What's the best way to help students at high-poverty schools?
There are two models Wake can use at its Title I schools, which receive federal funding because of their high percentage of low-income students. You can either target the resources specifically at failing students or you can work with the whole school.
Guess which one the school district is urging schools to follow?
The issue of whether targeted assistance or schoolwide programs is better is being studied by the school board's student achievement committee.
At a committee meeting last week, administrators laid out why they feel schoolwide programs are better.
In a schoolwide program, schools can pool Title I money with other funds to serve all the students. At least 40 percent of the students must be F&R for a school to use this option instead of targeted assistance.
In targeted assistance, the money follows the students who have been identified as failing or most at risk of failing. It can't be used on other students.
While he said he hopes it's not a reason why schools choose schoolwide, Asst. Supt. David Holdzkom told board members that it can make it easier to pass No Child Left Behind. A Title I school under a schoolwide program can take advantage of some statistical formulas to make AYP that aren't available if it's using targeted assistance.
At least some school board members seemed to feel that schoolwide trumps targeted assistance.
"I don’t see why any schools would not go schoolwide," said board member Eleanor Goettee.
Board member Lori Millberg said a schoolwide program will help all the students at a school.
Now staff will try to statistically determine which model is seeing better results in Wake. A report is expected back in October from Holdzkom's shop.
Click here for a handout from last week's meeting.
Comments
After reading some of the
Tue, 09/08/2009 - 17:34 — dryeraseuserAfter reading some of the posts below...do you wonder why schools are in the shape that they are in. Do you wonder why teachers are so tired and at their witts end??? There are too many chiefs and not enough indians...or we can say...there's too many hands in the cookie jar. Schools have rivers of and rivers of mandates, rules, regualation, etc. from the Federal, State and Local Government. The left hand has no idea what the right hand is doing. No one can make sense of anything..really when you get down to it. However each year, there's more and more and more "mess" shuffled across my desk and I wonder "Why can't I just teach?" They are robbing me of valuable brain power with all of the mess and this unfortunately causes the children to get the raw end of the deal.
I have not had such a hard
Tue, 09/08/2009 - 19:35 — klanders65I have not had such a hard time following any blog as I am this one. Usually people disagree about things, but it seems here they are disagreeing about the subject of the blog. Is the question not whether schools should loot the Title 1 money by making it school-wide, or use it for targeted services?
I am in favor of looting the Title 1 funds because it is so much money, and targeted services generally target the wrong students and this harms them--like is pointed out in the Hodge Road SES Report.
The only question is, can you really use the Title 1 funds for any kids at all? or just for kids who you think are at risk of failing, even if they do not receive free lunch. I don't know the answer to that question. Does anyone know the answer to this question?
I don't feel like this question causes me any more work or keeps me from teaching.
klanders65, If the Title
Wed, 09/09/2009 - 15:31 — Eric_Bklanders65,
If the Title I money is truly directed only to low income students for remedial services because they are assumed to be the ones at risk of failing, I have a big problem with that and agree that targeted services would hold back many kids.
If, on the other hand, EVAAS, EOG scores and teacher evaluations are all used hand-in-hand to identify in an objective manner the students that are truly most at risk of failing, then I think targeted services are most appropriate.
Based on EOG and EOC test scores and graduation rates, WCPSS does a poor job at educating low income students. The accountability provided by choosing targeted services is very important in my mind. The students being targeted must improve!
Schoolwide services seem to be a cop-out where WCPSS can play the same game as always with reassignments where low performing students will simply be swapped between schools to improve average school test scores and avoid sanctions under NCLB by failing AYP in the same subject 2 years in a row.
I don't know the answer to your question, but I would certainly hope that any kid at risk of failing, regardless of socioeconomic status would be eligible for targeted services in Title I schools. Based on this information:
http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA/Title_I/target.html
It appears that the criteria for targeted assistance must be educationally related. I don't see how whether a student receives free & reduced lunch can be construed as being "educationally related."
I know EVAAS and EOG scores
Wed, 09/09/2009 - 19:32 — klanders65I know EVAAS and EOG scores are not used. I looked at that web page you gave and found "eligible children are children who are failing or most at risk of failing..." then "certain children are considered at risk of failing...by virtue of their status:..."
In either a schoolwide or a targeted assistance program, all low-income students are eligible.
You may think any rational person would know that not all low income students are at risk of failing. But they didn't know that at Hodge Road. I know WCPSS has a lot of schools in this SES sanction now. Someone needs to look at who is served and how they are served. Don't ask. Look at the data. Are they still serving all F&R kids with remedial work?
We are #2
Tue, 09/08/2009 - 15:21 — user12345While this can not be tied back to WCPSS, Diversity or MYR, someone will probably still try ... the US fell a place in global competitiveness index ...
http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/Global%20Competitiveness%20Report/index.htm
http://www.weforum.org/pdf/GCR09/Report/Countries/United%20States.pdf
Fundamental Question
Sun, 09/06/2009 - 21:03 — klanders65According to this article and the handout, a school is Title 1 if 40% of the students are low income. After establishing that a school is Title 1, the services then have nothing to do with income.
There are two choices: 1. Provide services only to students who are failing or at risk of failing; 2. Provide services to anyone.
