It’s budget season in Harford County, when public hearings are held, pleas for funding are made and grumblings about taxes waft through the air. At one such hearing last Wednesday night, Harford County Public Schools were a hot topic. But don’t you wonder what the Board of Education does with its money? Let’s look at one example.
A few years back, the Board of Education approved a series of high school reforms known as Comprehensive Secondary School Reform (CSSRP). One of the core concepts behind reform was that students would be more engaged in school if they could take more electives, which also meant that students would spend less time in classes covering math, science, English and social studies.
The idea was that something had to be done to improve student achievement; and this was definitely something. Despite warnings from teachers, parents, students, a few brave administrators and a boatload of research, the Board of Education approved the change. In light of those same warnings however, the board promised an independent review by the end of the first year of implementation.
Although a group of analysts from Aberdeen Proving Ground offered their assistance early and often, and for free, the “independent” analysis is now being conducted by the same administration that recommended the reforms in the first place. The report is seven months overdue and isn’t expected for at least four more.
The only other analysis is being conducted by a firm called Leadership Capacity, Inc. whose address is also listed as the home address of Dr. Michael Hickey, Director of the Center for Leadership in Education at Towson University and a former superintendent of Howard County Public Schools. Leadership Capacity bills itself as an “educational consulting and training group” and unlike the analysts at APG, they are not volunteers. The firm is being paid $46,000 to collect and analyze soft data involving surveys and focus groups. Here’s some of what the board got for our money:
Leadership Capacity, Inc. sent surveys to randomly selected parents accompanied by a cover letter with the following explanation:
“The Board has requested a comprehensive evaluation of the progress of CSSRP through the 2006-07 school year, and more particularly on the impact of these changes on various groups including students, staff and parents.”
So far, so good. But that same cover letter goes on to undermine the stated purpose of the survey by directing parents to include their students’ “overall high school experience” in their responses. Shouldn’t Leadership Capacity, which is being paid to evaluate changes brought about by CSSRP be aware that current 11th and 12 graders’ “overall high school experience” occurred both before and after CSSRP was implemented?
By explicitly asking parents to co-mingle these experiences, Leadership Capacity has effectively corrupted its own data. The only comfort is that the survey asks so few questions about the actual impact of CSSRP that there will not be much data to corrupt. Instead, the survey seeks parents’ level of agreement with a series of generalized concepts which were approved by the board of education back in 2005. So what we have here is an expensive, irrelevant opinion poll. Oh, and it’s also poorly designed.
The survey’s 28 questions are actually posed as statements with which parents can agree or disagree in varying degrees. There is also an option labeled “unable to judge”. Thank goodness, because many statements assume parents have information they could not possibly have, such as what is best for all students or what the experience of all students has been. Inexplicably, the survey rarely asks parents about their own student. If the only rational response to a statement is “unable to judge”, why ask the question in the first place? Some statements are written so that any level of disagreement would be illogical. Others contain the erroneous assumption that quantity equals quality.
Last, but not at all least, substantive, relevant data has been omitted; creating leading statements which should have no place in a professionally designed survey. All of which makes you question the leadership capacity of Leadership Capacity, Inc., not to mention the Board of Education that continues to employ their services.
Here are just a few examples taken from the actual text of the survey along with some of the questions that should have been asked, but weren’t.
1. All Harford County high school students should have the opportunity to earn as many as 32 credits, compared to 28 credits available previously in some schools.
On the surface, this sounds like a good idea, but the question contains the embedded bias that taking more credits will be greeted as an “opportunity”. By this logic, 40, 50 or 60 credits would also be an “opportunity”. Dividing students’ efforts among more classes, especially students who are struggling with the core curriculum, is not necessarily in their best interest. During the first year of CSSRP, the total number of students who were failing at least one course spiked, rising to over 50% of the student body at Joppatowne, Edgewood, Aberdeen and Havre de Grace high schools. Were the additional course requirements a factor? Did students fail core classes or electives? Did students take the “opportunity” to add rigor to their schedules? Anecdotal evidence suggests that some students have chosen to fill their schedules with several gym classes. If credits are added without regard to quality, more is not necessarily better.
