| Author | Message | ||
     All Children Excelling--Concerned Citize Citizen Username: Ace Post Number: 15 Registered: 9-2003 |
New Longitudinal Study Shows Core Knowledge Boosting Scores, Closing Achievement Gap by Matthew Davis, Director, Reading Project, Core Knowledge Foundation A new study indicates that a Core Knowledge education can improve students’ scores on standardized tests and also narrow the achievement gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students. Researcher Fred Smith tracked the effect of Core Knowledge on the achievement of elementary students in a Virginia school using a quasi-experimental, longitudinal, matched-comparison design. Smith, then a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Virginia’s Curry School of Education, compared students in a Core Knowledge school with students in another school in the same district with a similar demographic make-up. Smith examined test results on Virginia’s state tests, the Standards of Learning (SOL), and on the national Stanford 9TA test. He also tracked gain scores, the achievement of disadvantaged and advantaged students, and the achievement gaps between advantaged and disadvantaged students at the two schools. Smith found that Core Knowledge had the following positive effects: *Core Knowledge increased student academic achievement as measured on the Stanford 9TA tests. *Core Knowledge promoted fairness in schooling by providing equal educational opportunity to disadvantaged as well as advantaged students. *Core Knowledge helped narrow the achievement gap on the Stanford 9TA test between advantaged and disadvantaged students *Core Knowledge helped students achieve larger gains on the Stanford 9TA over two-year periods. Smith tracked two cohorts of students at a Core Knowledge school and two similar cohorts at a comparison school. All of the students in the study remained in the same school from kindergarten to sixth grade. Results for the Virginia state tests, the Standards of Learning, were mostly inconclusive, with the Core Knowledge cohorts sometimes posting higher mean scores and sometimes failing to do so. In most cases the differences did not qualify as statistically significant. However, results on the well-validated Stanford 9TA tests revealed a large number of statistically significant advantages in favor of the Core Knowledge students. The cohort of students who began their studies in a Core Knowledge kindergarten in 1994 and remained in the same school continuously through grade 6 posted higher mean scaled scores than the control group in all three subject areas of the 6th grade Stanford 9TA tests: Reading (706.93 vs. 675.85), Math (713.70 vs. 662.25), and Language (659.87 vs. 635.80). The margins of superiority for Reading and Math were deemed statistically significant: Reading p = .029 and Math p = .002. (A p factor, or probability value, is a statistical indicator of the reliability of a finding. The smaller the number, the smaller the likelihood of the results being just a fluke. A p value of .05 means there is a 5% chance that the outcome was only a chance occurrence; a p value of .01 indicates a one percent chance. Scientists generally consider any p value smaller than .05 statistically significant.) The cohort of students who began their studies in a Core Knowledge school in 1995 and remained in the same school through grade 6 also posted higher mean scaled scores in all subjects tested on 6th grade the Stanford 9TA: Reading (709.91 vs. 670.95), Math (718.67 vs. 680.61), Language (662.13 vs. 645.76). Again, the Reading and Math results were statistically significant (Reading p = .002 and Math p = .014). Additional analysis showed that the superior performance of Core Knowledge students on the 6th grade Stanford 9TA tests held true for both advantaged students and disadvantaged (free and reduced lunch) students. Advantaged students in the Core Knowledge school outscored advantaged students in the control school in all three areas tested on the 6th grade Stanford 9TA, and for both cohorts examined. Likewise, disadvantaged students in Core Knowledge schools outscored disadvantaged students in the control school in all three areas tested on the 6th grade Stanford 9TA, and for both cohorts examined. The disadvantaged students showed statistically significant advantages in reading (p = .017 for one cohort and p = .030 for the other). Smith also found statistically significant evidence that the Core Knowledge school was doing a better job than the control school at narrowing the achievement gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students. Smith computed the differences between advantaged and disadvantaged students’ Stanford 9TA scores for sixth grade in Reading, Math, and Language. In the Core Knowledge cohort that began kindergarten in 1994 and was tested several years later in grade 6, advantaged students outperformed disadvantaged students by 7 points in Reading and 3 points in Language. Remarkably enough, however, the disadvantaged students outperformed the advantaged students by 18 points in Math. In the aggregate, disadvantaged students outperformed advantaged students by 8 points. Although the number of students Smith was able to track longitudinally was small—just 31 students in the Core Knowledge school for this cohort—this is nevertheless a tantalizing indication that Core Knowledge can help narrow the gap between the haves and have-nots in society. The results stand out even more sharply when one notes that the combined achievement gap in the control school for the same cohort was a whopping 156 points. Results for the 1995 cohort were less spectacular but still showed Core Knowledge narrowing the achievement gap more