My understanding from the past has been that Title 1 schools had 2 choices: 1. Provide services to low income students only; 2. Provide services to any students who are failing or at risk of failing regardless of their income.
From this article, it looks as if Title 1 has changed. Can someone confirm this? It look like now if a school is Title 1 (40%+ low income), if they opt for school-wide, they can use the money for absolutely anything. They already could use for any students at risk of failing. Going school-wide they can then use the funds for students who are NOT failing. That is all there is—those who are failing and those who are not failing.
Can anyone answer:
When did Title 1 change to not have to be used for low income students, but rather to be used for failing/risk of failing students?
If you look at the Hodge Road report, they then offered remedial services to all low income and only to low income students. Most didn't need these services. This cost $300,000+. Many other schools have since had this sanction for not making AYP. Did they do anything differently? Or did they just put this report on the shelf and go on with business as usual and do this again at many more schools? What did they do? This could be millions. Does anyone know? Hui?
Chicago Study
Sun, 09/06/2009 - 16:06 — twoteachersChicago actually tried to provide housing in middle class areas for low-income students so they may live and attend school in the middle class area. There was no difference found in student achievement.
Do you have a reference for the study?
Sun, 09/06/2009 - 18:59 — TrailerParkGirlI'd be interested in looking at the study. Thanks.
Vouchers and Free Market Solutions
Sun, 09/06/2009 - 15:10 — kmisegadesThe obvious solution was not listed - give every child a $5,000/year voucher and private schools will pop up everywhere. Their class sizes are smaller (meaning more teacher jobs), academic achievement is higher, they are close to the kids' homes, and it will save our state 50% of our tax money now going to K-12 education, which would mean about 20% of the entire state budget. $5,000 is about the average annual tuition for private schools in the state, according to these new reports:
http://www.johnlocke.org/articles/display_story.html?id=5552
http://www.johnlocke.org/articles/display_story.html?id=5494
Don't like the sound of vouchers? Then you also must oppose the G.I. Bill, Smart Start and More by Four, all forms of voucher-funded education.
US consumers demand choice for nearly all our needs. Why do we accept the one-size-fits-all solution from a government?
lots of confusion
Sun, 09/06/2009 - 13:42 — klanders65There is lots of confusion regarding Title 1. Part of the confusion stems from so many people, including the feds, equating "most at risk of failing" with being on the free lunch list.
Take a look at the report, at http://www.wcpss.net/evaluation-research/reports/2006/0609ses_hodge_revised.pdf
Note how it says, "In 2005-06, four private agencies provided 252 Hodge Road students with supplemental educational services as one component of the federal NCLB. Only students receiving free or reduced-price lunch were eligible. More than half of those scored at or above grade level before service, while some students who scored below grade level were not eligible. The curricular materials used were remedial and not designed to extend the learning of students scoring at grade level...."
Title 1 is changing but it is too confusing for me to follow. We need someone to figure this out. Here is where we are coming from:
Title 1 has equated "most at risk of failing" with "on the free lunch list." It has been the case in the past that at targeted assistance schools, only students on the F&R lunch list could receive services. In schoolwide assistance schools, any student who needed services could receive them regardless of whether they were F&R or not. The Supplemental Educational Services did not allow any students other than F&R students to receive services, regardless of reading level. This is federal. If there is enough money, then the school must offer the services to ALL F&R kids. They cannot discourage parents from accepting the service (the feds feared they'd try to do that to save money.). This is regardless of the reading scores. The federal Title 1 laws at that time (and maybe now--I don't know) equated "failing or most at risk of failing" with not having lunch money. They are one in the same so you can use the terms interchangably at the federal level.
At the state level, these services provided for Supplemental Educational Services had to be state approved. The state only approved remedial curriculum. They were assuming that kids who are failing or most at risk of failing must need remedial services.
Title 1 is confused like this all over the place. WCPSS officially calls low income an "academic risk factor" as if being on the F&R lunch list makes kids "most at risk of failing."
You have to be very careful when you read about Title 1. At risk of failing usually means "on the f&r lunch list." I know you used to only be allowed to serve f&r students in targeted assistance schools but now I am hearing people say they can serve the students who are failing. But I am not sure they aren't confusing poor with failing.
It would take some investigative reporting (Hui? ) to figure out what they are talking about.
You ask why Title 1 materials are remedial. That is what is marketed. Title 1 teachers are trained to teach remedial work. The curriculum materials are marketed as being appropriate for students who can't afford lunch (not exactly, but practically).
The Title 1 system totally confuses lunch money for reading score. As far as I know, WCPSS equates the two also. So, you don't know what people are talking about. They could say "most at risk of failing" and they mean "doesn't have lunch money."
There is the added twist that now, schools are not supposed to use the F&R list for anything but lunch status. That must have thrown Title 1 into a tizzy. This may be why they are now saying they are not using it. I know for sure that some schools are guessing who is poor and trying to figure out who gets free lunch so that they can give these kids Title 1 services. This is how it has always been done. Other schools are looking at reading data for the first time, since they can't use the lunch list, and finding level 4 kids getting Title 1 remedial services because they were poor. It is a mess.
Not only is it a mess, but suddenly there is a lot more money in Title 1.
