For KIPP to show that it "works," it needs to address the following issues.
Creaming at KIPP
KIPP attracts and enrolls already successful students
As I was reading the recent SRI report on Bay Area KIPP schools, I came across this paragraph on the phenomenon of "creaming" at KIPP schools:
Given increasing interest in KIPP schools on the part of parents and students, some principals expressed concern about “creaming” already high-performing students from local schools when there remains a large number who are low-performing and underserved. One principal expressed dismay with the school’s struggle to enroll Title I students, whom she considers to be her target population. (p. 18)
From this, it seems that at least some KIPP students have already been succeeding at other schools prior to entering a KIPP school.
In addition, some have argued that KIPP's success is based on the fact that KIPP students have motivated parents who push them in ways that other underprivileged kids don't. Given these two factors -- motivated parents and already successful students -- how much credit can we reasonably ascribe to KIPP?
Also, KIPP schools are made up almost entirely of black and Hispanic students. How concerned should we be that KIPP's success undergirds the recent law passed by the Nebraska legislature, allowing for segregated schools in Omaha? In other words, looking at KIPP as an example, the argument could be made that while segregated schools might seem bad, they actually "work." Of course, what they work at doing is the question.
KIPP and Achievement
How reliable are the data?
KIPP schools claim they are responsible for dramatic leaps in achievement. According to one source, on average KIPP kids are at about the 30th percentile nationally in 4th grade. By the end of 4 years at KIPP, they are about the 70th percentile. The obvious problem with averaging anything is that the average often does not depict the typical outcome. If there is one outcome that is very far from the rest of the data, then the average will be strongly affected by this outcome. In short, some really high achievers will make the others look pretty good, even if these others are not doing so well.
For example, let's say there were 5 students taking a test. The scores (out of 100 possible points) were as follows: 45, 47, 52, 98, 99. The average of these five scores is 68.2 So you could truthfully and accurately say, "Student scores were near the 70th percentile." But how many students scored a 70? None. If you look at the scores, 3 out of the 5 did really badly. But 2 of the 5 did really, really well. The result? It looks like great things are happening when, in fact, they are not.
I'm still waiting for a statistical analysis of KIPP achievement data to determine the variance and standard deviation of these data. The variance and standard deviation describe how spread out the data is. If the data all lie close to the average, then the standard deviation will be small, while if the data are spread out over a large range of values, it will be large. Having outliers -- very high achievers that make the KIPP scores seem better than they really are -- will increase the standard deviation. If the standard deviation is small, then the claim about "leap in achievement" would be quite substantive. But if the standard deviation is large, then the claim about "leap in achievement" would be pretty sketchy.
KIPP and Enrollment
Are these the same kids?
Are the kids that graduate from KIPP in 8th grade the same kids that began KIPP in 4th grade? If these were the same kids, then the numbers might indeed be impressive. But how many of the 4th graders dropped out after being at KIPP for a year or two? It's entirely possible that a large number of the original 4th graders dropped out, leaving only the higher-performing students, resulting in fewer 8th graders. Also, how many of these 8th graders came from outside KIPP schools? (see Creaming, above)
KIPP and Broad-Based Curriculum
What are the kids actually learning?
KIPP claims that it has a broad-based curriculum and does not shirk on subjects that are not tested under NCLB, e.g., social studies. According to the SRI report on Bay Area KIPP schools,
"Students have 90 minutes of (English Language Arts) and math every day. They also have 90 minutes of social studies and science on alternating days." (p. 33)
The report does not indicate what is actually taught in the social studies and science blocks, nor how it is taught. Moreover, there is no evidence in this report that KIPP students receive a "broad-based education" other than the fact that science and social studies are taught for 90 minutes every other day. Because students are not tested in these subjects, we have no way of knowing if they are learning anything. More troubling, we have no way of knowing if the instruction they receive is substantive or superficial.
