broken promise?

Common Core tests were supposed to usher in a new era of comparing America’s schools. What happened?

PHOTO: Pete Souza / White House
President Barack Obama and former Secretary of Education Arne Duncan in 2010.

How well does an elementary school in Maryland stack up to one in New Jersey? Do California’s eighth graders make faster academic gains than their peers in Connecticut?

In 2010, then-Secretary of Education Arne Duncan made the case for common state tests that would allow parents and educators to find out — and predicted that the comparisons would lead to dramatic policy changes.

“For the first time, it will be possible for parents and school leaders to assess and compare in detail how students in their state are doing compared to students in other states,” Duncan said. “That transparency, and the honest dialogue it will create, will drive school reform to a whole new level.” It was a heady moment: Most states had signed on to at least one of the two cross-state testing groups, PARCC and Smarter Balanced.

Though their numbers have since dwindled substantially, the two groups still count over 20 members between them. But seven years later, it remains difficult to make detailed comparisons across states, as a potent mix of technical challenges, privacy concerns, and political calculations have kept the data relatively siloed. And there’s little evidence that the common tests have pushed states to compare notes or change course.

“This is one unkept promise [of] the common assessments,” said Mike Petrilli, president of the Fordham Institute, a conservative think tank that has backed the Common Core standards.

“I’ve been surprised that there haven’t been more attempts to compare PARCC and Smarter Balanced states,” said Chad Aldeman of Bellwether Education Partners.

What comparisons are available? PARCC publishes a PDF document with scores from different states, based on publicly available information. “We have more states than ever administering tests that will allow for comparability across states,” said Arthur Vanderveen, the CEO of New Meridian, the nonprofit that now manages PARCC. “That data is all public and available. I think the vision really has been realized.”

Smarter Balanced does not publish any data comparing states, though those scores could be collected from each participating state’s website.

The presentation of the data stands in contrast to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a test taken by a sample of students nationwide. NAEP has an interactive site that allows users to compare state data. No such dashboards exist for Smarter Balanced or PARCC, though both tests could offer more granular comparisons of schools and students.

Tony Alpert, the head of Smarter Balanced, says a centralized website would be difficult to create and potentially confusing, since states report their results in slightly different ways.

“The notion of comparable is really complicated,” he said. Nitty-gritty issues like when a test is administered during the school year, or whether a state allows students who are learning English to use translation glossaries on the math exam, can make what seems like a black and white question — are scores comparable? — more gray, he said.

“Early on our states directed us not to provide a public website of the nature you describe, and [decided that] each state would be responsible for producing their results,” said Alpert.

Neither testing group publishes any growth scores across states — that is, how much students in one state are improving relative to students who took the test elsewhere. Many experts say growth scores are a better gauge of school quality, since they are less closely linked to student demographics. (A number of the states in both consortia do calculate growth, but only within their state.)

“I’m not sure why we would do that,” Alpert of Smarter Balanced said. States “haven’t requested that we create a common growth model across all states — and our work is directed by our members.”

That gets at a larger issue of who controls this data. For privacy reasons, student scores are not the property of the consortia, but individual states. PARCC and Smarter Balanced are also run by the states participating, which means there may be resistance to comparisons — especially ones that might be unflattering.

“The consortium doesn’t want to be in the business of ranking its members,” said Morgan Polikoff, a professor at the University of Southern California who has studied the PARCC and Smarter Balanced tests. “Except for the ones that are doing well, [states] don’t have any political incentive to want to release the results.”

As for PARCC, a testing expert who has works directly with the consortium said PARCC has made it possible to compare growth across states — the results just haven’t been released.

“Those [growth scores] have been calculated, but it’s very surprising to me that they’re not interested in making them public,” said Scott Marion, the executive director of the Center for Assessment. This information would allow for comparisons of not just student proficiency across states, but how much students improved, on average, from what state to the next.

Vanderveen confirmed that states have information to calculate growth across states.

But it’s unclear if any have done so or published the scores.

Chalkbeat asked all PARCC states. Colorado, Illinois and Maryland responded that they do not have such data; other states have not yet responded to public records requests.

Vanderveen said that states are more interested in whether students are meeting an absolute bar for performance than in making comparisons to other states. “A relative measure against how others students are performing in other states — and clearly states have decided — that is of less value,” he said.

