From the editor

 By the time kids get to high school, they're smart and jaded enough to know that when it comes to the Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP), there's nothing in it for them. The tests don't count toward their grades. Scores aren't sent to colleges. Passing the test isn't a graduation requirement. From their perspective, it's just a big, fat waste of time.

Teachers and administrators are reduced to imploring kids to "take one for the team" -- to do well to make the school look good. Anyone who has spent much time around adolescents knows how well that kind of motivator works.

This is especially true in schools where many students have a history of poor grades and low test scores. If there's nothing in it for them, and they're going to perform badly, why bother showing up?

Last week, the reborn Manual High School conducted its CSAP testing in a grueling, three-day marathon. Nine tests in three days. Many hours of seat time. And yet every one of the school's 160 students - all ninth-graders, virtually all low-income, many below grade level - showed up and took the test.

Why? Because the school paid them to do it. Students could earn up to $50 for showing up on time, taking all nine tests, and showing concerted effort.

The school used additional motivators as well. (See my article on the Education News Colorado website, and Brenda de Luna's article farther down in this newsletter for more details.) But no one doubts money was the big driver.

Manual's decision to pay its students to take the CSAP reignites an ongoing debate about how best to motivate people. Can extrinsic motivation ever be as powerful as intrinsic motivation? Does offering kids a material reward sap them of the desire to make an effort for its own sake? Is it ultimately self-defeating? Or can using extrinsic inducements spark within kids an inner desire to do better?

I've always believed in trying to develop intrinsic motivation, and shunning extrinsic motivators. Payments like those offered to Manual students struck me as thinly veiled bribes.

But listening to Manual Principal Rob Stein (full disclosure: he's a friend) talk about last week's experience made me wonder whether my high-blown principles aren't just so much hot air.

"Of course as educators we need to build intrinsic motivation," Stein told me. "This might be a BS rationalization, but there is nothing intrinsically motivating about the CSAP. And if there is no intrinsic motivation, then it's a dirty task you're asking them to do. So pay them."

After all, Stein said, teachers get extra pay for staying after school to supervise detention. What's the real difference?

I'm still conflicted about this. I worry that kids will come to expect money for showing up at school, money for speaking in class, money for doing their homework. You know, the old "slippery slope" argument.

But when you've got an obscenely high percentage of middle and high school students checking out and then dropping out, when cleverly manipulated statistics suggest that a 10^th grade student of color is more likely to be struck by lightning than to score "advanced" on the math CSAP, something has to change.

The idea of paying kids to show up for CSAPs makes me queasy. But if, as Woody Allen says, 80 percent of success is just showing up, then maybe this is what we've come to.

Will Manual's students make big gains in their CSAP scores? We'll know in August, when the state releases the results. There's another payday in store for those who do improve significantly. And if the news is good, expect a lot of copycats.

--Alan Gottlieb

At Manual, getting kids to CSAP by any means necessary

By Brenda de Luna

I remember taking tests like the CSAP - the Terra Nova, the Iowa Test of Basic Skills - and sitting in a circle on the floor while the teacher coached us to do our best, then filling in bubble after bubble.  It was a drag to sit for what seemed like hours on end in what my mind remembers as a sea of desks in a dark room. 

I was still in elementary school, which is why I continued to show up for something I totally disliked - I did it because I had to.  I don't recall doing any other type of standardized test in high school, at least not any test that I hadn't personally asked to take.  I took the ACT and the ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery) because they would help me get a grip on my post-graduation future.

Had I been asked to take the CSAP, would I have shown up and done my best?  Probably.  But I always went to school, regardless of what was going on.  Now, having almost a full school year's worth of experience under my belt of working at a high school, I understand that many students don't "just show up" because they have to; for them, the school's sense of urgency around the test is not a huge motivator to improve their attendance. 

So, what do you do to get students to show up to school, especially on these days?  How do you "market" the whole thing?  What actions do you implement the day of, when you come across empty seats? Well, here's a bit of what Manual did in this, its first year back in operation.

Teachers started prepping their classes by having more assignments and tests look like the CSAP.  In advisory classes, we set goals around the test, such as answering all the questions and making it to school on time every day.  And we used this close relationship between teacher and student to gather contact information forms for students, including personal cell phone numbers and addresses where they were actually staying. 

