Tag Archives: Morgan Polikoff

Polikoff Makes NCLB Type Accountability Call

17 Sep

By Thomas Ultican 9/17/2024

Article by Professor Morgan Polikoff, University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education, is a throwback to the No Child Left Behind era. The piece’s purpose was to advertise a new report he worked on with the Center for Reinventing Public Education (CRPE). The teaser for his article at The 74 says, “Given the importance of public education and the need for student data, how can states justify doing such a lousy job at informing parents?” Because of COVID learning loss, he says state education report cards need big improvements.

Is leaning loss a real thing? Probably not but let’s ignore that argument for now. Polikoff shared, “I’m on the board of the Data Quality Campaign and I’ve written extensively (and favorably) about the role of accountability in promoting educational improvement.” Additionally, the 2023 Data Quality Campaign “Show Me the Data Report” says, “13 [states] did not include growth data from the 2021–22 school year, and 4 states did not include growth data at all.”

Virtually everything Polikoff shares is billionaire funded baloney.

Center for Reinventing Public Education

In 1993, Political Science Professor, Paul T. Hill, established the Center for Reinventing Public Education (CRPE).

Professor Hill, a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute, was a member of Brookings’ cadre of researchers convinced that American public education was failing. Furthermore, they shared a general agreement that market based business principles were central to fixing schools and declared teachers unions and governance by locally elected school boards must be overturned.

CRPE was fortunate to be in Seattle, Washington where the world’s richest man, Bill Gates, decided to implement his opinions concerning education. The fact that he was so rich appeared to be his only qualification for what became an outsized influence over public education. CRPE became one of his tools.

“Doing School Choice Right” was a CRPE project funded by the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Annie E. Casey Foundation, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. CPRE listed two salient goals for their study:

  • “Create models for how school districts can oversee public schools in multiple ways—including direct operation, chartering, contracting, and licensing private schools to admit voucher students. This study is conducted in partnership with the National Charter School Research Project.”
  • “Examine issues involved in moving toward pupil-based funding, particularly technical, legal, and regulatory barriers.”

Out of this study, the “portfolio school” management model was created. In October 2009, CRPE published “Portfolio School Districts for Big Cities: An Interim Report.” It became popular with billionaire school reformers and in 2018 was a central purpose for Jon Arnold and Reed Hastings to establish The City Fund.

By 2019, CRPE quit sharing who it funders are. In 2018, their listed funders were:

  • The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  • Carnegie Corporation of New York
  • Laura and John Arnold Foundation
  • Michael and Susan Dell Foundation
  • US Department of Education
  • Walton Family Foundation  

Data Quality Campaign

Kati Haycock the founder of Education Trust became leader of the Data Quality Campaign (DQC). Ed Trust was a central player in foisting Common Core State Standards on America. Haycock had a lot of experience working around education but like most reformers had no actual teaching experience. Mercedes Schneider’s book Common Core Dilemma details how DQC was created and for what purpose (Pages 44-56).

DQC is described as a national collaborative effort to improve accountability and the use of data. It is an effort by technocrats to control the way standardized testing data is collected and used to improve student achievement. Originally conceived by the National Governors Association, it was assigned to Haycock and Education Trust.

The big unrecognized problem for DQC is that Standardized testing is useless. Student data does not indicate learning, teacher effectiveness or school quality. A correlation study of how testing data is affected by various factors assigns r-values of between 1 and 0. A value of 1 means 100% correlated and a value of 0 means not correlated at all. When correlation studies are done with standardized testing data there is only one factor that has an r-value greater the 0.3 (weakly correlated) and that is family wealth which has an r-value of 0.9.

Teacher quality, class size, urban or rural, race, gender, curriculum design, music availability, art availability and so on all effect education outcomes but these effects are swamped by family wealth. Noel Wilson’s famous 1997 peer-reviewed article, “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” fundamentally states that the error involved in educational testing is so great validity is compromised. This paper has been ignored but never debunked.

In other words, family wealth so overwhelms all other effects, standardized testing becomes meaningless.

In the No Child Left Behind era, testing data was used as proof that public schools were failing. Of course, 100% of those so called “failing schools” were in poor zip codes.

DQC calls for mandating ten pieces of data tied to standardized testing, includes unique student identifiers, a teacher identifier system to match teachers to students and the ability to match student records between the P–12 and postsecondary systems. Students, parents and teachers would need to trust them and give up all pretenses of privacy.