successfully than the control school. For this group of students, the control school showed a smaller achievement gap in 6th grade: only 40 points in the aggregate. But the Core Knowledge school did even better, almost completely erasing the achievement gap among the students it educated for six years. The 12 disadvantaged students in the Core Knowledge school actually outperformed the 25 advantaged students in Reading (707.64 advantaged vs. 714.66 disadvantaged) and Language (661.36 advantaged vs. 663.75 disadvantaged), though they were outperformed in Math (722.04 advantaged vs. 711.66 disadvantaged). Taken as an aggregate, the disadvantaged Core Knowledge students in this cohort lagged behind the advantaged students by only 1 point. Essentially, there was no achievement gap. Smith also tracked gains from grade to grade. For example he tracked the gains students made from the fourth grade Stanford 9TA to the sixth grade Stanford 9TA. Students in the Core Knowledge school made larger gains on the Stanford 9TA in all 6 cases Smith examined. Many of the gains detected were statistically significant. For example, on the Stanford 9TA, gains in reading and math from grade 4 to grade 6 were deemed highly significant (p = .001). Smith separated students into advantaged and disadvantaged groups and analyzed the gain scores again. He found that advantaged Core Knowledge students made larger gains than advantaged students in the control group in all six of the Stanford 9TA cases he examined. The advantaged Core Knowledge students exhibited gain-score superiority that was deemed highly significant (p = .001) in all three subjects (Reading, Language, and Math) and for both cohorts tested. Among disadvantaged students, the Core Knowledge students displayed an equally impressive advantage, posting larger gains than their control group peers in all 6 of the Stanford 9TA cases examined (as well as 10 of 12 Standards of Learning cases). In some cases the differences in gain scores on the Stanford 9TA were staggering. For example, disadvantaged students in the 1994 cohort in the Core Knowledge school posted healthy gains in all three Stanford 9TA subject tested (Reading +61, Math +83, Language +40), while their peers in the control school posted sharp losses in all subjects (Reading -37, Math -33, Language -46). The edge to Core Knowledge was deemed highly significant in all three subjects (p = .001 for Reading, Math, and Language). Such large results in a small sample might seem to suggest a fluke, but the gain-score advantages for a completely different group of students in the 1995 cohort were almost as statistically robust. Once again the Core Knowledge students posted healthy gains in every subject (Reading +97, Math +112, Language +76). Once again students in the control school slipped in all areas (Reading -4, Math -31, and Language -11). And once again the differences in gain scores were deemed highly significant for each subject (Reading p = .001, Math p = .001, Language, p = .002). Smith’s research provides compelling longitudinal evidence that Core Knowledge can improve academic performance for both advantaged and disadvantaged students, and can help to narrow the achievement gap between these two groups. His findings also suggest that Core Knowledge may have certain latent effects—effects that may not be visible immediately, and may not show up in a one-year study, but begin to appear after several years of exposure to the curriculum and can grow quite large when exposure persists throughout the elementary years. Smith’s dissertation is available on microfilm and in digital form through Proquest/UMI, 1-800-521-0600. | ||
| All Children Excelling--Concerned Citize Citizen Username: Ace Post Number: 16 Registered: 9-2003 |
Remarks of State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell State of California Education Address Wednesday, February 11, 2004 Sacramento, California A passage from Superintendent O'Connell's speech of relevance to South Orange and Maplewood, NJ. For the entire speech, please contact ACE (allchildrenexcel@aol.com) The third goal is toward development of world-class, standards-based instructional materials for high schools. The State Board of Education reviews and adopts standards-based textbooks for kindergarten through eighth grade. Elementary school leaders attribute much of their recent academic progress to new, focused classroom materials that support both novice and experienced teachers. | ||
| harpo Citizen Username: Harpo Post Number: 1220 Registered: 6-2001 |
Does the term "standards-based instructional materials" mean using materials focused on passing standardized tests? | ||
| All Children Excelling--Concerned Citize Citizen Username: Ace Post Number: 17 Registered: 9-2003 |
Standards-based materials are instructional materials (i.e., textbooks) that are aligned with state standards of learning. Each state has its own standards for each subject area. The clarity and specificity of standards vary from state to state. The American Federation of Teachers' publication, "Making Standards Matter," contains an analysis of standards in each of the 50 states. The report is available online at the following link if you would like to see how New Jersey compares to the other states and what our strengths and weaknesses are. www.aft.org/edissues/standards/MSM2001/Index.htm | ||
| harpo Citizen Username: Harpo Post Number: 1240 Registered: 6-2001 |
