"To qualify for a national merit scholarship, students in different states have to take the same exam, but they don’t have to get the same scores to win."--Valerie Strauss

We know that it is impossible to compare schools and students in different states based on the results on state tests. For example, the highest performing district in one state had 67% of its student score at "proficient" or above, while one of the schools in another state identified for SIG funds as a "low-performing" school had 82% of its students score at "proficient" or above in reading. In another example, one of the lowest performing high schools in one state, would be among the top performing high schools in ten states.

Now we learn that we also cannot compare National Merit Scholars in different states.

Here are the highlights of Valerie Strauss' piece in the Washington Post, which I have filtered for review by busy school leaders:

3.5 million high school students take the Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test (PSAT) as a preparation for the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT).

In addition to serving as a practice test and indicator of college readiness, the PSAT is also used as the qualifier for the prestigious National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test.

"About 50,000 students qualify based on their PSAT scores, and that number is whittled down to about 16,000, who become semifinalists (the 34,000 others get letters of commendation). About 8,500 are named finalists, eligible for a scholarship of varying amounts, based on test scores as well as other criteria including academic performance."

However, "the initial cutoff scores separating the possible winners from the definite losers are not the same in each state."

"Students can wind up winning with lower scores than students who didn’t make the cut in their state." For this reason, the University of California system decided to stop funding National Merit Scholarships in favor of other "merit-based" scholarships.

States With Highest Cut Scores: D.C. New Jersey, and Massachusetts

States With Lowest Cut Scores: North Dakota, West Virginia, Wyoming

National Merit Scholars can live in one state, but go to school in another. The state where the school is located gets the credit. For example, "National Merit winners in the past who have been listed as coming from Washington D.C. go to private schools in the city, but live in Maryland or Virginia."

Cutoff Scores by State

"An unofficial list of cut scores for the class of 2012 assembled by the Web site College Planning Simplified, which provides free college planning advice, shows these."

Alabama 211


Alaska 212


Arizona 213


Arkansas 205


California 221


Colorado 215


Connecticut 220


Delaware 217


District of Columbia 223


Florida 214


Georgia 218


Hawaii 216


Idaho 211


Illinois 216


Indiana 214


Iowa 210


Kansas 214


Kentucky 212


Louisiana 209


Maine 212


Maryland 221


Massachusetts 223


Michigan 210


Minnesota 215


Mississippi 205


Missouri 213


Montana 209


Nebraska 209


Nevada 209


New Hampshire 216


New Jersey 223


New Mexico 210


New York 219


North Carolina 217


North Dakota 204


Ohio 214


Oklahoma 209


Oregon 216


Pennsylvania 215


Rhode Island 213


South Carolina 211


South Dakota 206


Tennessee 214


Texas 219


Utah 208


Vermont 217


Virginia 220


Washington 220


West Virginia 204


Wisconsin 209


Wyoming 204

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:45 AM | Permalink

What are the pros and cons of tracking? That's a question that I am frequently asked as I work with school leaders around the country. Instead of answering the question, I ask them a question in return. What do you mean by tracking? Instead of an immediate reply, I invariably get a confused look?

What is tracking?

There are several different forms of grouping, also known as tracking or leveling:

• "Within-class ability grouping" is typically found in elementary schools and not in high schools. One example might be multi-level reading groups.
• "Between-class grouping" - Students spend most of the day in “high,” “middle,” or “low” classes and use the same or similar curricula supported by the same set of standards. Schools often refer to these between-class groupings as "advanced" and "standard" courses.
• "Formal Tracks or Levels" - Students spend most of the day in ability tracks and use curricula substantially adjusted to their ability levels which are often supported by a differing set of standards and expectations.

Many schools and school systems have already or are actively eliminating the third form of grouping students, a system of "formal tracks or levels," because research has shown that this form of grouping actually harms poor, disadvantaged, under-resourced, and struggling learners.

The second method of grouping students--"between class grouping" has been shown to benefit high-achievers but does not have a negative impact on the performance of low-achievers.

My Take On Grouping

I favor an approach that provides two groupings--standard and advanced. Within those two general groupings, schools should provide tiered interventions, which provide additional learning time and support to ensure student mastery of course content. For example, students enrolled in an "advanced" AP course may need additional learning time in the form of after-school tutoring or additional review sessions (tier 2) in order to master course content. Likewise, students in standard English 9 may need additional after-school tutoring or review (tier 2), while some students may need a reading course (tier 3) in addition to their English class.

Students should be able to self-select into standard or advanced courses. In other words, enrollment in advanced or standard courses should be open to all students based on their identified strengths and weaknesses as well as their interests and motivation. For example, a student could be enrolled in and AP English class, but in a standard Algebra II course.

