The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) announced on Wednesday that it selected a new test to replace the GED, the HiSET.

The cost of the new test will be $95, which includes a $60 registration fee for the cost of the test and $7 for each of the five test sections to cover the costs of administering the test. Because examinees do not have to complete the entire test at one time, they can take the test in sections.

The $60 registration fee will allow individuals to test three times during a 12-month period. Examinees who do not pass the test the first time can retake the entire test or any of the test sections two more times within the 12-month period by paying an additional $7-per-section fee.

The change was prompted because

. . . the American Council on Education GED Testing Services (GEDTS) and Pearson announced plans to create a for-profit organization to develop a new computer-based high school equivalency test to replace the current GED test in January 2014. Shortly after the announcement, GEDTS revealed that the price of its new test would be $120, not including any state administrative fees.

Changes to the GED have finally prompted others to enter the market for high school equivalency tests.

I commend DESE’s attempt to keep the cost low for test takers. What puzzles me is why they chose only one exam. It would be a much better system if multiple providers of high school equivalency tests were recognized and individuals were given the ability to choose among them. Some students may wish to pay to take the GED because it is so widely recognized.

Having multiple tests would give individuals who have not graduated from high school more opportunities to better their lives. Instead of providing options, we have simply moved from one monopoly to another.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial board recently issued an opinion piece riddled with errors, faulty assumptions, and half-truths. This post is the fourth of four posts (part 1, part 2, and part 3) that aims to point out where the editorial board got it wrong.

Fallacy 4: State-by-state comparisons need not adjust for the cost of living

Teachers in Missouri are among the worst paid in the nation, right? That is what the editorial board of the Post-Dispatch would have you believe. As evidence, they link to a piece in The Atlantic, which lists the 10 best and 10 worst states in terms of teacher salaries. Missouri ranks 3rd on the 10 worst list.

As with almost everything else written in the editorial piece, there is a huge problem with this comparison — the cost of living.

The average teacher salary listed for Missouri is $46,411. This seems much lower than the $72,708 salary listed for New York or the $69,434 salary listed for California. Of course, it costs much more to live in those places.

A quick visit to a cost-of-living calculator can help us understand the difference between Missouri’s teacher salaries and those of the highest-paying states.

A salary of $45,000 in Saint Louis, Mo., would be approximately equal to:

$90,246 in Brooklyn, N.Y.

$108,079 in Manhattan, N.Y.

$67,821 in Boston, Mass.

$65,598 in Long Beach, Calif.

$74,242 in San Jose, Calif.

$64,807 in Newark-Elizabeth, N.J.

$61,152 in Hartford, Conn.

$72,810 in Stamford, Conn.

It is disappointing that the Post-Dispatch piece misses the mark on so many levels, because there is room for good debate on these issues.

Because I have spent the past four blog posts explaining where the Post-Dispatch went wrong, I think I should close with an area of agreement. The editors note that the legislature is not meeting its obligation because they are under-funding the foundation formula. To that, I agree.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial board recently issued an opinion piece riddled with errors, faulty assumptions, and half-truths. This post is the third of four posts (part 1, part 2, and part 4) that aims to point out where the editorial board got it wrong.

Fallacy 3: State spending on education can easily be compared between states

In a brazen attempt to insult state policymakers, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial board wrote: “No matter how you slice it, Missouri’s lawmakers value education less than their peers in 39 other states do.” In reality, it does matter how you slice it and you can get the numbers the Post-Dispatch reports ONLY the way they slice it.

As evidence of the legislature’s feeble funding of education, the Post-Dispatch points to a report by the U.S. Census Bureau, which ranks Missouri 40th for the amount of state funds spent on education (Tables 11 and 12).

There’s just one problem with this, the definition of “state” and “local” funds is not consistent across states.

In Missouri, for instance, the funding formula counts local property taxes, the statewide 1 percent sales tax, and various other sources as local dollars. Arkansas ranked eighth in state funding for education, but Arkansas has a mandatory statewide property tax rate. That means all property taxes collected at that rate are considered state dollars, not local dollars.

In a tweet to Missouri House Budget Committee Chairman Rick Stream, the Post-Dispatch’s Tony Messenger defends the paper’s reliance on the state figure. Stream stated that the Post-Dispatch did not consider local dollars in their opinion piece, to which Messenger replied:

@rickstream it is absolutely considered. That is the problem. State has shifted burden to local districts and in effect raised our taxes.

