Former Wake County Superintendent Del Burns apparently has a lot to say about the school system in his new book "Preserving the Public in Public Schools."
But, as noted in today's article, Burns' new book isn't officially about Wake. Instead, he writes about the fictional Crestwich Public Schools, which is Wake in all but name.
The book talks about Crestwich/Wake's merger, adoption of magnet schools, busing for diversity, student reassignment, the impact of a new majority sweeping into office and a lot of other things.
Here are some examples:
Burns on magnet schools: "To maintain the draw and special appeal of magnet programs, the district prohibited non-magnet schools from duplicating special programs and offerings found in magnet schools. This created perceptions of unequal treatment. Parents and students in non-magnet schools wanted the opportunities available in magnet schools, but without the cost of having to leave their assigned school."
Burns on district schools vs. neighborhood schools: "Although some school board members issued frequent public reminders that Crestwich schools were district schools and not neighborhood or municipal schools, most residents identified with their neighborhood first, their municipality second, and their school district third.
...'Freedom from' inconvenience and instability became a rallying point for a growing number of residents who found it burdensome to be part of a consolidated school system that emphasized collective responsibility for public education. Part of that collective responsibility meant being willing to populate schools to help achieve district-wide goals."
Burns on the three-year student assignment plan: "The new three-year plan meant that for the first time in decades parents, students, school board members and staff would be able to take a break from the much-dreaded annual reassignment.
...But the effort to create some breathing room in the scheduled process of populating schools was unsuccessful as far as parents were concerned. Apparently, knowing you child would attend a different school in three years was little better than knowing such a change would occur next year."
Burns on mandatory year-round schools: "[Multi-track year-round schools] had become a source of great contention among many Crestwich families. They would become a focal point for supporters of neighborhood schools and parental choice. In retrospect, the financial costs that were avoided by expanding year-round schools were not worth the political and social costs of mandating them."
Burns on the Wake Wednesdays/Wacky Wednesdays: "Mere months before the school board election, the board of education implemented early student release on Wednesdays to provide teachers with additional planning and collaboration time to address student learning needs. Adopted by the board with the best of intentions as a strategy to improve instruction in the face of inadequate funding, it became the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back."
Burns on voter turnout in the 2009 elections: "In an off-year election, voter turnout was even lower than predicted. And with only four of the nine districts involved in the election, many voters were unable to weigh in on the change of direction at stake in this election. The four new board members were elected by seven percent of the total registered voters in their districts. 'The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy' wrote Montesquieu.
Touting the majority of votes they received from a minority of voters, each newly-elected member declared they had won a mandate from the people. Like water receding from the shore, the first signs of the imminent arrival of the tsunami were revealed."
Burns on the board eliminating the diversity policy: “In Crestwich, the question in front of the public is how should the district balance the collective responsibility of educating all children with the rights and responsibilities of individual families and neighborhoods for educating their children? It’s not a very big leap to conclude that most citizens would answer that the district should keep some elements of the current policy of being responsible for the education of all children and adopt the best of the new policy for creating individual family and neighborhood responsibility.
That’s not what happened. Instead the new board majority struck the word ‘diversity’ from its policy documents. For all intents and purposes, such a policy never existed. Virtually every public high school student reads a book about a society in which words and history are being constantly revised in accord with the current political philosophy. Fortunately for the residents of Crestwich, that book is only fiction."
Reaction to the book varies.
“It’s an important book,” said Richard Kahlenberg, senior education fellow for The Century Foundation, a progressive thinktank in D.C. “Wake County is a national story and the book helps explain why school integration is important from the perspective of a leader who courageously resigned when a conservative majority came in and he refused to segregate the school system.”
“I wouldn’t expect anything less from a former employee who is bitter, who was replaced by a quality leader like Superintendent (Tony) Tata, and who wrote a bitter fictional book,” said school board member John Tedesco.
Comments
I will work hard for Tedesco's opponent
Tue, 12/27/2011 - 13:15 — tartexanI hope someone steps up soon and gives an indication they will run against that little twit Tedesco. I look forward to working hard to send him packing. No surprise he hasn't read the book and I would not expect him to read anything not approved by Art Pope.
Have you ever worked with
Thu, 12/29/2011 - 12:18 — jenmanHave you ever worked with Tedesco or spoken with him? Or is your opinion coming from Hill? JT has faults but he's illuminated some very real problems in WCPSS that frankly, nobody has wanted to discuss. He might not have all the answers but at least he got people talking about them.
The only reason JT has
Thu, 12/29/2011 - 15:14 — virginiadareThe only reason JT has "illuminated" any problems in WCPSS was to try to demonize the system and bring it down. Most of his rhetoric, both during his campaign and since, has been uninformed, just as his comments about a book he hasn't read. Actually every single issue he brought up was highlighted in the curriculum audit and was being worked on by completing the action steps that were recommended. Most people have no clue what was being done, and the new board members at that time didn't even try to find out before throwing the system into chaos. I believe more progress would have been made, and faster, without JT's help.
People had been trying to
Thu, 12/29/2011 - 20:16 — jenmanPeople had been trying to address math placement for several years before and were running up against brick walls. It never would have been addressed if it weren't for Tedesco. Burns and Hill were perfectly happy to ignore it. Frankly, I don't think they saw it as a problem.
