The Baltimore Sun reported that hundreds of educators in Maryland met in late June to focus on three questions - what drives students out of school - what will it take to get them to stay – and how can we get them back if they leave?
This news story caught my eye because we have students in this class from Maryland and because from the story’s description of the meeting it sounded very similar to the ND Dropout Prevention Summit held June 8-9, 2009 in Bismarck.
It turns out both gatherings, in Maryland and ND, were two of dozens supported by America's Promise Alliance. The alliance, which is chaired by Alma Powell, the wife of former Secretary of State Colin Powell, aims to have 50 state and 50 city summits by 2010.
ND’s summit was an awesome example of what can occur when all entities of education and community recognize a common problem and work together to find solutions. The ND Education Association, the ND Council of Education Leaders, the ND School Boards Association, the ND Department of Public Instruction, the ND Chamber of Commerce and the ND Governors Office all partnered in this summit.
According to America’s Promise, on a national level, more than 1.2 million students a year leave high school without a diploma - or about one-third of students overall. In ND 778 students dropped out of school during the 2006-2007 school year.
The dropouts from the nation’s class of 2008 represent more than $319 billion in lost wages, taxes and productivity for their life spans. The Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that over the course of a lifetime each dropout will earn about $260,000 less than they would have earned with a high school diploma. For ND’s group of 778 that equals a whopping $200 million! The ND Insurance Department estimates they will also cost the state about $2 million per year in public health care assistance.
This is a problem we have to address now! All educators know our dropout crisis is not something that begins in high school. Educators at all levels have a responsibility to recognize struggles and predictors in students’ lives even in their earliest elementary years.
Both Maryland’s and ND’s summit arrived at similar conclusions: The transition from ninth grade to 10th grade exhibits the greatest risk for students. If they have failed classes their 9th grade year they are not likely to recover those credits and choose instead to drop out; Major early indicators are poor attendance and behavior, and failing math and English. Maryland’s State Schools Superintendent Nancy S. Grasmick says it well. "Teachers as early as elementary school could predict that a student will struggle later. We have a responsibility to intervene early and provide services at the very beginning of a student's academic career."
I whole-heartedly agree and I am so proud of both Maryland and ND educators for taking a look at this important problem.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Monday, July 6, 2009
Supreme Court Decides Special Education Case
The New York Times reported on a Supreme Court decision that could help disabled students obtain needed services and cost school districts millions of dollars, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that parents of special-education students may seek government reimbursement for private school tuition, even if they have never received special-education services in public school!
The case involved a struggling Oregon high school student, identified in only as T. A., had been evaluated for learning disabilities but he was found ineligible for special-education services.
According to the Hoover Institute, as of 2004, private schools served, at public expense, a total of 88,156 students with disabilities of the 5,963,129 students with disabilities nationally, which amounts to 1.48 percent.
This court decision is ground-breaking because previously only students who received special-education services in public school were eligible to receive private school tuition assistance for those services.
The court’s dissent opinion discussed the high costs of private-school placements. “Special education can be immensely expensive, amounting to tens of billions of dollars annually and as much as 20 percent of public schools’ general operating budgets,” Justice Souter wrote.
I understand the child’s parents wanting to place him in a private school for all of the special amenities private offer, but I don’t agree that special education services is any better in private schools than it is in public schools. In fact, in my school district it is exactly the same. The speech pathologists, the LD teachers, reading teachers, and other specialists use part of their day to provide service to students enrolled in our parochial schools in town. They are required by law to do this. How then, can the special education be better? I see it as just being more expensive! The issue of the quality of private vs. public school is one that I am sensitive about. I think private education is a wonderful option for many, but I don’t think public money should be diverted from public education to provide it. Along this same line, among the many rules of NCLB is one that states that if your school is on school improvement the district must pay for tutoring services at places such as Sylvan Learning Centers.
The sad part about this rule is twofold: the teachers at these tutoring centers are not required to be highly qualified in their subject areas as defined by the law; and any student in a school on an improvement plan can receive tutoring services paid for by the district, not just the ones who didn’t score at the proficient level. This means that a student can score at the proficient level (or above) and still go to private tutoring paid for with public funds. Most likely the kids that need it the most (those below proficiency) still won’t receive tutoring because their parents won’t invest the time to get them there. Much like we see with public school extended year programs; the students who really don’t need the extra help show up, but those that desperately need extra instructional time do not.