Courses that fall under the "advanced" label could include courses specifically labeled on a local level as "advanced." These advanced courses might include Advanced Algebra I, pre-IB, pre-AP, or Honors. The "gold standard" of advanced courses is the externally moderated courses such as ACT Quality Core, University of Cambridge International Examinations, Advanced Placement, or International Baccalaureate.

Locally labeled advanced courses should never be offered in competition with externally moderated courses. For example, a high school should never offer an Honors Senior English in competition with AP or IB English.

Why not offer locally labeled honors courses in competition with externally moderated advanced courses?

First, most locally labeled advanced courses are not monitored. They are honors in name only. In some cases, these so-called honors courses are merely a way to segregate students because their parents don't want them in classrooms with "those kids." The teacher generally decides the curricula in these locally labeled advanced courses, and there is little or no consistency from classroom to classroom, from teacher to teacher, or from school to school. Unless there is a defined curriculum, accompanied by common formative and summative assessments, there is no way to ensure that honors courses are any more rigorous than standard courses.

Second, advanced courses are offered for advanced, college-bound students. Some parents may complain that externally moderated, AP or IB, courses are too difficult for their child. Allowing students to choose the less rigorous honors course instead of an AP or IB course deludes parents into believing that we are preparing their child for college when we know that all we are doing is placating them and their child. If a student is college-bound, why wouldn't that student be enrolled in the externally moderated course.

Third, generally speaking most AP and IB courses proceed at half the speed of a college course. What takes a year of high school to complete would be undertaken in one semester in college. True, some colleges award more than one 3-hour credit for some AP science courses. Likewise, universities frequently require additional lab time in science courses and they provide additional credit hours for successful completion of that science course and lab. Here is the essential question. If students cannot succeed in a half-speed course in high school, how will they handle a full-speed course only a few months later in college?

The Bottom Line

• Schools need to "push" students to take a rigorous course of study that prepares them to be college and career-ready.
• Labeling courses as advanced to placate parents is tantamount to malpractice.
• Offering honors courses as an alternative to AP or IB courses at the junior and senior level is a big lie. In no way are honors courses preparing students to do college-level work. The only way that I would agree to such a proposal is that these courses were externally moderated. They would have a standard course description and syllabus with accompanying district-wide common and formative assessments, which would make the whole idea very expensive.
• If we really have the best interests of our students in mind, we would ensure that they were adequately prepared to succeed in the most rigorous course that we could offer them.
• Finally, the Common Core State Standards and the accompanying assessments renders "formal tracks or levels," all but obsolete. The adoption of the Common Core State Standards means just that. We now have one common set of standards, which prepare all students to be college and career-ready, and which all students are expected to meet before leaving high school.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:07 AM | Permalink

The following highlights are filtered for school leaders and were excerpted from Rick Hess' interview with Hung-Hsi Wu in Education Week.

Background: Hung-Hsi Wu is professor emeritus in mathematics from UC-Berkeley, who has just penned the cover story on this topic for AFT's magazine American Educator. Dr. Wu, who started teaching at Berkeley in 1973, has been actively involved in math education for the past two decades, helping write California's 1999 Mathematics Framework and California's Standards Tests. He was also a member of NAEP's Mathematics Steering Committee, 2000-2001, that contributed to the revision of the NAEP Framework.

CCSS math standards: What are they? Why do we need them?

The Common Core math standards place great emphasis on mathematical integrity, [in other words] the statements of the standards are mathematically correct and the progression from topic to topic is logical. In this regard, it is at least comparable to the best state standards, such as those of California and Massachusetts.

The Common Core math standards, however, ask that students "understand solving equations as a process of reasoning" and say explicitly what needs to be taught about this process (see Standard A-REI 1 in High School Algebra).

When state standards ask that the concept of congruence be taught in middle school, they do not realize that what students will end up getting is that congruence means same size and same shape. As a mathematical definition, the latter is completely unacceptable. By contrast, the Common Core standards explain that congruence means what one gets by a sequence of rotations, reflections, and translations (grade 8, Standard 8.G 2). Such sensitivity to the existing defects is absolutely essential to any meaningful improvement in our math education; in this regard, the Common Core standards leave all rivals far behind.

Integrated vs. Traditional Math

The 9-12 standards of the Common Core are what they are because the Common Core made a conscientious decision to stay neutral in this debate by describing only the mathematical content of the various strands in high school and allow[ing] each state to make its own decision. This flexibility makes it possible to formulate a high school program that conforms to neither the traditional nor the integrated format.

Algebra I in 8th Grade?