How does KIPP respond to these questions and issues? I wrote to Steve Mancini, the Director of Public Affairs at the KIPP Foundation, on 11/16/06 and asked him to respond to all of the above. He wrote back on 11/17 and told me that one of his colleagues would respond. As of today, I have yet to receive a reply.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
What It Takes to Make a Student
The NY Times Sunday Magazine from 11/26/06 featured a powerful essay by Paul Tough on the educational achievement gap. Central to the piece was Tough's contention that NCLB could work:
Although the failure of No Child Left Behind now seems more likely than not, it is not too late for it to succeed. We know now, in a way that we did not when the law was passed, what it would take to make it work. And if the law does, in the end, fail — if in 2014 only 20 or 30 or 40 percent of the country’s poor and minority students are proficient, then we will need to accept that its failure was not an accident and was not inevitable, but was the outcome we chose.
Tough comes to this conclusion by looking at the "success" of schools like KIPP. But as keen as he is to support schools like KIPP, he recognizes one of their key paradoxes: the extent to which they attract and enroll already-successful students:
The leaders of this informal network are now wrestling with an unintended consequence of their schools’ positive results and high profiles: their incoming students are sometimes too good. At some schools, students arrive scoring better than typical children in their neighborhoods, presumably because the school’s reputation is attracting more-engaged parents with better-prepared kids to its admission lottery. Even though almost every student at the KIPP Academy in the Bronx, for example, is from a low-income family, and all but a few are either black or Hispanic, and most enter below grade level, they are still a step above other kids in the neighborhood; on their math tests in the fourth grade (the year before they arrived at KIPP), KIPP students in the Bronx scored well above the average for the district, and on their fourth-grade reading tests they often scored above the average for the entire city. At most schools, well-prepared incoming students would be seen as good news. But at these charter schools, they can be a mixed blessing. Although the schools have demonstrated an impressive and consistent ability to turn below-average poor minority students into above-average students, another part of their mission is to show that even the most academically challenged students can succeed using their methods. But if not enough of those students are attending their schools, it’s hard to make that point.
Curiously, Tough acknowledges that teachers at schools like KIPP often work 15 to 16 hours per day, yet he glosses over the implications of this fact. How many teachers with families can work 15 to 16 hours per day? How can we possibly tout this model as a "success" when it is clearly impossible to scale it? Even more curiously, Tough recognizes this strange double logic in another part of the essay:
(W)hen the conservative education movement adopted “No Excuses” as a slogan, the phrase was used much more broadly: if that rural Arkansas public school isn’t achieving the success of a KIPP school, those responsible for its underachievement must simply be making excuses. The slogan came to suggest that what is going wrong in the schools is simply some sort of failure of will — that teachers don’t want to work hard, or don’t believe in their students, or are succumbing to what the president calls “the soft bigotry of low expectations” — while the reality is that even the best, most motivated educator, given just six hours a day and 10 months a year and nothing more than the typical resources provided to a public-school teacher, would find it near impossible to educate an average classroom of poor minority students up to the level of their middle-class peers.
What's missing in his analysis is a connection between this latter insight and his enthusiastic support of schools like KIPP.
As I have argued elsewhere in this blog, KIPP's apparent success is tentative at best, misleading at worst.
Although the failure of No Child Left Behind now seems more likely than not, it is not too late for it to succeed. We know now, in a way that we did not when the law was passed, what it would take to make it work. And if the law does, in the end, fail — if in 2014 only 20 or 30 or 40 percent of the country’s poor and minority students are proficient, then we will need to accept that its failure was not an accident and was not inevitable, but was the outcome we chose.
Tough comes to this conclusion by looking at the "success" of schools like KIPP. But as keen as he is to support schools like KIPP, he recognizes one of their key paradoxes: the extent to which they attract and enroll already-successful students:
The leaders of this informal network are now wrestling with an unintended consequence of their schools’ positive results and high profiles: their incoming students are sometimes too good. At some schools, students arrive scoring better than typical children in their neighborhoods, presumably because the school’s reputation is attracting more-engaged parents with better-prepared kids to its admission lottery. Even though almost every student at the KIPP Academy in the Bronx, for example, is from a low-income family, and all but a few are either black or Hispanic, and most enter below grade level, they are still a step above other kids in the neighborhood; on their math tests in the fourth grade (the year before they arrived at KIPP), KIPP students in the Bronx scored well above the average for the district, and on their fourth-grade reading tests they often scored above the average for the entire city. At most schools, well-prepared incoming students would be seen as good news. But at these charter schools, they can be a mixed blessing. Although the schools have demonstrated an impressive and consistent ability to turn below-average poor minority students into above-average students, another part of their mission is to show that even the most academically challenged students can succeed using their methods. But if not enough of those students are attending their schools, it’s hard to make that point.