Thanks for the link, ACE. I read most of the report, and almost from the first section I clicked on (The Executive Summary) and then through the others, I found reasons to be alarmed, and I came at this as just a curious reader, unsure of what your language meant. If you don't mind my saying so, your own answer and most of the language in the link is totally circular. But even when one arrives at content in the report -- not just jargon that is defined by other jargon derived from the original jargon -- there is real reason to question the apparent thoroughgoing belief in ACE that testing assesses educational achievement in a human being. I can readily understand the appeal of core curricula, but I saw nothing in this link that suggested that a core curriculum was being promoted because of the value of the curriculum to the student. It all appeared as being promoted out of a belief that it would have value to the "system", i.e., we are providing you with a curricula that can be easiy tested at regular intervals. This is not a program geared to students' needs but to state bureaucratic needs. In practice, if not rhetoric, it defines educational accomplishment as passing standardized tests, which I think falls way short of real education. (I always liked the standard for education set by William James, who said (more or less): "The point of education is to develop the ability to know a good person when you seen one.") I understand the utility of testing to assess both an individual's and the teacher's performance, and I understand that whenever funding depends on tax dollars, state-set standards of accountability will be brought into play. If you don't mind my saying so, the biggest job American educators face today is not the achievement gap, but educating adults -- parents and taxpayers -- as to the true meaning of education, and not herding a generation of kids into testing factories -- especially since the tests will inevitably (and I do mean inevitably) produce distorted results and those results will then be fed back into the system, institutionalizing the errors and producing yet further error since the system is designed (like all systems) never to be wrong. | ||
| All Children Excelling--Concerned Citize Citizen Username: Ace Post Number: 18 Registered: 9-2003 |
There are several people on the SOMSD Board of Education who agree with you, including Mr. Latz. Whether or not we disagree, does it change the fact that the state and now federal laws require the testing of our students in several grades? For an alternative view on the value of standards and assessments, read this recent New York Times editorial: Leaving Some Children Behind January 27, 2004 The No Child Left Behind Act is potentially the most important school initiative to come along since the country embraced compulsory education in the early 20th century. But the goal of providing all children with qualified teachers and high-quality schooling may slip away unless Congress provides the money needed to do the job and holds the line against groups that are working to undermine the law. Those interest groups are especially peeved by a provision that requires the states to raise achievement levels for all categories of students, including children with disabilities, who have usually been shunted into separate classes and excluded from state achievement tests. A hard-core faction of school administrators and legislators argues that the six million children who receive special education services under federal law will never catch up and should be exempted from higher standards. Congress has thus far rejected this argument and must continue to do so. The percentage of children with cognitive disorders, like retardation, that make it impossible for them to learn is relatively small. No Child Left Behind has already established flexible procedures for states that wish to exempt these children from the requirements of the law. But many of the children who have been dumped into special education classes are not disabled. They are teachable children who have fallen behind or who present disciplinary problems. Among those with disabilities, perhaps as many as 70 percent are teachable children who suffer from learning or language-related disorders. These children tend to flower when provided with teachers who know how to teach them - but such teachers are rare in public schools. According to federal estimates, only about a quarter of all teachers know how to teach reading to the 4 in 10 children who do not catch on automatically. Critics of No Child Left Behind want to abandon disabled children by counting them out of the push for higher standards. The better solution is for well-trained teachers to help them succeed. | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1160 Registered: 2-2001 |
So, does ACE agree with this editorial? For an alternative view of the teacher basing opinions stated in the editorial, read this (Note: any typos are mine, not Allington's): Rocket Science and Research on Teaching Teachers to Teach Reading From “Big Brother and the National Reading Curriculum: How Ideology Trumped Evidence” Written and edited by Richard L. Allington, Heinemann, 2002. ------------ Both the AFT (1999) and NICHD project director Louisa Moats (1997; 2000) make the same assertion about the shortcomings of teacher education and call for restructuring teacher education through mandated course content and teacher testing. But there are no scientific studies that support the assertion that teacher preparation is "nonscientific" or that it offers a "one size fits all" approach to teaching children to read. So what evidence was offered to support such claims? The AFT offers none. In her testimony before the House Workforce and Education Committee (1997), and in her paper for the conservative Fordham Foundation (2000), Moats provides a good example of the unreliable evidence that seems to rule when it comes to bashing teachers and teacher education. In both cases, Moats