There is no intrinsic merit in finishing Algebra I by grade 8. When it comes to school algebra, it is not how early you teach it but, rather, how well you teach it. The standards of those states in the U.S. that mandate the completion of Algebra I in grade 8 manage to do so only by stinting on the necessary background material that students need in order to learn linear equations and their graphs. Furthermore, the math standards of both China and Japan postpone the teaching of quadratic equations and functions to grade 9, and these are two of the highest-achieving nations in the world in math education.

Spread Concepts Across Grade Levels

Common Core math standards' are designed to optimize mathematics learning by giving students enough time, whenever feasible, to absorb the material as well as time for teachers to teach the material. For children, the addition of fractions is so conceptually complicated that they need the time to internalize the whole process. This particular treatment of fraction addition (teaching of fraction addition over three grades: grades 3 to 5) is one of the outstanding features of the Common Core standards.

Strengths of Common Core math standards:

1. The math standards provide guidance to the teaching [of] fractions in a way that is pedagogically sensible and mathematically correct. Since the fear of fractions has almost become a national pastime, these standards---if properly implemented--- will bring relief to many parents and students.
2. The same can be said about these standards on negative numbers.
3. The teaching of geometry in middle and high schools is so defective at present that it cries out for a new approach; essentially nothing can make things worse in most cases - provide a seamless transition from middle school geometry to algebra and high school geometry.

Teacher Capacity and Preparation

We need better teacher preparation and improved professional development in order to stay educationally afloat no matter what the standards may be. If we cannot get better teacher preparation or improved professional development, then we would be better off with a set of standards that is at least mathematically sound.

Help for Teachers: Resources 

• A set of Progressions documents that highlight the main ideas of each major strand in the standards.
• The Illustrative Mathematics Project that will provide problems to illustrate the standards.

Concern - Status Quo Not Good Enough

What I find most worrisome is the fact that many educators and administrators believe that the status quo (of doing nothing) is plenty good enough. It is not. We need effective professional development, period.

Math Assessments

I want to make sure that students will not be in any way over-assessed, and that the mathematical quality of the test items be above reproach.

CCSS: In the final analysis, Good or Bad?

Nobody can pass judgment on the success or failure within a year of the kind of profound change promulgated by the Common Core math Standards unless the standards are an immediate disaster (which I hope they are not).

I think a more reasonable date to make such a judgment is 2017. If things go well, teacher preparation will begin to concentrate on the most urgent need of the moment: better content knowledge. Math instruction in classrooms will be long on reasoning and short on giving out orders, and textbooks will at least be free of ghastly errors.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:09 AM | Permalink

In a recent webinar for the National High School Center, Brockton High School (MA) Principal, Sue Szachowicz, attributed her school’s success to the purposeful and hard work initiated by the staff.  “Making change takes tenacity, not brilliance,” she said.

Szachowicz "discussed her school’s experiences in planning for and implementing school-wide literacy, which has resulted in dramatic academic gains in student achievement for both Reading and Math.

Sue's 10 Keys to Literacy Success (in my words):

1. Literacy is the key to raising academic performance.
2. Improving student literacy skills requires the involvement of the entire school.
3. Focus on building teacher capacity over time.
4. Identify, clarify, amplify, and model good instructional practices during professional development.
5. School wide instructional practices that are both "defined" and "aligned" benefit all students by providing each student with repeated exposure to research-based practices throughout the school day.
6. Data-informed initiatives ensure that the focus remains on student needs instead of adult "wants."
7. Change takes time, years in fact. Look at a school wide literacy initiative as a long-term process by building layer by layer, year after year.
8. Any long-term initiative should grow and evolve over time. A literacy initiative should look different in year five than it did in year two.
9. Changes and modifications to any initiative must be based on the assessed needs of the students.
10. "Schools cannot wait for teacher buy-in. Results are what convince the staff." If leaders approach a school wide literacy initiative as a long-term process, there is no need to wait for total agreement before beginning nor is there a need to force everyone to be at the same level all at once.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:12 AM | Permalink

A late school start aimed at tourism revenue undermines the efforts of college-bound students and parents.

After a friend of mine personally witnessed the horrific traffic in the Washington, D.C. area, he said, "the people here must have a really high tolerance for this craziness."

Recent articles in area papers reminded me of three major barriers to college readiness and admission. Late school openings, university admission policies for out-of-state and foreign students, and the misuse of honors courses represent barriers that sabotage years of work and effort on the parts of college-bound students and their parents. My friend was correct. These people must have a high tolerance.

Barrier #1: Late School Starts

Like many other areas of the country whose population consists of a high percentage of college graduates, the D.C. area, with several of the wealthiest large counties in the nation, demands that its schools and school systems prepare students for admission to the most competitive colleges and universities, particularly those in-state schools with lower tuition rates. In fact, test prep programs begin in elementary school preparing students for admission to the regions elite public magnet high school for the gifted, Thomas Jefferson. It is widely believed that admission to Jefferson guarantees admission to the State's most competitive and highly regarded university, The University of Virginia (UVA).