The cross-state data could be a gold mine for researchers, who are often limited to single states where officials are most forthcoming with data. But both Polikoff and Andrew Ho, a professor at Harvard and testing expert, say they have seen little research that taps into the testing data across states, perhaps because getting state-by-state permission remains difficult.

Challenges in the ability to make comparisons across states and districts led Ho and Stanford researcher Sean Reardon to create their own solution: an entirely separate database for comparing test scores, including growth, across districts in all 50 states. But it’s still not as detailed as the consortia exams.

“One of the promises of the Common Core data was that you might be able to do student-level [growth] models for schools across different states and our data cannot do that,” he said.

the grades are in

Search for your Indiana school’s 2018 A-F grades

PHOTO: Andersen Ross/Getty Images

Indiana schools’ 2018 A-F grades were released Wednesday, and most schools have two grades this year.

One grade is the usual annual rating from the state, which is mainly based on test scores and how much scores improve. These ratings can trigger intervention for schools receiving F grades several years in a row.

The other grade, which is new this year, comes from new federal standards under the Every Student Succeeds Act. This rating looks at how public schools serve students of color, students from low-income families, English learners, and students with disabilities.

The state measured schools more generously than the federal standards: Nearly two-thirds of schools received As or Bs under the Indiana system. About a third of schools received a higher letter grade in the state system than under federal standards.

Read more: Many Indiana schools receive F grades for how they serve students of color and those with disabilities

Read more: How many Indiana schools got As in 2018? Depends if state or feds are doing the grading.

Most schools didn’t see a change in their state grade from last year, a trend that continues because test scores remain largely stagnant.

New schools and schools that join the Indianapolis Public Schools innovation network can opt to be graded by the state for three years based only on how much their test scores improve — a measure known as growth — without factoring in passing rates.

Find your school’s A-F grades in our searchable database below.

Decision day

A state board decision on two long-struggling Pueblo schools could affect the entire district

PHOTO: Andrea Chu/Getty Images

A year after running out of chances to improve on their own, two Pueblo middle schools will be making a return appearance in front of the State Board of Education this week.

Heroes Middle School and Risley International Academy of Innovation have spent the last eight years on a watch list for low-performing schools. A year ago, the state board ordered them along with five school districts and 10 other schools to craft plans to improve — and warned them that too little progress could lead to sharper consequences in the future. It was the first time state regulators faced these decisions under Colorado’s school accountability system.

Many of the schools and districts on the state watchlist have managed to improve enough to avoid further intervention, including Bessemer Elementary, also in Pueblo City Schools.

But even after working with a nonprofit group to improve the quality of teaching, the two schools failed to advance on Colorado’s school rating system, which is largely based on performance on standardized tests. Their test scores left Heroes at the second lowest rating, where it has been for several years, and Risley on “turnaround,” the lowest possible rating, despite some improvement in some subject areas and grade levels.

On Wednesday, state board members will hold a hearing on the future of Heroes and Risley— along with the entire Adams 14 district and its high school. They’ll be taking into account recommendations from independent reviewers who visited the schools, the Pueblo district, students and their families, and advocates who have been lobbying throughout the process.

If the board members take the same approach they did last year, they’re likely to let the schools continue with “innovation” status, with some additional external management. But some state board members have expressed frustration with the pace of change, and they have more drastic options available to them, including closure or turning low-performing schools into charters.

At least in the case of Risley, the recommendation to largely stay the course comes despite grave concerns about the school. The evaluators gave a damning report, rating its leadership “not effective” at implementing change or even having the capacity to benefit from the help of an external partner.

The evaluators described chaotic classrooms in which students slept at their desks or openly played on their phones. In classrooms in which teachers were able to engage students, too many of them were “doing the cognitive work” for the students rather than leading them in real learning, they said.

The school is using too many new programs at once without enough training for teachers, with the result that most of them were not being implemented as intended, the evaluators said, and there isn’t enough coordination. In one example, the school had adopted new reading and math curriculum designed for 90-minute blocks, but the school’s schedule only allows for 75-minute periods.

But closing the school or turning it over to a charter organization would be worse options, evaluators said.

Conversion to a charter school would be divisive and unlikely to better serve students, they said, and there aren’t any nearby schools that could absorb the students if Risley were to close. “There are no other viable options for students that would likely lead to better outcomes,” the evaluators wrote.

What’s more, they wrote, the school serves as an “anchor” to the community — a view that community members expressed in comments submitted to the state board. Parents described using the health clinic associated with the school or getting food from the food pantry, as well as the pride their children felt in their sports teams, which provide positive and structured activities after school.