2. Students learn more in the 4-period schedule than in a schedule with shorter periods.
Parents could not possibly know whether all students learn more under a particular schedule. They were not asked about their own student’s success under the 4-period schedule, which they might actually know something about. The statement also leaves out relevant information. Classes in the 4-period schedule meet for 90 minutes, but they also meet less frequently, resulting in less overall instruction time in each class when compared to schedules with “shorter” periods (of about an hour). The 4-period schedule has meant the loss of up to 4 weeks worth of class meetings in each of the core subjects such as math, science, English and social studies when compared with other scheduling models. Did this loss impact student achievement in core subjects? Did students find some courses were better suited to the 90-minute format? If so, which ones? Which were not? Too bad these questions are never asked.
3. Ninth grade students receive increased support in their transition to high school by working with a core group of the same teachers and students.
Parents could not possibly know whether all 9th grade students are working with a core group of the same teachers, or whether they received increased support from doing so. Parents were not asked about their own child’s experience. They were also not informed that under CSSRP, most teachers’ student loads have increased, so that teachers’ attention is divided among more students. A better question would have been to ask parents whether their 9th grader received adequate support in their transition to high school and to compare those results to 9th graders prior to CSSRP.
4. The availability of additional off-campus educational experiences would provide students with learning opportunities beyond the current course offerings.
Additional experiences are by definition “beyond the current course offerings”. Disagreement with this statement would be illogical. What is not asked, but would be helpful to know, is whether parents believe their students would benefit from these experiences. For example, do parents want their student taking classes at the community college or would they be better served by taking Advanced Placement courses in high school with their peers?
5. Requiring students to select a career pathway with specific courses helps students to focus their high school program.
Selecting specific courses creates a focus by definition; disagreement with this statement would be absurd. What is not asked, but would be helpful to know is whether parents believe their student would benefit from this focus. Do parents want their students exposed to a broad range of subjects or do they support the CSSRP requirement that students must select a career path in high school?
CONCLUSION:
What is most disturbing is not the $46,000 paid to Leadership Concepts for their efforts, it’s the missed opportunity to evaluate whether a much larger, ongoing investment in CSSRP was a mainly a good idea or a mistake that needs correcting. After all, $46,000 pales in comparison to the schools’ budget of nearly half a billion dollars. But in this budget season, when competing interests vie for limited dollars, it’s always worth asking: What did we really get for $46,000?
Survey Says… Fleeced.
Are you also aware that Harford County middle school students who take high school math classes such as algebra and geometry do not receive high school credit for them? They will take the HSAs and receive credit toward graduation, but will not recieve credit toward the four required math classes in high school. Harford County is one on only three counties in the state to deny these students high school credit for high school work. They are the same classes, and the same tests. Why should any high school student be forced into classes such as Calc II, just to meet the high school requirement, just because he or she was “advanced” in middle school and took Algebra and Geometry in 7th and 8th grade? It seems grossly unfair to me.
I agree Amanda, and the worse part is that they don’t just have to take a high level high school math course to meet those 4 math requirements. Most Harford County high schools only offer AP classes past Pre-Calc, so these advanced students will be required to pass college level courses in order to get their high school diploma.
The scariest thing to me about all of this is that our BOE members don’t really seem interested in properly evaluating CSSRP.
Let’s keep an open mind–maybe the CSSRP has some merit- If the BOE truly believed this then they would use the objective data readily available: mid term grades, IPR’s, Progress reports, graduation rates, HSA’s to name a few…..
All of this data was available Pre -implementation of-CSSRP and now Post-CSSRP. The fact that the BOE is so reluctant to use readily available data tells me they have a hidden agenda. Let’s not forget this is our children’s futures here!
The study should have included hard data on the before/after change in test scores or grades in the remianing core subjects, i.e. ,what did we lose or gain? Also, were there any changes in school/class attendance. Are they really having 90 min. long classes?
Ladies, while your points are valid, genuine concerns, the real point is this: Why the CSSRP, why the survey? What is the purpose of the exercise. The real vs. the intended purpose.
“The firm is being paid $46,000 to collect and analyze soft data involving surveys and focus groups.”