Math Placement
Thu, 12/29/2011 - 20:50 — Solon77The math placement debate is missing the bigger point - that is why is the high school track predicated on whether or not one has Algebra I in 8th grade ? Why does one need 8th grade Algebra I to be on track for Biology as a Freshman ? Yes it is appalling students who were ready were not afforded the opportunity and it was not just minority or ED students. But Algebra I as a Freshman in HS should not be the end of the world - this is the real issue that has not been addressed.
I agree that it wasn't only
Thu, 12/29/2011 - 21:32 — jenmanI agree that it wasn't only low income and minority students who were erroneously placed in the lower math track. I also agree that Alg I in 9th grade shouldn't be the end of world. To me, however, placement is the most important issue because it indicates a larger problem in the system. If it's happening in math, you know it's happening across all subjects. It affects so much more than just math and science classes. We are shortchanging these kids and ourselves and we're putting up unnecessary obstacles for kids to be successful.
I hope I am wrong but I really don't feel like Hill thinks this is an important issue to address. I think that Hill sees the use of EVAAS tools to place kids as an insult to teachers. Yet a teacher friend of mine views it differently. She said, "If there's something that I'm not seeing in a student I need to know so I can figure out why." We discussed how even two different teachers can have different experiences with a kid and one teacher may really connect and the other might not for whatever reason. Teachers are human and fallible, just like the rest of us. I wish Hill would look at the math placement/EVAAS issue from my friend's point of view instead of viewing it as an affront.
I think you're right
Fri, 12/30/2011 - 17:05 — lferreriThis is not just an issue about math placement but about placement in any class or program that has different tracks. In addition, I have heard that there is now tracking within classrooms. Students are given different material and even different tests even though they are supposedly taking and are receiving credit for the same class. I'm not talking about giving some students supplemental work but instead about dramatic differences in the expectations for the students.
Exactly how do you propose
Fri, 12/30/2011 - 20:13 — RWTExactly how do you propose that a teacher differentiate if not by providing different materials and tests? How can she bring up to speed a third grader who has not mastered first grade math concepts if not by providing the child with remedial math materials in addition to the third grade math? And what is she supposed to do with third graders who mastered third grade math back in first or second grade and require enrichment and acceleration? And then there are all the third graders who just need third grade math... You want to tie her hands and say, no, everybody only gets third grade math?
Look, I am in the classroom three times a week, twice to help with remediation and once to help with the accelerated kids. You have NO IDEA how hard teachers have to work to get ALL their kids to make AT LEAST one year's growth in 10 months. And most teachers don't have volunteers like me who can help. I expect you to march right over to your favorite school and PITCH IN instead of plotting to hobble teachers' attempts to differentiate for their students.
Teaching
Sat, 12/31/2011 - 10:43 — lferreriI have taught for twenty five years, and I know exactly how difficult it is to work with students who are behind in a subject. As I said, I am not talking about giving some extra material to students who need enrichment. I am also not talking about giving additional material to bring students up to grade level, an effective measure which I frequently use. I am talking about classes in which the basic curriculum is different for different students. Students cannot learn what they are not taught. If some students are not being exposed to the same curriculum as others or are being tested in different, less comprehensive ways, then I believe they are likely to fall further behind. I am also skeptical about how decisions are being made about who gets the reduced curriculum. As mentioned above, the math placement issue has uncovered the sometimes questionable results of subjective placement.
lferreri -- question
Sat, 12/31/2011 - 14:28 — Bob_SconceHow do you feel about "upside down" teaching a la the Kahn Academy, where kids listen to the lectures on their own time and then do the work in class, with the teacher monitoring and, basically, giving only one-on-one instruction as students need it? Because students individuall proceed at their own rates, invaribly some students will "fall behind" others.
My concern is that if we focus on the gap between high- and low- achievers, then the high-achievers won't be proceeding as fast as they could.
I think it is generally referred to as class(room) flipping
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 00:17 — nmoskalHave you watched the Khan video where he explains the methodology?
Saying some will "fall behind" others is simplistic. It assumes people have the same learning curve for every topic and that everyone's learning curve is the same, but that is not the case. The Khan video explains that concept well.
The elementary school I attended used a similar concept except that the lectures were in-class, but brief (this was back before the technology for out of class lectures). Much of the time was spent working independently (individual, partners or small-group) with materials that reinforced the lecture concepts (and they were more creative than a bunch of worksheets). Then you would spend some time with the teacher going over what you'd done with the teacher asking thought-provoking questions (why did you put the items in that order, how did you solve that, what led you to solve it that way, how else could you have solved it, etc.). All students were exposed to the same materials. We all had the same tasks (think of it as a "to do" list) and knew what we were expected to do. However, we weren't expected to all work through each task at the same pace as everyone else nor was it expected that we would each approach each task the same way. If you think about it that is similar to how much of the work world functions. Personally, I thought it worked well and I never got the impression that students weren't proceeding as they should. I learned a lot of key skills through that process that stayed with me through the rest of my education and career.
Not sure
Sat, 12/31/2011 - 16:04 — lferreriI've taught college students so while some aspects of teaching younger students are familiar (like trying to catch students up who are behind since my courses are sequential), others are different. Years ago I taught using a method that is similar to some of the current ideas being promoted. My lectures were taped and sent to students. (This was a long time ago so they were sent by snail mail.) It was the only possible way for these students to take the classes because they lived so far away. They could watch the lectures at their convenience and also use the tape to find out how they had done on their homework then return the tapes when they were finished. The students and I found this a cumbersome way to learn. They missed interacting with other students about the material and also found the time gap between viewing the lectures and getting answers to their questions to be a problem. (They could call me--no email then--but there was usually a gap before I could respond. Sometimes it was difficult for them to go on until they got an answer.) I missed being able to see when they were puzzled and getting enough understanding of their way of learning and personal background to be able to explain in ways that would make sense to particular students. (I did have students in the classroom where the videos were being made so that helped.) Of course, they had no choice so they put up with this method of getting their degree. However, I don't think they (or I) would have preferred it over an actual classroom.
