February 2008: Education Updates
printer friendly >
Political Landscape Archives >
Political Landscape section is a collection of news items, updates, and essays on policy issues, state and federal legislation, academic standards, testing issues, the politics of funding, and other issues.
Assessment Rating Principal Leadership to Be Field Tested
A new assessment instrument for principals’ effectiveness will be tested in 300 schools nationwide, beginning this month (“Assessment to Rate Principal Leadership to Be Field-Tested,” Education Week, January 16, 2008, Vol. 27, No. 19, p. 1). This instrument, called VAL-ED (Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education), has been developed by a team of leadership experts at Vanderbilt University and the University of Pennsylvania. The instrument is designed to measure leadership behaviors that research has found are associated with student achievement, and it is aligned with the ISLLC standards for school leaders. VAL-ED assesses principals on six core components related to student learning: setting high standards for achievement, creating a culture of learning and professional behavior, developing a rigorous curriculum, promoting high-quality instruction that maximize academic and social learning, connecting to external communities and institutions that advance academic and social learning, and promoting professional accountability student academic and social learning. VAL-ED promises to be helpful because it has undergone rigorous testing and studies to determine its validity and reliability. After pilot tests and studies conducted last year, the reliability rate for the instrument was high (0.95 for the whole test).
The 300-school field test is slated to take place in 100 elementary, 100 middle, and 100 high schools over 53 districts in 27 states during the February and March of 2008. The results of the instrument can be used to compare a principal against peers nationwide or whether the principal’s performance is basic, proficient, or distinguished. All the teachers at a school, the principal, and his or her supervisor complete the evaluation on the principal. All rate the principal from 1 (“ineffective”) to 5 (“outstandingly effective”) on 72 behaviors. Each evaluator will be asked to consider first the source of evidence on which the rating will be based. Districts will be able to choose how often to use VAL-ED and how to use the results of the evaluation, including what weight to give the evaluation of teachers or supervisors. Although the creators of VAL-ED believe the instrument will be effective, they feel it is best if the results of the assessment are linked with other assessments of the presence and strength of each of the six components in each school.
Does Culture-Based Instruction Affect the Achievement of Language-Minority Students?
Although high hopes and great expectations are attached to the VAL-ED instrument, other areas of research don’t seem to be as well defined or prevalent. Few research studies have actually examined whether culture-based instruction affects the achievement of language-minority students (“Evidence on Effect of Culture-Based Teaching Called Thin,” Education Week, January 9, 2008, Vol. 27, No. 17, p. 8). Although many educators of language-minority students claim they teach more effectively when their instruction is aligned with their students’ culture, there does not seem to be a lot of evidence to substantiate such claims. A research review by the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth concluded that not one study showed that culture-based education improved achievement in reading and writing. Reviewers claim that studies that suggest a positive correlation between culture-based instruction and effective and productive teaching are often flawed and empirical evidence regarding such teaching methods is hard to obtain. Although culture-based education is claimed by many studies to produce greater amounts of student engagement, greater parent involvement, better attendance rates, better graduation rates, lower dropout rates, and general satisfaction, researchers suggest that such culture-based education systems evaluations are plagued by unsubstantiated claims. Some studies of culture-based reading programs, for example, measure greater student engagement and participation during reading lessons, but fail to measure reading outcomes. Studies are needed that carefully examine cultural accommodations effectively; adequate instruments and studies have not been created and effectively applied to minority-language student instruction.
Moving from a Middle School Model to a K-8 Model
In the same category of research efforts that need to be further developed and explored is the success rate for schools moving from a middle school model to a K-8 model. Current research suggests that determining once and for all what kind of grade configurations are best for students is still a complicated matter (“Evidence for Moving to K-8 Model Not Airtight,” Education Week, January 16, 2008, Vol. 27, No. 19, p. 1). Washington, DC has joined cities like Baltimore, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Philadelphia, among others, that have begun to move middle-grades students back into elementary schools. Although districts in these cities hope that there is an advantage in implementing this strategy, the evidence does not yet clearly indicate that advantage, if it exists at all, to be a great one. Even though there are a growing number of schools moving back to the K-8 model, there is a lack of rigorous research that supports the practice. A case in point is the Philadelphia school district that has made one of the largest efforts to replace middle schools with K-8 schools. Some studies show an advantage to middle grade students in the K-8 setting and other studies show no advantage at all. Further examination has suggested that the indicated advantage in Philadelphia K-8 schools might come from the older, more well-established K- 8 schools that serve students from more advantaged neighborhoods. The more recently converted schools show K-8 students exhibiting no better performance than their counterparts in middle schools. Philadelphia school representatives maintain that it is too early to accurately assess the success of the transition efforts because the transition is a gradual one with elementary schools converting by adding one grade per year. Additionally, officials in Philadelphia state that results need to be considered over a longer period of time; 4 or 5 years are needed to accurately evaluate change in those environments. Those schools transitioning to the K-8 model seem to be schools that are struggling academically, have lower income students, and are located in inner cities. For this reason, lower academic outcomes might be expected in the first years of such a transition.
There is some research that indicates there may be nonacademic benefits to a transition from the middle school model to the K-8 model for schools. A study by Duke University’s Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy suggests that there are fewer behavioral problems associated with the K-8 model. Sixth graders attending middle schools are twice as likely to be disciplined as sixth graders attending K-8 model schools, and sixth graders in the middle school are significantly more likely to experience drug infraction as well. In general, it seems as though more studies over a longer period of time is necessary before the question of the advantage of the K-8 model of schools can be answered.