I am a very strong proponent of RTI so we can help students like T.A., before he and his family feel the need to label him as special ed and remove him from a great public education system.
The case involved a struggling Oregon high school student, identified in only as T. A., had been evaluated for learning disabilities but he was found ineligible for special-education services.
According to the Hoover Institute, as of 2004, private schools served, at public expense, a total of 88,156 students with disabilities of the 5,963,129 students with disabilities nationally, which amounts to 1.48 percent.
This court decision is ground-breaking because previously only students who received special-education services in public school were eligible to receive private school tuition assistance for those services.
The court’s dissent opinion discussed the high costs of private-school placements. “Special education can be immensely expensive, amounting to tens of billions of dollars annually and as much as 20 percent of public schools’ general operating budgets,” Justice Souter wrote.
I understand the child’s parents wanting to place him in a private school for all of the special amenities private offer, but I don’t agree that special education services is any better in private schools than it is in public schools. In fact, in my school district it is exactly the same. The speech pathologists, the LD teachers, reading teachers, and other specialists use part of their day to provide service to students enrolled in our parochial schools in town. They are required by law to do this. How then, can the special education be better? I see it as just being more expensive! The issue of the quality of private vs. public school is one that I am sensitive about. I think private education is a wonderful option for many, but I don’t think public money should be diverted from public education to provide it. Along this same line, among the many rules of NCLB is one that states that if your school is on school improvement the district must pay for tutoring services at places such as Sylvan Learning Centers.
The sad part about this rule is twofold: the teachers at these tutoring centers are not required to be highly qualified in their subject areas as defined by the law; and any student in a school on an improvement plan can receive tutoring services paid for by the district, not just the ones who didn’t score at the proficient level. This means that a student can score at the proficient level (or above) and still go to private tutoring paid for with public funds. Most likely the kids that need it the most (those below proficiency) still won’t receive tutoring because their parents won’t invest the time to get them there. Much like we see with public school extended year programs; the students who really don’t need the extra help show up, but those that desperately need extra instructional time do not.
I am a very strong proponent of RTI so we can help students like T.A., before he and his family feel the need to label him as special ed and remove him from a great public education system.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Another Teacher Killed....
The slaying last week of high school football coach, Ed Thomas, prompted me to write this week’s blog on school violence – toward students and teachers.
A former player shot several rounds into the Iowa football coach in front of several students who were in the high school weight room with him. This rural mid-western community has only 1,800 residents. This is very similar to communities in ND, so it immediately struck a chord for me.
One of Thomas’s former athletes, Jacksonville Jaguars center Brad Meester said he revered Thomas almost as a father figure, and that Thomas got the most out of each of his players. “It’s just the stuff that he taught every one of us, stuff that I'll never forget," Meester said. "The value of hard work, pride in what you do and just caring about the guy beside you and that's what he did. He cared for each and every one of us that went through that program."
So after this heartfelt testimonial I had to ask myself, “Is school violence the exception or is it becoming the rule?”
According to the Nemours Foundation school violence is rare. Although it may not seem that way, the rate of crime involving physical harm has been declining at U.S. schools since the early 1990s. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) say the vast majority of students will never experience violence at school or in college.
So what about teachers as the victims of school violence like Coach Thomas? What’s the status on that? The National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center says, on average, in each year, about 3 out of every 1,000 teachers were the victims of serious violent crime at school. This is down from the early 1990’s when NYVPRC reported 12 percent of all teachers were threatened with injury by a student from their school, and 4 percent were physically attacked by a student. This site also stated that male teachers are more than twice as likely to be victims, and teachers at middle/junior high schools are at greater risk than those in elementary or senior high schools.
But,what shocked me, absolutely shocked me the most was the fact that this issue has been written about for 40 years! I came upon a Time News article dated Friday, November 14, 1969 whose headline read “New Violence Against Teachers”. Can you believe that? 1969?
It cited story summaries: During a dance at Gwynn Park High School in Brandywine, Md., an assistant principal had his throat slashed by a former student who came to make trouble; A sixth-grade teacher was stabbed with a knife thrown by a twelve-year-old boy who had been spanked for attacking the teacher with a broken bottle. All this in 1969, so our situation isn’t new…maybe it wasn’t even “new” in 1969.
What I think we can say is different, is that with 24 hour news on several different stations ,the focus on school violence is greater.
Do you think the violence is worse? Do you think teachers feel more threatened today? Is this because there is more real danger or because we hear more about the violence that occurs?