— Tony Messenger (@tonymess) June 6, 2013

This exclusive reliance on the state figure demonstrates a lack of understanding of school funding systems.

Funding schools is a complicated endeavor that is done 50 different ways in the 50 different states. Because of how funding formulas work, you simply cannot easily make a state spending to state spending comparison. Likewise, you should not make the types of claims the Post-Dispatch editorial board made in its piece or Tony Messenger made on Twitter.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial board recently issued an opinion piece riddled with errors, faulty assumptions, and half-truths. This post is the second of four posts (part 1, part 3, and part 4) that aims to point out where the editorial board got it wrong.

Fallacy 2: Real spending on Missouri’s education system has been decreasing

The editors of the Post-Dispatch wrote: “Almost every budget in Missouri produces more education dollars than the one the year before. Mostly that’s because of the realities of inflation. If the education budget is measured in constant dollars, the story is entirely different.”

The editorial board is implying that real spending on education has not been increasing. In fact, they say “schools have less buying power nearly every year.”

According to data from the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, state and local dollars in 2008 kept pace with inflation in 2009, but dropped off with the recession in 2010. Since then, state and local spending has increased approximately 5 percent. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, state and local spending fell off the pace of inflation by just three-tenths of a percentage point.

So yes, if we look at the facts with blinders on, it does appear that legislators are not keeping pace with inflation.

This, however, is a short-sighted analysis and ignores the long-term reality. From 1992 to 2008, we increased spending on education in Missouri by nearly 40 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars. These data come from the Digest of Education Statistics Table 194.

Real spending on education has taken a slight hit in recent years due to the recession, but over the course of the past 20 years, the state has continually increased education spending.

After reading “Reality of school funding in Missouri? It gets worse every year” by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial board, I’m left with one conclusion: The board should stay out of the number-crunching business. The piece is so riddled with errors, faulty assumptions, and half-truths that it will take multiple posts to address all of them. So, that is exactly what I am going to do.

Fallacy 1: Percent of general revenue spent on education is the most important comparison

It’s one thing to make bold claims that you can back up. It’s another thing entirely to make a bold claim that you yourself probably don’t actually agree with.

The Post-Dispatch editorial board stated the “amount of general revenue dollars the state is investing in schools, compared to how much money they spend on everything else” is the most important comparison.

Really?

You would be hard-pressed to find anyone else who agrees with this sentiment. Would the editors be fine with a tax cut that led to across-the-board cuts to every spending program, as long as the percent of the pie spent on education increases? Not likely. In fact, the editors deride policymakers for passing a “bill that cuts Missouri’s already very low taxes even lower, thus starving the schools of future revenue.”

It seems obvious that the Post-Dispatch editorial board cares about the percent of the pie spent on education and the size of the pie.

Nevertheless, the editors continue with their overemphasis of the “slice of the pie” analogy and make an incorrect statement: “In fact, as a percentage of the overall general revenue pie, the slice devoted to education has been shrinking since 2002.” They note that in 2002, the state spent 37 percent of general revenue on education. The budget for 2014 calls for 35 percent to be spent on education. They claim this is a “historic” low. But, the historic low that the Post-Dispatch is reporting doesn’t really seem that historic. In fact, in 2010, education was just 32 percent of the budget and in 2011, it was just 34.73 percent of the budget.

On this matter, the Post-Dispatch was simply wrong, and there is more of that to come.

Analysis continued in part 2, part 3, and part 4.

Mike McShane, a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, is in the middle of an interesting blog series: “Dispatches from a nervous Common Core observer (in 10 parts).” In his first post, he asks, “Is the Common Core Curves or Weight Watchers?”

McShane notes that Curves is a very scripted and regimented workout program, while Weight Watchers simply provides guidelines for users.

Many supporters of the Common Core say the standards are just that, standards. They don’t tell teachers how to teach, they simply set the end goal. If that’s true, then the Common Core is like Weight Watchers.

