by Brian
It's almost March and time for the Madness to begin, No, Tom, I'm not talking about the NCAA basketball tournaments, I'm talking about the Washington State SPRING 2011 HSPE/WAAS/EOC/MSP TESTING WINDOWS. It starts in March with the HSPEs in Writing and Reading for grades 10-12. In April it's the Science HSPE, since the promised EOC isn't ready this year. Then in May it's the tykes' turn as the MSPs take over for grades 3-8. In June math gets its turn as the high-schoolers get their first crack at the Algebra 1/Integrated Math 1 EOC and the Geometry/Integrated Math 2 EOC. Those "Must be administered within three weeks before end of course". (BTW, if you give a 14 year-old student an End Of Course Exam 3 weeks before the end of the school year, how are you going to keep him in his seat for the last 12 days?) Oh, and for students who have previously taken those courses: they can take the EOC Makeup Exams. That's a lot of tests. You should watch this if you are confused. (Even if you're not, it's fun.)
I recently wrote a post about the New York Regents Exams. I am curious how other states are dealing with high stakes tests for graduation and I came across a fascinating report written by Andrew C. Zau and Julian R. Betts in June 2008 called: Predicting Success, Preventing Failure: An Investigation of the California High School Exit Exam. In it they show that they can predict with a great deal of accuracy how a student will fare on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) based on how they did on the 4th grade test or their GPA in middle school. The question is how to use that information. California, like Washington has generally let the students take the tests in high school and fail, then begin attempts to remediate. When you have a student in 10th grade who is 5 or 6 grade levels behind in math and/or reading it is difficult to get them caught up in the two years they have until their scheduled graduation. Why not identify those 4th graders who are quite likely to fail and begin the remediation process in the elementary school?
But isn't that de-facto tracking? The thing we don't do in this country because anyone can grow up to be president? It might work in Europe, but we are dedicated to the proposition that all children can learn all subjects.
For years we have been giving state-mandated tests and comparing last year's results with this year's. The individual student never mattered as much as their cohort's score. If this year's kids did better than last year's, we congratulated ourselves. If they did worse, we said: well that class is not as smart as last year's. And how has that worked out for us?
Four years ago my high school started a program we called The Academy. We took the students we judged to be most at risk to not graduate and gave them a core of three teachers (English, math, and science) who modified the curriculum and pacing to help these freshmen get off to a good start in high school.
Those kids are seniors now. Some of us were talking at lunch the other day, and we realized that all we had done was identify the students most likely to not graduate. At that, we were pretty good. At preventing that outcome, not so much. Many of the students that started in The Academy have already dropped out; others are still lacking needed credits to graduate.
If we are serious (and for the record, I am opposed) about using high stakes test for graduation from high school we have to get serious about high stakes tests for elementary school and middle school too. We have to identify, and yes that means label, those students who are likely to fail in 4th grade and use every resource available to prevent that failure.
Because as much as I detest the unreachable expectations and unintended consequences of NCLB, leaving no child behind is a worthy goal.
Good point, Mark. We actually do integrate a lot of reading and writing into social studies and, to a lesser extent, math into science. Unfortunately, when something like RIT comes along, it leans on data that is best generated from a specific math/language arts curriculum. The result,of course is less integration and more isolated-subject instruction.
It doesn’t have to be that way, though.
I’m not an elementary teacher, and don’t mean to offend anyone who is, but with the reading and math push, have administrators (et al.) forgotten that there is reading in history and math in science? (and vice versa). Maybe part of the problem is that these basic math/reading skills are taken out of context and that is why students are not developing them? I’m sure elementary teachers already voice this idea.
My district is also shifting to “RTI” as well–though I don’t think it has ever really been explained all that well to teachers. RTI simply adds three more letters to the already obnoxious alphabet soup of eduacronyms. At one recent training, I grew bored and started writing down acronyms each time I heard them from a presenter or participant. After fifteen minutes I had written down 19 of them. New rule for enacting reform in public education: if you want teachers to buy in, don’t give your movement an acronym.
At my school, we’re remediating everyone. This is our first year of implementing RTI. (Response to Intervention) I’m not sure if the 1st graders are doing it, but every class, 2nd to 6th grade, spends 30 minutes twice a day, 4 days a week, doing extra reading and math. Students who are below grade level are regrouped with others in a smaller group setting. Students at benchmark also go to do extra math and extra reading, but it’s a whole group setting with a mixture of students from other classes from the same grade.