I am totally in favor of schoolwide Title 1. (Actually, I'd like to get rid of it all together, but if we have to have it...)
Even if Title 1 has changed so that students who are actually at risk of failing, instead of very good readers/successful in school-but poor-- people won't understand. Traditionally it has always meant poor. People are all confused. When it is targeted assistance, the wrong kids are very likely to be targeted.
When they do their research that they are going to post in Oct., keep in mind and look for whether they concretely separated lunch status from achievement levels or whether they use them interchangeably. (They didn't do this Hodge Road report themselves. They had an outside agency do it. They reference that work throughout. They may not have noticed lunch status was confused with achievement scores if they had done it themselves. If you read reports they do themselves, they often totally interchange lunch status with achievement data.)
You don't get it. Sorry. Let
Sat, 09/05/2009 - 23:45 — klanders65You don't get it. Sorry. Let me come up here and try to explain. You guys are all over the board. You've got cows all over the pasture here. Here is the issue and we need to get you folks who care focused and understanding:
1. Title 1 is remedial work. When it started in the 60s with the war on poverty, we thought poor kids were way behind and needed remedial stuff to catch up.
2. Title 1 doesn't fill in gaps or bring anyone up to speed. It is remedial work designed for kids who cannot do normal work. It does not take them any where. It holds them back.
3. Title 1 and the remedial work takes kids out of the mainstream (the poor kids) and gives them remedial instruction.
4. Poor kids in the US do worse than other students because they are pulled out of the mainstream and given remedial work.
Look on wcpss's E&R website of reports. Their own report for Hodge Road SES shows that they provided remedial services to all low income kids and turns out more than half didn't need it and this hurt them.
If we know who can't read, because we have given a reading test and know the scores, why would we use the free lunch list instead of the reading scores to decide who should be pulled out of class to get remedial work?
Poor people need to get that gifted but learning disabled thing that the wealthy kids have so that they can have gifted enriched material with extra support.
You guys are totally missing the point. Why would we provide remedial services to kids based on income? Providing remedial services to bright kids causes them to be so burned out and hate school by the time they get into user12345's wife's class that they won't do the work.
I had not been here in a while. I've been too busy with school starting. This is very interesting to me that you guys are not even responding to each other. You're all starting new posts. You're all talking about other things and not the topic.
The question is, should we take bright hardworking kids whose parents are currently in financial trouble out of the mainstream and give them remedial work that they already know how to do because they cannot afford lunch? We know for sure that this will condemn them to low achievement from here on out. The research has already been done. Or, should we use achievement scores to decide who should get help? Too bad the help is generally designed to keep kids where they are, and not move them forward.
We cannot use EVAAS for some unknown reason, even though it would tell us who needs help and what kind.
And they are going to do research? I don't think they know how. But what will they do when they find that half the Title 1 kids (or more) who are receiving services are fine and successful before the services, then the services harm them?
More later.
Title I Tutoring
Sun, 09/06/2009 - 13:17 — lferreriThe same thing struck me when I read this article. Why are there only two alternatives for providing help for the students? It seems logical that a third alternative should be available: providing help for all students who are experiencing difficulty regardless of their income level. Are the two alternatives the only ones allowed by the Federal government? The research study on the Hodge Road students (thanks for providing that reference in your earlier post) says that “the question of why all below grade-level students are not eligible for this service should be raised with state and federal officials” which seems to indicate that both bear responsibility.
That said, I also agree that there is a second issue about the efficacy of the services provided. It does not sound as if the tutoring provided to the Hodge Road students was effective. For one thing, the study indicates that only reading services were provided by two of the four tutoring groups. (The two tutoring groups that served 72% of the students did not provide math tutoring.) It makes no sense to provide reading services to students who need help with math. The study cites the Sylvan director as attributing this to “a Wake County Public School System (WCPSS) mandate”, but the researchers do not seem to have followed through to see if this was correct or if not, where the miscommunication occurred. Parents questioned this as the year progressed, but did not seem to receive an answer. Frankly, this is such a basic issue that is defies common sense to do what was done. The report also says that “lessons were not customized to student needs and materials were not aligned with what was taught in school.” But it also says, “providers told them that this was the curriculum approved for use by the Department of Public Instruction.” Again there does not seem to have been any follow-up to determine if this was true. These two factors alone could explain why the tutoring was not effective. And as you said, giving remedial work to students who are not struggling hurts them rather than helps them.
I have a question about the use of the Effectiveness Index rather than the EVAAS. I know that you said the teachers get the individual students’ scores on the Effectiveness Index. Do they receive them at the beginning of the year? I’ve been rereading a book called “Pygmalion in the Classroom” and I’m wondering about the effect of predicting students’ future performance on their subsequent actual performance. It sounds as if the EVAAS is an improvement although I think it has some problems also.
Questions need answered
Sun, 09/06/2009 - 15:38 — klanders65You have some very good points here. Someone needs to ask (Hui?) what happened after Hodge Road? Did they do this Supplemental Educational Services differently the next year? Many other schools have not met AYP and have had to have these services. What did they do differently? What are they doing now?
When did they stop using lunch status to define "most at risk of failing" and when did they start using anything other than remedial work for Title 1 (if they did). What are they doing when a school has the sanction and has to offer the SES tutoring? Do the feds still require that they offer it to students who get free lunch?