Soft data? Surveys? Focus Groups? Like Lynne pointed out. There is objective data available to analyze. But they are not interested in hard numbers. Let’s ask people how they FEEL about the process. As Cindy put it “If the only rational response to a statement is “unable to judge”, why ask the question in the first place?”
Simple. Nobody (who feels these surveys aren’t worthless wastes of time and energy) is going to answer “unable to judge.” Even if they have no idea.
How do you answer the following question:
“Have you stopped beating your kids?” Yes or No?
If you answer Yes, you just said you were beating your kids, now you’re not.
If you answer No, you just said you’re beating your kids, and ain’t no way you’re going to quit now.
This is, as Cindy put it, a classic fleecing. Here’s a thought, let’s put together another survey to assess the effectiveness of the last survey.
“How would you rate the quality of the CSSRP Survey?”
“If given a choice, of jumping in a tiger pit or taking a bath in a tub full of golden retriever puppies swimming in Pepto Bismol, would you support a four class schedule?”
“How much wood would a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could select a career path to focus their specific high school program?”
I have access to a copy machine. A nice Xerox. I could put this whole ditty together for the BOE. I’d only charge $25,000. Think of the children! Think of the SAVINGS!!
Well, it looks as if calling for an analysis of the scheduling changes of 2006-2007 may soon be irrelevant. Tucked away in the middle of an article about Harford Tech in yesterday’s Aegis was a quote from David Volrath that indicates how decisions are made– essentially on a whim, until another whim becomes more attractive by– well, we don’t know by what, because there was never anything from the BOE to show what made the 2006-2007 scheduling change a good idea.
The quote, coming from the top level of HCPS management, is a statement that using an A/B schedule may be a good idea. This is because it would enable students flexibility to take some of the specialized courses at Harford Tech (and implicitly other magnet schools) while retaining the bulk of their course load at their “home” school, and thus extending the reach of, and access to, the specialized programs. This kind of split course load, enabling students to have a strong core curriculum with the specialization that they seek, isn’t possible under the current scheduling system.
Switching to an A/B system would be an ingenious idea, were it not that the source of the idea is the fact that it was the most prevelant system that schools were forced to abandon for the current system. On the other hand, at least there would be quantifiable evidence to demonstrate the potential success of such a schedule– Bel Air and CMW, two of the schools that had operated under an A/B system, happen to have been at the top of Harford’s performance charts. The bulk of students and teachers stated they preferred the A/B system at the time of the switch. Of course there are other factors that put these two schools at the top of performance ratings, and the schedule may not have significantly contributed to the success– but at least there is some evidence that it could have helped, and none that it was detrimental.
Teachers and students have now had some time to adjust to the block scheduling format– what better time to forge ahead with a switch to A/B scheduling?
The A/B schedule would be another change. It’s not exactly the system Bel Air and CMW used– I still believe the rotating schedule would be better– but it’s more similar than the current system. Sorry with the confusion of wording there, I should’ve been more specific. The A/B proposed would probably keep the 90 minute periods and other drawbacks to block scheduling.
Let’s not forget that the survey doesn’t begin to address the block schedule – and how some classes are mutually exclusive. Sorry – the term “block schedule” doesn’t even appear in the survey!
The top performing school system in Maryland had the block schedule and got rid of it after one year – because they realized it was a big mistake and detrimental to student achievement. I want someone to explain to me how taking electives is going to help prepare students for college, and how taking away hours of class time over a year helps them do better in those classes. Most of the curriculum and textbooks currently being used do not go along with this schedule either. The school system said it was the teachers’ responsiblity to make sure the students were engaged under this schedule but they were not given the proper tools either.
Overall, secondary school reform was not ready to be implemented and was done improperly. If the purpose of this reform was to boost student achievement, there is no evidence to support it which makes one wonder what was the real motive in the first place. The burden of proof to show that this is working is on the school system and if the only affirmative feedback they can get is agreement with poorly worded survey questions, then we really are in trouble. When people look to move here and see the decline in our school system and our disregard for two of the areas that we say we need people to major in (math and science), they are going to look elsewhere and rightfully so. One only has to look at the College Board website to see that the block schedule adversely effects both math and science AP test scores and SAT scores. It is shameful that we continue to ignore that type of information and no one is doing anything about it.
