| May 6, 2008 |
|
|
| Written by Alan Gottlieb | |
| Friday, June 13 2008 | |
|
From the editor
A piece I wrote last week in reaction to the release of third-grade CSAP reading scores has ignited a provocative and somewhat heated debate on the Schools for Tomorrow blog. The topic isn’t new, but it always gets people’s juices flowing: to what extent can schools be held accountable for the performance of children who come from widely disparate backgrounds?
I touched briefly on this in my “From the Editor” column two weeks ago. But it’s a topic that strikes a nerve, so it’s worth revisiting briefly.
Responding to yet another year of flat third-grade reading scores, I wrote: So, how much
longer do we, as a state, accept these circumstances? I get some hope from the
coming expansion of early childhood education slots in
As far as I’m
concerned, schools like KIPP, West Denver Prep and the
I suppose I was trying to present both sides of the argument. On the one hand, kids enter kindergarten with varying degrees of readiness. Low-income kids (many of them children of color) tend to be far behind their middle-class peers in literacy and numeracy. Most of them never catch up. On the other hand, a growing cadre of schools, here and elsewhere, are demonstrating that demographics aren’t destiny. These schools are smart and tough and are succeeding in catching up kids who have fallen far behind. Blogger and commenter “Quique” had this to say in response to what I wrote: Unfortunately,
if we don’t want to play catch-up from the get-go, we need to face up to the
fact that the achievement gap is pretty much fully formed by the time our
children get to kindergarten — according to the researchers at Rand: http://rand.org/labor/projects/ca_preschool/...
…Given what we apparently consider to be acceptable for our state’s children outside of school, maybe we should be happy that the third grade scores are flat, instead of declining. To which “SchoolFool” responded: Should “we be happy that third-grade scores are flat?” No. There are no circumstances that excuse a lack of standards or progress in American public education. Quique fired back: I’m simply adding that there are no circumstances that excuse a lack of standards or progress in other basic aspects of American living conditions. And an obviously annoyed SchoolFool shot back: On numerous
issues, you resist calls and ideas for education reform by citing social issues
such as poverty and income inequality. Both exist, but neither is an excuse not
to push for new ideas and systems. This is a blog on education, yet whenever an
idea or discussion is fostered (market-based reforms, whether to retain CSAPs)
you point to social issues as an excuse…
… Criticism is not policy. You offer a recitation of other ills - no ideas, no suggestions, just the same tired ability to find other excuses. It goes on from there, but you get the drift. Read the entire post to see all comments. I believe both Quique and SchoolFool are correct. That may sound like a cop-out, but it’s not intended as such. Of course a host of societal (and yes, my conservative friends, familial) ills contribute to low-income children showing up at the schoolhouse door unprepared to learn at the pace we expect of them. And of course schools must not and cannot throw up their collective hands and surrender to this daunting challenge. A growing number of schools are succeeding with these populations. But I often think back to these highly provocative thoughts uttered by
Richard Rothstein (and tape recorded by yours truly) during a lecture he gave
in
So
long as we base our national and state policies on closing the achievement gap
by school reform alone, by trying to hold teachers and schools accountable for
higher performance by testing children more, by improving the curriculum, by
getting more highly qualified teachers, by improving standards, we will not
close the achievement gap and indeed we will widen it.
Closing
the achievement gap through schools alone is not only a false goal it is also
dangerous…It is dangerous for the following reason… if we are going to hold
schools responsible for a goal we know we can’t meet we are inevitably going to
doom our public education system to a public judgment of failure. We are going to undermine the credibility of
public education. We are going to provide further support for those who believe
schools are the sole cause of inequality in this country…
We
cannot eliminate social inequality in this country, or in any society, with a
program that relies entirely on the school system to cure our social ills.
A few schools, operating with greater freedom, are proving Rothstein wrong. But a great many more seem to prove him right.
Where do you come down on this issue? Drop me a line at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it . I will print a representative sampling of responses (if any come in) in next week’s newsletter.
Below you will find the latest dispatch from West Denver Prep.
Good days, bad days and changing the world
By Ellen J. Levy
I moved to
Finding the web site of
My plans for textbook use were tossed. About 75% of our students did not read well enough to glean anything useful from a middle-school science textbook.