The reality is that attendance at Jefferson may actually reduce the chances of being admitted to Virginia, because the school's admission policies and desire for a diverse student body will not permit admission of a large number of students from the same high school. Actually, students who take a rigorous course of studies, which includes Advanced Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate (IB) courses, at any of the area's surrounding high schools and who achieve at high levels probably have a statistically better chance of admission to UVA than do the "elite" Jefferson students.

Parents operate under the assumption that taking a heavy dose of Advanced Placement or IB courses and obtaining a passing score on the exams translates into earning college credits, which not only increases the chances of college admission but also ensures a significant cost savings, because the students will graduate sooner.

The problem is that Virginia's late school opening date makes it much more difficult to earn better scores on AP and IB exams. Virginia students are placed at a distinct disadvantage by a State law, called the "Kings Dominion law", which was passed in 1986 to protect the tourism industry. The law prohibits schools from starting before Labor Day. Because both AP and IB exams are administered beginning in the first full week of May, Virginia students have two weeks less instruction and preparation than many of their counterparts around the country, most of whom begin school in the third week of August. Virginia students start behind and the teachers spend the entire school year trying to catch them up.

Officials in Loudon County (VA), the nations' wealthiest large county, get it.  According to a Washington Post article, "Loudon (County) officials argued that starting in August would give students more time to learn what they need to know for Advanced Placement and state Standards of Learning exams, which are generally administered in May or June. “The more we can do to prepare our kids in advance of those tests, the better off they’ll be,” said School Board Chairman John Stevens (Potomac)."

On one hand Virginia has made a sizeable investment in a system of high stakes testing and accountability that is one of the most rigorous in the nation. On the other hand, Virginia law places its own students at a disadvantage on national and international assessments. According to the report, Virginia's position was succinctly expressed by "Senate Majority Leader Richard L. Saslaw (D-Fairfax). He said sending students back to school early would cut into Labor Day weekend’s substantial sales tax revenue, and he hasn’t heard a compelling argument for giving up those dollars."

Other Peoples' Kids

Virginia's late school start date undermines years of parental encouragement and involvement and puts students at a two-week disadvantage when it comes to AP and IB exams. Would any of us set up a system that places our own child two weeks behind before the school year even begins? I think not.

Next: Barrier #2: Admission policies at state universities

Posted by Mel Riddile at 02:26 PM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

When No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was first presented in the early years of the Bush Administration it represented a significant shift in educational policy.  End-of-course exams like Virginia’s Standards of Learning (SOL) were soon to become a measure of a school’s success.  The initial requirement of a 70% pass rate in English and Math appeared challenging but reasonable.  Of course, most educational professionals acknowledged that such a level could only be a starting point.  When the SOL exams became a barrier to graduation, no one would have been satisfied with such a low target.  As the Fairfax County Public Schools (VA) Coordinator of Math told me at a department chair meeting at the time, “We have to be striving for something closer to 100%.” 

In the first few years before NCLB went into effect, most systems struggled to reach the 70% level but each year brought higher scores and by the time this requirement had become mandatory the majority of schools were deemed to be making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).  In slow, realistic increments the benchmarks began to rise.  These initial goals continued to be well within reach.  

The collision of idealism and reality

There is, however, a time bomb planted deep inside the legislation.  The necessary pass rate for AYP reached 89% last year, a point that became difficult to attain for an increasing number of schools especially in the sub-groups of Special Education and some minorities.  But more importantly, there was a lack of common sense at the endpoint of this relentless march upward. 

In 2014 the requirement for AYP will become 100%.  While such a percentage would literally leave no child behind it also empowers certain students to hold an entire building hostage by choosing to fail a test or at least not giving it their best effort.   

Why would a student not give his best on a standardized test?  Because some tests, although the results are included in the school’s data, are not considered barrier tests for the student.   It doesn’t matter what the student makes, but it can be devastating for the school’s statistics and their AYP.

Surprisingly, as 2012 testing comes into focus, there has been plenty of activity but little effort to address this reality.  Instead of facing the obvious—some children are going to be left behind regardless of the effectiveness of a school— band aids are being applied to the program.  In lieu of adjusting impractical expectations, special temporary exemptions are being issued.  Schools are being given additional time to reach an unreachable goal. 