We also talked about how special attention would be paid to Manual's CSAPs by the larger community, because of the closing and reopening of the school.  That makes sense; if a school was closed in part because of low performance on a test and later reopened with significant changes, you'd naturally look for at least some improvement on that same test in the new setting. 

A couple of extra measures were put in place at Manual as well.  The first was an incentive, quite attractive, I might add.  In the spirit of the business model we had hoped to have in the school at the beginning of the year, students will be getting paychecks for the CSAP.  Every student's performance on every test was reviewed by his or her test proctor.  Students were checked on their punctuality, appropriate use of testing time, and appropriate communication during testing, among other points. 

There was little room left for guessing for proctors; either the students were on the ball or they weren't.  For every test where they fulfilled all of the requirements, they received $5.  Three tests a day for three days comes to a total of $45 dollars available for students to earn.  Added to the $45 is a $5 bonus for those who put their utmost effort forward for the entire testing week. 

Getting $50 for showing up and doing what you're supposed to do sounds good to me.  And there's more to come.  Additional checks will be issued in the fall based on scores, not only to students who are proficient but also to students who have improved significantly on last year's scores.

When not even money could get some students in the door, we went out looking for them.  Every morning of that week we took attendance in our advisory groups, while we were doing some fun brain teasers and having breakfast as a family.  Students missing were called on those newly acquired cell phone numbers and then staff members who were not proctoring hit the streets to pick up kids. 

With the exception of one student who ran away from home earlier in the school year, every single one of our students was in school and taking the tests every day.  How much better can it get?  We'll see when the scores come back.

I, like the rest of the school faculty and staff, am pleased with how CSAP testing went at Manual.  We didn't have any disruptions; no one really fought us on having to take it.  I have to admit that many students came to school out of dress code; comfort is important when it comes to test-taking. 

I have a sister who is a freshman at another school. She had to take the exact same test without getting a check at the end, and she wasn't amused.  In her fourteen-year-old wisdom she stated that when your school has been shut down, like Manual, you should want to do well for it. And if taking the test and doing the best you can is one thing that's within your reach, you should do it.

I agree, but I'm torn.  I agree that schools shouldn't have to pay their students to be students.  But, whether or not we agree with the test in general, our students have to take it.  And if going the extra mile will get it done and give the students something in return, I think it's worth it.

I don't know if we will have this same plan next year.  Incentives do work and maybe one thing we could consider is making the incentives non-monetary, like a trip to the movies or skating. 

But this year's CSAP is under our belts and we got the job done quite well.

Blog highlights

Innovation bill creates rare unanimity

Monday, March 17, 2008.

Written by: Captain Haddock

The Denver Post celebrates the recent "moment of unanimity" occasioned by the new Zone of Innovation bill:

Democrats and Republicans found a rare moment of unanimity Wednesday on the Senate floor over a major education bill that would let clusters of schools break free from district rules and state laws to form "innovation zones" and try new educating techniques.

"I think people understand that we can't continue to educate our children the same way," said Senate President Peter Groff, D-Denver, who is sponsoring the bill along with Republican Sen. Nancy Spence of Centennial.

Senators lauded Senate Bill 130's sponsors for working to smooth over areas of opposition. The most contentious part of the bill allows schools to break from teachers-union bargaining agreements, but the section was modified to win union support. The bill passed with a unanimous voice vote. It faces one more Senate vote before moving to the House.

This concept has been out there for a while, but it's good to see that the legislature finally "gets it&quot,  It's certainly not clear that the schools within the Zone of Innovation will fare better than regular district schools, especially if judged in the context of Colorado's spotty experience with charter schools.

But the only way to determine which school reform strategies work is to try them in the real world, and then evaluate them rigorously and objectively.  In the end, it's hard to see too much of a downside for kids here, which ought to be the final criterion for any school reform plan.

The Zone of Innovation represents a relatively painless middle ground that free-marketeers and protectionist educrats should - and do - agree on.

