A fascinating study and article by the LA Times discusses the role of value-added analysis in teacher evaluation.  This is a controversial subject, at least among teachers unions and politicians.  The role of value-added evaluation is presented most often as an input in to firing decisions, with the question being one of proportion relative to other inputs in to the evaluation.  This does education measurement a disservice.

On Thursday July 22, 2010, the College Board hosted a convening of education leaders to address now ongoing concerns about college attainment rates in the United States. They have followed a long train of education stakeholders including Grantmakers for Education, the National Governors Association, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Obama Administration that have shined intense light on the college attainment deficits in the US. Like nearly all education and social challenges, the causes are multidimensional and the parties necessary to solve the problems are equally broad and varied. 

Every offense in football shares the same mission: score points. The best way to score points is the touchdown (big news, I know). To do this, teams utilize a combination of players with different skill sets suited to a number of different roles. Quarterbacks take the ball and put it in the hands of running backs and wide receivers who elude would-be tacklers as they advance the ball downfield. These "skill position" players score the touchdowns and get the accompanying glory. Every fall, millions of fantasy football owners across the country obsess over touchdowns and the skill position players who score them. But that's only half of the story.  

How do we know if we are preparing students for life after high school? Are our current measures of high school quality indicative of how well their graduates fare after high school? Are there existing practices that states and others can use to inform these questions? 

The New York Times education article In Race for U.S. School Grants Is a Fear of Winning challenged Illinois this week to think about its capacity to support Race to the Top initiative funded programs after the life of the 4 year grant.

In our quest to achieve a positive change in student outcomes, school culture indicators give us another data point to consider in the complex and ever changing equation for student success. As critical as knowing the quality of a teacher in his/her classroom, or the number of students served by a particular curricular implementation, having data that shows whether a school is on the right track for developing its desired cultural environment empowers principals and school staffs to make informed decisions about resources and enables them to make mid-course corrections before the end of the school year. 

EdWeek’s brief profile on John Q. Easton, head of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), drives home the importance and renewed focus on relevance and usefulness in education research. Over the years, we have collected vast sums of education data about students, teachers, schools, districts, states, and countries.

In the national conversation about United States’ education system and student academic performance, the U.S.’s standing on standardizing tests in core subjects relative to other industrialized countries seems to be a core evidence point highlighting our struggles.  But as with most measurement efforts, key performance indicators often raise more questions than they answer.  This is a good thing.  These questions shouldn’t only give us pause when considering the meaning of the performance itself, but also provide an opportunity to reflect on our definition of success.

Every so often, you speak to a colleague in your field who understands issues and solutions at a very clear and deep level. My colleague Rick Groves and I had a great conversation with Christopher Lohse of the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) recently and we wanted to share some of what he is thinking about with respect to education data.  

A recently released report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute does an excellent job summarizing the confusion and debate regarding graduation rates as well as thoroughly describing the current set of metrics. Setting aside for a moment the question of whether graduation rate is the right metric to indicate preparedness for post-high school success, it's imperative that there is clarity in the definiton of any metric used so widely.