reported on the survey studies she had conducted in a paper first published (Moats, 1994) in Annals of Dyslexia (a later and adapted version was published in American Educator, the magazine of the American Federation of Teachers). Let's take a closer look at Moats "research" (since the National Reading Panel didn't include it in its review of research on teacher preparation). The data in this report come from eighty-nine surveys given at the beginning of "a number of classes" in a course titled Reading, Spelling, and Phonology. As science goes, this is already off to a shaky start because you can't assume that teachers who choose to take a course of this nature represent a random population. They might be from that minority of teachers who feel that their teacher preparation has not prepared them well to teach reading, or who have been mandated to use a multisensory phonics approach and felt they needed more expertise in phonology and the development of phonological skills. They cannot be said to reflect the expertise (or lack of it) of any representative body of teachers. Thus, Moats' study is unscientific from the get-go. Interestingly, Moats notes that "about 10 percent" of the teachers who completed the course were unable to develop phonemic awareness during it. She suggests that teacher candidates be screened for phonological awareness before taking coursework and that they be "counseled" about the professional implications of their difficulties. It seems that it never occurred to Moats that someone might similarly counsel her about the effectiveness of the course design or the reliability of the testing she did for phonological awareness development. I have not been able to fine a single study that indicates that a teacher's phonological awareness is related to teaching effectiveness. It could be true, of course, but there is no scientific evidence that suggests it is. Continuing on, Moats reports that this survey "revealed insufficiently developed concepts about language and pervasive conceptual weaknesses in the very skills that are needed for direct, language focused reading instruction" (pg. 91). But she provides no evidence that teachers who had "sufficiently developed" skills taught differently or were more successful in developing children's reading, writing, or spelling proficiencies. She argues that, while many of these teachers had developed adequate linguistic awareness to become personally literate, that linguistic awareness was not sufficient to allow them to teach reading and spelling "elements" explicitly to children. But she provides no evidence that supports that assertion. She also asserts that "lower-level language mastery" is an essential as essential for teachers as anatomy is for physicians. That is an impressive claim, so impressive that the AFT used it as a basis for its suggested redesign of teacher education. But there is no scientific evidence to support that claim. None. Reporting on what seem to be the same survey data with the addition of responses form another class of teachers, Moats and Lyon (1996) repeat virtually the same assertions. And still no scientific evidence is offered in support of these claims. None. Nada. Ideology trumps evidence. Finally, Moats, writing originally under the sponsorship of the International Dyslexia Association (1997), continue this line of argument in calling for a restructuring of teacher education programs. A later version of this report, Teaching Reading is Rocket Science, was circulated to its member colleges by the National Commission on Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) and was widely disseminated by the AFT (1999). All in all, it was an impressive public relations feat. It was even more impressive as a fraud perpetuated on the profession. My calling this report fraudulent may seem harsh, but I will repeat myself: There was no reliable evidence to support either the implicit assertions or the explicit recommendation on the importance of teacher expertise in phonology, morphology, and so on. No reliable evidence supporting the assertion that 90 percent of teachers are incapable of teaching children to read. No reliable evidence that teacher education favors a narrow and unscientific approach to teaching reading. No reliable evidence that recommended restructuring would improve reading instruction (or student achievement). None. Instead, the reports offered individual ideological interpretation of largely anecdotal information, unreliable "evidence" by anyone's standards. Once again, ideology trumps evidence. And yet the AFT, the LFA, and NCATE all bit on Moat's recommendations. Moats may be on to something important that is missing from teacher preparation. I doubt it myself, but I hope that before anyone seriously considers making dramatic changes to teacher preparation, someone will produce reliable evidence to support Moats' assertions and recommendations. It wouldn't take a rocket scientist to conduct such a study. But in order to get reliable, unbiased evidence, the study should be conducted independently of Drs. Moats and Lyon, the AFT, the LFA, and NCATE. | ||
| Diversity Man Citizen Username: Deadwhitemale Post Number: 636 Registered: 5-2001 |
Heinemann press is the house press of the Whole Language movement. No secret. DWM | ||
| harpo Citizen Username: Harpo Post Number: 1256 Registered: 6-2001 |