Curiously, Tough acknowledges that teachers at schools like KIPP often work 15 to 16 hours per day, yet he glosses over the implications of this fact. How many teachers with families can work 15 to 16 hours per day? How can we possibly tout this model as a "success" when it is clearly impossible to scale it? Even more curiously, Tough recognizes this strange double logic in another part of the essay:
(W)hen the conservative education movement adopted “No Excuses” as a slogan, the phrase was used much more broadly: if that rural Arkansas public school isn’t achieving the success of a KIPP school, those responsible for its underachievement must simply be making excuses. The slogan came to suggest that what is going wrong in the schools is simply some sort of failure of will — that teachers don’t want to work hard, or don’t believe in their students, or are succumbing to what the president calls “the soft bigotry of low expectations” — while the reality is that even the best, most motivated educator, given just six hours a day and 10 months a year and nothing more than the typical resources provided to a public-school teacher, would find it near impossible to educate an average classroom of poor minority students up to the level of their middle-class peers.
What's missing in his analysis is a connection between this latter insight and his enthusiastic support of schools like KIPP.
As I have argued elsewhere in this blog, KIPP's apparent success is tentative at best, misleading at worst.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
An Open Letter to Margaret Spellings and Congress
Here's a fantastic set of questions posed by longtime educator and activist Marion Brady.
"Human history," said H. G. Wells, is "a race between education and catastrophe." If we stay the course with No Child Left Behind, catastrophe is a sure bet.
You'll soon be deciding the fate of this well-meant but appallingly
simplistic piece of legislation. Continued failure to answer the legitimate
questions of those you expect to carry out your mandates will further erode
trust in your leadership.
Here are some of those questions:
1. NCLB reflects the views primarily of leaders of business and industry
rather than of active, working educators. Does this make sense?
2. Did at least some of those who originally helped shape NCLB hope to
discredit public education as a step toward privatizing the institution?
3. On critical, instruction-related questions, NCLB removes local educators
and school boards from the decision-making loop. Does the history of
top-down, centralized control of complex institutions suggest this change
strategy works?
4. Will manipulating the curriculum to "maintain America's competitive
position in world trade" be more likely to ensure America's future
well-being than helping the young come to love learning because it allows
them to pursue their abilities and interests?
5. Management experts say that poor institutional performance almost always
indicates a "system" problem. NCLB blames poor performance not on "the
system" but on the people in the system. Are the management experts wrong?
6. NCLB relies on market forces to improve schools. Does this mean that
learning is unnatural and won't take place unless teachers and students are
threatened or bribed?
7. Do NCLB-mandated subject-matter standards, based as they are on an 1892
curriculum design, adequately address present and future individual and
societal needs?
8. If there are problems with the present, same-thing-for-every-student
curriculum, don't "raising the bar" and "rigor" make them worse?
9. NCLB is rapidly pushing "frills" out of the curriculum. Has research now
established that art, music, physical activity and so on have nothing to do
with scientific and mathematical reasoning ability and workforce skills?
10. Nationwide, hundreds of thousands of students are being held back
because of poor reading and math skills. Is the ability to interpret written
symbols the only way the young learn, and therefore sufficient reason to
retain them in grade?
11. Education is supposed to teach kids to think for themselves, not merely
recall what they've been ordered to remember. Are the centerpieces of NCLB
(corporately produced, machine-scored tests) able to judge the quality of
complex thought processes?
12. Should life-changing decisions for the young hinge on the results of a
single test?
13. Attempting to avoid the "failing" label, schools use myriad strategies
to "game" the system. For example, knowing which students are likely to fail
and which will succeed on high-stakes tests, schools give "marginals" the
most attention. Is it possible to anticipate and counter all such
strategies?
14. Has provision been made for coping with NCLB's unintended consequences -
increased drop-out rate, loss of teacher autonomy and professionalism,
negative student reaction to excessive rote instruction and drill, increased
costs of testing and test-related materials, the destructiveness of the
"failure" label - (just to begin a list)?