I am much less concerned than most people about the high-achievers. In my experience, it has always been easy to provide additional enrichment to students who are capable of delving into some topic in more depth. I think we often emphasize the pace of learning as opposed to the depth and are concerned about high-achievers not moving at a faster pace through new topics. But I would actually prefer to see high-achievers focus more on their depth of understanding than on covering more topics. As for low-achieving students, I am concerned that so many seem to have no exposure at all to numerous topics, a situation that creates great difficulties for them later in their education. From my personal experience, too many schools seem to be skipping important knowledge and skill areas with too many students. That actually applies to average achievers too.
the common core standard
Fri, 12/30/2011 - 20:30 — snordonewas required by RttT because we have to stop the tracking or tiering of our educational system. We don't have differentiation, we have tracking.
If you read the education literature what we've done is track children low and then test them on material they have never been exposed to - they clearly can't be proficient in subject matter if they have never seen it before. The cumulative effect over years is a 9th grader who is working on a 5th grade level. I too have spent a lot of time volunteering in the classroom, my hope is that we adopt the common core standard and implement it with fidelity so that all children are exposed to the same rigorous curriculum. I have seen the difference and it is curriculum (look at spelling words for example). The only difference should be pace of learning, not curriculum.
When given an effective teacher in a well run school, children can do amazing things. If the majority of kids in your school are not showing AT LEAST 1 year of academic growth then your school has a problem - it is definitely not the kids. You can put those same children in a classroom at Bugg or York or Baileywick and they will make that years worth of growth and then some.
some other thoughts
Sat, 12/31/2011 - 08:01 — snordonefor whatever reason this was the first thing I thought of this morning... If we are really going to embrace the common core standard then we are going to have to have an open-ended school year. If a child needs more time on task to learn the common core material then we need to provide those extended days during the year. If a child still needs more time after EOGs because they are not proficient, then the school year can't end for them. They can take a 2 week break and then go to summer school, and these summer classes should be taught by those teachers who get the most growth from level I & II children. In my mind this is the only way to make this work. Otherwise we resort to tracking - dumbed down material that children "master" even though it never leads to proficiency on the EOG. Eventually all children will be up to speed, probably before ES ends. There may be some bumps in the road in MS for some children. But committing to proficiency on the same standard core curriculum is our only way out of our current problem.
Opinion coming form Hill
Thu, 12/29/2011 - 14:00 — Solon77You know better. JT's behaviors are well known courtesy of JT himself. He doesn't need any help from Hill or anyone else. JT has grabbed on a couple of items that were well on their way to being addressed and has played it for all it is worth. I would say that his divisiveness has caused more harm than good as we should be further along in the areas of student assignment, achievement, school funding, to name a few.
refresh your memory
Sat, 12/31/2011 - 08:51 — snordoneReread the SAS response from 2009. Remember that we were deeply committed to using the effectiveness index that normalized achievement based on SES status and SES of the school. Remember that Del, Kevin and Chuck suppressed the information from the SAS response and only released it after a public document request from the N&O. What John did was fight like hell to stop the demographic profiling of children, expose the school-to-prison pipeline and demand equity in educational opportunity. We have to give him credit for this. He and I don't agree on student assignment most of the time, I don't share his political views, but he is THE champion of educational equity in Wake. Jim Martin accused John of doing all this because he "wants a feather in his cap." That is absolutely not why he did any of this, he honestly and truly believes that all children - irrespective of race and income - are equally capable and valuable. And every time he learned of a new aspect of what the district was doing to ED children it disturbed him to his core. He is young and brash and unfiltered and at times, angry. He makes mistakes. But he has a very rare quality in a politician - he genuinely cares.
Memory
Sat, 12/31/2011 - 19:10 — Solon77I have read the SAS response. While you and others claim a major conspiracy by the central office, the SAS authors were a little more forgiving.
The authors of this report in no way would suggest that the processes and practices that create
the inequity are intentional on the part of WCPSS educators, but given the data available, it is
most unlikely for them to recognize the conditions that exist in certain schools. However, it is
believed that WCPPS leadership would implement plans to rectify the inequities of opportunity
which presently exists for too many WCPPS students when more reliable information is utilized.
I also refer you to page 15 of the SAS report where Wake County is compared to other NC districts. The information provides data on the % of students ready for Algebra I but not placed.
White Black Hispanic White/Black Gap
Chapel Hill 10 30 ------ 20
Charlotte 20 50 40 30
Durham 25 40 60 15
Guilford 10 15 20 5
Wake 40 60 60 20
The white/black gap of 20 as seen in Wake is no different than Chapel Hill and better than Charlotte. Are you suggesting that Gorman in Charlotte was conspiring to keep Black students out of Algebra I ?
Expose the school to prison pipeline - there is a national trend to re-evaluate the no tolerance policies. The jury is still out as to whether putting these kids back in the classroom is a good thing. My daughter reports major disruptions in some of her classes and thankfully my son was able to change some of his classes.
