Reports galore. It is easy for a reader of educational literature to be swamped by the hundreds of reports that are published each year. Some should be scanned. Some should be shredded. Some should be taken to heart and used to inform new practice. And, some should be considered for how their data and methodologies can illuminate the work of local schools.
The US Chamber of Commerce Foundation commissioned and published a repeat of its 2007 and 2009 Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card of Educational Effectiveness report cards.
The report is understood within the biases of a chamber of commerce study. This is illustrated in the first paragraph of the Introduction.
“In our increasingly globalized world, an effective, first class education is more and more critical. For businesses to compete globally and for the U.S. economy to continue to grow, access to high-quality talent and a skilled workforce is essential. While the numerous benefits of an educated society are well documented—higher earnings, reduced inequality, and improved health and well-being, to name just a few—solutions to the challenges facing business will be solved by those countries that can access the best and brightest human capital and thereby gain a competitive advantage. Failure to compete will not only exacerbate unemployment, poverty, and inequality, but it will put the nation at risk of long-term economic stagnation.”
Taken as a whole, the report is a solid interpretation of selected educational data displayed on a state-by-state basis. To their credit, the US Chamber used categories that relate to most of the major mandates for educational reform. Also, to their credit, the Chamber did not restrain from objectively grading the states. The Ds and Fs are both many and apparently deserved.
So, what is the import of the Leaders and Laggards for a local school district? If there is not local import, this and any other report quickly distances itself from local interest – shelf it. To the contrary, this report can be localized.
The Chamber selected NAEP data because these data can be compared with the data from OECD reports. Good for international comparison, but unusable by local schools. NAEP data is not available at the district or school level and only selectively at the state level. So, substitute ACT test data for NAEP data. Use local ACT data instead of NAEP data in these reports:
• Academic Achievement
• Academic Achievement for Low-Income and Minority Students
• Report on Investment
• Truth in Advertising
• International Competitiveness
Use local AP data and other local data in place of state AP data and other state data.
Local schools should consider making this local interpretation of the Leaders and Laggards report for these reasons.
1. So many reports decry the lack of reform effectiveness by the states and local school districts and do so by generalization. Interpreting the data gives local leaders a local look at these effectiveness issues.
2. So many reports and so little local import. When a school can use a national study and tailor the methodology to illustrate its effectiveness status, local leaders have a meaningful data to talk about.
3. The Leaders and Laggards provides a framework for comparison over time – 2007, 2009 and 2013. Change over time is the proper view for any consideration of educational effectiveness reforms.
4. Lastly, there are many, large differences between a state’s status on educational effectiveness reforms and a local school’s status. The results for many local school districts will be better and more positive than their state’s results. Local leaders cannot make good decisions for future and needed improvements based upon generalized state reports.
So, local leaders, take the time and make the effort to look at this report. Regardless of your state’s status, is your school district a Leader or a Laggard?