15. Are NCLB-related contracts entirely free of conflicts of interest?
[This post may be reproduced, forwarded, or otherwise used for the purpose
for which it is obviously intended without the express permission of the
author.]
Marion Brady Cocoa, Florida 11/18/2006
"Human history," said H. G. Wells, is "a race between education and catastrophe." If we stay the course with No Child Left Behind, catastrophe is a sure bet.
You'll soon be deciding the fate of this well-meant but appallingly
simplistic piece of legislation. Continued failure to answer the legitimate
questions of those you expect to carry out your mandates will further erode
trust in your leadership.
Here are some of those questions:
1. NCLB reflects the views primarily of leaders of business and industry
rather than of active, working educators. Does this make sense?
2. Did at least some of those who originally helped shape NCLB hope to
discredit public education as a step toward privatizing the institution?
3. On critical, instruction-related questions, NCLB removes local educators
and school boards from the decision-making loop. Does the history of
top-down, centralized control of complex institutions suggest this change
strategy works?
4. Will manipulating the curriculum to "maintain America's competitive
position in world trade" be more likely to ensure America's future
well-being than helping the young come to love learning because it allows
them to pursue their abilities and interests?
5. Management experts say that poor institutional performance almost always
indicates a "system" problem. NCLB blames poor performance not on "the
system" but on the people in the system. Are the management experts wrong?
6. NCLB relies on market forces to improve schools. Does this mean that
learning is unnatural and won't take place unless teachers and students are
threatened or bribed?
7. Do NCLB-mandated subject-matter standards, based as they are on an 1892
curriculum design, adequately address present and future individual and
societal needs?
8. If there are problems with the present, same-thing-for-every-student
curriculum, don't "raising the bar" and "rigor" make them worse?
9. NCLB is rapidly pushing "frills" out of the curriculum. Has research now
established that art, music, physical activity and so on have nothing to do
with scientific and mathematical reasoning ability and workforce skills?
10. Nationwide, hundreds of thousands of students are being held back
because of poor reading and math skills. Is the ability to interpret written
symbols the only way the young learn, and therefore sufficient reason to
retain them in grade?
11. Education is supposed to teach kids to think for themselves, not merely
recall what they've been ordered to remember. Are the centerpieces of NCLB
(corporately produced, machine-scored tests) able to judge the quality of
complex thought processes?
12. Should life-changing decisions for the young hinge on the results of a
single test?
13. Attempting to avoid the "failing" label, schools use myriad strategies
to "game" the system. For example, knowing which students are likely to fail
and which will succeed on high-stakes tests, schools give "marginals" the
most attention. Is it possible to anticipate and counter all such
strategies?
14. Has provision been made for coping with NCLB's unintended consequences -
increased drop-out rate, loss of teacher autonomy and professionalism,
negative student reaction to excessive rote instruction and drill, increased
costs of testing and test-related materials, the destructiveness of the
"failure" label - (just to begin a list)?
15. Are NCLB-related contracts entirely free of conflicts of interest?
[This post may be reproduced, forwarded, or otherwise used for the purpose
for which it is obviously intended without the express permission of the
author.]
Marion Brady Cocoa, Florida 11/18/2006
Teacher of the Year Portends the Future of Public Schools
Listening to 2005 National Teacher of the Year Jason Kamras, you get the sense that this guy is on to something. Unfortunately for public education, what he is on to is pretty scary.
To make this point, listen to what Kamras said in response to the question, "What do we need to do to close the achievement gap?"
It all comes down to people — getting quality teachers and school leaders to serve in our public schools, and in particular in communities that have struggled … I don’t define quality in traditional terms – how many years of experience you have, or if you have a master’s, or if you’ve taken all the right education courses. Rather [I define quality] in terms of your belief in the ability of all children to learn and achieve at high levels, and your ability to bring that to fruition – to effectively help all children learn at high levels.
Sounds good. Then again, who could argue against such a feel-good bromide?
But listen more closely as he is asked, "How do we get more high-quality teachers and school leaders to serve in public schools?"
