Are retests a waste of $500,000?

CMS Superintendent Peter Gorman says retesting kids who fail state exams may bump up scores for schools, but students aren't really learning much when they cram for a week.

He also estimates the state spent $500,000 in a tight budget year printing and mailing extra tests.

Here's his letter to the N.C. Board of Education urging them to drop the mandatory retesting, which began last school year:

August 24, 2009

NC State Board of Education
c/o William C. Harrison
6302 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699

Dear State Board of Education,

We would like to share our serious concerns around the use of retesting for accountability purposes in North Carolina. After one year of retesting all students who performed at a Level II on any EOG test or its alternates, we have reviewed the data. We believe it raises serious questions about the process, outcomes and the impact of this testing.

In reviewing our test results, we found that almost two-thirds of our students who passed on the retest originally had scores within one standard error of measurement on the first test administration. We only have 180 instructional days to teach our students. Therefore, the less testing we do for summative assessments (which the state tests are), the more time we have to actually teach students.

We had to suspend generalized instruction after the first EOG test so we could provide a week’s worth of remediation to the students who scored a Level II. Can one week of remediation really advance students in a measurable way? Our percent passing went up around nine percentage points, mostly due to students who scored in the range where they may have actually known enough to pass in the first place. This year, we will need to test earlier to provide more remediation. We would much prefer to spend the time teaching instead of remediating.

Even in an optimal situation, the level of feedback from the state tests does not lend itself to use for remediation. We were left wondering what can we do in one week to move a child from:

“Students performing at this level demonstrate inconsistent mastery of knowledge and skills that are fundamental in this subject area and that are minimally sufficient to be successful at the next grade level.” –SBE policy GCS-C-018

to

“Students performing at this level consistently demonstrate mastery of grade level subject matter and skills and are well prepared for the next grade level.” –SBE policy GCS-C-018

If the point of the retesting is to give a better read on student abilities, we think it makes sense to either use a more accurate test (the 4 points that make up the 1 SEM, is in many cases, over 55% of the Level II range), or simply count the students who score within 1 SEM as proficient so we can focus on teaching instead of preparing for a second test.

Our Exceptional Children educators are concerned about the appropriateness of the NCEXTEND1 for a first administration. This issue is compounded when the state regulations require us to put these students through the ordeal again if they only score a Level II score. Several parents have questioned whether retesting hurts the child.

We are also concerned about the validity of retesting students on the NCCLAS assessment. Since this assessment requires materials collection and review, teachers often were asked to re-enter student scores without any real ability to collect new work samples. While we want to be sure student performance is properly assessed, it is hard to justify requiring teachers to rekey the same score.

Another concern was on NCEXTEND2 and the lack of varying test forms. The students who scored a Level II on the first administration were given the same form of the test about a week later, due to schedules and our attempts to maximize instructional time. This gives retested students an advantage due to previous exposure to the test.

Given the statewide budget issues, we think it would be wiser to save the resources for actual instruction. CMS administered almost 50,000 retests in the 08-09 school year. In 09-10 we expect that number to increase. Using an estimate of $1 per test (as NCDPI did when calculating the cost savings from the elimination of the third grade pretest) the printing and shipping costs across the state would approach $500,000. This does not include the staff effort for delivering, administering, scoring and reporting on these tests. Nor does this count the lost educational value of the time required for additional testing and the remediation process which interrupts school activities.

We prefer a test that measures accurately enough that a week of tutorial will not move a child to proficiency, if that is not an achievable goal, we would suggest that the state use the SEM in measuring proficiency rather than retesting. Our data and experience this year suggest that retesting is expensive and not effective.

Sincerely,


Peter C. Gorman
Superintendent

C: CMS Board of Education
Robert Avossa
Christopher Cobitz

- Ann Doss Helms

CMS: All schools showing Obama speech

With Obama's speech to schoolchildren stirring up a political fury among adults, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools announced today that Superintendent Peter Gorman and other top officials will visit schools to watch the historic webcast.

Click here to see the news release.

Some who oppose the speech have been buzzing over whether the district's official "encouragement" for schools to participate means whole schools can opt out.

The answer is no: All schools will show the speech live, but parents who object can contact their child's school and another "instructional opportunity" will be provided.

School board member Larry Gauvreau responded to the announcement by e-mailing his own proposed alternative: "I call on students, staff and Mecklenburg citizens to reject the Obama administration's pandering and any attempt by CMS to legitimize the Sept 8th event. Instead, teachers and students should consider reading a good book during that time period."

- Ann Doss Helms

Construction money for charter schools?

Charter schools across the state already receive some operating money from traditional K-12 school districts.

But are they also entitled to money for construction and other capital projects?

The N.C. Institute of Constitutional Law believes they might, and could ask the courts to weigh in. But local officials say state law doesn't require or give them authority to share money with the charter schools.

As an article in today's Observer notes, the Raleigh-based advocacy group recently sent a letter to some counties, including Mecklenburg, questioning the lack of capital outlay money given to local charter schools.

Read the institutes's letter here. It is signed by NCICL Executive Director Robert Orr, a retired state Supreme Court justice, and Jason Kay, a senior attorney at the institute who is the lead on the case.


Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools Superintendent Peter Gorman already has weighed in, writing to Orr that school boards currently are only required to share money with charter schools from its local current expense fund. Read Gorman's full letter here.


Mecklenburg County also is preparing a response, though County Attorney Marvin Bethune said Wednesday he doesn't believe state law gives counties authority to give charter schools money from the capital fund.


That assertion is backed by a 1998 advisory opinion from the N.C. Attorney General's Office, though it notes that lacking authority doesn't mean that public money can't be used to support the charters. A spokeswoman said Wednesday that is the only opinion the office has issued on the issue and the language quoted in the 1998 opinion still appears in state statutes.


What do you think? Should the county, CMS give charter schools money for capital projects?

- April Bethea

Dueling memos: Gorman vs. Jones

In Charlotte, discussions about pending land deals involving local governments typically occur out of the public eye, whether in staff meetings or closed-door sessions.


But a dispute about a proposed agreement between Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools and Mecklenburg County became public earlier this week when schools Superintendent Peter Gorman sent a letter to County Manager Harry Jones.


In a nutshell, Gorman said the district is hesitant to give the county land it owns on Brevard Street for a planned First Ward development because of concerns about money owed by the county for another piece of school property.

He also discusses other concerns about cuts in this year's school budget and future spending on construction.

Click here to read Gorman's letter.

The county owes CMS $13.75 million for the Education Center, property the district gave up as part of a county deal to help bring minor-league baseball to uptown. And with a Dec. 31, 2010 deadline to move out of the building creeping closer, school leaders want to know when they'll get the money.

County officials said they intend to pay CMS, but have limited money right now due to the economy and a slowdown in spending for construction. The county had borrowed $9.5 million toward the debt for the Ed Center in 2008.


But earlier this year, the county scaled back its borrowing for construction and the $9.5 million it had on hand for the new offices was used to help finish school projects already underway.


County Manager Harry Jones said he'll recommend giving the $13.75 million as part of next year's budget talks.

Click here to read the Jones memo.

It is unclear whether the pledge from Jones will be enough to convince school leaders to agree to the new First Ward land deal. Gorman said Thursday he didn't know if the item would come up in closed session at next week's school board meeting.

- April Bethea