Two education professors weigh in on why Coloradans need to continue to embrace school reform by modernizing the way schools are funded.
As Colorado enters the homestretch of its efforts to overhaul the state’s school funding system, the latest international tests results have been released and can inform Colorado’s efforts.
The results have a mix of very good and not-so-good news for Colorado. The recent tests, the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), were administered by the widely respected International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Unlike the PISA tests of 15-year-olds that get lots of attention from policymakers, TIMSS tests students at specific grade levels (fourth and eighth for 2011). States can also choose to participate as if they were their own country, and Colorado wisely chose to do so for eighth-graders. The national results include both public and private school students, and the state results sample only public school students.
In mathematics, U.S eighth-graders performed respectably compared to the other participating countries, if not spectacularly: American fourth grade students had an average score just outside the top 10, similar to students in Russia, England and Finland (the darling of international education reform). American eighth grade students had an average score within the top 10, similar to students in Israel, England and, once again, Finland. U.S. performance at fourth grade has increased significantly on TIMSS from 1995 to 2007 and from 2007 to 2011, but eighth grade scores were relatively unchanged from 2007 after a substantial increase from 1995 to 2007.
The 2011 TIMSS results include a lot of good news for Colorado’s students and educators in public schools. Scored against the other participating countries, Colorado’s eighth-graders would have ranked well within the top 10 in mathematics, above the international and U.S. averages, and would have been outperformed only by the likes of South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan and Russia. Notably, Colorado students had similar scores to students in Finland, a country whose education system is often fawned over by U.S. policymakers. Colorado students performed well in three of the four math content areas (number, geometry, and data and chance), and at the U.S. average in algebra.
In science, the results are not quite as good but still impressive. U.S. eighth-graders ranked 10th overall, with Colorado students scoring well above the U.S. and international averages – tied for seventh with Russia and similar to other high-scoring countries such as Slovenia, Finland and Hong Kong. Biology and earth science were particular Colorado strengths.
However, achievement gaps among Colorado students are a major area of concern.
In eight grade math, for example, white and Asian students and those attending low-poverty schools in Colorado performed well above the U.S. average, but black and Hispanic students scored well below the U.S. and international averages, on par with students in the Ukraine and Kazakhstan. Students in high-poverty schools in Colorado performed even less impressively, on par with students in Romania and Alabama.
It does not bode well for our future international competitiveness when some of our poor and minority students – comprising the fastest growing segments of the student population – are performing on par with students in countries and states without Colorado’s considerable material advantages.
Colorado has recently been a leader among the states regarding education, with the implementation of the student achievement growth model among the most important “exports.” Coloradans clearly understand the advantages of being at the cutting edge of reform, and state policymakers should continue this recent tradition of innovation as they modernize the school finance system.
Policymakers should keep in mind that Colorado’s public school system – like all such systems – has considerable strengths and weaknesses, and that reforms should be aimed at both promoting excellence and achieving educational equity. Choosing one over the other overlooks the fact that Colorado has made world-class progress but also has world-class problems.
About the authors
Jonathan Plucker is a professor of education at the University of Connecticut, and a frequent consultant and speaker to Colorado educators and parents.
Bryn Harris is an assistant professor of school psychology at the University of Colorado Denver who researches culturally and linguistically responsive educational assessment methods and practices.
Allow me to supply the missing link to the data: http://nces.ed.gov/Timss/results11_science11.asp
The authors: “In science, the results are not quite as good but still impressive. U.S. eighth-graders ranked 10th overall, with Colorado students scoring well above the U.S. and international averages – tied for seventh with Russia and similar to other high-scoring countries such as Slovenia, Finland and Hong Kong. Biology and earth science were particular Colorado strengths.” Let us place this finding in context from the link above: “There was no measurable difference between the U.S. average science score at grade 4 in 1995 (542) and in 2011 (544). There was no measurable difference between the U.S. average science score at grade 4 in 2007 (539) and in 2011 (544).”
