of the total number of schools in the State”

Arkansas’ application answers:

“24 open-enrollment charters (8 percent of the total number of LEAs – 244).”

Of course,  the number of total public schools is more than 4 times the number of LEAs.   The actual correct answer is around 2.2%.

And, since we’re getting technical, 24 is 10 percent of 244, not 8.

Tomorrow (January 19th) is the deadline for phase-1 Race to the Top applications.  As our readers know, the so-called Race to the Top program is a federal program that aims to disperse around $4 billion in education funding to states.  We describe the program here, and we’ve been worried for months about Arkansas’ ability to compete against other states that seem to be more enthusiastic and knowledgeable about education reform.  While some states have been busy tuning-up their engines,  it seems that Arkansas is still fumbling around in the trunk looking for a pair of jumper-cables.

We’ll review Arkansas’ application once it becomes public.  In the meantime, the group Democrats for Education Reform (DFER) has been keeping tabs on what other states are doing.  You can check out DFER’s own blog here.  They’re doing a great job of monitoring RTTP activity.  Here’s a sample from their January 18 post:

After months of legislative work around the country, states are scrambling to meet the Jan. 19th deadline for legislative and policy changes as part of the “Race To The Top.” What gets negotiated and signed in the next 12 days will largely determine which states cross the finish line with the kind of gusto it is going to take to win some serious federal dinero for public schools.

California – Lawmakers there yesterday shifted power away from bureaucrats and foot-dragging school boards and placed it in the hands of parents, passing new “Race To The Top” legislation which allows parents from failing schools to yank their kids out and/or vote as parents to take drastic measures at their local zoned schools. Kudos to our friends, Ben Austin, at Parent Revolution, and Sen. Gloria Romero (our September education reformer of the month – http://www.actblue.com/page/dferseptember09) for their inspiring leadership on this one. The Governator will quickly sign the bills into law to make the Jan. 19th RTTT deadline.

Massachusetts — Early this morning, the House passed RTTT legislation that will allow Boston school officials to shutter failing schools and convert them to new charter schools, without having to allow the teachers union to decide which schools could and couldn’t be closed. Boston Mayor Tom Menino told the Boston Globe “this bill was made in Heaven.” (Which probably means we better read the fine print!) The Senate previously passed its version of the RTTT bills and conferencing on the two bills was expected to start today. Legislators were on track to pass the bills into law by Jan. 14^th, so that the state would have ample time to prepare its application by the Jan. 19^th deadline.

New York — Regular DFER readers know we have been frustrated for much of the year by the Empire State’s unwillingness to take the reform competition seriously – particularly at a time when the state’s coffers are beyond bare. But things have been moving quickly in the last month, starting with bold action by the Board of Regents in passing a series of K-12 reform recommendations. The Senate and Assembly are looking at what they can do to allow New York to apply, and earlier today Gov. David Paterson introduced a program bill that would eliminate the cap on charter schools, kill a law that bans using student performance in teacher tenure decisions, and allow the Regents to take control of persistently low-performing schools, among other things. The next week will be very interesting, as New York decides whether it wants to try to take the necessary steps to become a national leader. Stay tuned.

Tennessee — Gov. Phil Bredesen is calling for a special session of the legislature next week in order to change several laws in time for the Jan. 19^th application deadline. “The (the feds) don’t want any promises for the future, they want things in law,” Bredesen told reporters. One change high on Bredesen’s wish-list: a change in state law to allow the use of student achievement in teacher evaluations.

Our friend Michael McShane had a recent op-ed in the Kansas City Star that dishes out some tough McLovin to the Kansas City School District for fudging their dropout rates in order to make them look better. 

KC School District’s dropout rate doesn’t add up

As a parent, I’ve never been a huge Santa fan.  I do a lot of research and make a lot of  exhausting trips to the stores during Christmas to track down the items that will make my children happy come Christmas morning, and it’s always annoyed me that the guy in the red suit gets all the credit.

But the whole Santa enterprise got a lot more annoying this year.  During a trip to the Northwest Arkansas Mall, I discovered that parents are no longer allowed to take their own pictures of their kids sitting on Santa’s lap.