Hui, can you find out what changes they made after this report? Ask for evidence of changes. I haven't seen any.
And, what does it mean in the article when they say, "make it easier to pass NCLB"? And what is "...can take advantage of some statistical formulas that are available if..." What do these things mean and what do they have to do with getting the best education for students? It sounds like it is a way to trick the system statistically.
difference between evaas and ei
Sun, 09/06/2009 - 14:04 — klanders65A major huge difference between EVAAS and the Effectiveness Index is that the Effectiveness Index adjusts the predictions based on income level. They predict lower scores and less growth for lower income students. So, if two students start 5th grade exactly with exactly the same scores coming out of 4th grade, but one is low income, the Effectiveness Index would predict a lower score for the lower income student. (How he got the same score as a non-low-income student up to 4th grade is not questioned.) The EI has built in that we have lower expectations for lower income students. EVAAS does not have that. EVAAS would predict the same achievement for two similar students, and ignore their income levels. If somehow they did the same up until now, EVAAS expects them to do the same moving forward.
Your questions about how idiotic it is to give reading tutoring to kids who need math, and why give remedial work to level 4, etc.... This is how confusing Title 1 is. It makes sense to do these crazy things if you think poor kids are "at risk of failing." Any minute now, they may forget how to read. Note in that Hodge Road report on page 4 "Most of the stakeholders (providers, program staff, teachers, and parents) assumed served students were academically below grade level." The parents figure it because they assume the schools know what they are doing. The teachers assume that because the kids are poor, and receiving Title 1 services-which are remedial. Whey would we do that if they weren't below grade level? And WCPSS calls them "academically at risk." It is a confusing mess. But you can understand it if you understand they think poor means failing (or will start failing any minute.) Effectiveness Index reinforces that.
Why teach remedial reading instead of math? Because it is too hard to find people who can teach math. It is simple as that. Title 1 teachers are not always the sharpest tools in the shed. They hire people who can teach remedial stuff. Those people can't teach advanced things, and certainly can't teach math. And it is a huge system that is already in place.
Another thing about EVAAS and Pygmalion... right now so many minority and low income kids are being overlooked because they are either low income or thought to be low income. They are being tracked into low classes, and receiving these remedial title 1 services. Effectiveness Index shows that is fine because they end up doing just as bad as we predict those poor kids should do. EVAAS helps us find these kids and save them from this system. We can find kids who are predicted to succeed even though they are poor--or Black and thought to be poor because some people think Black = poor. The kids are suffering from the current system. EVAAS could help us get out of the current system. (which is probably why WCPSS won't use it.)
I agree
Sun, 09/06/2009 - 16:45 — lferreriI agree with you that EVAAS is much better than the Effectiveness Index. My concern with EVAAS mostly stems from my cynicism about the whole system, I guess. Even using past EOG scores to predict future scores worries me. (Why is it a point prediction and not a range?) EOG scores can be influenced by so many other factors (the child isn’t feeling well, the child is nervous, poor teaching, problems outside the school on test day, etc.). But once the teacher is given a predicted score, I can’t help feeling it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. In the early years, there are so few scores on which to base the predictions too, so they are easily affected by things other than the child’s ability. In working with college students, I’ve sometimes had access to information about them (SAT scores, EOC scores from high school, etc.). I’ve actually tried to avoid perusing that information so it doesn’t influence what I expect from any given student. A few times I’ve looked at the information after the student has finished my class and I’ve had some real surprises. Some students mature or develop an interest in the subject matter and do much better than any past scores would have predicted. I can imagine that’s even more likely with younger students. We are tracking kids at such an early age and based on what I consider such flimsy criteria that it really concerns me.
I read the paper you cited about middle school grades and the EOG scores. Frankly I’m surprised that low income and minority students were able to score at Level IV when I suspect the curriculum many of them received was probably below average.
What are Title I teachers?
You should be worried about
Sun, 09/06/2009 - 20:52 — klanders65You should be worried about using EOG scores to predict a future score the way the EI does it. They use one score to predict one score. EVAAS uses all previous scores and will not make a prediction without at least 3 scores. They are very different statistically. EVAAS is much more statistically valid. And they do predict a range.
It would be great if EVAAS would cause a self-fulfilling prophecy and cause teachers to expect what is predicted. EVAAS predicts that Level IV minority and low income students would succeed in advanced courses. But, given the confusion caused by Title 1 and the low expectations of the E.I. they get tracked in to the bottom standard courses.
We are tracking kids at an early age as you say, but not based on flimsy criteria. We are tracking based on NO criteria. If we had criteria, such as who is predicted to succeed based on past academic performance (and not one score but rather on many like EVAAS uses), we would probably increase the number of low income and minority students in advanced classes five fold.
As to your surprise that low income students score Level IV.... they do until we start limiting their opportunities by tracking them low, and pulling them from class for remedial services because they are poor, and providing remedial tutoring to them (which makes their parents and teachers believe they must need it). Eventually, we get most of them to the point where they are no longer Level IV but it takes awhile if they are really bright.