As a people we are always innovating and finding better ways to do something. What I do not care for is JT demonizing all that he does not agree with and you will not see him admit a mistake.
Effectiveness Index
Mon, 01/02/2012 - 02:15 — klanders65The Effectiveness Index is why Wake is so much higher all around for kids not in algebra when they are prepared for it. The poor white kids do not get into algebra in Wake due to Effectiveness Index and the diversity policy and the magnet practices.
Magnets too
Mon, 01/02/2012 - 16:23 — Solon77I see you couldn't resist throwing in the diversity policy (really diversity policy on placement) and the magnets. It seems to me that teacher judgment is the most significant factor. Otherwise how do you explain why affluent schools in Apex have a lower Algebra I ready placement than say Ligon (magnet) or West Millbrook or Carroll (high ED) ? Your obsession to place blame on the diversity policy, EI and magnets only undermines your credibility.
With regards to Wake versus Charlotte or Chapel Hill - what placement methods do they use ? I ask because the Gap between Whites and Blacks/Hispanics at Wake is the same or better. Charlotte for example has a worse differential and yet they have neighborhood schools and no diversity policy.
According to the SAS website, EVAAS is used by districts in 13 states. It is important to note that SAS can make this claim even if one school district of say 3,000 students in that state uses the tool. The point being that the EVAAS tool is not widely used and school districts across the country use a variety of methods in placement of students.
Let's say EVAAS was deployed in a school district and as a result it identified opportunities for students. Would you accuse that school administration of deliberately trying to suppress students ? The writers of the SAS report were careful not to accuse the administration of such actions. While the reasons are speculation on my part, my guess is 1. Dynamics are similar or better than districts such as Charlotte and Chapel Hill. 2. At the school level some schools have high minority and ed placement. 3. Ready NED students in affluent areas were not placed and 4. Placement decisions are made at the teacher/school level and not driven by the Central Office.
The JT approach - make accusations of incompetence, cover up, deliberate discrimination and once finished raking over the coals demand deliberate action doesn't work anymore. Even Jack Welch would agree that the methods he used 20 years ago will not work today.
I remember the comments from
Sun, 01/01/2012 - 13:04 — jenmanI remember the comments from SAS. I forget who the author was, I know his name but it has escaped me right now. It did not surprise me at all that he was very careful in his comments about WCPSS. There's a relationship there that must be preserved.
I'm not saying that SAS or the author believe it was a 'major conspiracy' by Central Office, as you put it. Just pointing out that you have to take into account the business politics involved here. What he can say publicly may be different from what he personally thinks.
First of all, NO ONE
Sat, 12/31/2011 - 10:07 — virginiadareFirst of all, NO ONE "suppressed" anything. Second, Kevin and Chuck, who was head of growth management, had absolutely nothing to do with any of it. (Didn't you say you never lie? I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are simply misinformed. Repeating misinformation does not make it true.) Perhaps you mean Holtzcomb? He is the one who wrote the original paper that SAS was responding to, and the one that Burns sent the response to for a reply. This was a disagreement between statisticians. Solon is correct that steps were already being taken to address the concerns with math placement. EVAAS was already being phased in. EVAAS has been mired in controversy for years nationally, and they were right to take the time to be sure it was to be used properly. Currently districts and states who are beginning to use EVAAS for teacher evaluation are adding in many of the exact same elements used by the EI. Otherwise teachers could be punished for having the most difficult students to teach in high poverty, often under-resourced, schools and rewarded for having the easiest, found in affluent schools, which has nothing to do with how well they are teaching. (Just like the letter to the editor this morning from the teacher who said everyone knew how to get a bonus, simply move to a hgh-performing school. It had nothing to do with how well the teacher was doing.) You, as well as other so-called reformers, continue to blame the educators for factors beyond their control, impediments caused by poverty. The whole math placement issue was politicized a couple of days before the 2009 election by those who used it to demonize the system and wanted to obfuscate the fact that their main goal was to relegate disadvantaged students to very high poverty schools in their own neighborhoods.
Disagreement between statisticians
Mon, 01/02/2012 - 02:26 — klanders65This was a disagreement between statisticians.
Are you saying that SAS, a world class statistics company, with world class statistician Bill Sanders differing with David Holdzkom, the high school English teacher who is not qualified to teach middle school math-- is a disagreement between statisticians? David Holdzkom is a statistician?
Why did Wake never have outside statisticians review EI? A statistician is a real thing. David Holdzkom is not one. He is qualified to teach English.
Get a politically neutral statistician to look at EI and compare to EVAAS.
EVAAS was not being phased in. It was prohibited from use. David Holdzkom, the English teacher, prohibited its use. Only principals who defied him and paid for that, used it.
Math placement was not dealt with then or now.
My main point is that you should not insult statisticians by presuming Bill Sanders and David Holdzkom are equally statisticians. Or that SAS and WCPSS E&R are equally qualified to analyze statistical data. I know people defend Holdzkom, saying that SAS wants to use it's statistical expertise to make things not work. How would that buisness plan have gotten them where they are? How does that make sense?
Virginia, you're talking
Sun, 01/01/2012 - 13:36 — jenmanVirginia, you're talking about 2 different things here, actually 3.
First, when you talk about other districts implementing EVAAS, are you talking about EVAAS itself or another program? I ask because I remember that once, a long while ago, you mentioned problems with EVAAS and provided a link to a story. I read the story but it didn't mention EVAAS by name. I'm not saying that your concerns aren't valid, just wanting to make sure that we are talking about the same components of these evaluation programs.
