Posts Tagged ‘high-achieving’

Happy Holidays

Wednesday, December 14th, 2011

I’m relieved. It’s December and my students are doing well. We’ve just reviewed the major math concepts they’ve learned since September and they haven’t forgotten much. We’ve completed a non-fiction reading and writing unit on Fact and Opinion. I’ve learned that the difference between fact and opinion, which may be obvious to an adult, is colored by TV and what parents say. It will be long years of experience before fourth graders can grasp the concept. I say grade four is just the beginning to understand the core standard.

For instance, last week, Friday, December 9, 2011, I read an article that caught my attention: “Funding, not reform, upgrades schools” by David Sirota, a well-known columnist. Although he included many facts, a few of which were new to me, the article was on the Opinion page of the San Francisco Chronicle.

On International student Assessment exams American students in low-income public schools are among the high-achieving. So are public schools “in crisis” as is the opinion of many? Another fact: the opinion that teachers’ unions are destroying public schools doesn’t hold up when the high Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) proficiency-a number fact and No Child Left Behind goal-is found in unionized public schools.

In addition, Sirota directs the reader to a report written by Sean F. Reardon and Kendra Bischoff of Stanford University in July 2010. The abstract states, “both income inequality and income segregation in the United States grew substantially from 1970 to 2000. Using data from the 100 largest metropolitan areas, we investigate whether and how income inequality affects patterns of income segregation along three dimensions-the spatial segregation of poverty and affluence; race-specific patterns of income segregation; and the geographic scale of income segregation. We find a robust relationship between income inequality and income segregation, an effect that is larger for black families than it is for white families. In addition, income inequality affects income segregation primarily through its effect on the large-scale spatial segregation of affluence, rather than by affecting the spatial segregation of poverty or by altering small-scale patterns of income segregation.”

Another report issued by the United States Department of Education “More Than 40% of Low-Income Schools don’t Get a Fair Share of State and Local Funds” November 30, 2011, shows that “high-poverty schools receive less than their fair share of state and local funding.”

Now, Sirota gives his opinion and guess what it is? That low-performing schools in low-income neighborhoods should get more money. But with the facts above, do I call it Opinion? I know what schools are like. Our school receives little Title I money, but I know teachers in schools that rely on those funds to cover tutors and extra personnel. Each time the budget is cut, another person leaves.

The question is will there ever be a funding policy, federal or local, that helps low-performing schools in poverty areas? It’s a good thought for the holidays when it is the opinion that Americans feel more generous.

Charter Schools-Good, Bad, and Complicated

Wednesday, October 19th, 2011

Charter schools. Two words with associations that twist and turn. Here’s another look.

Teachers unions are most often against the charter school concept because from its first implementation in the early 1980’s, one of the objectives was to get around the obdurate stance of unions about student and teacher time, tenure, and accountability. If you’ve ever read the history of a teacher’s status-put up and shut up– until the time unions became a force, you understand how the ability to join together was a surprising victory. And not one for teachers to give up.

On the other hand, think about the editorial “Lessons From New Orleans” in The New York Times, 10-17-2011. After Hurricane Katrina, the schools in New Orleans, Louisiana, with the state’s Recovery School District legislation, benefitted from the chance to set up schools with longer hours and days of school; reform the teacher cadre into a more capable group of instructors; and bring in programs that were completely different from a failing curriculum that left students far behind children in other parts of the country. Using a charter school formula allowed those changes to occur quickly.

The charter school model set up in New Orleans took the best of the charter school goals to reform a school district. Many school districts use various charter school models to help “at risk” students and the schools have begun to turn around. Some even with teacher’s union collaboration, in Los Angeles for example.

But, the vision behind many schools in the League of Charter Schools is not as laudatory as that of a failing district picking itself up and pursuing change. As has been outlined in other posts on this blog (9/9/09; 1/29/10; 6/23/10), a conservative group who doesn’t want teachers unions to bargain with school boards, who wish to set up an admissions model that drops students and doesn’t accept others, and who still want to get money from the public school district is often the cadre that promotes the model.

For example, Bullis Charter School is located in Los Altos, California, a small, affluent, and supportive community with high-achieving students. The charter began at a time when the school population took a nose-dive and an elementary school had to be closed. Choosing the smallest school in the most affluent area of Los Altos Hills set up a huge confrontation.

Eventually, parents from the closed school applied to the district with a plan for a school at the closed site to be modeled on the charter school premise. The whole idea for the charter was to avoid sending children down the hill to school. After much controversy, the plan was denied and the parents went to the county Board of Education and got approval. The district, however, would not allow the school to form on the closed property and finally gave the coalition some property on a middle school site in the middle of Los Altos. Since then, the site in Los Altos Hills has re-opened as the school-age population rose again.