In 16 years, NO GROWTH. And yet, we are supposed to measure our own schools on a growth model? But wait, “the results…are impressive.” From the TIMSS report: “At grade 8, the United States was among the top 23 education systems in science (12 education systems had higher averages and 10 were not measurably different) and scored higher, on average, than 33 education systems.
The 12 education systems with average science scores above the U.S. score were Singapore, Massachusetts-USA, Chinese Taipei-CHN, Korea, Japan, Minnesota-USA, Finland, Alberta-CAN, Slovenia, the Russian Federation, Colorado-USA, and Hong Kong-CHN.?” So, all of this means what, exactly? Depends on which university ‘experts’ you call on and pay to deliver their estimable judgments. Listen, if Slovenia is ahead of the USA, there is something wrong somewhere and I’m guessing it is with the test, not the countries. But then, how many university experts critique the test or take into account socioeconomic factors or bother to do ethnographic research to deeply understand what these standardized tests mean?
“Biology and earth science were particular Colorado strengths.” OK, so we can trace that to curricular and teaching innovations, that other states have not enacted, right? What? No? The authors may fairly counter my implications with a response of, “but we never meant to say specifically what Colorado was doing to achieve at higher levels in these areas” or some such justification. And in response, I will say that the authors said, “Colorado has recently been a leader among the states regarding education, with the implementation of the student achievement growth model among the most important “exports.” Coloradans clearly understand the advantages of being at the cutting edge of reform, and state policymakers should continue this recent tradition of innovation as they modernize the school finance system.”
First, ‘Coloradans’, I guess meaning like, real people and such, understand reform. Come on, now. Like Floridians don’t? And like, I can put a microphone on the 16th Street Mall and passersby will tell me how how we are on the cutting edge of school reform in science and math. But of course, that sentence wasn’t meant as a factual statement so much as a political agenda talking point. “Coloradans clearly understand the advantages of being at the cutting edge of reform, and state policymakers should continue this recent tradition of innovation as they modernize the school finance system.” Suddenly, in their post, the authors co-mingle finance with modernization. But wait, what did they say about modernization, per se? Only that “they modernize the school finance system” without ever saying anything about what they mean by modernize. Instead, they leave it to the reader to fill in the yawing gap they left in their post. [When writers do that, it is often on purpose--a way to draw the reader into the author's rhetorical schema]
What innovation? Did TIMSS scores really rise (which of course, they didn’t) thanks to reform and finance?
“It does not bode well for our future international competitiveness when some of our poor and minority students – comprising the fastest growing segments of the student population” Because this is what life is really all about. “In eight grade math, for example, white and Asian students and those attending low-poverty schools in Colorado performed well above the U.S. average, but black and Hispanic students scored well below the U.S. and international averages, on par with students in the Ukraine and Kazakhstan.” Yeah, why don’t we look at that? Oh, I forgot, must be the SCHOOLS that are failing just those kids, eh?
Now to wrap up, you two say, “It does not bode well for our future international competitiveness when some of our poor and minority students – comprising the fastest growing segments of the student population – are performing on par with students in countries and states without Colorado’s considerable material advantages.” I read that, stunned. Are you really without self-awareness? “Coloradans clearly understand the advantages of being at the cutting edge of reform, and state policymakers should continue this recent tradition of innovation as they modernize the school finance system.” WHAT tradition of innovation are you talking about, exactly? And why is the FINANCE system somehow involved here? The reader is left to guess and as I noted above, such rhetorical devices compel the reader to fill in the blank with whatever worldview they hold on that subject at the time.
“Choosing one over the other overlooks the fact that Colorado has made world-class progress but also has world-class problems.” Great. There are good things and bad things. How banal. Perhaps the estimable university researchers could inform the rest of us what we may do to get to the head of the global class? Is it important to be ahead of all other nations–or can we find a way to complement each other in a global marketplace of ideas, infrastructure, and innovations?