Second, this EVAAS debate was centered on math placement, not teacher evaluation. I agree that there are many issues with teacher evaluation--it's not cut and dried. But that isn't what this use of EVAAS is about. It is about a tool that can help teachers identify students who are ready for the advanced math track. I don't think I have ever heard Hill acknowledge that there was a problem with math placement. I can understand some of his concerns with using a program to determine placement, but I cannot remember ever hearing him admit that we've had problems in that area. We can all disagree on the causes & the solution, but there is no doubt in my mind that high achieving students (of all races & SES levels) were wrongly placed in the lower track. Admitting that doesn't demonize teachers, it only points out a weakness in the system that can absolutely be corrected.
Third, you mentioned other districts where they have added elements of our EI to their evaluation programs. How were they evaluating their teachers? I do not know all of the ins and outs of EVAAS, but one thing I really like about the program is that we can measure growth. That puts schools and teachers on a much more level playing field. Can East Millbrook Middle School match Davis Drive Middle when it comes to overall test scores? No, and I don't expect them to. If the teachers at EMMMS are getting a larger percentage of students who are already scoring below grade level, then I don't expect those teachers to miraculously get 95% of them to passing level. I do believe, however, that those teachers and students can show the same amount of growth as any other school.
I think this is a great tool and a great way to add an additional measurement of teacher and student success. As a parent, it tells me much more than overall test scores do. I found it quite interesting during the campaign to talk to teachers about EVAAS. In particular, 2 officers of NCAE. Both very nice people who I don't have any negative beliefs or feelings about. Anyway, neither one of them knew much about EVAAS and both readily admitted such to me. I was floored. In particular, one didn't know much about the math placement issue and how EVAAS was being used to place students. Another one didn't know about measuring growth vs just using test scores themselves to determine performance.
I think there's been a lot of rhetoric and fear spread about EVAAS and similar tools. So much so that some are unwilling to accept anything about it.
Discussion re: use of EVAAS and poverty
Mon, 01/02/2012 - 16:59 — virginiadareHere is a good discussion on whether value-added models of evaluation should account for poverty. I believe it also offers a good argument for balancing schools and classrooms. It is definitely referring to EVAAS as it includes comments from William Sanders himself.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/should-value-added-models-account-for-poverty/2011/11/23/gIQAhwaotN_blog.html
BTW, I believe the Answer Sheet blog is an excellent source for information and discussions regarding education issues.
Statistical models
Mon, 01/02/2012 - 17:39 — lferreriI am not a statistician but the argument in this article that the inclusion of three years of data removes the need to include demographics makes sense to me. If a student has performed well for three years, any possible demographic effects would seem not to apply to this student, and it makes sense to exclude them from the model.
From a moral standpoint, I would need to see strong evidence that inclusion of demographic data greatly improves the statistical significance of the model before I would feel comfortable including it. In Dallas, gender is included in their predictive models. I find this unconscionable, and I think a lot of parents would agree that, unless there is strong evidence that the past performance of girls and boys does not indicate the same likelihood of future performance, gender should not be included. (I haven't seen any evidence that indicates this is the case.) I feel the same way about poverty, race, ethnicity, special education status, etc. Unless it can be demonstrated that inclusion greatly improves the accuracy of the model's prediction, I see no justification for it. (I say this from a moral perspective, but I believe that many statisticians would agree on a mathematical basis as well.)
To put this in plain terms, I would be angry as a parent if I were told that, yes, my daughter had performed well on the EOGs in math for the past three years but, because she is a girl, we are adjusting her predicted performance downward. I would be equally angry if the word "minority" or "ED" or "SWD" were substituted for "girl".
Just throwing this out
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 10:40 — MariagerwinJust throwing this out there: what would you do if you had a girl, qualified and put in Algebra I (IV on 7th grade EOG, straight "A's) and then the class was made extreemly difficult, little to no help offered just to weed out students, get them to drop down to Math 8 Plus. The majority of these students were honor roll kids and girls. Female counselor and female Algebra teacher involved. Yes I know and have been told this is a school problem. Honestly I am dumbfounded by the above. Yes I have talked and had meetings and talked and e-mailed and had meetings and talked. I'm angry.
Personal opinion
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 11:19 — lferreriI teach accounting and, at some institutions, it is used as a "weed out" course. I have strong personal reservations about doing this. I have no problem with students discovering that business requires a lot of math and is a difficult major. Some students see this and decide that it is not the right major for them and that's okay with me. But deliberately constructing the course to eliminate large numbers of students (I know of one school where the final was constructed in such a way as to ensure that half of the students failed) does not sit right with me.
In your particular situation, the only thing I can think to do is to band together with other parents to complain. Sometimes I think numbers matter, but I also know that sometimes they do not. I assume that you have tried to approach the principal. Could you approach someone above that level? One of the complaints in the curriculum audit was that our system involves too much "site-based management" where schools are given freedom to do what they want. When a school is not responsive to parents' concerns, it shows the weakness in this kind of approach in my opinion. I guess you and the other parents could also consider getting tutoring. The problem I see with that is it's unfair (after all, this isn't a problem where a child is being taught but is struggling) and, if the school is determined to weed out students, it might not matter whether students have mastered the material. On the other hand, it might give your daughter encouragement to believe that she can do well in math which is important too.