Can anyone tell me how many of the current School Board members tasked to act as a check and balance system over this situation truly understand the basic concepts of tests, measurements, surveys, reliability and validity? Perhaps they do not have the knowledge necessary to ask the important questions and a subsequent reluctance to require accountability from those at central office who developed this idea. It would be an explanation for stamping affirmative on the expenditure of $46,000. Has anyone yet to see REAL statistics on grades, ACT/SAT scores and AP test scores compared before and after implementation of the four period day? Has anyone at central office compiled this data for distribution and analysis or is it being intentionally withheld? Why is taxpayer money being wasted on something that will tell us nothing when the real answers we seek sleep in the files at HCPS.
SZQ, thanks for bringing up a great point. If board members don’t understand such concepts, how did they qualify for appointment by the governor? My guess is that many of them do understand the problems with the survey, but tend not to question the “experts”, which you correctly point out is exactly what they are there to do. The public has pleaded for oversight, but the board does not answer to the public.
Hard data was supposed to be collected in a report due last June; we are told it is still being put together. I share your concern about using real data. We need to look at measurements that are not internally generated. GPAs can be maniuplated, as can disciplinary data. Even the HSAs (High School Assessments) are a problem because the state changed the rules about test-takers last year, making multi-year comparisions problematic. So SAT scores and AP test scores must be looked at. But as Mary points out, the research is not encouraging.
Cindy,
I appreciate your comments about CSSRP and the survey being conducted. As a ten-year veteran of HCPS and a teacher who is currently working under the CSSRP, I would agree that all stakeholders await the results of the survey. From a teacher’s point of view, I, too, feel that many of the questions didn’t help me express the truth about how these initiatives have affected my ability to teach. The firm should have created very different surveys for the different stakeholders–teachers, administrators, parents, and students.
To anyone reading this comment, I recommend that you contact the members of the Board of Education directly. I, and many of my fellow teachers, have done this.
CSSRP was implemented w/o any baseline data justifying its need. Why then should anyone be shocked that measurable data has yet to be collected? I have listened to at least one BOE member actually say he is more interested in the surveys than statistical measurements. Where people’s feeling about the reforms are important, us teachers that work in the system and our schools are evaluated based on performance numbers! This BOE member is mor interested in the qualitative data because the quantitative data reveals negative results. The data, which will take almost a year longer than promised, is easily accessible. It took me ten minutes to run the reports on GPA and behavior referral for my school last May. That data was not favorable, thus it is not “available.” I am ashamed to be an educator in a system that manipulates a Board that is willing to be manipulated. We need accountability!
Excellent points Chris. The school administration self-servingly, and often duplicitously, does what it wants, when it wants. And the Board, out of arrogance, gullibility, or self-protection derides and scorns any “resisters” who point it out ( as a recent board president and current member refers to us). And as a small reminder of this absurdity, I list below the agenda item for a certain presentation made last year by the Director of Secondary Education at a secondary school principals’ conference in Las Vegas. You and I and our fellow taxpayers paid for the trip. Where was the outrage on the Board for this:
Date: 2/23/2007
Time: 11:30 AM- 1:00 PM
Location: N257
Open? Yes
Speaker(s): Volrath, David
Topics: Both HS and ML
Description: If you thought that reforming one school was difficult see what happened when a system of 20 secondary schools sets out to reform the middle and high school educational programs for 42,000+ students. Here’s the story of what occurred when top-down reform clashed with bottom-up resistance, and how one large system overcame the politics, prejudices, and parochialism of ten different, and sometimes entrenched, school communities to agree on a Comprehensive Secondary School Reform Plan for the entire district.
Shameless audacity, even when you disregard the misleading untruths.
“how one large system overcame the politics, prejudices, and parochialism of ten different, and sometimes entrenched, school communities…”
Notice how the Volrath presentation was scheduled around the traditional lunch hour. After all, how long does it take to say “our appointed Board and intransigent Administration were able to pass these ‘reforms’ in spite of the wishes of the stakeholders in the system.”
Absurd.