Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Not going quietly

- On Education Alan J. Borsuk Guest columnist Jim Stingl His column will return.

U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbren­ner may be retiring from Congress. But he’s not giving up town halls.

Are things really that bad?

The state Department of Public Instructio­n released data Wednesday on how hundreds of thousands of Wisconsin kids did on standardiz­ed tests last spring. In broad terms, the percentage­s who were rated as proficient or better were not good and were down from both 2018 and 2017.

Well below half of all students were rated as proficient in both reading and math. The gaps in outcomes for white kids and black kids narrowed slightly but for the wrong reason — for the second year in a row, the performanc­e of white kids declined while black kids stayed about the same. The goal for closing the gap is to raise lower scores, not reduce higher scores, right?

So it wasn’t very cheery stuff. But I suggest the answer to the opening question is: Yes and no. Here’s a brief case for each:

Things aren’t so bad

What does it mean to be “proficient”? About a decade ago, Wisconsin significantly raised the bar on what it takes to rate a student as proficient. Since then, the Wisconsin standard is in line with what the National Assessment of Educationa­l Progress (NAEP) uses. But NAEP, a federal program that goes back to the 1970s, is a pretty tough grader, by its own descriptio­n.

NAEP’s definition of “proficient” says: “Students reaching this level have demonstrat­ed competency over challengin­g subject matter, including subject-matter knowledge, applicatio­n of such knowledge to real-world situations, and analytical skills appropriat­e to the subject matter.”

NAEP leaders say that calling a student proficient is not the same as saying the student is learning at grade level.

As Tom Loveless, a researcher for the Brookings Institutio­n, wrote in 2016, “Proficient on NAEP does not mean grade level performanc­e. It’s significantly above that.”

So, in short, it is fair to say that a lot more Wisconsin kids are performing at grade level (although that term is also hard to define) than the state test results indicate. Furthermor­e, a recent NAEP study listed Wisconsin as having a higher bar for defining “proficient” than a lot of other states.

The category below “proficient” is called “basic,” which NAEP says denotes “partial mastery of prerequisi­te knowledge and skills that are fundamenta­l for proficient work at each grade assessed.”

I’m no expert, but as someone who watches this stuff fairly closely, I’m increasing­ly willing to lump “basic” with “proficient” and “advanced” to get a rough measure of whether kids are on grade level. And if you do that, you come up with — to give one example — about three-quarters for Wisconsin public school students in third through eighth grade rated as basic or better in English language arts (often just called reading), which certainly looks better than saying well below half are proficient.

Furthermor­e, we won’t go into how much weight should be put on test scores such as these, except to grant that test scores are not the only way to measure how kids are doing. Often too much weight is placed on scores.

Things are bad

Let’s move to the other side of the argument. Two points are especially worth making.

One involves the kids who are rated as “below basic.” There are a lot of them. On the English language arts side, that’s almost a quarter of all third through eighth graders, 37% of all students considered “economical­ly disadvanta­ged” and more than half of all African American students. In some schools in Milwaukee, both public and private, more than 70% of students are rated as “below basic.”

In math, the numbers are generally the same or a bit worse.

The number of students rated as “below basic” in core subjects is very high year after year in these same socioecono­mic groups and in the same schools. Year after year at a lot of super-low performing schools, little to nothing is done to change this.

The other major point on the downside of the new results is that you can’t ignore the overall trend. At best, Wisconsin is stuck in a static situation. There is a lot of need to do better and it’s not happening. At worse, we’re losing some ground — and there are surely many heavy reasons that is so, ranging from home life and the culture around all kids these days to issues such as teacher quality, curriculum and resources. But there is increasing evidence that we’re actually slipping.

Reactions to the new results have been generally muted. How much so? Neither DPI officials nor MPS officials responded to email requests from me to talk about what ought to be done to improve outcomes overall. The state superinten­dent of public instructio­n, Carolyn Stanford Taylor, wasn’t quoted, even in the DPI news release. The longtime prior DPI chief, now-Gov. Tony Evers, issued no comment.

The chair of the state Assembly education committee, Rep. Jeremy Thiefeldt, R-Fond du Lac, issued a statement saying that scores are headed in the wrong direction and calling for changes in the way reading is taught in many schools, emphasizin­g phonics-oriented approaches over “whole language” approaches. This is an idea that appears to be gaining some fresh momentum. Assembly Speaker Robin Vos questioned how schools are spending money, given the new results.

But I can’t avoid thinking of the broad-based task force created by Vos that made a substantia­l set of recommenda­tions in 2018 on what could be done in school funding to address big issues. Hardly anything resulted when it came to action on the state budget in 2019.

There is ample history of the status quo prevailing on education issues, amid lots of politickin­g and not much probing and less-partisan discussion. Thoughtful, bold change? Not so common around here.

What would make this time any different? Maybe that’s a question for a test for Wisconsin adults rather than for school children.

Alan J. Borsuk is senior fellow in law and public policy at Marquette Law School. Reach him at alan.borsuk@marquette.edu.

 ??  ??
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States