Do you think the course is being designed to discourage girls (since you mention gender) or is it being done this way because the teacher and counselor believe that too many students have been placed in this class? (Or some other reason?) I don't blame you for being angry. This is the kind of situation that gives teaching (my lifelong career) a bad name.
I have talked with other
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 11:48 — MariagerwinI have talked with other parents. When my daughter was in Algebra she had a tutor and my husband who is an EE and Computer software code writer(GREAT in math). Yes I have talked with the principal. I believe the counselor and teacher do not agree with putting all kids in Algebra with a 70% or better EVAAS predictability score. (From the Math Chair I found out my daughter had a 97.7% EVAAS score) I blame the couselor more than the current teacher, as the counselor has been around many years. This is the first year teaching in Wake County for this teacher, not her first year teaching.
My daughter has always done well in math, always A's always above her level. Yes she has struggled at times, but with good help, the light bulb went off and away she went. Math has always been her favorite subject. Not any more. I'm looking forward to 8th grade being over. It has been a very difficult year. What she perseves as failure + 13years old + hormones = crushed self-esteem and confidence. It has been a long road back and we are just on the first incline.
I don't know if girls are intentionally being targeted. But as it was explained to me by a very helpful past math teacher, girls are pleasers, girls care more, girls can be more easily swayed/influenced, therefore girls are easier targets.
Was your daughter originally
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 12:11 — jenmanWas your daughter originally placed in the lower math track but moved up when they moved to EVAAS?
Do you think they are trying to weed out your daughter or are they trying to weed out other kids and your daughter is caught up in the middle of it?
My daughter was originally
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 12:24 — MariagerwinMy daughter was originally placed in Algebra I. She went throught the first 9 weeks and then after a meeting with the teacher, counselor, daughter, myself and my husband; a phone call to the principal, we moved her down to Math 8 Plus. She ended up with a "D" in Algebra I. She has "A's" in Math 8 Plus, just as she did in 7th grade math.
I think they are weeding out whomever they can weed out and my daughter was caught in the weeding out.
Course name
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 12:32 — lferreriThe course I was thinking of is called Algebra Plus. I looked on the WCPSS web site, and it appears that the stated criteria require that a student have taken 8th grade Algebra in order to be placed in this class. But it may be worth a try. Right now, things are in a state of flux because of the Core Curriculum, the math placement issue, and situations like the one your daughter faces. So maybe there will be some flexibility in the way they apply the criteria next year. I certainly hope this doesn't mean that your daughter will not have a chance to take advanced math and science in high school if she wants to do that. That would be a shame.
My daughter was originally
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 12:24 — MariagerwinMy daughter was originally placed in Algebra I. She went throught the first 9 weeks and then after a meeting with the teacher, counselor, daughter, myself and my husband; a phone call to the principal, we moved her down to Math 8 Plus. She ended up with a "D" in Algebra I. She has "A's" in Math 8 Plus, just as she did in 7th grade math.
I think they are weeding out whomever they can weed out and my daughter was caught in the weeding out.
Weeding out
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 22:03 — Solon77My daughter has not experienced as you described. However, Algebra I in MS is tough. My daughter's Algebra I teacher would give homework assignments before the material was covered in class and graded the homework and included it in the overall grade.
You indicate your daughter has a D in Algebra I - was it homework, tests or both ? For the last two years there has been a push for rigor and accountability, to raise the bar - is there something that indicates your daughter is be unfairly treated as compared to other students ?
I'm sorry
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 12:05 — lferreriThis sounds like a nightmare. I hate the fact that one bad experience can turn a student off a subject for an extended period of time. It's unconscionable to me that backlash against EVAAS placement should be allowed to hurt students. (No matter how the counselor and teacher feel about the placement method, it isn't fair to take it out on the students.) The name escapes me at the moment but I believe that there is a 9th grade Algebra course (maybe Algebra Plus--I will try to dig up the name) that still leads to students being allowed to take advanced math and science courses in high school. Although I have heard that this class usually is comprised of students who were placed in 8th grade Algebra but did not do well, maybe you could lobby to get your daughter a placement when she gets to high school. It is really sad that a student with her abilities should not be taking advanced courses. It is useless to institute STEM schools and advocate for students to consider math and science majors if we then don't properly treat students with gifts in these fields. Besides, we need them in this country.
Depending on what high
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 12:27 — MariagerwinDepending on what high school we get in, another ball of wax in my opinion, I intend to speak with whomever I need to speak with on the Math subject. Even with all she has been through she still wishes and hopes to take advanced math in high school.
Thank you for your kind comments.
Depending on what high
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 12:27 — MariagerwinDepending on what high school we get in, another ball of wax in my opinion, I intend to speak with whomever I need to speak with on the Math subject. Even with all she has been through she still wishes and hopes to take advanced math in high school.
Thank you for your kind comments.
Oy...
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 11:56 — Bob_SconceI'd write a letter to the school board and Superintendent -- they're more likely to see it if it's written on paper and mailed to them rather than sent via e-mail, just because they presumably get far fewer letters than emails.
Why them? Because, by your description, it appears that you have soembody who is deliberately trying to game the system to disprove the EVAAS placement scheme: "Oh, you think that you know better than teachers about who should be placed? Well, we're going to prove you wrong."
For note-comparing purposes, do you mind identifying the school? I also have a daughter who is very strong in math and don't want her to be crushed by somebody with a political agenda.