“As a parent, I feel better after each time I volunteer,” one mother wrote. “My daughter is a cheerleader here and I enjoy going to all her games and support her school and represent red and black and showing bear pride. I am looking forward to my son attending here in years to come.”

In several letters, students said they were having to take so many tests as part of the turnaround process that they were bored and stressed out and did not want to come to school.

“If we’re testing every month, when the real test comes around, we get tired of it and guess or click through,” one eighth-grade student said. “They’re stressing us out, and we don’t really need them. I understand you guys need to see where we are, but this many tests are not helping any of us.”

The state review panel assessment of Heroes was more positive, even as evaluators noted ongoing problems and recommended an additional external partner to help manage the school, not just provide instructional support.

“The school needs more time to see the full benefits of participation in the Innovation Zone, but implementation thus far has proven effective,” they wrote. “Leadership is developing and beginning to create positive change.”

At Heroes, evaluators did not recommend conversion to a charter school in part because the school serves a high population of students with disabilities. The middle school is also part of a K-8 school with one principal, and disentangling the elementary and middle school would have financial implications for both.

In response to written questions from the State Board of Education, Pueblo district officials said converting both schools to charters would have a serious financial impact on the entire school system. The district, which already faces declining enrollment and operates on a four-day week while staring down a $785 million maintenance backlog for its aging buildings, would lose almost $5 million a year in state funding if Risley and Heroes students all went to charter schools. The school district would also lose one of its newer buildings if Risley converted to a charter.

The opposition to a charter conversion is about more than money. In a letter, Barb Clementi, vice president of the school board in Pueblo, pointed to the example of a struggling school that was turned into a magnet school. While it has a good rating, it now serves a student population that is almost entirely different, and the former students continue to struggle in their new schools. Converting Risley or Heroes to charters runs the same risk, she said.

Risley and Heroes are part of an innovation zone that provides schools more flexibility but also allows teachers and administrators to work together. While the state review panel said both schools need to take more advantage of the zone, other Pueblo schools have come off the state watchlist using the innovation approach.

“I urge you to consider the bigger picture of our entire Pueblo community and school system when making decisions,” Clementi wrote. “These two middle school have made progress and deserve the time and opportunity to continue their good work with perhaps additional partnership support.”

Suzanne Ethredge, president of the Pueblo Education Association, the teachers union, said both schools have suffered from a lack of consistent leadership and significant teacher turnover, an issue that evaluators noted as well. She said any plan to improve the schools needs to take seriously the issue not just of training teachers but keeping them.

Some teachers and parents have asked for the schools to be turned into “community schools,” though letters to the state board indicate this approach has some serious skeptics as well.

“There is a lot of buy-in and a lot of people are looking to this model as a way to engage authentically with our community and dig in and find those root causes that are holding students back,” said Robert Donovan, an eighth-grade social studies teacher at Risley and member of the Pueblo Education Coalition.

Community schools incorporate a wide range of services for students and their families, ranging from meals, health clinics, and laundry service to English classes and job training. These schools work to engage parents in their children’s education, and in their most ideal version, parents play a big role in shaping educational decisions.

Teachers unions have been strong advocates for community schools in response to persistent low test scores, including in Pueblo and Adams 14. They argue that community schools address the social and economic problems that make it hard for students to succeed at school. Research on the academic impact of this approach is mixed.

More than 97 percent of Risley students qualify for subsidized lunches, a measure of poverty, compared to 80 percent for the district as a whole. Nearly 80 percent of Heroes students are from low-income families.

“The concerns expressed by our community fall into several areas, including authentic parent and community engagement, culturally relevant curriculum, a focus on high-quality teaching and learning, positive discipline practices, and mental health supports, to name a few,” reads the online petition. “The most powerful voices speaking about what is needed were, in fact, students. Based on this engagement, a community schools model … is the best fit for what we need and want in Pueblo.”

At Wednesday’s hearing, district officials will lay out their plans in more detail — they declined to talk to us before the meeting — and face tough questions from state board members, who have until Thursday to render a decision on the two Pueblo schools and the Adams 14 district, which could face significant loss of control.

This week’s decisions will mark a test of how the state board will deal with struggling schools going forward. Pueblo City Schools and Adams 14 have both described a process for finding additional outside partners if that’s what the state board orders, but it’s not entirely clear what that will look like on the ground.

And then it will fall back to principals, teachers, parents, and students to do the work.