So to get a reliable measure of Duncan’s impact, I pulled up the 4th and 8th grade math and reading scores for Chicago on the National Assessment of Educational Progress — a test that is much less susceptible to massaging by states and districts. I then compared the score changes in Chicago to those for all students in Large Central Cities around the nation, and tested if the small differences between them were statistically significant. Not one of them is even remotely significant at even the loosest accepted measure of significance (the p <>Chicago students did no better than those in similar districts around the nation between 2002/2003 and 2007, a period covering virtually all of Duncan’s tenure in Chicago.
This would be all well and good, and we could trust Coulson's excellent analytical skills. Or we could trust the analysis that the National Center for Education Statistics has already done on the same data. Back in December, when Duncan was only a candidate for his new job, I wrote about what they found:
Since Duncan took over in 2001, Chicago has made statistically significant progress in fourth and eighth grade math and fourth grade reading scores. They're up across all subjects and grades for low-income students, students with disabilities, and English Language Learners (ELL). Low-income students narrowed achievement gaps in all but fourth grade math, while students enrolled in special education and ELL students closed gaps in both eighth grade subjects....The racial achievement gaps have not narrowed as much as we'd like, but blacks are scoring higher in 3/4 categories and Hispanics on all four.
These achievements, while not dramatically amazing, are pretty solid, and Duncan deserves credit for more than adequately steering the nation's third largest school district.
3 comments:
I have no real opinion about Duncan's performance but I'm not sure I see the contradiction in the actual data (though certainly the Cato spin is less favorable than yours) - the 1st analysis refers to comparing the progress in Chicago to the progress in other large cities while the 2nd only refers to the progress in Chicago. Students could have done better in Chicago (i.e., scores went up), suggesting Duncan was 'successful' but if scores in all other large cities went up as well, by similar amounts, then it becomes harder to say that Duncan was 'exceptional'.
Chad,
What are the most important stastics in terms of helping students have successful high school careers and successful lives? I'd argue that 8th grade reading is the real gateway stat. Chicago's 8th grade reading scores increased from 249 to 250 over those five years. Worse, the scores of the bottom quartile dropped from 231 to 228.
We gotta keep our eyes on the real prize.
Which leads to Duncan's latest distraction, in the toughest schools allowing cell phones is suicidal. How can we ban guns from schools and not ban the technology that makes guns so much more dangerous?
This is not just a distraction. This is a reminder of a fundamental flaw of NCLB-type accountability. We looked at the poorest NEIGHBORHOOD schools through the prism of less challenging schools. NCLB II, in addition to a completely different accountability system, needs to focus on poor students and poor schools in their own right not through theories that come out of different types of schools.
Chad, I discuss the Chicago NAEP score gains (such as they are) here: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/07/09/debate-over-duncans-record-in-chicago/
In a nutshell: The 1% increase in NAEP scores Chicago made under Duncan is indeed near zero, just as I said, and is statistically indistinguishable from the miniscule increases made in all other large cities around the country. So Duncan's value-added above other urban superintendents was precisely zero.
Given this, do you not agree that Duncan has been padding his resume -- and that the media have been his credulous accomplices -- by relying on the highly dubious gains on the "realigned" ISAT?
Post a Comment