I was using the NCDPI guide
Sun, 09/06/2009 - 21:50 — lferreriI was using the NCDPI guide to the EVAAS as my source. On pages 24 and 25, it describes a sample student and makes a prediction that the student will score at the 28th percentile on the EOC. It’s at http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/evaas/guide/resourceguide.pdf. I hope I’m interpreting this incorrectly but that seems like a very specific prediction to me. I’d much rather if they gave a range like 25th to 35th percentile. At least it doesn’t have such an aura of scientific certainty.
I totally agree with you
Tue, 09/08/2009 - 16:58 — klanders65I totally agree that the kids get tracked before middle school and low expectations set in before EOGs are given. As a result, the students whose teachers skip chapters and who are held up to low expectations score lower once they take the EOG. Hodge Road is an elementary school and they were giving low income K-5th graders remedial work.
The thing is, you cannot convince people that low income kids should have opportunities and should be held to the same high standards. You can talk till you are blue in the face. You may as well talk to a wall.
However, some--in fact many--low income students come out of elementary school having learned plenty and scoring high on EOGs. Their EOG scores are ignored and they are placed into low track middle school classes even though they somehow managed to come out high scoring.
This is a place to start. We can start by identifying those low income and minority students who managed to emerge from elementary school with high achievement scores and allowing them to take advanced language arts and math in middle school. Right now, we do not. The high scoring low income and minority students are tracked into the low tracks and we put the nails in the coffin. After middle school they are on such a different track (the content is different in the two tracks--one is not slightly slower but the same--they are totally different content.)
Although you cannot convince people that low income and minority students who have not been tested would benefit from the same opportunities as other students, you should be able to demand that low income and minority students who have been tested and score as high or higher than white and upper income students should have the opportunity to take challenging courses.
I would rather we start in elementary schools but how would we do that? You have to have some objective evidence to that these students would succeed in the top track. I agree that many low income students score lower on the EOG because of being tracked in elementary school, and being given remedial work whether they need it or not. But right now, even those who score high coming out of elementary school get tracked low in middle school. I am just saying, lets start here. Lets start by tracking the Level IV low income kids into the top track.
EVAAS give the probability that they will score Level IV (or Level III, or whatever you set as parameters.) It doesn't predict a percentile. That 23% would be the probability that the student's score would fall into the range that you set for the report. For example, you could set the probability at 75% and range to be Level IV on math EOG and get a list of kids who have a 75% or higher probability of scoring Level IV on math EOG. Those are pretty good odds of scoring Level IV. The kids on that list going into 6th grade should be tracked into the top math track. Right now, the low income kids who are on that list are tracked into the bottom track. Creating and using this list would provide more opportunities for kids and would not hold anyone back. Not using the list holds kids back.
It is true (I mean in my and your opinion) that many kids would not be on that list because they got a lower quality education in elementary school. But I don't know what to do about that. If I did, I would be advocating for doing it just like I am advocating for finding the kids we have not yet totally ruined, and save them before we ruin them.
I see that we agree more
Wed, 09/09/2009 - 14:13 — lferreriThere isn't going to be any
Wed, 09/09/2009 - 19:56 — klanders65There isn't going to be any answer to the Hodge Road questions. I like your idea of parents having the EI scores and seeing that their kids are predicted to do worse than kids who start out exactly like them. I've always wondered what parents would think. You are right that SWD is adjusted down, as is low income.
I don't know what ADA is, but that is an interesting question. (I assume DA = Disabilities Act.) Someone would have to understand this first.
I have wondered about Civil Liberties, since low income and minority students are tracked low even when their scores are higher --as a rule. Not a few kids but thousands and thousands of them. Then they have no chance of taking 8th grade algebra or 8th grade advanced Language Arts. This means they cannot take any Honors or AP math (or science courses) at least (that is in the official handout on math paths). So, they cannot compete for class rank.
All I can figure is that people believe that low income and minority students really are not as capable and that is why they have lower class rank and score worse.
You ask, isn't NCLB supposed to fix this? No. NCLB makes them report the scores by subgroup so they can't hide the fact that they are not teaching low income and minority kids anything. They can't make a shell game out of moving them around and averaging in their scores. It just shines a light on what was already happening. That is why everyone hates NCLB. It is better to hide what we are doing.
Local groups? Nope. No one sees this happening. It is hidden in plane sight.
ADA
Wed, 09/09/2009 - 20:14 — lferreriYes, ADA is the Americans with Disabilities Act. It's pretty strict about not discriminating against people with disabilities, at least in the workplace. It comes up in college in the way that students with disabilties must be treated so there must be some educational applications too. The problem with defending the civil liberties of the F&R kids is that being poor isn't what they call a "suspect category" like race, ethnic origin or gender. So I'm guessing that they would have to first show that the schools are using low-income as a proxy for race and/or ethnic origin. But first parents and the general public would have to be aware that they are doing this.
I wish the newspaper or TV stations would do some investigative reporting on how dollars are being spent for the benefits that must be offered by schools that are not making AYP. Maybe shining a little light on practices like giving remedial work to those who don't need it and refusing help to those who do would result in some changes. At least the public would be aware of what is going on.
How and by whom is Title I assistance determined?
Sun, 09/06/2009 - 13:06 — TrailerParkGirlHere's where I'm left confused.