The irony in all of these machinations is that if the majority of schools did attain test results with no failures, it would be likely that the methods of assessment and/or grading would have to be considered suspect.  Virtually every outcome of 100% is a source of concern.  When Saddam Hussein would win an election with 99.1% of the votes everyone knew the results were rigged.  Garrison Keillor’s Lake Woebegon children are all “above average”, a statement which is intended to be satire, not reality.  Expecting a typical school to have a perfect pass rate is equally ridiculous.  The result of such expectations will be to place inordinate pressure on the school staff and test creators to find ways to pass even the most recalcitrant of students.  In such a case the validity of all test scores will be diminished.  In addition, the recent spate of cheating scandals would likely increase in the wake of such outrageous expectations.  Ask a successful teacher what they would think if every student in all of their classes made an “A” on their final exam.  The answer would reflect on the quality of the test and/or whether it had somehow been compromised. 

Listen to the coach

Vince Lombardi wrote, “Always strive for perfection.  Though you will never achieve it, you may pass excellence along the way.”  Apparently, the authors of NCLB did not read the coach’s book.  Everyone wants all students to be successful.  But this is an aspirational goal, not a realistic one.  Any 100% rule can neither be implemented nor enforced.  However, instead of changing the rule to reflect authentic academic success for as many students as possible, there has been a flood of exceptions, exemptions and excuses.  It is time for a more realistic approach.  While it is true that a rising tide will raise all ships, exam grade inflation will not do the same for actual student performance.   A requirement of a 100% pass rate will surely lead to a disastrous scenario.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:17 AM | Permalink

By Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

The key to creating an illusion is to distract the viewer.  Draw the attention away from the sleight of hand and the audience will believe they have seen magic.  Apparently this technique is now a key element when dealing with the analysis of standardized test results.  The plan appears to be to use some new and often outrageous assertion to distract the public and “abracadabra” many of the problems inherent in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and end-of-course standardized testing magically disappear. 

The latest form of deception is an idea being floated by educational leaders in Virginia.  They are considering a proclamation announcing that a “pass advanced” on the state’s Standards of Learning (SOL) exams is an indication of college preparation.  The word “advanced” in most contexts indicates a significant level of accomplishment; in this case, however, it should not be confused with readiness for post high school study. 

It is actually more of a numbers game

At first glance a “pass advanced” might appear to be a significant achievement.  It requires a score of 500 or more on a test scaled to go from 200-600 (400 is required for passing).  But as in other forms of magic, these numbers are an illusion.  Like many other end-of-course exams being used for NCLB, the SOL is a four-option multiple-choice test with no penalties for wrong answers.  Consequently the actual range of scores is not nearly as large.  The laws of probability decree anyone answering 50 such questions would start with 12 or 13 correct responses simply by random guessing.  In 2011 a passing score of 400 on the Algebra 1 exam required 23 correct answers.   As a result of that scale, every student begins with a score of at least 340.  Thus the real possible range is 340-600.  Suddenly a tally of 500 does not seem quite so “advanced”. 

Forty-four correct answers will earn a student a 500.   Even if this were an exam with open-ended questions and penalties for wrong responses, mastery of only 88% of the curriculum is hardly college-level work.   But with a multiple-choice, no penalty format, 44 accurate responses represent much less.  A few quick calculations reveal that if a student can answer 42 questions, probability will produce the missing two from the remaining eight.  Now the mastery level is down to 84%--a “B-“on most grading scales.  Even those numbers are a bit skewed.  If an individual can eliminate one or two potential answers in a question the likelihood of a successful “guess” increases exponentially. 

Adding to these misperceptions is the limited nature of such forms of questions.  They cannot require multiple-step responses or demand a true demonstration of mastery of the most complex or intricate aspects of a subject.  They can only ask questions that have reasonably simple answers.  It quickly becomes clear that based on almost any analysis, a pass “advanced” on these tests is not a predictor of college success. 

To get quality, you need quality

As Mel Riddile discussed in a previous post, tests made on the cheap are susceptible to both cheating and inflated results.   If Virginia and other states want to administer tests that are indicators of future educational success, they will need to move away from the current easy-to-grade and inexpensive formats and invest in exams that will accurately measure a student’s mastery of a class.  Until then, any claim of academic prowess based on the results is nothing more than an illusion and distraction.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 06:41 AM | Permalink

Master teacher, Sherry Singer, taught Advanced Placement Biology for approximately fourteen years and then switched to International Baccalaureate (IB) Biology for another fourteen years. Sherry taught for much of her career in what National Geographic Magazine called "the most diverse high school in America." When I need an expert teacher's opinion, Sherry is one of my "go to" people. 

I was looking for a veteran teacher's take on the recent cheating scandals. So, I asked Sherry, "You have probably read about the cheating scandals in DC, Atlanta and elsewhere.
Were you concerned about cheating on IB Exams?  Here is why I am asking. It seems to me that cheating is more of a problem on inexpensive, easy-to-score, multiple-choice tests than it is on a well-constructed assessment that require students to write and explain their answers.

