Wake County's new middle school math placement policy is getting some major revisions before it's voted on today by the school board.
The revised policy says that "placement criteria must be used when establishing course options for all students." But at the same time, it also removes language from the prior version that had prevented teachers from using professional judgment to place students in lower-level math courses than indicated by EVAAS.
Whether the placement criteria will trump teacher judgment or vice versa remains to be seen. I haven't gotten back a response to the question I posed to the school system on Monday.
Let's back track to November, when the members of the then-Democratic minority balked at using a 70 percent EVAAS probability of success as the floor for placement.
The Democratic members also objected to wording in that policy saying that "teacher professional judgment should only be used to determine if a student should be placed in a higher lass than suggested by available data." They argued it tied the hands of teachers who felt students weren't ready for harder courses.
When Republican board member Deborah Prickett raised her own concerns, it was enough to get the policy tabled.
Since the vote that was tabled in November was a second reading, today's vote is also a second reading meaning it would be adopted today if approved.
Let's jump to today with the new Democratic majority on the board.
In addition to removing the wording about teacher judgment, the revised policy no longer says that both the principal and the area superintendent need to review and approve requests from parents to change their child to a less difficult math course. The revised policy says only the principal needs to be involved.
The revised policy also drops wording about individual circumstances being considered for placing a student in a higher level course who hasn't taken the prerequisite classes.
Also look today for some speakers to say that the new criteria makes it too hard for students to get into the top track that would allow for two years acceleration in middle school.
UPDATE
Based on the changes since the last version, it's been changed from a second reading to a first reading tonight.
Comments
This could be almost any of
Sat, 02/11/2012 - 12:59 — klanders65This could be almost any of them.
I sent this letter to the
Tue, 02/07/2012 - 13:36 — RWTI sent this letter to the school board today:
Dear (school board member)
I am writing today about the proposed math placement policy which is under consideration today. I am concerned that the proposed placement policy, as written today, will exclude many capable, talented, hard-working students from accessing the two-year accelerated math track simply because they did not meet the so-called objective criterion of scoring at or above the 98th percentile on standardized tests.
Allow me to offer a personal anecdote. My sixth-grade son is currently taking pre-algebra, making A grades, and loving it. He is flourishing in the class despite being excluded from the 5th/6th grade compacted math class that was offered at his elementary school during 2010-11. I believe that his case illustrates the value of retaining teacher and parent recommendations for acceleration in middle school math.
The SBCGE at his elementary school decided to exclude my son based solely on test scores: on one of the three scores considered, he scored "only" in the 97th percentile. On the other two tests, he scored at or above the 98th percentile. The decision to exclude him was made over the protests of his fourth- and fifth-grade classroom teachers and his parents.
We appealed to the AIG teacher and to the principal, and we were denied with the statement that they "had to have a cut-off score," with the implication that the class had to be kept small in order to be successful. Fortunately, my son had an excellent classroom teacher who was able to provide him with superb differentiation and take him through 6th grade math.
The test-based criteria will exclude hard-working, talented students from being accelerated two years in math. It is patently unfair to establish an arbitrary cut-off score and to eliminate subjective criteria such as teacher and parent recommendations, the quality of schoolwork, and in-school math placement tests. What about the motivated students who may score "only" in the 95th percentile? Is Wake County really going to deny them the chance to be challenged and to excel? Why would Wake County so severely limit participation in the top track? Next year, every middle school should offer at least one period of compacted Common Core Math 6/7
What ES was this? I need
Wed, 02/08/2012 - 13:43 — jenandjonWhat ES was this? I need to avoid this ES like the plague.