I really thought about that a lot this year. … One, we need to establish that definition of quality, so we know what we are talking about. … Number two, we need to face a difficult truth, and that is that not all educators, not all school leaders serving in America, are effectively serving their children. And I’ve really taken this year to challenge my professional unions and in general the status quo to be a lot more progressive about embracing policies that make it easier to transition out people who are consistently ineffective. I think that’s really important. It not only helps to remove those who are not adequately serving children, but it also helps retain really effective people, because really effective, ambitious people want to go to work with other ambitious, effective people. And when they feel they are struggling against a system that doesn’t have that — that’s one of the biggest reasons why people leave education.
The second thing [we need to do to attract high quality teachers and leaders] is we need to create school environments that are really attractive to ambitious, high performing people. What I mean by that is we need to get rid of the “it’s always been done that way so that’s why we’re doing it” attitude in education. Ambitious teachers and school leaders want to try new things, they want to push the envelope . . .
What's both nauseating and disturbing to me is Kamras's use of the word "progressive" to sugar-coat union busting and to gloss over what most real progressives take as axiomatic, i.e., that the achievement gap has an awful lot to do with the income gap between the haves and the have nots.
Sure, there are lots and lots of really bad teachers in public schools who have no business being in a classroom. But there are even more really good teachers who not only need but deserve basic job security, the ability to negotiate the terms and conditions under which they work, and to have a powerful say about what to teach and how to teach it. Ironically, it's the unions that help preserve and defend the things that Kamras says that we need to do more of, i.e., retain effective and ambitious people. After all, without basic rights as a worker, without any kind of job security, without the ability to determine what happens in your classroom, and without the ability to try new, unconventional approaches, no one will stay in the teaching profession, especially "ambitious, effective people" who "want to push the envelope."
Moreover, there is a growing number of teachers who are directly challenging their administrations not because they are lazy, good-for-nothing, stand-in-the-way-of-educating-our kids types, but they are genuinely concerned as professional educators about the deteriorating quality of the educational plans they are being told to follow. One such group of courageous educators is known as The Downer 5. They took on the administration because they opposed the use of Open Court in their school. The result? All of them were "involuntarily transferred" to other schools in the district. The logic? Bust up the trouble-makers, punish them for their intransigence, and set a precdent for others.
Labor unions are supposed to protect the rights of their members. They're supposed to give their members the assurance that if a disagreement occurs between them and their administrative management, that they will have their grievances heard and fairly addressed. Absent this process, absent these provisions, and absent these assurances, teachers cannot stand up against the injustice they are seeing in their classrooms. But even with union representation in place, most teachers I know are unwilling to challenge or even question the practices that are arising in their schools in response to NCLB, practices like teaching to the test, excluding non tested-subjects like art, music, science, and foreign languages, and teaching to the "bubble kids."
And why are they unwilling to speak out against these things? Because they will be fired if they do.
But Kamras's rhetoric comes as no surprise, given his background: he is a product of Teach for America. Along with the other mostly white, privileged elitists who enter and exit Teach for America, Kamras is convinced that all teachers have to do is work harder, longer, and better. Kamras adopts the conventional TFA line and says nothing about the roles that the local, state, and federal governments should play in closing the achievement gap. And, like others from TFA, he takes the "poverty is no excuse" line.
Just listen to him here:
I’ve seen my own students who face extraordinary challenges in their lives succeed at very high levels, and I’ve seen many examples across the country of schools teaching in environments and neighborhoods where most people say, ‘Oh, we can’t do anything because of the poverty. We can’t do anything because of instability in the home, we can’t do anything because of gangs.’ But the students in those classrooms and in those schools that have been really successful are doing extraordinarily well in very difficult circumstances. The one constant I’ve found where I see an example like that is they just have extraordinary teachers and school leaders.
As if all of this weren't bad enough, the thing that really, really bothers me about Kamras is the fact that he dresses himself up as a civil rights activist:
I challenge our national leaders to step up to the national plate and really use the bully pulpit — and I’m not just talking political leaders, I’m talking entertainment leaders, religious leaders, business leaders — to spread the message that one of the most powerful and patriotic ways to serve your nation is to serve as a teacher or as a school leader. If we fail as a country to provide an excellent education for every child, then we not only rob them of their civil and human rights, but we also jeopardize our democracy and definitely jeopardize our future ability to compete in the world.
