The efforts to increase minority and overall student enrollment in Wake County's Algebra I middle school classes will be under the microscope in more ways than one today.
School board vice chairman John Tedesco, head of the economically disadvantaged student performance task force, said today's special meeting will look at the draft policy on increasing Algebra I enrollment. He said he's also expecting detailed school-by-school placement data for 2011-12, along with information on what's being done to increase enrollment among students identified by EVAAS as being Algebra I ready.
In addition, Tedesco said a writer from the Huffington Post plans to attend today's meeting. The liberal web site has run several articles critical of the new school board majority, including this story on Monday.
The meeting starts at 4:30 p.m. at Brentwood Elementary School, 3426 Ingram Road in North Raleigh.
UPDATE
Click here to view the meeting agenda. Tedesco is being interviewed by the Huffington Post writer. Her presence got WRAL to attend today's meeting.
I will have a much more detailed post, including the handouts from the meeting, later. But for now here's the online story from the meeting.
Comments
I have only this to say
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 16:04 — VillageMentalityEither Mr. Tedesco is stupid or he is a person with enough CHARACTER willing to ALLOW/entertain other differing viewpoints - to attend board meetings to see what they are trying to accomplish.
In this case, the lowlife HP who have done nothing but attack Tedesco et al and try to disredit them are attending a board meeting. They ask to do this before they started writing crap that has now come back to haunt them?
I prefer to think the latter. Gotta hand it to him. I think he has done more than ANY other BOARD member to reach out to folks.
Let's wait and see
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 16:12 — LongtimeLurkerMy understanding is that the HP has been invited to this meeting by what you might call liberals to see the error of their ways and observe that opportunity and equality are resulting from the changes in Wake. Let's wait and see whether that will happen. We have to leave the path to middle ground open.
Absolutely! I am all for
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 16:40 — VillageMentalityAbsolutely! I am all for middle of the road.....
Whoops
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 22:37 — LongtimeLurkerWhoops, scrub that. I spoke to someone who spoke to the reporter. Apparently the HP doesn't want to hear any evidence contrary to their storyline.
"expecting detailed school-by-school placement data"
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 13:37 — LongtimeLurkerAnd what exactly is it that has changed? Now and suddenly we can determine this information for the first time? This is the information the head of E&R could never ever seem to come up with during all of last year without losing thousands of children. And he did not even pretend to have any answers about this coming year as of two weeks ago.
Sounds like we know it now. What changed?
The rumors are flying off the walls around here.
yes indeed, what changed?
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 13:47 — AngelaWyes indeed, what changed? or who changed?
Wait until tomorrow
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 14:09 — KeungHui (author)Wait until tomorrow
blog post planned huh? :)
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 14:11 — AngelaWblog post planned about him/her huh? :)
Blog post and story.
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 14:39 — KeungHui (author)Blog post and story.
okey dokey, can't wait!
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 14:43 — AngelaWokey dokey, can't wait!
Rewind
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 12:36 — SDR256Someone needs to hand them the SAS report. Let's see what they make of the former system - you know, the one the voters voted to remove - labeling kids as unable to take advanced classes even when they tested to show they could do it. Level 4 kids in remedial math - Level 1. Why? Because the former system used 'predictors' like economic status and race to place kids in advanced classes. So, if your kid was brilliant, tested at Level 4 but was minority they would most likely be in remedial math - not just a level down in Level 3, mind you...but in LEVEL 1.
I forget the exact data, but it was extreme. Something like 85% of Level 4 tested African American males were in remedial math. Imagine the frustration.
And that is the system that the NAACP is defending.
To my mind, that is the story - the scandal that the media totally ignored. But you know, it doesn't follow the popular tune that national politics loves everyone dancing to. Its kinda hard for folks like the Huffington Post to even understand, its such a foreign concept maybe.
Its a fantasy to believe that there will be any crow eaten or even admission that there might be another side to this story, but delving into this topic in a responsible way might just give them pause.
Someone hand them the SAS report!
Well...let's see. Here's
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 13:57 — shearertwWell...let's see. Here's the story in a nut shell.
Conservative, Tea Party type leads effort to help ED students by providing an OPPORTUNITY rather than a HAND OUT.
The liberal media ain't gonna touch that...not now.
"or even admission that there might be another side"
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 13:46 — LongtimeLurkerActually, that is exactly what I expect to happen next. That, but, as you say, no crow eaten.
Nevertheless, this is still further proof that the ground is shifting and middle ground is emerging again.