In her own words, here is Sherry's take on cheating and quality assessment:

"You are correct.  I was never worried about cheating in my IB classes.  My classroom tests were always at least 50% essay or data analysis.  These types of assessments are almost impossible to cheat on. 

The IB has clearly thought out ways of discouraging cheating on their end-of-course exams.  Dave, our IB Coordinator, would always recruit IB teachers to be invigilators during the exams.  But we could never invigilate exams in our own subjects.  So I could not have helped students with answers even if I wanted to!  Back packs, cell phones, etc. were left outside the testing area.  No one was allowed to talk after entering the testing area.  One of my favorite IB exam stories was one of my students became sick during the exam and actually threw up in the testing area.  One of the invigilators took him to the restroom got him cleaned up and he came back to the exam, finished the exam and received a score of 6 out of a possible 7.  IB makes students tough! (He is a cardiologist today.)"

The Bottom Line

If students can copy and text answers to each other, and, if teachers can erase incorrect responses, we should admit that these inexpensive tests with poorly constructed questions tell us very little about what students know and what they are able to do. Why are we wasting so much money going through the motions? Why not spend the money on quality assessments that are much better indicators of learning? Instead, we end up spending valuable education dollars on test security and on investigating and firing cheaters at the same time we are laying off teachers and increasing class sizes.

We know how to construct high-quality assessments that, in Sherry's words "are almost impossible to cheat on." How can state and district officials look at themselves in the mirror and rationalize and justify firing teachers and principals and closing schools on the basis of the cheapest assessments money can buy? Bad karma?

"No one is arguing we shouldn't use technology in education anymore. The question is how."--Chris Lehmann, ISTE 2011

Education Week reports that data released by Project Tomorrow, the Software and Information Industry Association, and technology company CDW-G reveals a "perception gap" or "disconnect" between educators and students and between school-based staff and district staff.

Better But Not There Yet

"School districts are becoming more sophisticated in their approach to implementing online education but are still struggling to meet the increasing need and desire of students to learn online."

More Taking Online Courses

The proportion of high school students who had taken an online course as of last fall tripled from fall 2008, from 10 percent to 30 percent.

Online Courses Becoming Mainstream

Two in five students believe online classes are an essential component of education and administrators' concerns about funding online courses are fading. On the other hand, concerns about course quality are rising.

Teachers: No thanks to online learning

26 percent of teachers surveyed expressed interest in diving into online teaching if they hadn't already done so.

Who is the "cork in the bottle?"

"District-level administrators were found to be more supportive of online learning than on-campus principals were. The district-level superintendents or administrators are much more visionary thinking [about] what the long-term implications are. Principals are more narrowly focused on living right now, today, and dealing with today's issues."

Can't Keep Up

"Educators don't feel as if they are keeping up with technology, even if their actions would appear to show otherwise. "The more they do, the more they're aware of how much more they should be doing."

Up-to-date Classroom

What constitutes a "21st Century Classroom? "Any Internet connection, teacher computing device, and LCD projector are characteristics of a modern classroom."

Unsatisfied Students

64 percent of IT administrators rated their districts' technology as "cutting edge," only 45 percent of faculty members and 39 percent of students reported being satisfied with their classroom technology.

A Thought: The Common Core Assessments will involve extensive use of technology. They will all be computer and Internet-based. We have a lot of work to do before 2014-15.

Posted by Mel Riddile at 11:28 AM | Permalink

In a recent post on this blog, Stu Singer, The Teacher Leader, writes, "Jay Mathews has proposed a plan that he believes would increase rigor in schools. In a recent Washington Post article “Why not honors courses for all?” he addresses a concern of some parents that their school district is moving away from the traditional three tracks—regular, honors, and college level—by eliminating honors classes.  Mr. Mathews’ solution is a different two-track approach: “Instead of insisting on the old three tracks, tell the schools to keep the honors option and eliminate the basic course.”" The Teacher Leader goes on to propose that a better solution would be not be a choice between basic or the honors classes, but, rather, making the current three options more appropriate.

What is tracking?

There are several different forms of tracking or grouping of students:

1. "Within-class ability grouping" is typically found in elementary schools and not in high schools.
2. "Between-class grouping" - Students spend most of the day in “high,” “middle,” or “low” classes and use the same or similar curricula.
3. "Formal Tracks or Levels" - Students spend most of the day in ability tracks and use curricula substantially adjusted to their ability levels.

Many schools and school systems have already or are actively eliminating the third form of grouping students, a system of "formal tracks or levels," because research has shown that this form of grouping actually harms poor, disadvantaged, under-resourced, and struggling learners.