Come on, Jason. You can do better than that. If you want to issue a meaningful challenge, here's one for you: never talk about school reform without also talking about broader socioeconomic reform. Let's reduce the size of every classroom in America. Let's provide high-quality, ongoing, school-based professional development for every teacher in America. But let's also provide free, high-quality healthcare services for every child. Let's pay the parents of these children a decent wage so they can afford the kinds of things that middle-class parents take for granted, things like piano lessons and dance classes or even -- shudder to think of it -- books.
Yes, our schools need a lot of work. Teachers need a lot of help. But let's help them, not blame them.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Philly Schools Show Privatization Is No Panacea
Don't you hate to say "I told you so"? Well, we can all say it with a little more assurance now: we told them so.
Throwing buckets of money at private companies like Edison to run schools mired in poverty will do nothing to help these kids or these schools. We told you so.
Making a buck off poor kids is immoral. We told you so.
We have to do more than adopt business models to run schools and threaten teachers and children with punishments if they do not conform. We told you so.
Throwing buckets of money at private companies like Edison to run schools mired in poverty will do nothing to help these kids or these schools. We told you so.
Making a buck off poor kids is immoral. We told you so.
We have to do more than adopt business models to run schools and threaten teachers and children with punishments if they do not conform. We told you so.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Cautious Celebration Today
Now that the Democrats have regained control of the House and -- at the very least -- have increased their strength in the Senate, what effect will this have on the upcoming reauthorization of NCLB?
Some argue, "This is a Republican, George Bush thing and will die with the Bush administration." I've heard this one told many times by wide-eyed Democrats/progressives. Let's not forget that NCLB was ushered into existence with the help of key Democrats like George Miller from CA in the House and Ted Kennedy in the Senate. So will NCLB just go away with Dubbya? Extremely unlikely.
According to a story in today's Inside Higher Education, the chairmanship of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce would presumably go to the senior Democrat on the panel, Miller of California. "But news reports Tuesday indicated that Miller might opt instead to become chairman of the House Resources Committee, which oversees environmental issues, hugely important in the Congressman’s home state. If Miller were to take the Resources job, the education chairmanship would probably fall to Rep. Dale E. Kildee of Michigan, who is very popular with college officials, and is seen as somewhat more bipartisan than Miller."
More bipartisan than Miller? While this kind of pabulum sounds nice on certain issues, what we do not need is more "bipartisanship" on education. Such bipartisanship got us in the mess we are in now. What we need is someone with a spine, who knows the issues related to public education, and who will fight for the rights of children.
So for those of us sympathetic to progressive causes and who side -- somewhat reluctantly -- with the Democrats, let's give our perfunctory three cheers for yesterday's victories. But let's push these newly-elected folks on the issue of education. Let's leverage the recent statement from the National Association of Elementary Principals that lays out what the reauthorization of NCLB should look like. Let's make this victory really mean something.
Some argue, "This is a Republican, George Bush thing and will die with the Bush administration." I've heard this one told many times by wide-eyed Democrats/progressives. Let's not forget that NCLB was ushered into existence with the help of key Democrats like George Miller from CA in the House and Ted Kennedy in the Senate. So will NCLB just go away with Dubbya? Extremely unlikely.
According to a story in today's Inside Higher Education, the chairmanship of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce would presumably go to the senior Democrat on the panel, Miller of California. "But news reports Tuesday indicated that Miller might opt instead to become chairman of the House Resources Committee, which oversees environmental issues, hugely important in the Congressman’s home state. If Miller were to take the Resources job, the education chairmanship would probably fall to Rep. Dale E. Kildee of Michigan, who is very popular with college officials, and is seen as somewhat more bipartisan than Miller."
More bipartisan than Miller? While this kind of pabulum sounds nice on certain issues, what we do not need is more "bipartisanship" on education. Such bipartisanship got us in the mess we are in now. What we need is someone with a spine, who knows the issues related to public education, and who will fight for the rights of children.