ACE, I don't think you speak for Steve Latz, and the views I put here are my own. I'm not signing on as a voter to a program that takes the attitude we have to cave to state and federal laws or implement them in ways that we know are harmful to education. It is a total stretch to say that the NY Times editorial you re-published is an alternative view to what I wrote, since I didn't write a word about special ed students, nor does this editorial endorse ACE in any way. In fact, the editorial specifically states: "These (special ed) children tend to flower when provided with teachers who know how to teach them - but such teachers are rare in public schools." I don't see anything in the link you provided to the ACE brochure to indicate that ACE is designed to train teachers to reach those children identified in the editorial. Instead, ACE proposes creating a uniform curriculum that forces all students to conform in their learning and all teachers to conform in their teaching. It calls for exactly the OPPOSITE of what the editorial says is needed. One of the persistent problems with ACE as it has appeared on MOL and in the News Record is that it repeatedly offers arguments that don't track logically and violates all sorts of standards for rigorous thinking -- not to mention reliance on innuendo and politicking. This is another case of comparing apples with oranges, and it doesn't inspire confidence that the promoters of ACE understand what real education entails -- which is to produce people who are wary of falling into sloppy ways of thinking. | ||
| Diversity Man Citizen Username: Deadwhitemale Post Number: 638 Registered: 5-2001 |
Is caving to laws any different than obeying them? DWM | ||
| harpo Citizen Username: Harpo Post Number: 1259 Registered: 6-2001 |
Diversity Man, I think teachers should be at the forefront of resisting laws that harm education. The notion that because a law is passed, classroom instruction should be twisted to fit compliance with the law rather than the needs of individual students is what I am arguing against. But although we don't seem to have reached that point in this debate and may not ever, in principle I see nothing wrong with a teacher or a school administration disobeying a law that undermines education and children. The law is not mandating the ACE program. In my post above, I said I understood the necessity of testing. What isn't necessary is blanketing the schools with programs that are designed to meet testing requirements, not educational requirements for students. There is a difference and a choice that can be made. | ||
| Diversity Man Citizen Username: Deadwhitemale Post Number: 643 Registered: 5-2001 |
Can you just answer the question, in plain English, WL or otherwise. Or, maybe I don't meet your "standards for rigorous thinking" and can not understood your enlightened response. That's probably it. Good-bye. DWM | ||
| harpo Citizen Username: Harpo Post Number: 1262 Registered: 6-2001 |
Perhaps these links to ordinary news stories explain it more plainly than I did why our community shouldn't accept these laws without question or perhaps without asking for an exemption as is being done elsewhere in this country, and many Republicans are leading the way. http://news.mpr.org/features/2004/02/16_pugmiret_nochildcomplaint/ http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=No%20Ch ild%20Left%20Behind | ||
| Suzanne Ryan Citizen Username: Suzanne_ryan Post Number: 29 Registered: 12-2002 |
The views below are mine and do not reflect the school district which employs me or the Education Association of which I am a member. I have several thoughts-- 1st-- I think accountablity is the key issue . Our district needs to be accountable to the children we teach. Standards are important and the tool which allows us to see if we are doing our job. Standards are not new. Many professions have them. Engineers have a Professional Licensing exam. Lawyers have a Bar Exam. Medical students pretty much cover the same material regardless of where they attend medical school and have standards for their licensing. Teachers have state standards that they must meet in order to obtain their state teaching certification. Teachers also take a teaching exam which is a prerequisite to gaining certification. Standards are a part of life. People question standards and what they are all about. Standards are good. Standards are the muscle of parents, educators and other advocates who want to move their schools and districts to greater achievement. Challenging standards should be adopted by the states and the standards tell the community what children should know and be able to do. Standards help parents and community members know what children are expected to learn every step of the way. In education, standards are not just about passing a test. Standards are about making sure that the school district has the highest aspirations for its students. It is about raising the bar for all children and making sure that every child has the opportunity to learn and to grow. It is making sure that our special education , minority, and low socioeconomic students have equal access to great curriculum. Standards are about making sure that at each grade level, there is a set area of content that will be covered.There are no guesses. Standards are clearly stated. Parents, community members, and teachers do not have to guess about what is or is not important. As a third grade teacher, I know what a third grader needs to know. Then, I teach it. What I believe to be important is also believed to be important by our state as well. But, what if a teacher was unsure about what to teach in math?