Ed reform wheel goes 'round and 'round

Thursday, March 13, 2008

Written by: Uncle Charley

"Dog bites man," in today's Rocky Mountain News, as we're treated to the not-so-startling story of local educators frustrated by No Child Left Behind. You can't report what isn't there, though, and it sure sounds like Margaret Spellings' right-hand man received an earful yesterday while he was in town:

President Bush's signature education law hurts schools by interfering with local decision making and by wrongly stigmatizing some schools as failures.

That was the message a dozen Colorado education leaders gave Assistant Education Secretary Ray Simon Wednesday.

I wasn't there, so I'd be glad to see a comment from someone who attended the morning enclave at the Colorado Department of Education. But it doesn't seem like there was much good to be said about NCLB. Not surprising: Feedback sessions like this one tend to magnify the gripes and criticisms. It's not likely you'll find many people going out of their way to come tell the assistant secretary how wonderful the federal government program is.

Since the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) - of which NCLB is just the latest iteration - was enacted in 1965, and most especially since A Nation at Risk in 1983, it seems like the federal government has been on the education reform Ferris wheel: traveling around and around but seemingly ending up where it started.

Don't get me wrong. NCLB has done a limited amount of good, though more of it has gone awry with good intentions. Attentive observers should see by now that federally-driven education reform (devised so far from the locus of action) tends to be inefficient and ineffective. Yet why am I persuaded that so many of the NCLB critics simply will seek answers in a new federal education reform package (or in the NEA's case, demand large no-strings federal budget increases targeted directly at across-the-board salary increases for education employees)?

It would be interesting to see the critics quoted in the News piece, for instance, distinguished between those who have consistently argued against prescriptive federal intervention in public education and those who just dislike the accountability pressures of NCLB (as weak and uneven as they may be).

Color me skeptical, but it seems that principled constitutional federalism has a lot less to do with the complaints than the culture of excuses embedded in the bureaucratic systems we've constructed. Accountability is needed, but getting it right has been a lot harder than it looks.

Politically and practically speaking, NCLB has hit the wall, raising expectations and failing to deliver on much. Still, Congress can't get its act together to fix it or renew it. And no one is holding their breath to wait for the bill that would abolish the Department of Education, so states can flourish more as laboratories of innovation.

The education reform wheel keeps spinning 'round and 'round.

DPS' new schools push: innovation, kinda

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Written by: Alan Gottlieb

The Request for Proposals issued this week by Denver Public Schools as part of its New Schools Initiative would seem to suggest that the district is serious about promoting change and innovation, both through increasing the number of charter schools and promoting new district schools.

But the RFP shows that DPS is diverging from a set of best practices developed in cities like Chicago, New York and Oakland, where the development of new and innovative schools has been at least semi-successful.

It's instructive to read the DPS Blueprint report, released last December by the Donnell-Kay Foundation, and compare the recommendations therein to the new RFP. What's immediately clear is that DPS did not pay a lot of attention to the report, or lessons from other cities, and decided to chart its own course.

As currently constructed, it's hard to find much room for real innovation for the so-called "innovation schools." Such schools must apply for any waivers from district or union regulations, use DPS curriculum and benchmark assessments, have their principals selected by the superintendent, follow the district calendar, etc., etc.

On the more positive side, DPS is placing emphasis on new middle-grades schools, and schools serving students at risk of dropping out - so called "under-credit" and "overage" students. These are two areas of real weakness in the district, and it's healthy that DPS is looking for outside help.

It's also encouraging that DPS appears to be reversing itself and once again becoming friendly to charter schools. The RFP even dangles the possibility of providing district facilities to charters, or allowing charters to share DPS buildings with other schools.

There's some vague language about "direct cost range of $11 to $17 per square foot of net occupied space," with a security fee of $31 per student and an administrative fee of $20,000 per year tacked on. It's hard to tell without more detail whether this constitutes a good deal for charters.

Interested applicants must submit a letter of intent between March 17 and June 27. Will there be a market for the somewhat watered down innovation opportunities DPS is peddling? Or will we see only a batch of new charter proposals? Time will tell.

One Response to "DPS' new schools push: innovation, kinda"

1. Jeff Miller Says, March 12th, 2008 at 11:27 am

It would certainly be nice to see DPS encourage more innovation, but taking it slow isn't the worst thing in the world.  They'll start with some mildly innovative schools; if and when those schools demonstrate success, maybe the district will become a little more adventurous.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comment form