It is on the second method of grouping students--"between class grouping" in which most of a student's core course work is taken in groupings identified as basic, honors, and college-level--that Jay Mathews and Stu Singer disagree.  This method has been shown to benefit high achievers but does no harm to low achievers.

My Take On Grouping

First, Stu Singer and I worked in the same school, and, from my perspective, we had only two groupings--standard and advanced. While we had three different labels, in the end, we only had two levels of rigor at each grade level from which students could choose. Courses that fell under the "advanced" label included some courses specifically labeled as "advanced" such as Advanced Algebra I, and, since we were an International Baccalaureate school, pre-IB courses. Pre-IB courses would have been labeled "advanced" or "honors" or pre-AP (Advanced Placement) in most high schools. "Advanced" or "honors" courses, and here is the key, were only offered at the ninth and tenth grades and never in competition with IB courses, which were the only "advanced" courses offered in grades 11 and 12. So, our students were enrolled either in standard-level or advanced-level courses in which enrollment was open to all students. It is also important to note that students self-selected into standard or advanced-level courses. A student could be enrolled in and IB English class, but a standard Algebra II course.

Readiness not Ability

In a perfect world, I would prefer only one grouping and that would be "advanced." However, like most high schools less than 20% of our students arrived at our doors in ninth grade on-target for college. Like my good friend Jay, most proponents of eliminating groupings forget the realities.

The tragedy is that the off-target students had the ability, but for a variety of reasons were barely capable of doing high school level work let alone college-level work. In fact, our initial school wide reading diagnostic assessment revealed that 76% of our students read more than one standard deviation below average, which meant that they would have difficulty comprehending their high school textbooks. Some of these students were so far behind that graduation from high school, not college, was our goal for them.

Simply placing unprepared students into college-level courses would be like throwing a group of beginning swimmers into the river and telling them to swim across. Admittedly, a few would make it, but many would drown. Throwing capable but unprepared students into Advanced Placement or IB courses, as many schools do, is tantamount to malpractice and is akin to colleges admitting students who they know have little or no chance of graduating. They gladly accept their money and send them home saddled in debt. To put it bluntly, this practice of setting students and teachers up to fail is both unethical and immoral.

No honor in "honors"

A while back, at a district-wide high school principals' meeting, one of my colleagues proposed that his school be allowed to create a third course level by offering "honors" courses to eleventh and twelfth graders as an alternative to Advanced Placement courses.

My response was to the point. "First, these so-called honors courses are merely a way to segregate students because their parents don't want them in classrooms with "those kids." Second, unless you have a curriculum, and common formative and summative assessments, there is no way to ensure that honors courses are any more rigorous than standard courses. They are honors in name only. Third, allowing students to choose the less rigorous honors course instead of an AP or IB course deludes parents into believing that we are preparing their child for college when we know that all we are doing is placating them and their child. Finally, AP and IB courses are college-level, but they proceed at half speed compared to their college counterparts. If a student cannot succeed in an AP course at half speed, what will happen when that student takes the course at full speed in September?

"Honors" as an alternative to AP or IB courses at the junior and senior level is a big lie. In no way are honors courses preparing students to do college-level work next year. The only way that I would agree to such a proposal is if these courses were externally moderated. They would have a standard course description and syllabus with accompanying district-wide common and formative assessments, which would make the whole idea very expensive. If you really had the best interests of your students in mind, you would ensure that they were adequately prepared to succeed in the most rigorous courses that we could offer them.

Next: Building a Pipeline

Posted by Mel Riddile at 04:07 AM | Permalink

Is the title of this Washington Post article a rhetorical question? Of course students will blackmail teachers and schools. I know they will because they already are holding teachers and schools hostage all over the country and the so-called experts don't have a clue.

Why? Because, while many states are perfectly willing to close schools, fire teachers, and fire principals, they are not willing to hold students accountable for the results of their state assessments. They are not willing to take the political risk of making state assessments barriers to graduation. They lack the moral courage to stick with their stated values about the need for a quality education for all, because they don't truly believe in their own students. They fear that many students are not capable of achieving at higher levels. Legislators are running from the inevitable political fallout that will result from what they fear will be dramatically declining graduation rates.

Fear not all ye faint of heart! One state, Virginia, stuck to its promise and required all students to pass six of eleven end-of-course exams, which were used to calculate adequate yearly progress. Despite the most rigorous standards and assessment system in the country, graduation rates and proficiency rates continue to improve.

It is common knowledge to anyone who has worked in a high school in the last decade that students routinely "flag" or "Christmas-Tree" tests. Teachers and principals in many states have based their careers and the fate of their schools on the hoped for, good will of their students. Unfortunately, even if 90% of the students put forth 100% effort, which is unlikely, the remaining 10% will undermine even the best efforts of teachers and school leaders to raise test scores.

