The other day I was interviewed for a profile in our school newspaper. I tried to answer most of the questions from a perspective more professional than personal, and the stumper was this: “If you could have one wish, what would it be?” After an evening of pondering, I realized my answer was so simple that I was surprised it didn’t jump to my mind immediately. I would wish that every student have a desire to learn that matches my desire to teach them.
As an English teacher at a low-income high school, I know that in some cases, I am the only provider of inspiration to achieve beyond the minimum requirements; many of my kids have grown up with little or no intrinsic motivation to be high achievers in school. How does this relate to WASL? When my tenth graders heard that the WASL was going to vanish, I heard questions that astounded, confounded, and frustrated me. One young man asked, “Does that mean we don’t have to write any more essays?” The question itself drew a cheer from his peers. The fact is, the WASL provides a measurable and achievable extrinsic motivation that many of my students need.
The complaint of being forced to “teach to the test” has always made me cringe. All of us should be teaching and/or reinforcing basic reading and writing skills in our classrooms. A review of certain test-taking skills should be the only other thing that’s required. If, that is, our students are motivated to learn. I know there are secondary (and maybe even elementary) teachers who are so in love with the literary content of the language arts that they don’t want to deal with the skills involved. Unfortunately, that is a luxury for teachers who work in a school system where social promotion doesn’t occur, where everyone speaks perfect English, and where everyone entering their classroom is already reading and writing at grade level. Is there a school like that out there?
One of the stimuli for NCLB and our WASL was the complaint from businesses and universities that our public schools were graduating students who were incapable of constructing a well thought out, well organized piece of writing or of reading critically. I have said before (and I will stand by it) that the tenth grade reading and writing WASL (which should be the only summative level at the end of a series of formative assessments) is a valid test that measures basic competency. The big problem is that it is ridiculous to assume that 100% of our special ed students and English language learners should be held accountable or that it should be a single criterion that can make or break a student’s ability to graduate.
I think a question I would like to hear the answer to is this: Have the basic reading and writing skills of our “average” kids improved because of the WASL? I do hope that policy makers will take the answer into account when they are redefining and refining Washington assessments.
Bob, I do think that this discussion will be one more relevant to my next post, which will be on the 15th. Mark, I think that any discussion that gets policy makers to think about how the legislation they write impacts the classroom or gets teachers to think about how their practice in that classroom impacts their students is a good conversation – tangents or not.
This thread is a great example of the dangers of e-communication. I think I’m reading people’s comments through the wrong lens.
Thanks, Kim, for explaining further what you meant by it is ridiculous to assume… Your explanation appears consistent with what most teachers say.
You offered a good post. I don’t want to take it on a tangent. Let me know if you want me to respond to Meredith, et al., to offer another post about the assumption and teacher instructional choices and school disabilities, or if you want me to drop it.
Bob…are you saying that ALL kids with disabilites can meet state standards? I want to make sure I understand that you really don’t expect my little girl with a less than average IQ to meet or exceed the science test given to 8th graders in Oregon?
I would absolutely LOVE to have the time to tutor, in class, every student who struggles with the curriculum. Unfortunately, in the 54 minutes a day that I get to see my kids, it just doesn’t work out. Plus, I have never been trained to tutor a kid with dyslexia or other disability. I welcome every student into my classroom before or after school, and I have often given up my lunch to help kids who didn’t get the needed skills in class. There is a HUGE difference between kids who just need a little extra tutoring and kids who have disabilities. I can help them by doing oral rather than written assessments or by given them truncated or alternate assignments. However, when I have thirty kids in every class it is physically impossible to find the time to work with the multiple SpEd kids I have in every class to overcome their disability. This doesn’t even begin to address the topic of whether they would like to be singled out like that (which will be the topic of my next blog entry). How in the world could I “create” a disability such as dyslexia with instructional choices in my high school English class?
Yes, Mark, I asked what Kim means when she said “it is ridiculous …” I asked, because we all know ways for students assigned to sped classes to meet state standards. Sped programs and classes exist, because teachers in “regular” classes, for various reasons, don’t use those methods. We all also know that many informed people have argued for decades that educators make these school disabilities by our instructional decisions. For example, I know a woman with stigmata you described with a doctorate in education, another learning to read when her classroom teacher in WA tutors her, for extra pay from the parents, out of class, but doesn’t in class. So, why then is it ridiculous to assume … ? Isn’t that a reasonable reasonable question?
My twelve cents: When I first read it, I bristled at Bob’s post about 100% accountability for Special Education students. Several times, I filled the comment box with rants and raves, then proceeded to not post because once upon a time a learned some hard lessons about emails sent in moments of emotion.
So I suppose I need some clarification, Bob, about your question: are you asking why it is ridiculous for 100% of special education students to be held accountable to mainstream standards? Or are you asking why it is ridiculous for 100% of special education students to meet or be held accountable to A standard?
To me, if the question is the former, that’s the response I can’t articulate in appropriate language. If the question is the latter, ABSOLUTELY special education students should be held accountable to A standard (as opposed to THE standard), but as IDEA and similar rules/laws suggest, it is entirely reasonable to modify that standard to what is appropriate for that student and that’s student’s capacity. I believe all students, regardless of capacity, benefit from relevant, appropriate, and challenging standards that push them to grow and develop as is reasonable for their situation. Such standards, therefore, cannot be universal, but must be individual. Think of all the malpractice suits if every doctor were to set all broken bones the same way (a brace and cast on the leg) regardless of where the break was, or what bone was broken. Part of life is acceptance that the nature of the world is grey, not black and white, and that often the best course of action is not the exact same course that the masses have already taken.