I’ve only seen this in action since September, and I’ve only seen this model; but it leaves me with a lot of questions and concerns. One major concern I have, by devoting an hour to remediation for everyone each day, on top of the regular instruction, students aren’t spending time learning art, science, and social studies. The model our students feed into at middle school also give these kids an extra dose of reading and math, taking away any elective classes they might choose. So, my question is, how do we know this gap in learning in other disciplines, isn’t the cause for some of these dropouts? If I wasn’t good at something, say math or reading, or both, and that’s all I did at school, I think I would want to drop out, too.
Brian, maybe if your “charter school” had enough teachers in there to give students the attention they needed to help them find their strengths and discover other interests, and improve their reading and math skills through their strengths and other interests, I could get behind it. I don’t know if there are longitudinal studies that look into these students’ experiences in elementary and middle school. But, I have some predictions.
But here’s the problem, Brian. Opening a state to charter schools opens it all the way, which brings in all sorts of special interests.
What you are proposing could be done with a public school. Why couldn’t it?
DrPezz, I wasn’t trying to ignore your question. I agree with the NEA definition that a charter school is a non-traditional public school, so the way you phrased the question kind of threw me off.
I agree with you that charter schools are not the panacea that some claim them to be.
I’m suggesting that if we can identify by 4th grade the 25% of our students who are most likely to drop out (and we can), then maybe we can create schools where those odds can be changed. I’m suggesting those could be publicly funded charter schools, where those students were better served.
So, Brian, what can a charter do that a public school cannot?
I don’t mean to be glib by repeating my questions (and it went unanswered), but often charters are being used to circumvent requirements, being supported by those who wish to undermine education, and being created for the highest achievers or those whose parents must be involved in the schools. The potential for abuse of purpose is high in charters.
Wow, just reading about all of those tests made my head spin! I can only imagine what it must be like for the students. I do find myself agreeing with yoru point about using test scores to identify troubled students before high school. I also dont like using high stakes test scores but if we are then we need to do this with all grade levels to make sure students do not slip in the cracks!
This is from:http://www.nea.org/home/16332.htm
Definition
Charter schools are publicly funded elementary or secondary schools that have been freed from some of the rules, regulations, and statutes that apply to other public schools, in exchange for some type of accountability for producing certain results, which are set forth in each charter school’s charter.
NEA believes that charter schools and other nontraditional public school options have the potential to facilitate education reforms and develop new and creative teaching methods that can be replicated in traditional public schools for the benefit of all children. Whether charter schools will fulfill this potential depends on how charter schools are designed and implemented, including the oversight and assistance provided by charter authorizers.
I think we can make charter schools be what we want them to be.
What can be done in a charter that can’t be done in a public school?
Really, excluding certain kids is all that comes to mind. For example, charters routinely exclude special ed students (and those kids go where? Oh, right, the public schools).
Most importantly, the vast majority of charters are outside any accountability system; they are accountable basically only to themselves, not a school board or other in-district accountability agency.
Tom, I know your default position on charter schools. But who is “they”? What if “they” were us? What if charter schools really were incubators for innovative change? Isn’t it crazy to keep doing the same thing and keep expecting different results?
(I’m still hoping for the Zags to make a run.)
You mean like “a charter for kids who might drop out?” I’m not sure that’s how they like to work, but I may be wrong.
And by the way, after UW’s dismal performance last night against WSU, I’m off college hoops. Looking forward to spring, when the Mariners lock up another fourth place finish.
David, The Academy was a casualty of the budget crisis in our state. It is difficult to maintain any continuity with the vagaries of the current funding system. I am sure there was a benefit to a few, but I am more sure that we will get better results from starting earlier rather than later.
I absolutely agree with your concern about equity and engagement. I think that this is a window of opportunity for charter schools. It seems like everyone who is opposed to charters thinks they will take only the best and the brightest. What if they took the students who really needed a sense of relevance and connection, and provided it?
Brian, you raise some interesting issues here about remediation, extra support, tracking, intervention – all slightly different. The Academy idea sounds promising; is there any ongoing evaluation and adjustment, any sense of how it may be helping and might help more? For example, maybe it’s not preventing as many failures or credit deficiencies as hoped for, but is it serving other students well, providing some needed benefit they might otherwise not receive?
On the topic of tracking, my main concern would be equity and engagement. Too often, I think remedial instruction is mind-numbing drill-and-kill. We take students who most need motivation, a sense of relevance and connection, and pull them out of the contexts in which they’d be most likely to find those things. In some models, students in need of extra help take the same classes they would otherwise, but there’s time for extra previewing/reviewing. Of course that idea requires lots of time (and time=money).