When I read about Title I on ed.gov, it talks about the program being to provide financial assistance to SEAs, LEAs and schools with high numbers or percentages of poor children to help ensure that all children meet challenging academic content and student acheivement standards.
So, how does it get from the goal of "meet challenging" to ending up as remedial work? Is it the federal government's idea that "meet challenging" = give remedial work, the state's idea, or a local idea?
Also, it says that in the targeted assistance programs the school identifies students who are failing or most at risk of failing to meet challenging standards and then they are supposed to design an instructional program to meet the needs of those students. It doesn't say anything about targeting all Title I (i.e. poor) students. Who determines how students are identified as failing or most at risk of failing - federal, state or local? It makes it sound like the determination is at the school level. Does this mean some schools (and/or districts) may use the F&R lunch list, but others use another method like a reading list (i.e. items that indicate which students are struggling academically)? For example, my home district does not consider students based on F&R status alone as "at risk." (As of a couple years ago the ED/NED gap in math was <10%)
In looking at Kevin Hill's letter again
Fri, 09/04/2009 - 18:41 — TrailerParkGirlI googled one of his references (Anyon 2005). Thought some might find this interesting: In Kevin Hill's letter as a justification for the policy here, he references that 'children in poverty transferring to middle class suburbs and schools improved academic success.' Couldn't find the exact wording in this review, but the review makes it sounds like the author, Jean Anyon is advocating for housing desegregation (i.e. transferring=moving, not busing), which would mean going to school within the same community (i.e. still get parental involvement option, stability, no long bus rides). To me, it's apples and oranges. "She maintains that ending school segregation requires housing policy reforms that include such provisions as providing affordable housing to working class families in middle class communities. Of course, as we all know, busing students of color from urban communities to middle class communities in the 1960s was not successful and met a number of setbacks and challenges." http://edrev.asu.edu/reviews/rev489.htm
this what individualized student instructions can do...
Fri, 09/04/2009 - 12:43 — AngelaWSeveral schools saw significant increases in average scores this year. Leesville Road High saw a 65 point gain with an average score of 1662 for 2009, compared with 1597 in 2008.
Principal Scott Lyons says last year the school implemented Pride Period, a 20 minute daily activity after first period. Lyons says for one day of the week students silently read a book of their choice and for three days they take part in tutoring sessions.
“Teachers assign students who need to strengthen their skills to Pride Period for peer tutoring,” said Lyons. “We believe this strengthens the skills for both students, the one offering help and the one seeking assistance.”
Lyons says with teachers directing students to assistance for specific learning objectives, students receive the individualized instruction they need and can get help over the course of the school year in different classes during Pride Period.
OT - Today's Front Page Article re: Exploris Middle School
Fri, 09/04/2009 - 11:22 — ExplorisMSParentKeung -- You and I have emailed several times back and forth about Exploris Middle School. I am on the road today and do not have your email address.
Please PLEASE tell me that you are going to write an article touting EMS's 10-year record as an Honor School or Honor School of Excellence and its many other accomplishments to counter Mr. Bracken's blatantly negative vitriol about the school's relocation.
The school is in fact moving today and, as such, its telephones are not working at the moment. However, you may contact Kevin Piacenza, Executive Director, at 821-3168 on Tuesday when the school officially opens at its new location.
To anyone unfamiliar with EMS's current location on Moore Square...it should be noted that there are many diverse businesses that call Moore Square home, including restaurants that serve alcohol (Tir Na Nogh, Duck & Dumpling, Remedy Diner, Raleigh Times Bar, etc.). Mr. Bracken is apparently not concerned about the proximity of those establishments to the school, nor the tremendous number of Raleigh's homeless population that live in Moore Square. None of these have presented a challenge to EMS, nor have they impacted the exceptional performance the school's students enjoy on EOGs, EOCs, etc.
This article is RIDICULOUS and completely uncalled for. Talk to Mr. Piacenza or Exploris's Board of Directors. Find out the REAL reasons why the school has been forced to relocate. Anyone with half a brain recognizes the obvious challenges of finding cost-effective real estate space in downtown Raleigh. Exploris's new building, previously home to Triangle Family Services, is GORGEOUS and has been completely retrofitted to serve the school's needs...and what I mean by that is our STUDENTS' NEEDS!!
the schoolwide approach is failing children
Fri, 09/04/2009 - 09:21 — snordoneI am working with a 17 year old who stopped going to school last year. His school is an excellent school. But not once was he targeted for intervention, not once did an intervention counselor approach him and try to get him reengaged in the system. There was never a learning plan put in place to help get him past his academic challenges. What did WCPSS do when he stopped going to school? They dropped his name from their records and washed their hands of a child that was not achieving. I have tried for 2 weeks to talk with central office staff about this boy's options, and no one has the time to return my call.
We need to decide as citizens whether we value ALL children or whether we are content to have a public school system that's motto is "survival of the fittest." Whether we want our schools to appear healthy or whether we want our students to be healthy.
WCPSS has wonderful student
Sat, 09/05/2009 - 23:26 — klanders65WCPSS has wonderful student support services. Call central office and ask to talk to someone in CASS (counseling and support services). Everyone there will be helpful. Those folks are located in Cary.
....