Weeeelllll I haven't written
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 12:38 — MariagerwinWeeeelllll I haven't written a paper letter, but I have sent e-mails to the superintendent and all members of the school board. I have corresponded back to those members who showed an interest in my comments. Of those 3 members who showed interest, I had very good dialogue. I have made a fool of myself and spoken at the last two board meetings where math placement was on the agenda.
"Because by your description, it appears that you have soembody who is deliberately trying to game the system to disprove the EVAAS placement scheme: "Oh, you think that you know better than teachers about who should be placed? Well, we're going to prove you wrong.""
Yes the above quote is what I believe. Proving it is another matter.
mariaerwin at earthlink dot net no spaces
If you would like to e-mail me, I am happy to provide the school information. I don't feel comfortable doing so on a public forum.
One more thought
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 12:46 — lferreriWhat happens if a student takes Algebra 1 outside the system? I am really just thinking out loud but I wonder if your daughter could take the class during the summer somewhere and then be placed on the higher track in high school. I have heard that some parents are doing this in middle school and, ordinarily, I don't think it's a good idea to try to push students too far ahead. But your daughter's situation doesn't involve extra acceleration, just acceleration that's appropriate for her. Maybe someone else on this blog is familiar with how classes are taken outside the system and how that is treated in Wake County.
I don't know the answer to
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 12:56 — MariagerwinI don't know the answer to this but it is a great idea and something that I will definately look into.
Again, Thank you.
Ok....
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 11:11 — Bob_SconceAt most middle schools, there should be more than one 8th grade Algebra class. I would compare notes with parents whose kids are in your daughter's class and in the other classes and see what their experience is. Is it mainly your daughter, or are all kids struggling in that class?
If it really appears that the class is deliberately being made unreasonably difficult, then I'd be in the office of the Principal and Area Superintendent.
Simultaneously, I'd be working with my daugher at home on Algebra and possibly getting her a tutor. (It's important to have it taught by somebody who really understands the material; if you don't get it yourself, your teaching may just confuse her.) She's going to get hard classes in the future and learning how to work through that situation is good experience.
From what I understand the
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 11:54 — MariagerwinFrom what I understand the majority of students who have this teacher are struggling.
We did get a tutor for my daughter, tutor said she knows the material, made some careless mistakes and needs to slow down.
She can handle hard, doesn't like it, but figures it out and goes. What she didn't and doesn't understand is the unfairness.
And trust me I will not be the one tutoring in Algebra. Once I finished with it way back when I never thought I would have to see it again, much less talk about it or advocate for it.
Option
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 22:13 — Solon77If you believe the tutor is correct in his/her assessment, then one option is to stick it out in Algebra I with a D and then take the EOC. If your daughter scores well on the EOC, the D doesn't really matter and you can use the EOC score as leverage to get your daughter placed in Geometry next year and stay on the high track.
With regards to unfair - you haven't elaborated on what is unfair
That's what gets me too.
Mon, 01/02/2012 - 17:53 — jenmanThat's what gets me too. We are talking about three years worth of data showing a student's performance. Why on earth would we dumb down the expectation because they are poor? Being poor didn't affect their performance the past 3 years, why would it now?
Talking about the same thing ?
Mon, 01/02/2012 - 22:24 — Solon77The article was about using value aded model to determine teacher and school effectiveness and not placement of any individual student. I have this kind of battle constantly with my sales team. The sales team has a sales quota, but not all sales are the same. Some products have high margins and some have low margins. A salesperson who makes his quota with low margin sales is that good or not ? What about the salesperson who misses his quota but sold all high margin products - is that good or not. So the sales team is incented on a weighting of sales and margin. So the question in evaluating teachers and schools - is the simplistic accumulation of scores reflective of effectiveness or are there other variables that either aid or hinder a teacher's performance that need to be taken into consideration ? Those are the questions that need to be answered.
Accumulation of scores
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 00:48 — nmoskalWhatever is impacting a student, any student, should ALREADY be reflected in that student's score. Therefore, if you start adjusting their scores for whatever factor you are "double-dipping."
Why is there this expectation that a student who has scored at Level IV on three EOG tests would suddenly only score at Level III or Level II just because they are receiving FRL?
There's a correlation between single-parent households and achievement. How about we find all the NED kids whose parents are divorced and discount their predicted scores? Clearly, they are at risk and do not have adequate parental support at home. Those NED kids of divorced parents suffer so much instability often being shuffled between mom and dad. They shouldn't be in the higher level classes either as they might fail, so let's put them in remedial classes and place them in drop-out prevention programs. They can wait for Algebra in 9th grade. We shouldn't push them too hard. Also, teachers shouldn't be expected to do as well with NED kids whose parents are divorced as with NED kids whose parents aren't divorced. That's not fair to teachers. They can't be expected to make up for all the instability and lack of parental support, not to mention emotional baggage, of NED kids whose parents are divorced.
How do you suppose that concept would go over?
Evaluating education isn't like evaluating sales
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 00:19 — lferreriThe whole point is that all models like this are based on predicting the performance of individual students. The only alternative is to evaluate teachers and schools while ignoring student characteristics. That's how it was done for a long time with some schools and teachers receiving accolades for high scores without regard to the nature of the student body and others being criticized for low scores again with no consideration of the students. I think most people agree that this is unfair. The question is what characteristics of the students should be used to predict future performance as a benchmark against which to judge teachers and schools and as a way to determine placement in advanced courses and programs.