My plans for homework were tossed. Most of our students could not understand a simple science question or make the logical leap to an answer.
I began to believe that expectations for our students in the past had previously been non-existent. Had simply handing in paper marked “homework” been sufficient? The majority of our students often answered questions with any random word that vaguely related to science. Or, they guessed. Why hadn’t anybody taught them that the classroom was only Step 1? My students had been robbed of learning, and of the joys of the “A-HA” moments that make science so wonderful.
Almost two school years later, I still haven’t lowered my expectations. What I have done is make startling revisions in how I teach.
Make no mistake. Most of my students are now meeting my expectations. Some make it look easy. Others still exude hostility as they do what is required. Still others struggle with the material but are eager to learn. The number of students who are not succeeding at some level is very small.
I continue to think about new strategies. Some of these are discussed below.
Making Material Accessible
With only occasional use of textbooks, my material is delivered by packet. I write an original piece of material, usually 5-7 pages long, complete with graphics, for every class. (Next year, however, as I move to 8th grade with our original sixth graders, I will regularly use a textbook. They are ready!) Students use their packets for notes, practice, and homework. Our faculty all use packets. It doubles our workloads, but in my view is a major reason for our success. Writing original curricular material is also very creative, and it taxes your pedagogical skills to the limit.
Modeling Thought Processes
How can students think about science? I now ask a question and then break down the approach to the answer. Answering a question might first involve answering five “pre-questions” which collect important facts and make necessary leaps. I take NOTHING for granted.
Changing Student Thinking
About Learning
The slogan of our school is “STRIVE for College”. If we had a secondary slogan, it would be “Look It Up!” During class, our students use their packets to look up anything they have forgotten. They are expected to do the same at home. Our students know that it is unacceptable not to think and learn. My students all know that “Look at you! You’re really thinking!” is high praise.
Support for Success
After a few weeks of disappointing homework from one of my classes, I asked to have a special homework tutorial with them. The results were stunning. Students often just needed to be told that their answers were correct and that they were doing a good job. If told that one answer was incorrect, they could often go back and get the right answer with no hints or additional help. If that did not happen, a quick and simple hint sent them back one more time, and this usually worked. We now make homework support a key part of our program.
Other Keys to Success
Our administration supports innovation. Teachers try new things and tackle challenges in ways that might actually work. This kind of leadership is critical to our success. Our administration also deals quickly and consistently with discipline issues. Teachers remove disruptive students and give consequences for inappropriate behavior. On any given day, we actually teach, and much of this results from our discipline structure.
Conclusion
I keep coming back for more, and this means that even the REALLY bad days can be put aside. This year, another teacher told me about students arranging game pieces (in a math class) to be white blood cells and red blood cells. I have heard a 7th grade girl get up at a school-wide gathering and explain how people get Huntington’s Disease. A student at a recent field day came up to me in a soaking wet-T shirt and told me that the heat of her body was evaporating the sweat.
This is incredibly hard work, but despite my end-of-the-year completely exhausted demeanor, I am not sure that there is anything more important I could be doing.
We admit students each year by lottery. This year, I brought my 11-year-old son to help me work at a table on lottery night. The next time he hears someone talk about students who cannot learn and parents who do not care, he will have a vision of parents bursting into tears as their children were admitted to West Denver Prep.
Dr. Ellen J. Levy is
Founding Science Teacher at
EdNews highlights
House votes 60-4 for CAP4K
Written by Todd
Engdahl
Thursday, May 1, 2008 The House Friday voted 60-4 for final passage of Senate Bill 08-212, the Colorado Achievement Plan for Kids, which would set in motion a long process of updating and expanding state content standards, choosing new assessments and aligning education from preschool to the first year of college.
Preliminary approval came Thursday evening after an hour's debate, with more than half of that time consumed by unsuccessful amendments that rehashed old legislative fights.
The bill specifies that English competency shall be part of high school graduation requirements but leaves the details of that to the state Board of Education and local school boards. Making English competency has been a priority for some Republicans, but attempts to amend that specific, isolated requirement into the bill have been unsuccessful.