Obviously the mall and the guy in the red suit deserve to be compensated.  But, in the past, that compensation has always been indirect: The mall provides a Santa, I visit the mall as a result, and I inevitably spend some money while I am there.  I thought that was the deal.  And, if I want to snap a picture with my own little point-and-shoot camera that fits into my pocket, so what?  The lunch I bought my whole family at the food court should cover the 30 seconds my son spent with Santa.

Given how long this Christmas-time transaction has been implicit at malls, I was mildly annoyed (though not as annoyed as most of the parents I encountered) when I found that the Northwest Arkansas Mall was prohibiting parents from taking their own photos of their children with Santa.

I might have easily dismissed this act as yet another sign of the struggling economy and respected the tough decision the mall managers had to make.  That is, if myself and every other shopper hadn’t been insulted in the process.  Here is the sign the Santa Plus company had posted at the Santa Line:

Now, I would have had no problem with a straightforward sign that spelled out the policy.  Heck, I would have admired a brutally honest sign that said something like “your kids have snot noses and we’re trying to make a living here, so no personal cameras are allowed, Bub.”  But to cite safety?! If you’ve ever doubted how stupid some retailers think we are, you should make a mental note to never doubt again.  That is, unless you think a bit of Allspark might be loose in your local mall and could turn your camera into a killing machine.

And, in case you’re wondering how much they were charging for photos:  The cheapest item a parent could buy was a single 5×7 for $14.99, and the prices went up from there.  At these prices, you’d be better off buying your own Santa suit.

This is probably the last year Santa will be a part of my Christmas, simply because my kids are getting too old.  But I expect annoying policies like this one will cause a lot of other parents to reconsider whether or not this whole Santa business is even worth it.  I also think that retailers at the mall will eventually suffer as a result.

I would advise other parents to do what I did this year.  If the people who wrote that sign truly think that people are that stupid, then oblige them and play along.  I acted like I couldn’t even read when I pulled out my own camera and took my own picture of my son sitting on Santa’s lap.

We don’t actually have technical difficulties, but we’ll be taking a break from the interweb to enjoy the holidays.  You should quit wasting your time reading silly blogs and do the same! In the meantime, here’s a fun holiday video.

After losses to Morgan State, East Tennessee State, and South Alabama, and having to go into overtime to squeak by Appalachian State (all home games!), it’s likely that John Pelphrey will have to pull off a miracle to save his job this year.  I’m not saying I’ve given up on Razorback basketball, but all signs suggest this could  be one of the worst seasons in history.

So, while I hope Pelphrey turns things around, it’s realistic to start thinking about a replacement.  I think that replacement should be Mike Anderson, former assistant coach under Nolan Richardson and current coach at Mizzou.

It’s hard to say if Anderson would be interested in the job.  Arkansas had their chance at claiming Anderson, back in 2002 when Frank Broyles ran Nolan Richardson off.  Anderson had been at Arkansas with Nolan for 17 years, and he deserved a shot at the job.  But Broyles thumbed his nose at Anderson, who instead went to The University of Alabama at Birmingham where he coached the Blazers to 3 NCAA appearances and made it to the sweet sixteen in 2004 by upsetting #1 seed Kentucky.  Now he’s at Missouri. The Tigers went 31-7 last year (Arkansas was 14-16).   

With Anderson, Mizzou has won 22 in a row at home and hasn’t lost a home non-conference game since the 2005 home opener.  The Tigers are now 33-0 in home non-conference games.  They recently beat Oregon 106-69.

The symptoms of Pelphrey’s problem have become obvious: He can’t recruit and retain quality players.  The cause of those symptoms is less clear.  How does one explain that out of six of last year’s highly touted recruits, only Rotnei Clarke currently plays for the Razorbacks?  Gone are Montrell McDonald, Andre Clark, Brandon Moore, Jason Henry, and, for the moment, Courtney Fortson.

With that many failures, it’s hard not to question Pelphrey’s abilities to manage young athletes.  For whatever reason, he can’t seem to keep players from bailing on him.  Some would argue that it is simply because he is a tough no-nonsense disciplinarian, but so are plenty of other coaches.  Maybe his disciplinary methods fail to address problems in a constructive way.  Perhaps he fails to gain the necessary respect of his players.  From the outside, it seems like his main source of doling out discipline is simply to suspend players from playing.  Surely there is a better way to help these young players grow and learn.