However, there is a lot of evidence that the Common Core State Standards are being implemented in a manner that provides little flexibility to local schools and individual teachers. McShane writes:

First, both consortia developing tests for the Common Core standards are developing … tests designed to be given throughout the year to make sure that students are on pace to reach the level of competence that the standards require. While making sure that students are on the right path is a perfectly reasonable and laudable goal, it has the unintended consequence of standardizing the order in which particular material is taught. It makes the standards begin to look more like a curriculum…

and

Second, there do appear to be certain pedagogical undertones to the standards. Tom Loveless wrote a fantastic post over at the Brookings Institution’s blog aptly titled “The Banality of Deeper Learning.” In it, he highlights language that has been used to support the Common Core (and many other educational projects) including “project-based” “inquiry and discovery” “higher-level thinking.” These tend to be code-words for an approach to education that de-emphasizes the learning of discrete facts and standard algorithms…

This is a very important issue. Many supporters of the Common Core have said, “These are just standards. They don’t tell teachers how to teach.” I’m just not sure I believe that. From what I’ve seen, it certainly looks like the Common Core is more like Curves.

Last week, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch published a great piece about the first graduating class from KIPP Inspire Academy, a charter middle school in South Saint Louis. The story noted that KIPP Inspire has had remarkable success improving student achievement:

As a result, the class of fifth-graders who entered KIPP Inspire Academy in 2009, many with a third-grade understanding of reading and math, completed eighth grade last week, bound for some of the most prestigious college prep high schools in the region.

However, what struck me most about the story was the fact that KIPP puts its students on an entirely new trajectory.

One student, De’Ja Wood, might have been attending Riverview Gardens High School next year, a perennially under-performing school. Instead, she will attend Mary Institute and St. Louis Country Day School (MICDS), a premier private school, on a full scholarship. In fact, many of her classmates are bound for “some of the most prestigious college prep high schools in the region.”

For many of these students, an elite private education was out of the question just a few short years ago. That is what KIPP has done. It has taken these students who were performing at very low levels and raised their level of achievement dramatically; it has instilled a tremendous work ethic and drive; and it has put a great high school and college education within their grasp.

KIPP Inspire Academy is a young school and there is certainly much room to improve. Still, it is exciting to see a school making such an impact on the lives of so many students. To me, this illustrates the point that poverty does not determine a student’s future. It may be difficult, but schools and teachers truly can change a student’s path in life.

KIPP Inspire students will be attending a host of great high schools in our region. Below is a list of just some of the schools to which KIPP Inspire students have been accepted:

On the Brown Center Chalkboard, a blog produced by the Brookings Institution, Tom Loveless has a terrific post (not just because he cites me).  He writes:

Deeper Learning is the current term for an old idea.  The notion is that schools spend too much time focused on the acquisition of knowledge, especially knowing facts.  In the past century, several alternatives have arisen to dethrone the prominent role of knowledge in schools: project-based learning, inquiry and discovery learning, higher-level thinking, critical thinking, outcome based education, and 21st Century Skills.  Now it is deeper learning.

Loveless provides two examples of “deeper learning.” His first is a summary of my personal story of struggle with the discovery learning approach that my kids’ former school uses to teach math. The second example comes from the international assessment known as PISA, or the Programme for International Student Assessment. Loveless contends that the tests may not actually assess the type of deep learning that we aspire to.

Loveless cautions readers to be “skeptical when encountering deeper learning in the future.”

In many of the conversations I have had with supporters of the new Common Core State Standards, people say that these standards will lead to “deeper understanding.” In some cases, the new standards have led school districts to adopt curriculum and teaching practices, much like the ones I describe in my account, which are supposed to lead to “deep understanding.”

Loveless’ post ends with this admonishment: “In the days ahead, you will be hearing a lot about deeper learning. Please be on guard. This virtuous sounding term means much more than its two words imply.” I could not agree with him more.

In Missouri and other states around the country, the Common Core Standards are being implemented. Be on guard if your child’s school begins talking about deep understanding, and find out what they mean by that term.

Earlier today, we wrote a blog post about the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s blocking of my Twitter page. I sent an email this morning asking why I had been blocked and asked to be unblocked. I received the following response from Commissioner of Education Chris Nicastro at 11:35 a.m.: “I have no idea but will check it out. We welcome your ‘follow.’ ”

It took a few hours, but I’m happy to report that as of 4 p.m. today, my account and the Show-Me Institute’s account, which also was blocked, are now unblocked. Still curious about why I was blocked and wonder if anyone else was.

