As the Wake County school system moves to the common core for math, what role should teacher judgment play in placing students and what criteria should be used for placement in the super-advanced track?
As noted in today's article, the school board is supposed to discuss the math placement policy on Tuesday. A number of questions still have to be resolved, such as whether a policy is needed and whether an EVAAS probability predictor of 70 percent is the right floor for placement.
But another issue to be resolved is what to do about teacher judgment.
The version of the policy brought before the board last week eliminates any reference to using teacher judgment for placement decisions. During last week's school board meeting, Ruth Steidinger, senior director of middle school programs, explained they want to eliminate subjectivity from placement.
"We were working very hard to create a criteria that would be consistent, and as soon as you open the door for subjectivity, teacher judgment, parent requests, whatever, you’re going to open the door for some kids who have parents to advocate or teachers to advocate and some that don’t," Steidinger said.
Will the board amend the policy to allow teacher judgment in any circumstance, or solely to recommend placing a student in a higher course than indicated by EVAAS.
Then you've got the issue of what to do with what's essentially the top track of the three-track proposed model. This is the one that would allow students to take the new equivalent of Algebra I in seventh-grade.
One concern is that it looks like you can only get into that track in sixth-grade. School board member John Tedesco and Marvin Pittman say there need to be more "on ramps" to get into that faster track if it's offered.
For this fall, one concern is that you have to have completed 5th/6th-grade compacted math to be eligible. Tedesco said that requirement is unfair for students from elementary schools who didn't offer that class.
For spring 2013 and beyond, you have to have a 98 percentile score or higher on a nationally normed aptitude test or math achievement test.
Currently, Wake only offers the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) to third-graders to determine whether students will be identified as Academically and Intellectually Gifted. Students scoring at the 75th percentile or higher on the CogAT will take the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS).
Speakers at last week's board meeting questioned using those tests for this criteria, especially when it will have been taken three years before the student enters sixth-grade.
Plus, Tedesco and Pittman raise the concern that affluent parents can get private testing that low-income parents may not be able to afford or know about.
"If I have someone give me a test, they’re going to give me what I want,” Pittman said. “We’re playing games if we don’t think that’s a fact. That eliminates children from the most rigorous track.”
Tedesco said he's not a fan of offering this track considering how much more rigorous math will be under the common core. He also noted that the authors of the common core don't support having this kind of track that would have students take math two years faster than projected.
But Tedesco said that if the track is offered, he supported creating more on ramps and/or lowering it from a 98 percentile score.
Pittman said he's concerned that if changes aren't made this will result in a watering down of the track that has students taking the new Algebra I equivalent in eighth-grade.
Comments
Mr. Hui, any update on the Math placement criteria?
Wed, 02/22/2012 - 10:43 — morrisville_parentMr. Hui,
Was there any discussion on the Math placement criteria for middle school in yesterday meeting?
Thanks.
Barbie: "Math is soooo tough!"
Fri, 02/17/2012 - 15:43 — RWTDoes anyone remember this? To me, all the hullabaloo about how hard math will be under the Common Core sounds like Barbie. Really. Show me an hnest-to-God math geek who has seen the curriculum and agrees that, yes, compacting four years into two is going to be butt-kickingly hard for kids who are truly gifted in math. My son says that his sixth-grade pre-algebra class calls itself "the nerd herd." From what I have seen of these kids, they could all easily handle any math course in any configuration thrown at them (or skip sixth grade math altogether, as my son did).
no third track
Fri, 02/17/2012 - 11:21 — turnerk1Even though I have a child in the 5/6 compacted math now, I don't support adding the third "top" track at this time. Any time there is a big change in curriculum, it takes awhile for teachers to get used to it, to figure out how to teach it effectively, etc. If Common Core really is more rigorous because of removing the potential for a lot of internal review, if nothing else, then I don't think they should add the third track at least until teachers can see how the new curriculum really works in the classroom. Without a firm understanding of math offered in middle school, kids will have a very difficult time in higher level math and science in high school and college. What is the big rush???
opportunity
Fri, 02/17/2012 - 12:04 — stepbystepI see the third track as an opportunity for students who are especially gifted in math to move along if they are ready. My impression is that there are some pretty bright kids who are ready. But I return to my point that if parents want their child to track down even if the data shows otherwise, that could be OK. So, for example, if you wanted your child who appears qualified for the top track to be in the middle track, and you are OK with how that placement would affect what math is available to him/her in HS, then that could be your decision. But that decision seems better coming from a parent than WCPSS staff.
100% agree
Fri, 02/17/2012 - 12:28 — NWRaleighMomIf parents do not want their children to accelerate, let them stay at their comfort level. Some kids need the challenge to stay focused and interested.