-- Let’s say that no standards existed and the teacher had to figure it out herself/himself. Let's then say that teacher taught an entire year of fractions but never taught addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, or how to solve problems. Her students would certainly be at a loss. Strong curriculum-- based upon strong standards-- is key. Standards are benchmarks--items that need to be mastered before moving onto the next year of school. It is like building a house. You begin with a strong foundation and build up from there. How do tests figure into this equation? Well, tests exist to measure how well teachers are teaching the required material. A test also tells how well the teacher taught her class. Tests also measure if students are sufficiently learning the material that has been taught. Standards and tests are a check and balance system. If you have a strong curriculum, based upon strong standards, then you need not worry about a test. Test prep should be nothing more than teaching children to "bubble" in and understand the format of the test. Cramming should not be happening. Tests should not just be for the heck of it. The "tests" should be high quality assessments that are aligned to their academic standards. This makes sure that children are tested on what the standards say is important. Standards are developed by educational leaders in the field. With consistent, high quality tests, a community can judge how well we are doing as a school district and also judge how much improvement the district has made over time. Test scores, and the subsequent data analysis of those scores, are very important because a district no longer has to depend upon opinions. Data becomes the fact and the departure point for discussion. Without data it is just an opinion. Tests that are aligned with the state standards show if children are proficient in certain academic areas. If we have sound curriculum, and teachers feel that they are fully covering the state standards with that curriculum, then children should be able to take those tests/assessments with confidence. Every year I tell my third grade students that they have all they need to know to take the test. I tell them to respect the test, follow directions closely, “show their stuff,” and have fun. My students fare well. Do I teach to the test?-- Never-- I teach what I know a third grader needs to know. 2nd--About Reading First-- I think it's great that we finally have sound, solid, research on how children should be taught to learn how to read. It is unfortunate that we have a republican president who is not a real advocate of public education. I think his presence muddies the water. It is unfortunate that people are confusing their dislike of him with the need to teach children reading using methods that are known and proven to work. I wish we could take him out of the equation. For the time being, let’s take him out. I think it is important to remember that the NCLB (No Child Left Behind) legislation that has been passed was actually a reauthorization of the federal government's biggest K-12 program which was begun in 1965 under a democratic president-- President Johnson. NCLB was passed with overwhelming support of both Democrats and Republicans . Is NCLB perfect? No, NCLB is not perfect by any means, but it attempts to to push us as a nation to teach to the highest of standards-- making sure that all children, regardless of race or socioeconomic status, will be guaranteed a sound and fair education. Even if NCLB went away, our district should still have these goals: 1--Reduce the academic achievement gap by having high standards for all children. As a district we can’t close the achievement gap by setting lower standards for low performing schools/grades/ or students. 2-- Have sound curriculum that is based upon what works-- not based upon a philosophy or ideology that can’t stand the test of efficacy. 3-- Use assessments/tests to assess how well our students are doing. Assessments and tests need to be objective, valid, and reliable. 4--Report to the parents and the community about our student’s progress. 5-- Provide the highest and best professional development to the teachers, so the teachers can be knowledgeable about the methods and curriculum that has been proven to work. 6-- Recognize that the success of a school system is founded upon the strength of the curriculum and the teacher’s ability to deliver the curriculum. 7-- Recognize that how well we teach our youngest students (K-3) will be a strong indicator of future academic success. We need to emphasize the grave importance of early literacy and early computation and problem solving skills. If we want to place children on a trajectory for high school and higher education success--- we need to acknowledge that success begins in kindergarten. Finally-- As a district we need to acknowledge that we can NOT control how children come to us, but we can make sure that when they all leave us, they leave as confident young adults--- well rounded with sound foundation which will allow them to soar. If we are truly committed to the children of South Orange and Maplewood, then we will insure that they leave us with the “right stuff” for a bright and successful future. We need standards, strong, rigorous curriculum, sound proven pedagogy, and high-quality assessments along the way, to place students on the trajectory for success in life. | ||
| Diversity Man Citizen Username: Deadwhitemale Post Number: 645 Registered: 5-2001 |
How can a Board of Education help, hurt, and how can a superintendent do the same? DWM | ||
| michael Citizen Username: Michael Post Number: 480 Registered: 1-2002 |
Suzanne All I can say is BRAVA !!! You have so clearly put into words what I and other educators, parents and other reasonable people know to be true. I commend you for your honesty and courage . Know that there are many others willing to fight the good fight with you as this issue is of paramount importance to the future of this town. Thank-you for the most reasonable post on this subject I have read in years ! Michael | ||