Just recently the County Board of Education, now with a different set of members with different views on the charter school, had another confrontation about an extension of the charter for an additional five years. The county board members brought up the issues of diversity, outreach, and an unaccountable charter school board, but voted to approve the extension without asking for changes.

The school has set up a different curriculum which the charter school community thinks is more suited to the students, all high-achieving. In fact, there is plenty of room for these students in the regular public schools which all have programs for exceptionally high-achieving students.

In New Orleans and other cities where charter schools are set up to provide an opportunity for low-income neighborhoods to reform when the public school district can’t or won’t, who would be against that attempt? If the charter is designed to use public taxes to provide a closed system for the chosen few, even the original charter school developers might conclude it’s a complicated plan to get away from a public school.

Recent History of the Yearly Test

Wednesday, October 20th, 2010

It is difficult for people to move forward.  They prefer to stand still, jogging from one foot to the other, step back and finally turn forward again.

In schools, a million excuses are made.  Whether accountability, reform, transform, high-achiever vs. low-performer, second language learner, charter, private, parochial, public, and etc., the list attached contains all the reasons to stick with that justification, telling why it is wrong or why it will solve all educational problems.

This week the word is “test.”  How well a student performs on a test has been a criterion for success K-12 since Sputnik soared into the heavens.  You may laugh because you know someone who didn’t do well on tests, but who has done very well in the market place.  You may smirk because someone did well on tests, but not in the work place.  And everything in between.  And you were surprised as a high school high-achieving senior when the counselor said “don’t worry about it.”

Nowadays, however, no matter what kind of school, the students, teachers, administrators worry about success and the test is how the public knows.  It sounded good in 2002 when No Child Left Behind (NCLB), a revision of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), was instituted, even though teacher’s unions were warning against testing requirements and benchmarks even then.

The education world was in the middle of facing the research that showed a number of schools in each large district were stumbling, not graduating students with ambition to go to college, in fact not graduating enough students overall, leaving African-American and Hispanic students in the dust and making them repeat a grade or subject if they didn’t drop out in disgust.

Testing became the way to assess how schools were doing.  Anyone in charge of supervising the testing knew that it didn’t matter how relentless you were in helping students improve.  In several years the benchmarks were going to overtake the schools, even if most groups attained the minimum proficiency except one, eg. special education.  Most educators would say it is because the NCLB legislation treated students as robots, all were going to do well and improve as long as the “test” was given.  And if they didn’t it was the teacher’s fault.

Opposition from two well-respected organizations, National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) and the International Reading Association (IRA), as well as other groups at the state level have shown that transformation doesn’t occur by looking at scores on standardized tests, not even on criterion-referenced tests as is touted in California.  In addition, major publishers of school texts make money from interim tests that are supposed to show the teacher how well students have learned so far.  No studies have been made to show that those tests help, not even as practice for the kinds of questions asked on yearly exams.

Adults love tests.  Good students don’t mind taking them, confident that they will pass well.  Some high school students cavalierly fill in bubbles, no longer impressed by tests.  Students who don’t read English, and are still required to take the exams, fill in the bubbles and close the booklet.

Tests need to be revised now that Common Core Standards have been instituted.  Let’s hope the tests are short, ask competent questions, and are used only as one source of information to guide a school and district to transform a low-performing into a high-achieving school, to make sure those students graduate with the skills to attend a college or other post-secondary school.

How Many Americans Think Public Schools Are ‘In Crisis’?

Wednesday, September 22nd, 2010

We received our Academic Performance Index (API) results Monday, September 13, and pumped our fists since our school, middle-of-the-road as far as our district goes, reached a score of 908.

Almost any school reaching 800 or above is considered fine and dandy, but according to No Child Left Behind (NCLB) benchmarks a couple of the schools in my district, though showing an API of 900 or higher, are considered ‘program improvement’ schools.  That’s right. A disaggregated group did not reach the Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) state goal of 56.8% in English/Language arts, 58% in Math.

The glitches in federal guidelines and state benchmarks, long warned about, are beginning to show up.  Of course, the school district immediately began to examine scores of the students who stayed at ‘basic’ or below, i.e. not good enough, and as we already knew, it was the special services students who didn’t make the grade.  Those small number of students are spread through the grades and so there aren’t enough to label my school ‘program improvement,’ especially since the younger students managed to make a good enough score.

Loud wailing about the weaknesses of the NCLB inspired exams and benchmarks set in 2002 continue all over the country.