On May 3, I sent the tweet below to the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) and Commissioner of Education, Chris Nicastro:

. @moeducation @mocommissioner I’m willing to have a good ‘ol fashion debate on the merits of #CommonCore . Missourians deserve that.

— James V. Shuls (@shulsie) May 3, 2013

Apparently, state education officials aren’t interested in a true debate about Common Core, because I am now blocked from accessing the DESE Twitter page.

The tweet was sent the day after DESE officials hosted eight meetings throughout the state regarding the Common Core. Each meeting was conducted in the same way. The moderators read from scripts and refused to allow open dialogue. At the meeting in Springfield, the moderator can be heard telling the audience that they are “welcome to go ahead and leave” if they didn’t like how the meeting was being conducted.

I attended the meeting at Lindbergh, which was halted when citizens demanded to be heard.

Many people’s take-a-way from these meetings was that DESE was not interested in a true debate of the issue; they were more interested in controlling the message.

I have sent an email request to the commissioner and the head of the DESE communications department asking to be unblocked and to be told why my account had been blocked in the first place.

We shall see what they say. For now, it seems like just another example of the department trying to stifle debate about the Common Core.

The 97th Missouri General Assembly did nothing about school choice. However, the legislature was not completely inactive regarding education issues. On the topic of teacher tenure reform, for instance, the legislative body looked much like Bill Murray’s character in the 1991 film, “What About Bob?”— taking baby steps.

As Dr. Leo Marvin (Richard Dreyfus’ character) tells Bob about baby steps, “It means setting small, reasonable goals for yourself. One day at a time, one tiny step at a time — doable, accomplishable goals.”

Bringing Saint Louis’ tenure laws in line with the rest of the state was a very “doable, accomplishable goal.”

As we have documented, the laws governing teacher tenure were much more restrictive in Saint Louis than they were in the rest of the state. In a presentation at the Show-Me Institute, Saint Louis Public Schools Superintendent Kelvin Adams said it took 100 days to remove a low-performing teacher. Throughout the rest of the state, administrators only have to provide teachers 30 days to improve.

I am glad that the legislature was able to achieve this baby step in the right direction. As a result, ineffective teachers will be removed from Saint Louis classrooms more rapidly. Yet, in the grand scheme of things, this is a very modest improvement, especially when much more could have been accomplished.

Twice, teacher tenure reform bills were defeated on the House floor. In my opinion, the bills simply went too far —replacing the current teacher tenure mandates with new prescriptive mandates for teacher evaluations.

We do not need overly prescribed teacher evaluations any more than we need antiquated tenure laws. What we need are school leaders who actually have the power to lead.

So instead of celebrating true tenure reform, we are left to celebrate the baby step of Saint Louis teacher tenure laws falling in line with the rest of the state. Baby Steps.

Do you like riddles? Here is one for you: What is comprised of 197 members, is active for approximately five months, and is full of inertia? If you answered the Missouri General Assembly regarding education legislation, give yourself a gold star. The state’s legislative body just concluded the general session. In terms of education reform, they achieved very little.

The goal of the legislature should be to improve educational options for Missourians. They could accomplish this with meaningful school choice legislation.

As I noted in my recent essay, “Public Dollars, Private Schools: Examining the Options in Missouri,” greater school choice would be a net positive for Missourians. School choice puts the power back into the hands of the parents and it can save taxpayers money.

This year, however, the topic of school choice was rarely discussed in the House or Senate halls. Few school choice bills were even proposed, and the ones that were rarely received much attention.

A bill that would have fixed many of the problems in the current inter-district school transfer law never even received a hearing in the House Education Committee. The bill would have made it possible for many students to escape failing schools.

A bill that would have made it possible for students to enroll in a virtual course from another district or charter school never made it out of either the House or the Senate.

Even a bill targeted at helping autistic children failed to gain traction for most of the legislative session. It was finally folded into a conference committee substitute at the 11th hour. If the governor signs Bryce’s Law, it will establish a small, targeted scholarship program for students with special needs on the autistic spectrum.

It took eight years of continually pushing for Bryce’s Law to be passed — a small, targeted school choice program.

So here is another riddle: When will the legislature realize that all students could benefit from increased educational options? That riddle is truly puzzling.