| harpo Citizen Username: Harpo Post Number: 1269 Registered: 6-2001 |
Suzanne, Everything you said in No 1 is unarguable. If the brochure of ACE said such things, there would be no argument. But it argues for a standardized core of knowledge, which is different from cheerleading for having standards. No one is arguing against having standards at all. The question is which standards: how profound are they, how comprehensive are they, how much do they live up to the goals of true education and helping future adults mature. No one is arguing against testing or teacher's licenses. The argument is about whether testing is being mistakenly overvalued as a perfect barometer of teacher and student performance, whether too much testing is harmful to children (what about the ones that don't "test well"?) and whether if children pass tests it is then assumed past doubt that they must be getting a good education -- which is a very circular reasoning. Many of the problems with No Child Left Behind are not being confused by its critics with dislike for George Bush at all (and one might point out that there are many Republicans fighting it). The criticisms of it need to be answered on their merits, and not dismissed as some sort of partisan confusion. Have you read the Oak Park River Forest study on the achievement gap? Here is an overview reprinted from the Chicago Herald Tribune http://www.middleweb.com/MGNEWS1/MGN0630.html And here is the study itself: http://www.msanetwork.org/pub/oprfhs.pdf I just pass it along in case you haven't because I found it so intriguing. As the Chicago Tribune article reports in its lead, "After years of hand-wringing over an "intolerable and persistent" racial achievement gap at Oak Park and River Forest High School, school leaders have released new research that suggests grade inflation for white students and identity issues for black students play major roles." If similar studies reveal the pattern is being repeated elsewhere (and these Illinois schools are remarkably like M/SO schools demographically), it ought to become obvious that attempting to close the achievement gap with traditional classroom improvements will miss the mark. I think how to address the achievement gap is a work in progress. But deciding what constitutues a good education is, historically, a very long and well-developed discussion to which many great minds have contributed quite seriously. What is missing from ACE's language so far as I've read is any indication that it sees education as being anything more than acquiring skill sets. And in advocating a curriculum based on "core knowledge" there seems to be no profound recognition that knowledge is ever changing, and I don't just mean that telephones become obsolete. I mean that the ability to think critically and creatively is far more important to happiness and maturity in life than is knowing a lot of "answers" and acing tests. Indeed, such an "education" cripples many an A+ student, who only finds out too late how poorly their education left them to deal with the adult world and make themselves happy. Until ACE addresses those issues, it's hard to feel enthusiastic about it and even reason to worry children could end up woefully short-changed. Are you supporting ACE? (My views don't represent anybody else's either!) kathleen | ||
| fringe Citizen Username: Fringe Post Number: 295 Registered: 5-2001 |
In no particular order - I don't live in Oak Park. I pay some of the highest taxes in the country in large part because of the costs associated with this school district. I know what the objective, independent measure's of this district's performance say. I'm interested in ways to close this district's achievement gap first documented to exist in 1997. This district made a conscious decision to ignore the reccommendations of the 1998 Language Arts Curriculum Review Committee and continued a barely altered version of the pre-1998 curriculum. Has this resulted in a narrowing of the gap in language arts? What other concrete steps this district has taken to address this gap and how can I measure the success of those actions? What do the district's defenders suggest if not curriculum change? JTL | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1170 Registered: 2-2001 |
I agree with Harpo. The question is "Whose standards and for what purpose?" I have no problem with the States specifying standards, but it does stick in my craw when NJ brings in business groups like ACHIEVE, to review and recommend what my child should and should not learn. Despite having a direct hand in determining standards, the ACHIEVE website recently posted a link to an article justifying off shore hiring practices because of supposed "low educational standards" exisitng in our country. I don't know about you, but I just can't drink the Koolade on that one. Punitive use of standardized tests are another hard to swallow initiative. Standardized testing helps publishing companies more than it helps children and it is a profitable self-perpetuating crisis of failure. Standardized tests guarantee failure because, by their bell shaped curve design, they guarantee that HALF the kids will be left behind. If they are not, they just up the ante on the test until half go on the other, losing side. With standardized tests, you must have winners AND losers. Perhaps this is why it is reported that the new New Jersey state tests for third grade test includes lots of fourth grade material. Well, how are third grade teachers going to prepare kids for that? The real tragedy occurs when these tests are used for promotion decisions (a purpose they were NOT designed for and cautioned against by the test companies) as they are in Florida where the third grade is swelling with hold