The whole premise of 100% has always rubbed me the wrong way. The natural diversity of humans, of learners, means that there will always be some who do not meet the standard. That is fine if we can accept that some students, despite our and their efforts, will simply not meet standard; just as we must accept that in life, some people will simply not work as hard as others, no matter how many times they are fired from their jobs… to assume we can save everyone is naive and futile. Unfortunately, if schools are expected to achieve 100% meeting standard, the easiest way to accomplish this is to lower the standard until all 100% can clear the bar…which is set just high enough to only challenge the lowest .5%.
I think it is entirely acceptable, in fact necessary, to establish standards and learning goals toward which that exceptional student must reach and ultimately achieve. To assume that a legally blind child with Down’s who functions as a positive part of the school community should be held to the same standard as a mainstream student is unfair–but he certainly should be held to whatever standards are appropriate for his learning and development and receive due credit when those standards are met.
Yes, Travis, we agree. I too try to use a broad set of instructional methods. I also assume that other teachers obtain the results they want with the methods they use or they’d use other methods.
Further, we all know that certified teachers know how to make sure that students labeled disabled by schools meet state expectations. If we all did so, then the main justification (not learning sufficient content in regular classes) for sped would not exist.
That’s the reason I asked for clarification about why it’s ridiculous to assume that 100% of sped students should be held accountable.
Yes?
Bob Heiny made a comment, which I hope I am not taking out of the context of its intent, “. . . to alert teachers to use other than normal methods with students in their classes . . . .”
Other than normal methods? I teach. I do not have a set of normal methods. I use whatever method works best for that student in that situation, or for that concept in that class setting. I am not implying that Bob does not already think this way, but are there teachers that would unconsciously think “I wish I had a way to help this student, but the only way that I could would be to use a method or strategy typically used by SPED teachers”?
A strong teacher will draw on whatever skills he possesses, and if he is even stronger, he will draw on the skills of his colleague in the classroom next to him who has success with students.
Thanks, Kim, for addressing my question. I asked, because SpEd is an administrative category intended to alert teachers to use other than normal methods with students in their classes assigned to that category. Perhaps another time we can review how teachers use ways for students labeled disabled in regular classes to pass standardized tests. I appreciate your clear writing style!
I just finished correcting the finals from my IB Psych class. The poor kids had to write four essays in a two-hour time period in preparation for the “real” IB test this spring. As I was reading them, I couldn’t help but think that these kids have not been damaged at all by their history of WASL taking; in fact, their well organized writing probably benefited.
It seems that we are all in some agreement that the reading and writing portions of the WASL are valid (which means that they do, indeed, measure what they were designed to measure. We also seem to agree that it is what we do with the results that seem somehow awry.
I understand Tom’s frustration with the seemingly arbitrary line drawn between 399 and 400, but on a formative assessment, that should be noted by the teacher, with recommendations of whether some remediation is necessary. If we treat it as a formative assessment and not the be-all-and-end-all of each grade level, then it shouldn’t have any negative impact on a student’s psyche unless we send them the message that they have failed, when, in fact, they simply need to work on specific skills. Why is an “A” set at 90% and a “B” at 80? Why is it three strikes and four balls to an up in baseball? Why haven’t we trained our elementary kids to understand that a 399 is simply a message that they still need to work on improving their skills?
Bob, I have special ed kids in my English classes who are still struggling with the concept that one sentence should equal one idea and that there somehow needs to be punctuation between two ideas. There is little chance that they will be able to pass our writing assessment. However, they seem to have no problem interpreting literature and articulating ideas orally. Hopefully, they will work in situations where they can dictate correspondence for someone else to transcribe. Should those kids be kept from graduating because of their disability? In my opinion, no, as long as they are learning the reading, listening, and speaking skills of the language arts, and as long as they understand the concepts of articulation and are meeting all other graduation requirements for the state.
Great post, Kim. Very thoughtful and passionate. I have to agree with Nancy; the test itself is solid and founded on accepted standards. How it’s used, on the other hand, is where the trouble lurks. Here’s an example: I was teaching fourth grade and gave my class the reading, writing and math WASL. The next fall, when the scores came out, one student received a 401 in writing and her best friend got a 399. You and I know that, statistically, there isn’t a real difference between those two scores. And even if there was, it’s two points. Unfortunately, however, the state arbitrarily set the “passing” cut-off score at 400. One kid passed and the other didn’t. Try telling that parent that there’s no real difference between 401 and 399. Stories like that drive people nuts.
@Kim, as a teacher of English myself, I have also seen the writing and reading aspects of the WASL to be reasonable, minimum performance expectations for students. Any assessment that assess less than the WASL is less of an assessment and more just paperwork.
I think it is reasonable for everyone to expect our students to be able to read at grade level, understand what they are reading at grade level, and be able to communicate that understanding. It should also be reasonable to expect a student to write a multi-paragraph essay that communicates a focused thought with evidence and analysis.
I will have an open mind and work with whatever comes my way as that is the best way to work within a system, but I will keep my critical eyes peeled.
Hey, Kim. Thanks for a thoughtful post. Having started my teaching career back in the mid-70s, when we all pretty much did as we pleased, the standards movement and the idea that there should be regular, valid measures of student learning has been a boon for my teaching as well.
My perception is that basic skills of average kids are definitely improved when testing is fair and connected to a well-defined curriculum with reasonable benchmarks. Even kids who struggle academically benefit from these clear expectations and measures. It’s what we do with the results of tests that make me crazy. Testing should provide good information for kids, teachers and parents. Not be used to punish or shame–or sell houses in the school district.
A thoughtful post, Kim. Please say more about why you think it is ridiculous to assume that 100% of our special ed students … should be held accountable … to a single criterion … While the statement seems obvious to some teachers, technical ways exist for SpEd students also to meet expectations, yes? Which exceptions do you suggest?