3rd
grade reading scores early warning for Mapleton
Written by Gina Bernacchi
Preliminary third-grade 2008 Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP) reading scores were released today, and scores for Mapleton Public Schools-which is in the midst of a district-wide restructuring to smaller learning environments-dropped nine percentage points since last year. The 2008 results show that 45 percent of Mapleton third-graders were either proficient or advanced, compared to 54 percent in 2007. The district's reading scores have slowly declined since 2003, when 65 percent of third-graders were proficient or advanced. In 2006, as part of its Reinvention Campaign, the district closed all of its elementary and middle schools and reopened them as smaller schools of choice designed to appeal to students' interests. For example, both Adventure and Explore elementary schools are based on the Expeditionary Learning design, which focuses on hands-on learning. The Reinvention started in 2004 with the restructuring of the district's high schools.
Polaris
principal tackles new challenge
Written by Rebecca Jones
It's one thing to routinely land at the top of the CSAP pile when your student body is composed of some of the most highly gifted students in the school district. But can Diana Howard, principal at Denver Public Schools' highly respected Polaris at Ebert program, replicate that success at a school for arts? She's making no promises about test scores, but Howard does vow to replicate
the same rich environment for learning when DPS's new
Kunsmiller, a low-performing middle school, is one of five DPS schools being overhauled in conjunction with the closing of eight schools at the end of the current school year. The other four reconfigured schools - Cole, Gilpin, Horace Mann and Place - will launch their new offerings this coming fall. Some critics of the plan have chided DPS of trying to create new schools too quickly - with a nine-month turnaround. In the case of Kunsmiller, however, the district appears to have heeded the lessons of other urban districts, which allow a year for planning before launching a new or significantly reconfigured school. Blog highlights
CSAP scores are flat! Burn the CSAP!
Monday, May 5, 2008
Written by: Captain Haddock This week’s release of lukewarm third-grade CSAP scores comes at a bad time for those trying to save CSAP testing from an untimely death. The Rocky reports.
Thursday’s release of third-grade scores found seven of 10 children reading at grade level in February, a figure that has fluctuated little since at least 2001.
That figure means more than 40,000 mostly 9-year-olds could pick out main ideas and summarize what they’ve read, among other comprehension skills, at a level deemed proficient by state educators.
It also means nearly 17,000 children across
But Deputy commissioner Ken Turner says that the fairly flat line does not
signify stagnation in
"The profile is not unlike that of other states,
The logical connection between CSAP scores and the value of the CSAP itself is yet another version of the old “kill the messenger” routine. This flawed logic goes somewhat like this: 1) CSAP scores measure how well our schools are doing. 2) CSAP scores have not improved over the last several years. 3) This is bad. 4) Therefore, CSAP is bad. 5) Burn CSAP! It’s enough to make you want to watch the old Monty Python “Burn the Witch” routine again.
The logical flaws in this chain of argument are many. For one, it’s a
bit of a stretch to claim that
Let’s let CSAP off the hook and keep our attention on the real problems. A year later, teacher pay reform is still a distant dream Thursday, May 1, 2008
Written by: Uncle Charley It’s a landmark day. One year ago today this site launched, and one year ago today I wrote my first post for what was then known as the HeadFirst blog about a new report “depolarizing the teacher pay debate.” I specifically cited a quote from the report made by a team of award-winning teachers: “Like the dusty blackboards still found in some school classrooms, the single-salary schedule has served its purposes and outlived its usefulness.” In the meantime, the Governor’s P-20 council convened and voted on a recommendation to reform teacher pay systems. I harshly noted back in November: The recommendation for “alternative compensation systems” says that “sustained adequate funding” is needed before any changes can be made. The Tough Choices call to redirect the excess of bloated teacher pension funds into new teacher recruitment and performance incentives, requiring almost no new investment in the system: what happened to that? Contract schools, weighted student funding, a complete shift in emphasis from seat time to exit exams - all by the wayside. Saying that some vague notion of “sustained adequate funding” must be achieved before undergoing serious teacher pay reform means the idea might as well be dropped for good. And ironically, today, the House Appropriations Committee did just that—killing the bipartisan Senate Bill 65, which would have set aside a one-time appropriation of $2 million (a fairly paltry sum in state budget terms) as seed money to help school districts effect compensation reform. It’s hard to make an argument that frugality was guiding the committee’s decisions. House Bill 1384, which has a larger fiscal