These unprofessional and misguided organizations continue to operate because billionaires support them. As of 2022, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (ISN: 56-2618866) has financed Ed Trust and DQC with more than $114,000,000 while other billionaires have also kicked in money.

Growth Models

When professor Polikoff calls for growth data he is referring to growth models.

Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) and California Office of Reform Education (CORE) sound like official governmental organizations but they are not. Billionaires created these institutions. In 2019, PACE was determined to sell California on growth models. Morgan Polikoff, produced a policy brief stating:

“Based on the existing literature and an examination of California’s own goals for the Dashboard and the continuous improvement system, the state should adopt a student-level growth model as soon as possible. Forty-eight states have already done so; there is no reason for California to hang back with Kansas while other states use growth data to improve their schools.”

Jesse Rothstein, professor of public policy and economics at University of California, Berkeley, ran a verification test and found, “these models indicate large ‘effects’ of 5th grade teachers on 4th grade test score gains.”

There are fundamentally three types of growth models. The gain-model is the least mathematically manipulated model with the least amount of assumptions required. The residual-gain model requires significantly more manipulation and the multivariate model is the most complex, manipulated and opaque of them all. None of the three models have been decisively shown to provide accurate analysis but strong evidence has emerged that they do not.

All of these models face the same insurmountable problem when modeling testing data, garbage in leads to garbage out.

Conclusions

Polikoff excoriates state education reporting sites for being difficult to navigate and not being standardized.

The education writer, Peter Greene, wrote about Polikoff’s report:

“It’s that same childlike faith that transparency and data will drive the education marketplace towards excellence, which is doomed because A) excellence in education defies transparent data collection (BS Test results are not it) and B) that’s not how the marketplace works, anyway.”

“I’m not sure there is any audience for these sites at all. It’s the kind of thing I think of as a library publication–something that puts down information that needs to be stored somewhere, because it’s important and the odd researcher or historian may want it at some point.”

Billionaires believe in testing because it is an avenue for them to centralize power and exert greater control over public education. Growth models, which are opaque and force us to accept mathematics experts like Polikoff, are fueled by bad data. It is part of a two decades long technocratic attack on public schools.

America rose to power in the world because of democratic principles and public education. Selfish and short sighted interests are working to destroy both.

Tags: , , , ,

Panic! Pandemic Learning Loss!

17 Dec

By Thomas Ultican 12/17/2023

Wal-Mart family’s propaganda rag, The 74, says those not hysterical over learning loss wear rose-colored glasses and damaged students are doomed, losing billions in future earnings, if nothing is done now. Their major recommendations are frequent testing, high-dose tutoring and tough grading. Unsurprisingly these lead to more corporate profits.

A gathering at the Aspen Institute asserted the dire situation.  Jens Ludwig,  University of Chicago economics professor, said, “We do not have our hair on fire the way it needs to be.” The other members of this panel were Nat Malkus of the American Enterprise Institute, T. Nakia Towns of Accelerate and Melissa Kearney of the Aspen Institute.

There was a strong smell of corporate education bias in the air. The Aspen Institute was the creation of corporate leaders and largely funded by foundations, such as, Carnegie Corporation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Gates Foundation, Lumina Foundation, and Ford Foundation. American Enterprise Institute is a center right research group that grew out of the American Enterprise Association which formed in 1938 to fight Roosevelt’s New Deal. Accelerate’s CEO is Michelle Rhee’s former husband, Kevin Huffman, also a founding partner at The City Fund. Listed funders of Accelerate are Gates Foundation, Arnold Ventures, Walton Family Foundation, Overdeck Family Foundation and Ken C. Griffin.

Testing Declines were Universal

The 74 claims:

“Parents expressed little concern about lasting damage from the pandemic and typically thought their children were doing well in school — a view that researchers say is belied by dismal state and national test scores.”

“The 2022 National Assessment of Educational Progress showed historic declines in math and flat performance in reading.” (Emphasis added.)

Plotted by NAEP from 2022 Testing Data

The 2022 8-point drop in mathematics scores was unusually large. In the spring of 2020, schools throughout America shut down and most of them did not reopen in class until fall 2021. If there were not a drop in testing scores, the NAEP assessment would have been meaningless.