Only a few people are stupid enough to think they can claim that massively opening up equal opportunity and sending minority and low income students' scores shooting up is just some kind of stunt. Just the same, we will be hearing from those few also.
Pulling for the middle ground
Fri, 08/19/2011 - 17:50 — SDR256Keep pulling for the middle ground, LL. The middle ground has no organized voice. Both sets of wolves want to eat the sheep. The little border collies have to echo back to each other "danger, danger!"
I'd like to think of the
Fri, 08/19/2011 - 22:19 — VillageMentalityI'd like to think of the middle ground as the voice of reason, The middle ground decides the races, they break the tie but do so with the big picture in mind. Sometimes the middle ground moves right or left depending upon the issue. I much prefer this than a one-sided ideology out of touch with reality or unwilling to compromise.
So, it appears "middle
Fri, 08/19/2011 - 20:31 — woodstockSo, it appears "middle ground" is the new WSCA buzz word of the day. LOL! Good luck with that.
The middle usually sits on its rear end and waits for the right or left to initiate action. On the left you have Rev. Barber, CCCAAC, GSIW and that whole cast of status quo, let's-go-back-in-time chracters. On the right you have people doing the work, making a difference, and orchestrating the family-friendly, achievement focused change you claim to seek. Which side are you going to draw support from to empower your "middle?" The middle alone cannot accomplish anything.
rewriting history
Fri, 08/19/2011 - 23:06 — SDR256Uh, sorry woodstock. I know you and others would like to rewrite history but in fact it was the middle ground - MY words, no programming here - that won the election in 2009. You want to rewrite history, the far right wants to rewrite history, and the left now with MSNBC wants to rewrite history.
Yes, I guess you're right the middle usually waits. We have two bad choices - the right that is too extreme and the left that is too extreme. Correct, there is no organized middle. I think that's what I like about it. That is what was such an incredible surprise in 2009 to the 'organized' political entities.
Ha ha ha ha!
The middle took action and WON.
ROFLMAO
You can ignore and belittle the middle all you want. It doesn't mean we don't exist.
Is the BOE majority the "far
Sat, 08/20/2011 - 14:58 — woodstockIs the BOE majority the "far right." Is Margiotta, a candidate you claim to endorse, in the "middle?" Your logic seems flawed. I don't see anyone in the middle leading the way.
All the positive change I see in Wake Schools is coming form the right... while the left opposes change at every turn.
Left right and middle
Mon, 08/22/2011 - 21:53 — SDR256You see only left and right. Interesting.
My point was that it was a mix of very centric voters who put their faith in the candidates that were voted in.
What's funny is that this ED
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 09:01 — shearertwWhat's funny is that this ED task force headed by Tedesco has done more for ED students in 1 year than the former BOEs did in 2 decades. Let's see how the HP tries to spin it.
By trying to create...
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 09:21 — bpuli9999high poverty schools? Try tempering sycophancy by using facts.
Nice hyperbole.
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 09:55 — shearertwNice hyperbole. They’re trying to create family friendly school assignments (which most parents, including ED parents, support). No one has ever tried to create a “high poverty school”.
try again
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 09:30 — AngelaWfact......the push to increase enrollment among students identified by EVAAS as being Algebra I ready
You know, I'm in no mood to
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 09:40 — danofncYou know, I'm in no mood to debate the Algebra I thing, because obviously kids who deserve to be in 8th grade Algebra I should be.
But, isn't the cut-off of 70% basically saying that some of those kids saying that a kid has a 70% chance of doing well in the class? Personally, I'm not sure that's a high enough number for everyone to be so outraged.
Common Confusion about critical issue
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 10:24 — JTedescoDan,
This is a common mistake about a very critical matter; tone that the mainstream media has not done of good job of clarifying for the general public. The 70 number is a EVAAS predictor score. When a child passes that 70 predictor score the child has a 94% (maybe slightly off) probability of success in Algebra I (regardless if they were screened out with the pre-requisite Pre-Algebra course).
Why is this so critical? Middle school math - Algebra I - is the gate keeper course to our tracking system and the starting block for the rest of a child's curriculum pathway through out their academic career. Analogy - It is the train station where you get on a train to Chicago or New York and where you end up is based on where you get on. The pathways are so aligned that it is nearly impossible for a child to change tracks on a moving train.
A track heading towards advanced placement will end up with a greater chance of graduation and will have the course work to compete and be eligible for most colleges. A track heading towards an academic life of remediation has a greater chance of drop-out and if a child does graduate they are not usually prepared or even eligible with the course load to compete for most colleges.