note, dedicates funds specifically to teacher rewards that are even less different from the failed traditional single salary schedule. Even so, Todd Engdahl reports the battle isn’t over yet for alternative compensation that could include real performance pay: But, just two hours later, the full Senate did an end-run around the committee and inserted the program and its $2 million into House Bill 08-1388, the 2008-09 school finance bill. How this will play out in a conference committee between the two houses is anybody’s guess. But the defenders of the single salary schedule status quo might fall back on the “sustained adequate funding” argument to drain the life out of a modest version of reform championed in Governor Bill Ritter’s Colorado Promise. If legislators end up eliminating the funds to jump start teacher pay reform from the school finance bill, it won’t be because there were no other worthy cuts to make or because this $2 million would bankrupt the State Education Fund. One year later, and we’re still fighting for the smallest scraps of real change in the area of teacher pay. 2 Responses to “A year later, teacher pay reform is still a distant dream”
Readers interested in learning more about the
history, issues, and research concerning alternative teacher compensation
systems (e.g., Merit Pay) will want to read a policy brief we published last
year, written by Dr. Debbi Harris, who is affiliated with the
A quick note. At West Denver Prep, we expect to have teachers who work for 2-8 years, but who may not stay in the profession their entire lives (similar to the patterns for 20-30 year olds in virtually every other vocation). So we had a Board task force examine our compensation structure. We moved to a very different compensation plan: - All teachers start at the same salary, which is
DPS Year 3 +20% (roughly $43,122, which equates to a teacher with a B.A. and
about 9 years experience). We will make exceptions, such as our Science teacher
with a PhD from
- All teachers will receive an annual COLA
increase, based on
-All teachers are part of a merit bonus plan that awards up to 15% of median teacher salary based on classroom, subject, and school performance on the CSAP and Stanford 10. In essence, we want to initially pay teachers BETTER than they would receive at a District school, but remove the DCTA salary schedule which rewards seniority over other attributes, and give both raises and bonuses based on performance. None of this excuses the inaction at the state and district level, but there are some pockets of schools trying different pay reform measures.
The forecast is mostly cloudy for school vouchers Thursday, May 1, 2008
Written by: Pol Econ Ed What’s ahead for school vouchers? In a recent post, Uncle Charley cites some new evidence supporting special ed vouchers in Florida, which adds to the conflicting evidence already out there.
Generally, while vouchers show some positive gains in some cases, contrary to Greene and Winter’s assertions in the Washington Times, the effects are not so overwhelmingly positively as to change too many minds.
But, the politics of vouchers are indeed interesting and complex. Two recent articles provide contrasting, but valuable, perspectives on the chances of vouchers expanding to more states and cities.
In the spring 2008 edition of Education Next, long-time voucher supporter Clint Bolick tries to absorb the lessons of the electoral defeat in Utah, in “Voting Down Vouchers: Lessons learned from Utah.” His take is that in the face of teachers’ union opposition, advocates need to push for a range of new choice programs, including vouchers for targeted populations and tax credits, to build support gradually, rather than going to the ballot for comprehensive programs.
Greg Anrig, writing in April Washington Monthly, argues that while vouchers are a favored policy prescription of conservative policy elites, they have little widespread support, even among Republicans. Anrig argues that middle income suburbanites, including many Republican voters, do not want vouchers that allow urban students to enter their schools, for which they now pay a premium price, in terms of property taxes and capitalized home values.
Thus, when vouchers come to a vote, with opposition from teachers unions and other natural opponents, mainstream Republicans don’t see a strong reason to support them. In addition, Anrig notes that several leading former supporters, like Sol Stern, Checker Finn, and Howard Fuller, now assess the evidence and doubt that vouchers work well enough to be that proverbial silver bullet.
Terry Moe’s 2001 Brookings book, “Schools, Vouchers and the American Public,” is an exhaustive analysis of what different groups of Americans think about vouchers. As a pro-voucher advocate, Moe argues that an income-targeted, urban focus, as in DC and elsewhere, is the only voucher program that a majority supports, based upon addressing achievement gaps. State-wide vouchers for all students do not have much support. Recent votes have demonstrated the accuracy of that prediction.
In
Bookmark
Email This
Comments (0)
 Write comment
|
|
| Last Updated ( Friday, June 13 2008 ) |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comment form
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Our Partners
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
