HCM Senior Affiliate Chris Mathias Authors Opinion Piece in Idaho Statesmen on Pandemic Learning Loss
Our K-12 senior affiliate and Idaho State Representative Chris Mathias recently authored an Idaho Statesmen opinion piece on the state of Idaho public education based on the recently released national research. Titled “Scorecard provides a snapshot of Idaho learning loss and our academic road ahead” the article is reposted here.
Scorecard provides a snapshot of Idaho learning loss and our academic road ahead
By Rep. Chris Mathias
Idaho education discourse has been seemingly dominated by books, bathrooms and buildings. I want to talk about something else. The New York Times recently published an opinion piece by the creators of the Education Recovery Scorecard. As the pandemic wound down, the scorecard was created to help education leaders see what happened to student learning at the district level over the course of the pandemic and what resources are available to address newly emerged or pandemic-exacerbated challenges.
The scorecard was updated this week to include much of Idaho’s data; I highly recommend you go play around with it. The scorecard now includes commonly discussed data points such as Idaho’s 2022 NAEP scores, the difference in proficiency rates from the 2019 ISAT to the spring 2022 ISAT, as well as the number of students eligible for free and reduced lunch, i.e., low-income.
What makes the scorecard unique is that it also includes additional and highly relevant data points such as how much money is spent on instruction per student, the amount of time spent in remote learning during the pandemic, and the amount of federal recovery, or ESSER, dollars available per student.
I took time to review the updated scorecard closely.
WHAT DOES THE SCORECARD SHOW?
First, communities suffered, not just groups of students. This makes sense because, as the opinion authors note, “the educational impacts of the pandemic were not driven solely by what was happening (or not happening) in schools. The disruption in children’s lives outside of schools also mattered.”
Take Nampa, for example.
These students lost the equivalent of a year’s worth of learning during the pandemic. Some might suggest this shouldn’t surprise us since half of Nampa’s students come from low-income families and four in 10 are Hispanic, and it’s often the case that non-white students and those from low-income households have lower academic achievement rates.
Similarly, the authors note we “might expect that the more affluent children in a district would be better protected from the educational consequences of the pandemic than their lower-income classmates.”
But that’s not what the district’s data shows; even the white and non-poor students struggled. This means that all of Nampa’s students need our support, not just the poor and non-white ones.
Second, the data makes clear that more money, while certainly helpful, does not guarantee better outcomes.
Look at what happened in the Gooding school district, for example. Gooding is by no means a wealthy district, with per pupil expenditures hovering around $4,256 (just up the road, the Blaine school district spends $9,920 per student), and over half of Gooding’s students come from low-income families.
I was surprised to see that no school district in Idaho weathered the pandemic more effectively. Not only did Gooding not lose academic ground during the pandemic, its students actually came out the equivalent of a couple of months ahead.
The Wendell school district was the only other school district in Idaho to avoid a backwards slide, even though two out of every three of its students are poor.
Some of the Gooding school district’s innovations have been previously reported on so it might be worth a more comprehensive and systematic look at what the district is doing to make so many gains given its per student funding rate.
WHAT SHOULD WE DO WITH THIS INFORMATION?
Idaho school districts have already begun identifying and spending recovery funds, with more committed and unspent. The amount of funding available to each district was determined by law: Funds were allocated based on the proportion of low-income students in each district, as reported by the Idaho State Department of Education. The scorecard includes this district-level data.
Against this backdrop, the first thing we can do with the scorecard’s information is make sure those districts with the greatest challenges have what they need.
Take the Oneida school district, for example.
Over the course of the pandemic, no district saw greater academic losses than Oneida (the equivalent of 1.5 school years). Complicating the road to recovery for Oneida’s 1,407 students is the fact that because it reports having a comparatively low percentage of students who are eligible for free or reduced lunch (20.8%), the district has only about $297 per student to address its recovery needs, while other districts have substantially more (ex: Boundary County-$2,468; Caldwell-$2,335).
Close observers of Idaho education might note that the current number of reported students in the Oneida school district is much different from just a couple of years ago when “explosive growth” was reported. Nonetheless, Oneida has substantial needs and comparatively fewer available funds per student to address those needs. They will need our help. But to do what?
There are many things we can do to address student needs and catalyze their learning beyond the sure bets the legislature should invest more in, such as reducing class sizes and increasing the number of well-prepared, well-paid teachers.
Recent advancements in high-impact tutoring can help students catch up without extending their school days. And while summer is a much needed break from formal, “butts-in-seats” learning, it is a great time to employ innovative learning opportunities designed to not only stimulate learning but keep students from losing prior learning.
Unfortunately, many Idaho families are not able to utilize their summers this way, as summer often presents new challenges that are less severe during the school year. We must continue to identify ways to help families that are confronted with these challenges so summer can be more of a blessing than curse.
In short, districts have recovery money and freedom to do what they think will best help their students and their families. Idahoans should be willing to help district leaders do what they think they must.
We can also demand that regardless of what school districts decide to do with their recovery funds, they do so effectively. Alongside our right to demand — as legislators or even parents — is our responsibility to help. More of us need to engage our schools from the perspective of “how can I serve the school” rather than “how can the school serve me” (this social phenomenon deserves its own essay).
Finally, state and local leaders like myself have additional obligations.
One is ensuring the education-regulatory environment is conducive to school and student success. In this regard, we could do better. For example, I think we should modernize how we define “progress” in our schools; I don’t believe the status quo is as useful as it might once have been. I believe we overemphasize proficiency (i.e., whether students are learning at grade level) and underemphasize growth (i.e., whether students are making noteworthy gains month over month or semester over semester). And like many Idahoans, I reckon we over-rely on “point in time” test scores to measure student learning and teacher effectiveness. We could do better.
I place a premium on tools that can help me convert data into actionable information. The scorecard helpfully overlays often disparate pieces of information, and what emerges is a more cogent understanding of where our students are and the possible paths forward.
With this new clarity, Idahoans should all work to help school districts use their recovery funds as effectively as possible. On top of this, state leaders should invest in what works and modernize our approach to determining whether students are learning.
Rep. Chris Mathias, D-Boise, represents District 19 and serves on the House Education Committee. He is an education consultant and the former chief academic officer for the Idaho State Board of Education.
Full article found here.