backs. I read somewhere that after losing a parent, children view being held back as life's second most stressful experience. If we all agree in high standards and accountability how can we support policies that will ensure lots of children left behind? And the short answer is: because it makes it easier for us to lobby for the reforms we want to see implemented. For ACHIEVE, Inc. such reforms might mean a large supply of inexpensive workers, trained for free. As anyone who has seen the Music Man knows, if you want to sell a product you need to create a crisis and then provide the magic bullet solution. And that's what we have here with ACE and with the Reading First "proven programs," None of these "proven programs" can themselves pass the "high standards" they use to condemn all other programs, including our own. Supposedly these programs are based on the research of the National Reading Panel report, but as we saw with the Louisa Moats presentation last spring, the research findings from that report gets distorted and misstated and made to appear as though only ONE way of teaching reading is effective. But the ACTUAL report, not the widely distributed Summary does not say that, nor does it endorse any of the ACE recommended programs. What I've never heard ACE members such as Suzanne Ryan or Jennifer Crohn explain is how such programs as Direct Instruction and Open Court can be said to be "proven" when the effect sizes shown for them in the NRP report are predominately equal to zero or below? | ||
| harpo Citizen Username: Harpo Post Number: 1272 Registered: 6-2001 |
fringe, I think people advocating school reform in Maplewood and South Orange would be cheating themselves not to look at the research done in Oak Park/River Forest on the acheivement gap, and we should also take a keen interest in the research being done by the Minority Student Achievement Network in Montclair and 21 other school distrcits that have demographics very similar to those found in M/SO. I don't count myself as one of the district's defenders, even though I do count myself a critic of No Child Left Behind, which I especially don't want to see wielded as a club with which to herd the school district, its teachers or its students into educational boxes that may do more harm than good. I am hardly opposed to high standards or the curriculm changes to meet it. What I support was best articulated by Harvard's Richard Elmore in a magazine called Issues in Science and Technology: "I propose a new principle of standards-based reform, which I call "reciprocity of capacity and accountability." The principle goes something like this: Every increase in pressure on schools for accountability for student performance should be accompanied by an equal investment in increasing the knowledge and skills of teachers, administrators, students, and their families for learning about how to meet these new expectations. . . . "No external accountability measure should be implemented without a specific investment in knowledge and skill designed to improve the capacity of educators to meet that measure.... I cannot stress enough that we know little or nothing right now about how to engage in this delicate balancing of capacity and accountability. Until we learn how to do it better, we should be modest in our demands on schools for external accountability measures and ambitious in our attempts to solve the capacity problem." Full text here: http://www.nap.edu/issues/14.1/elmore.htm I am troubled that in the political drive to unseat local Board of Ed members some people seem to be saying to taxpayers and parents in M/SO that it will be simple as pie to implement in the schools a scientifically proven reading program that will teach every child to read. Contrast such claims with the following statement that I found on the website of the International Reading Association: "Based on current scientific evidence, the International Reading Association maintains that there is no single program, professional service, or instructional material that has been proven to be successful in teaching all learners to read. To aid teachers, parents, and policymakers in the selection of materials for the instruction of reading, the International Reading Association offers the following recommendations and cautions: "-- It is unethical for reading professionals and publishers or manufacturers of materials or devices to claim or guarantee success for all learners. Individuals who seek to purchase reading programs and materials should examine evidence of instructional success in guiding their purchase decision or product selection." I am emphatically NOT calling people who want a change in the current curriculum unethical or even wrong. I am simply asking for a more critical review of claims that anyone KNOWS what will work to close or even narrow the achievement gap in M/SO at this point. I am pointing to a danger in using test scores that only test half the problem at best because we don't even know what else we should be examining -- and then having those tests become a crude weapon of accountability (as they already have) and overconfidently lurching in a different direction. I am also suggesting we may not have the capacity to implement even the finest improvements and that to naively attempt to do so , and then test the results, will lead to further misguided actions. Since ACE has put itself so far out front in this local debate, I would urge a greater debate about what ACE means when ACE claims that the current reading program isn't "scientifically based" and therefore needs to be replaced with one that fits that label -- and it is only a label, not a proof of efficacy or validity or success in reading outcomes. |