In my opinion, the only fair basis for predicting future performance is past achievement. The article discusses the argument that, with at least three past scores, valid predictions can be made without adjustment for demographics. That makes sense to me. One high (or low) score can be a fluke but three scores is likely to accurately reflect the true achievement level of the student. Adjusting these predictions for demographics like poverty, disabilities, race, ethnicity, gender or other factors would have to be supported by strong research indicating that these adjustments are necessary to significantly increase the predictive power of the model. I don't think this has been done. Otherwise, I think the adjustments are not only unnecessary but unfair and in some cases possibly illegal.
I don't see how the issue of the methods used to generate predictions for evaluation of teachers and schools can be separated from the use of predictions for placement and expectations for students. They have to be the same predictions. (I can't imagine us generating one set of predictions for placement and a different set for evaluations.) If we tell schools, teachers, and even parents that previously high-achieving students are not likely to continue their high achievement because they are poor or girls or members of a minority or have a disability or are members of a particular ethnic group, this can have an impact on how students are treated and how they perceive themselves. If we include these demographics in our predictions, high-achieving students in these groups may also be kept out of advanced courses and programs. Ironically, this would be based on false assumptions because the research cited indicates that past achievement is actually highly predictive of future success.
Yes, I am making several
Mon, 01/02/2012 - 08:20 — virginiadareYes, I am making several different but related arguments (as Bob and lferrari also pointed out below).
I don't remember the specific link you mention or whether it was the same EVAAS or just a generic value-add program. And yes, using EVAAS to evaluate teachers and to make placement decisions are two different things. I believe EVAAS can be a very useful tool in both of those areas. What I object to is using it as the sole metric for high stakes decision-making. It is a computer program that can't take into consideration many other human variables, which is why some districts have been adding in other elements for teacher evaluation, in particular, and why teacher expertise should also be used in determining math placement.
What has been particularly upsetting to me is the way the math placement issue has been policized and used to, yes, demonize educators in the system. They have been portrayed as prejudiced, incompetent, and uncaring. I don't know anyone, including Hill, who has not said there was a problem with placement that needed to be addressed. Several parts of the curriculum audit pointed out things that needed to be corrected, including inconsistencies between schools and individual students in math placement, and steps WERE being taken (including to begin using EVAAS though not as the sole criteria) before critics seized the issue to use in the campaign. I still believe the issue was hijacked to defend against the charge that those who wanted to go to neighborhood schools were not concerned about the disadvantaged students who would be relegated to very high poverty schools.
I disagree that schools with high numbers of disadvantaged students can meet the same levels of growth as schools with students not having to deal with impediments to learning caused by poverty, such as lack of support at home. There are many reasons they are behind, and those reasons can slow growth. I'm not at all saying they can't learn, but it more than likely will not be at the same pace as more advantaged students. Yes, teachers should be held accountable, but not for things they can't control. (And I wouldn't really find it very surprising that some teachers, particularly those not involved with math students at the middle levels, would not be familiar with EVAAS.)
So what do you think prejudice means?
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 02:42 — nmoskal"I'm not at all saying they can't learn, but it more than likely will not be at the same pace as more advantaged students."
You would simply have seen me as an ED student and prejudge that I likely would not learn at the same pace as more advantaged students without knowing any facts about me other than that I qualified for FRL? Then, you get offended when people suggest that some people have prejudices about ED students or the existence of a soft bigotry of low expectations?
I, and other ED kids I knew, spent time in MS and HS classes waiting for many of the more advantaged kids to catch up. What was their problem?
I can't really imagine what life would have been like for me with the above philosophy having a direct influence over my life, but none of the visualizations are positive. In fact they are pretty scary - a) automatic lower expectations which directly leads to b) less rigorous instruction, no honors classes, no 8th grade Algebra, no AP Calc, no highly-respected college, no academic scholarships, no grad school, no well-paying career... Why do people want lowered expectations for ED kids, which limits them from having the kind of chances I had to become advantaged? I don't understand. Do they not realize how a) often ends with b)?
The Coleman report that you often mention is considered controversial. It is one of the roots of "deficit" theory, which is controversial because it results in lower expectations that become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Before people go down the "there are always exceptions" road, which is what deficit theorists fall back on whenever someone questions the theory - the system where I was educated had either never heard of, or rejected, the Coleman report and deficit theory, which meant that system was an "exception" to many education and "deficit theory" trends since the mid-60s. The cases of success in educating ED kids that I've looked into lead back to the asset (versus deficit) theory. If anyone has cases of ED students where the education system focused first and foremost on their deficits and didn't expect the ED students to have as much academic growth as NED students. However, those ED students went on to grad school and successful, professional careers and are now among the advantaged, I'd be interested in hearing about them.
I don't have time to respond
Mon, 01/02/2012 - 12:42 — jenmanI don't have time to respond in full right now, but I wanted to say that I'm also not surprised that teachers may not know a lot about EVAAS. I was referring to two officers of NCAE. With EVAAS being such a hot topic recently, I would expect them to know something about it. Also, I spoke with one of the officers (person A) directly after our NCAE endorsement interview (Kevin and I were there). I mentioned EVAAS during the interview/question session. While I was speaking with Person A afterwards, Kevin was speaking with the other (Person B) and I could overhear him talking about EVAAS with a negative tone in his voice. I couldn't hear the conversation itself, but he definitely wasn't speaking favorably of it. I spoke with Person B about 2 or 3 months later when this person didn't know about EVAAS. I know from others that Hill has been lobbying against using EVAAS so it concerns me that the NCAE officer isn't informed.