The 74 further notes that a recent release of international scores shows U.S. students dropped 13 points in math between 2018 and 2022. Their linked article noted that many other countries had worse drops.

Because America does not filter students from the academic system before high school, the tested population does not score as well internationally. However, since 2010, in the yearly International Math Olympiad, the USA team has come in first four times and never finished lower than fourth … out of over 100 entrants.

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) created and administers the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). The table shown is from the 2022 math exam given to 15-year olds and score changes since the last administration in 2018. As normal, the US scored in the lower half of OECD countries but did improve one step from 2018.

Advocating More Standardized Testing

Fordham Institute has documented a growing discrepancy  between grade point averages and standardized test scores. TNTP produced a report showing an increase in B grades since the pandemic. The basic argument of corporate reformers is that parents should not trust public school grades and more standardized testing is required.

Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) and California Office of Reform Education (CORE) sound like official governmental organizations but they are not. Billionaires created these institutions for the express purpose of undermining and controlling public schools. In 2019, PACE was determined to sell California on growth models to evaluate schools. University of Southern California (USC) Professor of Education Policy, Morgan Polikoff, produced a policy brief for PACE stating:

“Based on the existing literature and an examination of California’s own goals for the Dashboard and the continuous improvement system, the state should adopt a student-level growth model as soon as possible. Forty-eight states have already done so; there is no reason for California to hang back with Kansas while other states use growth data to improve their schools.”

Polikoff seems to be a sincere academic but growth models do not do well when scrutinized.  Jesse Rothstein, professor of public policy and economics at University of California, Berkeley, ran a verification test and found, “these models indicate large ‘effects’ of 5th grade teachers on 4th grade test score gains.” A verification test run at the University of California Davis, showed that teachers affect student height…??? “Using a common measure of effect size in standard deviation units, we find a 1σ increase in ‘value-added’ on the height of New York City 4th graders is about 0.22σ, or 0.65 inches.”

An article by Linda Hammond Darling notes the instability of VAM result: “A study examining data from five school districts found, for example, that of teachers who scored in the bottom 20% of rankings in one year, only 20% to 30% had similar ratings the next year, while 25% to 45% of these teachers moved to the top part of the distribution, scoring well above average.”

Standardized testing and growth models are as likely to be misleading as illuminating. On the other side of the coin, high school grades are more predictive of college success than standardized testing. Public school grades, though fraught with issues, are much more reflective of student progress and potential.

Dan Goldhaber, director of the CALDER Center at the American Institutes for Research, and Polikoff are among the “experts,” urging educators to make test score data a much larger focus of conversations with parents. Polikoff sees separation between parents and the nation’s education scholars as part of a larger anti-testing movement that started brewing long before the pandemic. The pandemic pause on state assessments and accountability sparked a renewed push to limit the number of tests and try different models.

“There’s just very close to zero constituencies advocating for tests or that they matter,” Polikoff said. Republicans “want only unfettered choice” while the left is not defending the usefulness of tests “to ensure educational quality or equity.” He says the backlash against testing has come “at the worst possible time given the damage that’s actually been done.”

Polikoff and his USC team recently published a report, based on interviews with 42 parents over the past two+ years:

“One of the clearest findings from our interviews is that caretakers, when making judgments about students’ performance, overwhelmingly rely less on standardized test scores than they do grades, other school-reported measures of student progress, and their own observations of their children’s work and work ethic.” (Page 15)

“A final insight our data provides into the parent-expert disconnect is that caretakers often, and very explicitly, noted that children are resilient.” (Page 20)

Observation and Conclusion

Noel Wilson’s famous 1997 peer-reviewed article, “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” fundamentally states the error involved in educational testing is so great that validity is compromised. In other words, standardized tests are not refined enough to make more than great generalizations. They are bunk for measuring learning or teaching.

Clearly people like Professors Polikoff and Goldhaber believe in these tools. It is likely they embrace testing because they are good at math and strongly desire tools that provide clear, unbiased conclusions. Unfortunately, they have grabbed onto an illusion.

Parents are correct when they say “children are resilient.” What students and schools need now is to be left alone to do their job. The COVID pandemic was traumatic for us all and it may take two or even three years for student recovery. They will, unless we continue mindlessly over-testing and forcing some sort of academic acceleration.

Profiteers see this as a business opportunity. Protect the children and let kids be kids.

They will be fine!

Tags: , , , , ,