Fri, 09/04/2009 - 09:30 — SideburnsWhen asked about raising the dropout age, a WCPSS staff member explained that it is not worth the financial commitment and effort to keep students in school past 16 years old if they want to drop out. And (not in so many words... but) WCPSS is happy to have them become someone else's problem.
My wife had a number of
Fri, 09/04/2009 - 10:22 — user12345My wife had a number of 17-18 year old in her 9th grade English class which were taking the class for the 3nd time. They miss as much school as they can and sleep through the EOCs. Trying to keep these kids in school is fruitless and disruptive. They either need vocational training, military or fast food jobs for awhile until they figure out what they want.
Wish they would have more vo-tech options
Sat, 09/05/2009 - 06:01 — fiestamomI know we've had this conversation many times on this blog, but it does seem like a no-brainer to target these kind of kids for vo-tech.
I'm sure it's difficult for an 18 y/o to be in a Freshman English class, and I'm sure it's twice as hard for the teacher!
Sometimes, I want to scream when I hear politicians talk about "job training centers". That's what high school should be for. Get kids interested in industrial arts, CAD, some vo tech schools even teach culinary arts. They can graduate from high school with a REAL skill, and like you said work for a while until they figure out what they want.
Agreed....
Fri, 09/04/2009 - 11:36 — Bob_SconceUnfortunately, it's hard to get anywhere without a high school education. (does the military even take drop-outs any more?) Kids who have given up on school are really dooming themselves for the rest of their lives.
They need an alternative so the can have a do-over in a few years once they've gotten their heads screwed on straight. On the other hand, the alternative can't be too attractive, or it will lure away students who could have finished high school.
I guess it comes down to
Fri, 09/04/2009 - 16:36 — user12345I guess it comes down to cost and priority ... say 4 of the 25 kids are total losers ... they don't want to be in school and are disruptive and take an Asst Prin. to monitor them (btw, been laid off this year) .. so they take 21 kids offline along with them by being disruptive ... another approach is to spend more on an alternative schools with more one on one attention or plan C .. give up on them and hope they drop and move to another state ... I think a society decides either formally through school policy / state law or informally through funding on how important they are and how much we are willing to spend ... I don't know the answer ... but I felt sorry for the 21 kids in my wife's class who actually wanted to learn ..
I am going to have to agree
Sun, 09/06/2009 - 09:55 — rr77rr99I am going to have to agree with WCPSS here, if the kid drops out, they drop out. WCPSS is not the parents... there's only so much they can do! What about the majority of other students who do come to school prepared and ready to learn and ready to graduate? They push them all aside to save these kids that just come and "sleep" or spend the day in the VP's office?
That said, no, we don't want these kids to ever fail. No one in this country should be a "loser" and not be educated. You are given all opportunites for an education. The problem becomes the Family/parents! If the school system can't get the family/parents to control the "child" (18 years old is hardly a child anymore ) and make them go to school, why is it up to the school system to "make them" graduate?
This is where support systems like churches, community youth mentoring groups, groups like Big Brothers Big Sisters come in,. There has to be a "village" effort and there has to be a change in the societal norms!
Come one, lay it on the table, some segments of our society do not value education. Be it traditional beliefs, religious beliefs, whatever, WE CAN'T FIX THAT! THey need to fix that!
I say, provide the opportunity for these kids, if they don't show up to school over the age of 15, 16, whatever, someone else has to pick up the ball and help these kids. It's not up to the school system to do it!
Hundreds of kids are falling through the cracks right now as these distruptive"kids" are zapping up the energy of teachers, and administrators!
I know, I know, if we don't "catch" them during their teen years, they end up on the streets, in jails, and we pay for them anyway.
I am not saying "throw them away"... I am saying.. it takes more than the school system to get these kids on track!
Teachers are not parents! They can only do so much.
I agree with "user12.." I feel more sorry for the 21 kids in the class that did show up to learn. When is someone going to stand up for those kids?! ... we've really lost sight of the bigger picture...and that's it! Those kids that are there waiting to learn, but can't because energies are directed to the two or three that don't want to be there.
And yes, WCPSS needs to step up with VoTech for sure! Maybe that will help "save" a few more kids.
One area we need to keep an
Sun, 09/06/2009 - 10:52 — user12345One area we need to keep an eye on is suspensions ... if the metric is graduation rate or EOC/EOG scores one way to up the results is to eliminate the low scoring kids ... everyone knows, people work the "metric" to maximize their salary or job security ... so, we need to make sure the "system" is not expelling / suspending kids to eliminate them from being counted against what ever metric is in favor ... finding the right balance is hard and given an opportunity, the "system" will find a way to produce the metrics at whatever cost with unintended consequences if not supervised.
because WCPSS and Chuck, Del
Fri, 09/04/2009 - 09:13 — AngelaWbecause WCPSS and Chuck, Del and BoE are in favor of healthy SCHOOLS, not students.....appearances NOT education.
Wow, that is a really harsh condemnation
Fri, 09/04/2009 - 11:41 — festusAre you sure you want to be so cynical about people who have spent their lives dedicated to educating kids?