Now we are speaking of thousands and thousands of kids who were eligible and capable but due to institutional biases in our systems and human pre-conditioning were perceived less capable because of the color of their skin or the money in their parents pockets. These are kids who need to be challenged not dumbed down. When placed appropriately and supported they had a 90-98% success rate at various schools like E. Garner, WF-Rolesville, and West Millbrook.
When we give all these kids a fair opportunity - they succeed - we all succeed - all scores go up. The rising tide lifts all boats. This initiative, program equity, and an early literacy initiative will be the linch-pin to great academic success for the whole district.
90-98% success rate
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 11:30 — garnergradIs that success rate the EOC pass rate?
Kids who are not allowed to enroll in Geometry until they take Algebra Plus (an elective that does not count toward fulfilling HS math requirements) to "reinforce" their algebra skills (i.e. remediation) are still part of the 98% success rate, right? How many successful kids are taking algebra again when they get to high school? It's strange to me to say a kid is successful because he passed the EOC but he still didn't learn enough algebra so he has to take it again. We just call it Algebra Plus because kids are not allowed to repeat Algebra.
Algebra Plus
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 12:15 — LongtimeLurkerThe only reason 9th grade Algebra Plus EXISTS in the first place is to act as a safety net for the underperforming and underqualified kids who were being placed into 8th grade Algebra when they probably could not make it specifically because it was the gateway to opportunity. When THOSE kids failed 8th grade Algebra they (AND ONLY THEY!) got a second chance to stay high tracked by taking Algebra Plus in high school.
We have to acknowledge that second chance was extended to them for the very same reason they were getting into the Gateway in the first place. These kids were seen as "valuable" in spite of their inability to perform. These kids are alwayts going to get inside tracks in life. But the school system doesn't have to help them (or does it?).
EVAAS showed plenty of kids being placed in 8th grade Alegbra that were below the 70% line. The reason we still allow teacher recommendations to move kids up is that there is no real way to stop schools from putting THESE kids in (and for the same reasons as before). That's fine. But now they have to compete against higher scoring kids on a level playing field. And, of course, they will still have Algebra Plus to bail them out afterwards.
Interesting question....
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 11:51 — Bob_SconceThe students who were tracked-up last year are going to be in 9th grade starting next week. The district should find out what math class they're heading for. Probably not a bad idea to see how they do in those math classes this year also.
Hmm, I'm trying to remember
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 12:06 — DrActualFactualHmm, I'm trying to remember the rules the MS teacher used when making recommendations after Algebra 1; I think you had to have all A's and a 92 avg. in order to be recommended to move up to the next higher math class (Geometry or Algebra 2 depending on HS). The students that got a B in 1 quarter (B+, C, D) etc. were all in the same boat and recommended to repeat the math under a different course title. My kids moved up but I assume some of the parents may have tried to get waivers for their kids. I can't imagine anything more boring than being a higher-achieving student and retaking the class.
With that explanation, I
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 10:52 — danofncWith that explanation, I feel better about it. Thanks for a lot.
All the talk of "70%" threw me off. If EVAAS just gives a score, and a score >70 means you have a good shot at success, that's a different situation.
I agree
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 11:15 — Athey01I did not realize how the 70% work. I wonder if others were confused as well.
I fully support Mr Tedesco on his work with the ED committee.... I don't think it would have been done without his consistent message.
Last year
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 10:23 — lferreriThe results for last year's EOC are now available. We will apparently get the report today that will tell us about compliance at each school. However, we can already tell from the EOC results that a lot of schools increased their 8th grade Algebra enrollments significantly, many by more than 50% and a few by more than 100%. With the increased enrollments, the passing rates on the EOC were excellent with 28 middle schools having more than 95% of their students pass. (Results greater than 95% are not given for privacy reasons so the best a school can do is ">95%".)
This is a similar result to that given out at the last ED Task Force meeting when we were told that enrollments went from 3322 to 5016 while the overall passing rate for the district in 8th grade Algebra was 94.62%.
You mean....
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 10:10 — Bob_SconceLet's say the cut-off were 25%. It would be silly for people to get angry that students who only had a 1-in-4 chance of succeeding were not getting in. What if it were 33%? Same thing, only a 1-in 3 chance. 50%? 70%? . . .