But 67% of Americans think the public schools are ‘in crisis’?  As usual, statistics and polls must be read with caution–including Time magazine who paid for the poll.  What does the question mean?  No one in my school district, parents or educators, would say we’re in crisis as far as learning success.  Budget yes, learning, no.

I read, however, in The San Francisco Chronicle an opinion article that STAR tests aren’t secure, that is, old test examples can be modeled and even correct answers handed out, though I don’t know what evidence indicates that illegal activity.  Not at my school.

In my Masters classes, however, we have discussed tests like California’s STAR testing which will have to change now that the legislature and state Department of Education have agreed to Common Core Standards.

About time!  Special services students as well as high-achieving students might do better if the way to account for successful learning changed.  Right now a multiple-choice exam once a year is the easiest to score, disaggregate, and analyze.  Perhaps the experts should look at some other ways to find out if students, from high-achievers, special service students and all the diverse groups in between, are learning to read and do math well enough to think through to the meaning.

In an article by Susan Engel, director of the teaching program at Williams College, I was reminded of using and analyzing reading samples which is the reason I want to get funds for iPod-Touch tools.  In fact, that type of reading sample has been used in many schools to analyze reading and English Language Development.

Ms. Engel also suggests that we don’t need to obsessively follow each and every student every year to see how a particular school is doing.  Using that instrument to punish teachers is not going to improve a school.  I know this blog has enumerated a number of models that would keep public schools strong without being dependent on tests only.

Right now, of course, I’m just happy that this year my students are willing to learn without having to coax them every step of the way.

*For more see Susan Engel, The New York Times “Scientifically Tested Tests” September 20, 2010.

*See Time Magazine’s print article abridgement of the poll done by ABT SRBI, August 17-19, 2010.

High-Achieving, Value-Added, and New Principal

Wednesday, August 25th, 2010

The fifth day of school and the year seems promising in spite of the constant buzz of depressing education news.  August 24 the news was that California didn’t receive Race to the Top funds.  Still, as a third year teacher, I feel more confident.

State testing news hit the paper August 17, not that teachers at my school were worried.  Our district does not have designated low-performing schools, and I don’t even teach at the strongest school in the district.

The day after we received student scores on the yearly California Standards Test (CST), the third grade teachers were basking in smiles. Third graders moving into fourth grade had done extremely well, 2 students were below basic, none were basic, the rest were proficient and advanced-about 80 students altogether.

I teach fourth grade, so it was lucky for me, but at the same time, I now know that my strategies for teaching must treat high-achieving students, not low performers.

The main difficulty for fourth grade students is the change from a class of 20 third graders to a class of 30 or more students and one teacher.  It takes a good month before the students have learned to support each other while working.  The first month is spent teaching student behaviors more than teaching curriculum.

Over the weekend I read in the August 22, 2010, San Francisco Chronicle editorial by John Diaz about teachers unions fighting with the Los Angeles Times about evaluating teachers using a statistical method called “value-added.”

From what I’ve read, the idea is to look at the effect of a year of teaching on student test scores.  Of course, this statistical measure depends on students who have scores from a previous year that can be projected to continue for the current year and then see the actual score received.  Teaching for the year is the “value added” and a teacher can receive a number (just like a student) to show how well he or she did.

I hear the rumble in the head of any teacher who knows all the variables that can affect scores aside from what the teacher is doing in the classroom.  No wonder the teachers unions are looking askance at this statistical measure.  Even the article’s discussion of the variables and how the “value-added” measure accounts for them leads to more questions than answers.  Go to the latimes’ article “Grading the Teachers” to find out more.

Get real.  Many Los Angeles schools are doing well.  But the schools that hit the headlines are so dysfunctional that it doesn’t take the money used to disaggregate student scores by teacher, flash it around to parents who for the most part are more concerned about the behavior of students in the school rather than test scores, and then say “see.”

In time I can understand using students’ scores as one aspect of evaluation of a teacher’s work.  The truth is each school community and each school district must have a defined program continuously supported by the school board.  Then a teacher can be held accountable so they are fired because of a measure of student test scores.

In my small district in which parents support their students-some call it hovering-the problem is only to keep scores up.  The union has been supporting the staff so that the primary grades manage to keep the 20 to 1 ratio and the district shaves off money from other budget lines.  We may have furlough days, but not one teacher was laid off because of lack of money.

Who would guess that the intervention specialist at the school used DonorsChoose.org and grants to get <!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –> 10 iPod Touch instruments for her students?  I’m going to do what she did.  The applications are endless: reading fluency checks; math games from remedial to enrichment; stories not available in the library that can be read aloud to a student.

Or that our worry would be about the new principal and changes in office staff at the school-how to support the new principal and still spend time on high curriculum standards?