So for those of us sympathetic to progressive causes and who side -- somewhat reluctantly -- with the Democrats, let's give our perfunctory three cheers for yesterday's victories. But let's push these newly-elected folks on the issue of education. Let's leverage the recent statement from the National Association of Elementary Principals that lays out what the reauthorization of NCLB should look like. Let's make this victory really mean something.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
NAESP and NCLB
The National Association of Elementary School Principals issued a statement on the reauthorization of NCLB on 11/2/06. The 6-page statement can be found here.
Here are some relevant excerpts from the statement:
"We believe an effective system of assessment is one that measures student progress using multiple means, so that the unique learning styles and needs of students can be taken into account. We support the use of assessments primarily for diagnostic purposes – to measure student achievement and analyze the need for adjustments in the curriculum or teaching methods employed in each school. We oppose the high-stakes use of standardized test scores alone." (p. 2)
"Students with disabilities should be tested at the level at which they are taught, and this level may differ from a student’s chronological grade level." (p. 3)
"Assessment of [the progress of English Language Learners] must be done in a fair and realistic manner, and decisions about when and how to test English Language Learners must be made by the educators who know when the ELL students are ready to be assessed and how that should be accomplished. . . A student whose first language is not English should be given the state assessments only after he or she has become proficient in English. " (p. 4)
Here is the crown jewel:
"Each student arrives at school with a unique set of experiences and needs. Many students lack even the most rudimentary academic readiness preparation. Many are undernourished or ill, and some have never received medical or dental care. Others may be homeless or experience parental neglect. All these factors have a strong effect on a child’s ability to learn and thrive. It is important for schools and other state and local agencies to work together to help students succeed in their educational careers and lay a strong foundation for success in later life as well. This means ensuring that children are well fed and nurtured. Schools cannot do this alone and must not be expected to do so. A system of coordinated services, in which health and human services agencies work to support schools and students, should be established in every state, funded by state and federal resources." (p. 5)
I have yet to come across a statement as powerful as this from an agency that represents public education practitioners. Both the NEA and the AFT completely bypass the socioeconomic reality of students' lives. This statement is to be applauded and celebrated.
But what is the NAESP going to do about these grand pronouncements?
Here is a thought: go to their national convention next year in Seattle from March 29 to April 2.
Call this to question. Meet with some others. Organize locally and bring a contingent of principals with you. Start the insurrection.
Here are some relevant excerpts from the statement:
"We believe an effective system of assessment is one that measures student progress using multiple means, so that the unique learning styles and needs of students can be taken into account. We support the use of assessments primarily for diagnostic purposes – to measure student achievement and analyze the need for adjustments in the curriculum or teaching methods employed in each school. We oppose the high-stakes use of standardized test scores alone." (p. 2)
"Students with disabilities should be tested at the level at which they are taught, and this level may differ from a student’s chronological grade level." (p. 3)
"Assessment of [the progress of English Language Learners] must be done in a fair and realistic manner, and decisions about when and how to test English Language Learners must be made by the educators who know when the ELL students are ready to be assessed and how that should be accomplished. . . A student whose first language is not English should be given the state assessments only after he or she has become proficient in English. " (p. 4)
Here is the crown jewel:
"Each student arrives at school with a unique set of experiences and needs. Many students lack even the most rudimentary academic readiness preparation. Many are undernourished or ill, and some have never received medical or dental care. Others may be homeless or experience parental neglect. All these factors have a strong effect on a child’s ability to learn and thrive. It is important for schools and other state and local agencies to work together to help students succeed in their educational careers and lay a strong foundation for success in later life as well. This means ensuring that children are well fed and nurtured. Schools cannot do this alone and must not be expected to do so. A system of coordinated services, in which health and human services agencies work to support schools and students, should be established in every state, funded by state and federal resources." (p. 5)
I have yet to come across a statement as powerful as this from an agency that represents public education practitioners. Both the NEA and the AFT completely bypass the socioeconomic reality of students' lives. This statement is to be applauded and celebrated.
But what is the NAESP going to do about these grand pronouncements?
Here is a thought: go to their national convention next year in Seattle from March 29 to April 2.
Call this to question. Meet with some others. Organize locally and bring a contingent of principals with you. Start the insurrection.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)