If the cut off were 25%
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 23:18 — Solon77Would it be silly for people to get angry ? To the extent that parents and politicians evaluate a school performance based on the test scores. Allowing more students with a lower probability will result in an overall decline in test scores - parents will then deem school's performance as not so good and politicians will be quick to point any decline in overall test scores as a failure of policy.
So...
Fri, 08/19/2011 - 10:38 — Bob_SconceI understand your point and actually agree with it -- we picked an arbitrary number that might be a bit too low, and then get upset when the number isn't actually used as a cut-off.
However, it appears that we both misunderstood the 70% statistic. And, as SDR256 points out below, there is a lot more to it. It's absolutely criminal to put any student who scored at a level 4 into remedial math for the following year. It's worse to do so based, apparantly, on their skin color.
Cutoff
Fri, 08/19/2011 - 11:08 — lferreriWhile I agree with you that the cutoff could have been set at a different level, I don't think the selection of 70% was arbitrary. When SAS did their research, they found that students with a 70% or above prediction had a very high pass rate. They based their results on statewide data from actual students so the results had a strong statistical basis. I believe that Wake County based their cutoff on this research.
If you look at placement data
Fri, 08/19/2011 - 08:14 — nmoskalIf you look at placement data back when placement was purely subjective, there were students below the 70% that were in the higher classes, but they were White and Asian so people just figured they belonged there. Where was the squawking then about lower probability students or "we shouldn't push kids too fast"??? Why are these discussions suddenly coming up now that the kids are Black, Hispanic and/or ED?
The Black, Hispanic and ED kids being placed now do not have a lower probability. We are talking about kids that have had the same probability as those who were placed before(actually in some cases higher based on the above), but due to biases, they were not appropriately placed.
It's absolutely stunning to
Fri, 08/19/2011 - 08:33 — shearertwIt's absolutely stunning to watch the former busing for diversity supporters try and argue against this first, real success in Wake Co. for increasing educational opportunity to ED students. I'm just stunned. It's also clear that all they tend to worry about is what will happen to the school's test scores. I think that confirms all they were really worried about to begin with was school test scores, not improving ED achievement.
I'm not stunned - it actually makes twisted sense
Fri, 08/19/2011 - 21:56 — nmoskalThere are certainly those people with an "ED students are less capable"/culture of low expectations mentality that support the former assignment policy. That policy labeled ED as "higher needs," which fits with "at risk," which fits with the deficit model of education, which fits with the assumption that those kids are less capable, which fits with them subjectively not being placed in higher math tracks (not to mention given remedial services even though they were on or above grade level, improperly placed into drop-out prevention, etc.)
I think the diversity folks
Fri, 08/19/2011 - 12:26 — VillageMentalityI think the diversity folks are more worried about the fact that their "award-winning" policies were in-fact a fallacy and they cannot defend what has been done.
Splitting hairs
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 23:58 — SDR256Think about the fact that in 2009 it became known that 85% of African American male students who had tested at Level 4 were in remedial math. Not a step lower, not Level 3, but REMEDIAL.
So, this hair splitting about at what level (70%?) a group may or may not enter Algebra I see as a HUGE HUGE win. At least they're not saying that they are black and/or economically disadvantaged and cannot learn.
I'm happy to see that we may have gotten to the place where we can quibble about the lines of data in the sand. As long as everyone is on the same playing field. (!)
huh?
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 09:53 — AngelaWhuh?
This is from
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 10:20 — danofncThis is from barbarastakeonwake.blogspot.com:
The 2010 placement guidelines state that teacher recommendation or the EVAAS (Education Value Added Assessment System) prediction is used to place students in advanced math classes. EVAAS uses no demographic information in the formulation of its predictions. They are calculated solely on individual student achievement as measured by standardized tests. The WCPSS guideline states that students who have a 70% probability of proficiency should be placed in more advanced classes unless a compelling reason is documented.
What I am saying is that, IMO, the real argument in the 8th grade Algebra debate should be centered around whether or not that 70% probability is the right number. Is that number just arbitrary? Where did it come from? Is a kid better off to be in Algebra I and struggling to stay afloat or would they be better off in a lesser math class where they can do better and have more confidence?
If I were going to clamor for "more data", the data I'd like to see would be the performance of kids in the class, listed by their EVAAS probability score.
SAS Report
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 10:27 — lferreriThe SAS report has this exact data broken down by EVAAS prediction. It is statewide data, but I see no reason why their results would not be applicable to Wake County.
...
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 09:56 — SideburnsYeah, I had the same reaction.