One principal in another state lamented to me that, despite having one of the best college admission rates in his entire state, his school is now on the "needs improvement" list because his seniors thought it would be funny to draw Mickey Mouse on the answer sheets on last year's assessments. The joke was on the school.

From another perspective, many of these students have been repeatedly tested since the third grade and they have reached the breaking point. They are sick and tired of spending long hours taking tests from which they never receive feedback. By high school, they have figured out that these tests have no direct effect on them. Colleges will never see the results and their grades will never suffer. Consequently, if they don't "feel" like taking the test seriously on a given day, they don't. So what? Well, the principal gets fired and the teachers are transferred that's "so what." Meanwhile, those seniors are away at college having a good laugh at the expense of their alma mater back home.

The Bottom Line

Unless everyone in a system including state officials from the governor on down, district offices, schools, principals, teachers, and students are held accountable and hold themselves personally accountable, there is no system of accountability. What we have in many states is not a system of accountability but rather an excuse to scapegoat convenient targets of opportunity--principals, teachers, and "failing schools."

Posted by Mel Riddile at 10:04 AM | Permalink

by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

It would seem logical that a local community college would be an excellent source to evaluate the quality of the education high school students were receiving.  Kristen Amundson, a former member of the Virginia House of Delegates and current communications manager for Education Sector, relayed some chilling data concerning the shortcomings of Virginia schools in a recent article in the Washington Post.  According to Ms. Amundson:

“At NVCC (Northern Virginia Community College) 2,913 of the 4,719 freshmen (62 percent) require remediation in one or more subjects. In other Virginia community colleges, as many as 80 percent of students arrive on campus needing at least one remedial class.”

Over the years Northern Virginia Community College has received national respect for the success of its students.  As a part of the Virginia Consortium students who earn grades of “A” or “B” in courses at the school can transfer those credits to any four-year state university.  Many talented individuals use two years at NVCC as a low-cost alternative for the first half of their college degree which they can complete at prestigious schools such as the University of Virginia and Virginia Tech. 

A disturbing imbalance

The fall schedule for NVCC reveals a major problem.  At the Alexandria campus there are 32 sections of Math I.  This is a non-college credit class that is designed as a remedial course that covers topics that should have been learned in high school.  Meanwhile Math 151, the freshman entry-level math course requiring a prerequisite of Algebra 2 and Geometry has a total of 11 sections.

The big lie

The state of Virginia thinks so highly of its Standards of Learning (SOL) end of course exams that the governor opted out of the Department of Education “Raise to the Top” competition because he believed the state’s standards far exceeded those of the federal government.  When one looks at the graduation requirements for the state, that contention seems valid.  To earn a diploma in the state students must pass three math courses at or above the level of Algebra 1.  In addition, they must pass at least one math SOL and in most cases two in order to “verify” those credits. 

On paper these requirements would appear to preclude any of the problems being encountered by NVCC.  The prerequisites for Math 151 are basically identical to those of a Virginia diploma.  And yet to meet the needs of the incoming freshmen, almost all of whom are products of Virginia high schools, there are three times as many remedial math courses as college-level.  The answer may be in how the state defines “mastery”. 

In May, 2011 in order to “pass” the Algebra 1 SOL exam a student must correctly answer 23 of 50 multiple-choice questions.  While on the surface that requirement might seem low (it equals to a 46% score) the reality is much worse.  On average random guessing on four-option multiple-choice questions will result in correct answers one-fourth of the time. Thus, a student can earn a passing grade by knowing the correct answer for 15 of the 50 questions (30%) and then by guessing on the remaining 35 questions net 8 or 9 more which will then total at least the required 23.  Though this level of knowledge could hardly be considered “mastery”, it does receive the label “passing”.  Even more disturbing is the fact that a few years ago that required pass number had been 26.   Is it really that surprising that a student with these credentials is struggling as a college freshman?

It is time to demand more

Sadly, the Governor is correct.  The state of Virginia does have comparatively high standards.  The problem is they are clearly not nearly high enough.  Instead students are receiving a potentially dangerous mixed message. They are pushed to go faster by taking Algebra 1 in middle school and abolishing all non-honors courses.  When too many begin to falter the requirements for defining “success” are lowered. The result is a transcript full of wonderful sounding classes and a plethora of graduates with woefully inadequate academic skills. 

It is time to stop looking for semantic shortcuts and begin the difficult process of demanding more.  The mere act of placing wallpaper over the cracks in our academic walls is not enough. 

Posted by Mel Riddile at 08:25 AM | Permalink