Room to move up
Fri, 02/17/2012 - 10:31 — stepbystepI like the idea of WCPSS having clear guidelines that are based on objective criteria (and point to success) to qualify students for different levels of math. I also think it's a good idea to permit students to enter a higher track than they perhaps qualify for as long as they and their parents understand the rigor involved. That recommendation might also come from a teacher who sees potential in a student that the numbers don't show, but parents would have to agree.
Once the Common Core Curriclum is underway, it may become more clear where additional "on-ramps" might occur, or maybe it will need to be handled on a case-by-case basis. As for tracking down, WCPSS should stick with objective criteria and not use subjectivity. If a parent wants a student to move down for some reason, I think WCPSS should make a case to keep the student at the higher level, but ultimately, I guess it should be up to the family to decide.
I understand Dr. Steidinger's concern about leveling the playing field, but I think it's impossible in a school system the size of WCPSS for objective criteria to work every time for every student. In general, though, subjectivity could be limited to moving kids up beyond what the data predicts to be a good level for them. I'm sure there are probably flaws with that approach, too, but overall it seems that more students might have a chance to take on extra challenge beyond what the data predicts.
One potential flaw
Fri, 02/17/2012 - 14:49 — nmoskalDepending on the source of the subjective judgement of which kids get to move up, one potential flaw is that you run the risk of bias entering into the equation, as well as inconsistencies from school to school similar to the 5/6 compacted math where some schools placed a very high percent of their AG students in while others placed a much lower % in.
Historical patterns have been documented for example that once more qualified low income or black students are placed in a higher track, due to biases a new even higher track gets created where over time the tracks again end up disparete.
I think the challenge is how to change people's mindsets to not have that happen.
I found the article about the superintendents from Wake and surrounding counties interesting. Based on the quotes, I would venture that the mindsets of the superintendents from Orange and Johnston counties are different and the performance of ED students in the respective counties reflect that.
Dead on! Let WCPSS,
Fri, 02/17/2012 - 13:41 — shearertwDead on!
Let WCPSS, teachers, principals and whomever they want develop "guidelines" and "recommendations" for placement, then let parents make the final decision....period. If there is greater demand for higher level classes, then we should have more higher level slots made available.
can we finally talk about "behavior"?
Fri, 02/17/2012 - 10:19 — garnergradI hope we are finally at a point in the conversation where we can address so-called "behavior" issues by which we really mean study skills, effort and academic skills that aren't measured in the multiple choice tests that we are teaching to.
I admit teacher judgement is subjective and may show bias. However, there are skills kids have to learn to succeed in Algebra, and if they haven't been properly taught by either parents or teachers, kids are not prepared to succeed in rigorous math and science courses.
Parents who are willing to pay for private testing will likely make sure their child is doing homework, keeping up, and getting help in class when needed. The kids who have a history of doing homework and perservering in problem-solving are far more likely to succeed in early algebra than kids who skip homework and give up when it gets hard. Kids with identical test scores aren't equally likely to succeed because "soft skills" count and WCPSS continues to ignore this.
Huh?
Fri, 02/17/2012 - 07:25 — Bob_Sconce"If I have someone give me a test, they’re going to give me what I want,” Pittman said. “We’re playing games if we don’t think that’s a fact. That eliminates children from the most rigorous track."
I don't understand what he's saying here. At first I thought that he meant "if you get independent testing, then the psychologist is just going to score it how you want it to be scores," which is completely false. But, that doesn't jibe with the 2nd sentence.
. . . considering how much more rigorous math will be under the common core . . .
Is math really going to be more rigorous under the Common Core? From what I've seen, it just seems to be some re-ordering. I know that the Geometry components of the Common Core (geometry is my perpetual pet peeve) are not particularly rigorous -- far too little focus on proofs.
Also, the article noted that Algebra I was traditionally a high-school class. I wonder how far back you have to go to find that tradition -- I took Algebra I in middle school in 1981/2.
I don't know where you grew up...
Fri, 02/17/2012 - 15:17 — midtownmombut in Raleigh Jr. High schools were grades 7-9, and most kids took algebra in 9th grade, same as now.
Houston, Spring Branch ISD
Sat, 02/18/2012 - 08:07 — RWTWe had a wide array of tracks. To stay in the accelerated tracks, which were for some reason labled "K classes," a student had to maintain a B or above average for consecutive marking periods or risk being "K-jected."
In my particular junior high (6-8 eight grade), we had kids in geometry, algebra, pre-algebra, eighth-grade math, and remedial math. Even within the pre-algebra and eighth-grade math courses there were tracks, with some classes moving swiftly and going deeper, and some sticking to the basics.
To graduate from high school, we had to take at least three meth courses. The tracking continued in high school. Some kids were taking college math coursesin senior year, and some went straight from algebra into "business math," which taught practical math skills for the graduate headed straight into the workforce. The majority of kids were either in calculus or trig/pre-calc by senior year.
up north.