At any rate, if we end up in a coaching search come spring (and I think we will), we can only hope that Mike Anderson will still give us the time of day.  Hopefully it means something to him that Frank Broyles is no longer in charge, and that the vast majority of Arkansans never wanted him or Nolan to leave. 

Besides, can you think of a better way to put Frank Broyles in his place than to bring ”the hell” back to Bud Walton? 

I can’t.

Thursday, of course, was our national day of thanks.  Friday, then, was the national day of shopping.  When I turned on my TV Saturday morning, I was surprised to find that Saturday was the national day of Tim Tebow worship.

Here are some of the tidbits from Saturday, or Tebow-day:

Announcer’s Voice:  “The remarkable career of Tim Tebow ….”

Announcer’s Voice:  “Tebow has given so much to Florida ….”

Announcer’s Voice:  “Tim Tebow invented the I-phone during a TV timeout ….”

OK, I made that last one up, but the spirit was appropriate. 

Don’t get  me wrong …. he seems like a good football player and a really nice kid.  He interviews well, is polite, mentions God a lot, and even writes bible verse references on his eye-black for big games.  He also appeals to do-gooders like me as he has engaged in missionary trips to help the disadvantaged in other countries. 

That is all good.  But I still don’t understand this over-the-top hero worship of the quarterback in a powerhouse program that almost never loses.  It seems downright un-American.  Aren’t we supposed to love the underdog?  Don’t we hate the Yankees and the Patriots?  Don’t we cheer for the Valparaisos of the world to upset North Carolina in March Madness?

What gives?  Does he deserve all of this attention?

PS:  I guess we will learn a bit more how much we Americans love our heroes as we watch another Florida story (this one involving a squeaky-clean golfer possibly doing a John Daly imitation!) unfold this weekend…

We’ve had some lively debates here at mid-riffs and in the community at-large about the quality of school buildings. While those debates have often been heated and full of disagreements, we ought to be thankful we live in a place that respects and encourages  a diverse set of viewpoints.

The situation in China is far worse. Chinese activist Huang Qi just received a three-year prison term for blogging about the quality of school buildings (or lack of) in the aftermath of the May 2008 earthquake that killed more than 87,000 people in China.

Of course Qi wasn’t officially charged with “illegally blogging.”  He was charged with “possessing state secrets” and was dealt a prison term in a hearing that lasted ten minutes. His wife said: “They still won’t say what the specific charge is, not even at the verdict. They just spoke of documents related to a certain matter.” She said it was clear the punishment related to his work after the earthquake. “I think it was revenge for the earthquake, and his other work. But the court would not even give me a copy of the verdict,” she said.

The Chinese government is bad, m’kay? You can read more about it here.

The Northwest Arkansas Times had an editorial today about the Arkansas Board of Education and their stance on charters. Something tells me they’ve been spending some time here at mid-riffs. It’s nice to see them enter the debate.

A few thoughts:

1. The editorial uses circular logic to defend the actions of the board. First the editorial says the board must be highly selective because the charter school cap limits the amount to 24. The editorial then closes by saying we actually don’t need a cap because we have a highly selective board.
2. The editorial makes the same tired argument that charters must be innovative to gain approval, while simultaneously pointing out the innovative techniques proposed by the charter school applicants that were denied.
3. The editorial writers should have taken a close look at the Arkansas charter law before accepting and endorsing the board’s reliance on “innovation” as the ultimate test of a charter applicant’s worth.  How charters become approved isn’t up to the Northwest Arkansas Times or the State School Board.  It is up to the state legislature who wrote the law.  As we have pointed out before, nothing in Arkansas’ charter school law can reasonably be construed as to empower the board to reject charter applicants for lack of innovation.
4. The editorial literally says “It is the board’s job to identify charter schools that try something new that might lead to education reform, not just do the same thing as well or only slightly better.”  Really!?! They honestly believe “better” isn’t something that was paramount in the legislature’s intent when they wrote the Arkansas Charter Law? Really!?

I have a question for the editors of the Times and the state board members who have arbitrarily decided that “innovation” is the test for approval. What exactly is it? Let’s stop this whole song and dance and just get on with it. They must know what it is, because they claim to know what it isn’t. So, just tell us: Exactly what is the innovation a charter school applicant needs to incorporate to get approval?