I have a new piece out in Education Week that focuses on teacher-designed assessments. In it I argue that while teacher designed assessments can be more beneficial to student learning than commercially prepared assessments, teacher survey data suggests that most teachers don’t feel they have the appropriate skills to design high-quality assessments:
National teacher polling data suggest that I was not alone. A 2016 Gallup poll found that roughly 30 percent of teachers do not feel prepared to develop assessments. Less than 50 percent of teachers in low-income schools reported feeling “very prepared” to interpret assessment results, and less than 50 percent of teachers said they’d received training on how to talk with parents, fellow teachers, and students about assessment results. More alarming is that no state requires teachers to be certified in the basics of assessment development, so it’s likely that many teachers have never had any formal assessment training.
I highlight work underway in New Hampshire and Michigan to make significant investments in assessment literacy training for educators. More states should follow the lead of these exemplars and commit to equipping all educators with the tools to develop high-quality, rigorous assessments.
In January, Bellwether Education Partners released a new report that provided a rigorous, fact base on the weaknesses and strengths of the charter sector. In a new op-ed for The 74, I write about how disparities in funding between charter schools and traditional public schools hurt underserved students:
Twenty-seven years into the national charter school experiment, funding of charter schools and traditional public schools remains wildly unequal. In fact, charter school students receive 27 percent less in per-pupil funding than their traditional public school counterparts, leaving a total funding gap of nearly $13 billion.
The sheer magnitude of this gap should alarm anyone who cares about equity, but it matters even more because most charters serve a higher proportion of students of color and low-income students than traditional public schools and show positive effects on the performance of these groups. When charters are underfunded, it is the students most in need of a quality education whose educational opportunities are limited.
Charter schools are often critiqued for draining resources away from traditional public schools, but these data suggest that charter schools are doing more with less for students that are most in need of a high-quality education. Without action from state and local policy makers, charter schools will remained underfunded and charter school students will pay the cost. Read my full op-ed here.
Gwinnett County, the second most populous county in the state of Georgia, recently made history when it elected its youngest and first school board member of color in 2018. Gwinnett has a diverse student population, and more than 50 percent of students are students of color. Why has that level of diversity not been reflected in the local school board?
Gwinnett County is not alone. A 2018 study by the National School Boards Association found that across the country, 78 percent of board members are White, while only 10 percent are Black, and 3 percent are Hispanic. These numbers are truly stunning and reveal that school boards do not reflect the growing diversity of the nation’s K-12 student population.
School board diversity is important because it allows more voices at the table to inform critical decisions about education policy and practice. All students can benefit when school boards represent the racial, economic, and gender diversity of the students they serve. Read my piece here.