Fri, 02/17/2012 - 15:59 — Bob_SconceI took algebra I in 8th grade. MS was 6-8.
I took Alg. 1 in 8th grade
Fri, 02/17/2012 - 22:34 — Carolina_lemurI took Alg. 1 in 8th grade back in the dark ages of 1978. I remember we were handed an 8th grade math textbook and told to learn it on our own. This might have been in 7th grade? Honestly, don't remember, but I know I didn't do any math on my own. Middle school was 7&8th grade. Elementary school was 3-6. Primary School was 1&2! No Kindergarten in 1970.
We took Geometry in 9th grade (lots and lots of proofs), Alg. II in 10th, Trig in 11th and Advanced Math in 12th. This was a very small high school in VA.
Yes...
Sat, 02/18/2012 - 01:56 — Bob_SconceGeometry is supposed to be about proofs. It's the first class where students do formal proofs. I'm afraid that this core skill has been watered down by utterly stupid things like memorizing the formulas for the volume and surface area of a sphere and performing coordinate transformations.
I'm encouraged to see discrete math occasionally working its way into WCPSS schools, because that also teaches proofs. But, it's not really prevalent yet.
I took Alg I in 9th grade in
Fri, 02/17/2012 - 17:15 — jenmanI took Alg I in 9th grade in 82-83. That was the standard at my high school in IA and IL. I never heard of anybody taking it in 8th grade until recently.
MI 8th grade Alg I, 82-83
Fri, 02/17/2012 - 19:57 — nmoskalI took Alg I in 8th grade in MI as an ED student in a Title I MS in a county where > 50% of students would qualify as ED and I wasn't an exception. About 1/4 to 1/3 took it in 8th, the rest in 9th. Both groups were relatively reflective mix of socioeconomic levels within the schools. 8th grade Alg I put us in Geometry in 9th with the 10th graders who took Alg I in 9th. Pathway was then Alg II, Pre-Calc (highest level for those who took Alg I in 9th), and AP Calc.
I just read about a regional math competition up there with 18 Schools (from across three states) and 163 kids. The third and fourth place teams and individual winner were from my home county.
In WCPSS in 80s
Fri, 02/17/2012 - 18:03 — parent9Algebra I was available in 8th grade. It was the advanced track. You'd then take Geometry in 9th, Algebra II in 10th, Advanced Math in 11th, Calculus in 12th. Also available were math courses at NCSU for even more advanced students.
Interesting. I had Alg I
Fri, 02/17/2012 - 18:07 — jenmanInteresting. I had Alg I in 9th, Geo in 10th, Alg II/Trig in 11th, then Analytical Geometry and Pre-Calc (each was 1 sem) in 12th. The other option was the year long Calc I in 12th. We didn't have anything higher than that available.
Not many took those classes
Fri, 02/17/2012 - 18:18 — parent9Not many took those classes at NCSU, but that was the option for those kids that were very gifted in math.
A few seniors took courses at NCSU, but not many.
Sat, 02/18/2012 - 19:02 — midtownmomWCPSS, 78-80.
That's a great thing about
Fri, 02/17/2012 - 20:07 — jenmanThat's a great thing about being in a college town--wonderful to have those resources for kids who need it.
Based on his days of being a
Fri, 02/17/2012 - 09:50 — KeungHui (author)Based on his days of being a principal, Pittman said parents could shop around to get the result they wanted for their children when they sought private testing.
wow.
Fri, 02/17/2012 - 12:38 — Bob_SconceThat's very cynical. Psychologists have strong ethical restrictions against doing just that. I suppose Pittman also thinks it's easy to get a physician to prescribe oxycotin.
That is...
Fri, 02/17/2012 - 17:19 — bpuli9999cynical. But unfortunately also reality. I have seen that happen many times.
CPAs have strong ethical restrictions and so do lawyers. Never seen a bad CPA or lawyer, have you?
private testing
Fri, 02/17/2012 - 11:30 — turnerk1There are many different kinds of IQ and other placement tests, and it is fairly easy for a psychologist to pick a test that will play to the strength of that particular child and return a higher score. It is not that different from the fact that most kids do better on the SAT than the ACT or vice versa because, though they are both nationally accepted pre-college tests, they are very different. The SAT doesn't require much specific subject knowledge to do well, but it favors kids who have a good vocabulary and are good at logic problems. The ACT, on the other hand, is much more fact-based and has very few of the if ... then, and compare this to that sort of logic problems that make up so much of the SAT.
so...
Fri, 02/17/2012 - 12:33 — Bob_SconceThe district chose the cogat and itbs partially because they are easy to administer and score when given to a lot of kids at once. One-on-one testing doesn't have those limitations. IQ is not like weight -- its more Luke the SAT score, where a student taking it at different times or under different conditions can get somewhat different scores.