No one is being cynical. The
Sun, 09/06/2009 - 22:06 — woodstockNo one is being cynical. The Wake BoE, Del and Chuck have NOT "dedicated their lives to educating kids." Thye have dedicated themselves to serving their masters and providing statistically healthy schools regardless of how many students...mostly economically disadvantaged ... are harmed in the effort. And, they are failing even at that as many schools are not looking so healthy anymore.
Don't want to put words in people's mouths
Fri, 09/04/2009 - 17:51 — TrailerParkGirlbut when people say WCPSS, I believe they are referring to WCPSS leadership and not teachers and school staff.
From a letter by Kevin Hill.
In reality, the Wake County Public School System adopted a policy to promote something: healthy schools. The policy is not aimed at individual students.
you are right in my case at
Fri, 09/04/2009 - 18:06 — AngelaWyou are right in my case at least, (with the exception of one or two) we have had some of the best teachers, staff and local admin a person could ask for....
being dedicated
Fri, 09/04/2009 - 11:59 — JSBinNCbeing dedicated to something is admirable. Being effective is better. I want the leadership of WCPSS to be EFFECTIVE at educating ALL CHILDREN. Just because you say you are dedicated to something doesn't mean you're good at it!
yes because if they cared
Fri, 09/04/2009 - 11:45 — AngelaWyes because if they cared about the students they would attach the funds to the students and utilize EVAAS to evaluate....they do neither, they shuffle kids to different schools in an effort to balance "schools" not teach children.
Does this bother anyone?
Fri, 09/04/2009 - 08:47 — Eric_BDoes this bother anyone else?
WCPSS is given Title I funds by the federal government to help low income students. That money will be taken and given to all students in a school regardless of whether they are low income or not and the performance of the program will be judged on overall school test scores.
This means in a school with 40% F&R, the 40% low income students can have their funding taken and distributed to the entire school, diluting the impact it might have on their education. Based on the presentation, this funding can be used for targeted interventions including increasing low income students' parental participation in their kids' education.
Shouldn't we be targeting these funds to low income students? Doesn't our school board want low income students to do better? How is this goal achieved if the funds are diluted over an entire school and low income students are not evaluated to see if they are succeeding or not?
Where are you getting the
Sun, 09/06/2009 - 20:39 — klanders65Where are you getting the idea that the Title 1 funds are to help low income students? The handout and the article here say that Targeted Assistance is for students who are failing or at risk of failing. So, in a Title 1 school, according to this, Title 1 funds could be used to help high income or average income students in that school who are failing or at risk of failing.
The other option is to take those Title 1 funds and use them for kids who are not failing or not at risk of failing. Isn't that what it says? So, in that case, you could use Title 1 funds for gifted programs, or gifted low income kids, or anything. The difference between targeted and whole school Title 1 as it is explained here, is not whether you can spend the funds on non-low income students, but whether you can spend them on non-failing or non-at-risk-of-failing students.
Hui--can you find out if this is the case? Or are do they mean low income when they say "failing or at risk of failing"? Which is the case: Targeted Assistance in a Title 1 school serves low-income only. Whole school Title 1 can serve any student even if they are not low income. And in both these cases, the funds are for students who are failing or at risk of failing. OR is this the case: Title 1 schools with Targeted Assistance can serve any student regardless of income status as long as they are failing or at risk of failing. The whole school Title 1 programs can serve any student regardless of income, and regardless of whether they are failing or at risk of failing. Which is it?
...
Fri, 09/04/2009 - 11:43 — SideburnsYes, Eric. This one really gnaws at me.
Just another example of hiding failing students in a "successful" school.
Taking the schoolwide approach, couldn't WCPSS just reassign some low-performing children to make the school appear that it's improving?
Yes!
Fri, 09/04/2009 - 11:06 — SDR256I've said this before. I'm highly suspicious that low income children are being shuffled around to glean funds for Title 1. Now that you claim that the school doesn't even have to use it directly FOR those students, in my mind this just increases the likelihood that they are being used to milk the system for money. Oh, this is just infuriating.
Who gets shuffled around? To
Sun, 09/06/2009 - 20:32 — klanders65Who gets shuffled around? To be a Title 1 school, there have to be a certain % of F&R students. So, I assume you mean shuffling around the F&R students? According to what is written in this article and that handout, Targeted Assistance can be for anyone who is failing or at risk of failing. This would not necessarily be the F&R students. You already can use the funds for anyone, as long as they are failing or at risk of failing. What if someone is in advanced courses and at risk of failing them. Could you use Title 1 funds for that?
Mediocrity at its finest.....
Fri, 09/04/2009 - 08:32 — SouthEastWakeMomYes, let's give remedial work to everyone whether they need it or not. When will the defeatist attitude in this school system end? Oh, I forgot - it's not about individual students but about "healthy" schools. We need to be challenging all of the kids to reach their academic potential if you do that the test scores and the BOE(eR)'s beloved "healthy" schools will follow. October 6th can't come fast enough - luckily those 2 have already opted out.
What a surprise
Fri, 09/04/2009 - 08:14 — Eric_BEvaluation of Program
Targeted Assistance: Based on achievement results of identified Title I students.
Schoolwide: Based on achievement results for all students in the school.
---
Why would WCPSS not want to try targeted assistance to see if low income children are being helped? Do they really want to improve low income student performance or are they just more interested in making schools look good?