A former player shot several rounds into the Iowa football coach in front of several students who were in the high school weight room with him. This rural mid-western community has only 1,800 residents. This is very similar to communities in ND, so it immediately struck a chord for me.
One of Thomas’s former athletes, Jacksonville Jaguars center Brad Meester said he revered Thomas almost as a father figure, and that Thomas got the most out of each of his players. “It’s just the stuff that he taught every one of us, stuff that I'll never forget," Meester said. "The value of hard work, pride in what you do and just caring about the guy beside you and that's what he did. He cared for each and every one of us that went through that program."
So after this heartfelt testimonial I had to ask myself, “Is school violence the exception or is it becoming the rule?”
According to the Nemours Foundation school violence is rare. Although it may not seem that way, the rate of crime involving physical harm has been declining at U.S. schools since the early 1990s. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) say the vast majority of students will never experience violence at school or in college.
So what about teachers as the victims of school violence like Coach Thomas? What’s the status on that? The National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center says, on average, in each year, about 3 out of every 1,000 teachers were the victims of serious violent crime at school. This is down from the early 1990’s when NYVPRC reported 12 percent of all teachers were threatened with injury by a student from their school, and 4 percent were physically attacked by a student. This site also stated that male teachers are more than twice as likely to be victims, and teachers at middle/junior high schools are at greater risk than those in elementary or senior high schools.
But,what shocked me, absolutely shocked me the most was the fact that this issue has been written about for 40 years! I came upon a Time News article dated Friday, November 14, 1969 whose headline read “New Violence Against Teachers”. Can you believe that? 1969?
It cited story summaries: During a dance at Gwynn Park High School in Brandywine, Md., an assistant principal had his throat slashed by a former student who came to make trouble; A sixth-grade teacher was stabbed with a knife thrown by a twelve-year-old boy who had been spanked for attacking the teacher with a broken bottle. All this in 1969, so our situation isn’t new…maybe it wasn’t even “new” in 1969.
What I think we can say is different, is that with 24 hour news on several different stations ,the focus on school violence is greater.
Do you think the violence is worse? Do you think teachers feel more threatened today? Is this because there is more real danger or because we hear more about the violence that occurs?
Monday, June 22, 2009
Socially Promoting Kids Who Can't Read!
An article in the June 21, 2009 issue of the Philadelphia Inquirer reports that the pressure to pass students is extremely strong in Philadelphia, even students who don’t go to class or can’t read. A teacher at one high school described getting pressure from the school’s administrators to pass a student who had 89 absences in less than a year.
The nation’s school districts get measured by graduation rate through NCLB, teachers in the Philadelphia District say they are also measured on the number of students who pass each grade level. I believe the two are tied together because the graduation rate isn’t a raw number of how many students receive diplomas, but how many students receive diplomas on time within the standard 4 years of high school. I completely disagree with this. If the acronym is truly No Child Left Behind why do we punish schools for slowing down and allowing a student to take 4 ½ or 5 years to graduate?
Teachers from around Philadelphia have come forward to say they feel intense pressure to pass students. They say the pressure comes from their principals in the form of memos, emails and an enormous amount of paperwork that must be completed before a student can fail a class.
The District actually has a policy that requires teachers to give every student at least a 50 even if the student didn’t attend class or do the work. Some principals in different buildings have raised that minimum grade to 60. Passing is 65 in the District. Teachers are understandably upset with this policy because it is undermining the teachers’ professionalism. This is grade inflation pure and simple! Principals say the directive is coming from the Superintendent’s office.
Social promotion has occurred in Philadelphia for decades, and sadly, it is still common in ND in elementary schools. This is a dangerous path we are taking. Students used to be responsible for coming to school prepared to learn the material and earn passing grades. Now, more responsibility is placed on teachers to make sure students pass.
Most of the social promotion problems in ND occur at the elementary. ND high schools set their graduation requirements based on credits and most have very strict attendance policies. For example, my sons’ high school enforces an attendance policy that states after 12 absences in a semester the student will lose credit for that class. Letters start going home to parents after the fifth absence has occurred in any one class warning the student and family that they are in danger of losing credit for that class. The Bismarck District where I work has rewritten their attendance policy. BPS has written stronger language requiring that students who miss 20 days or more may be required to attend additional programming, i.e. extended day, summer school, etc. I don’t think social promotion serves any good purpose at any level. If students haven’t mastered the material at one grade level how can we expect them to be successful at the next level?
The nation’s school districts get measured by graduation rate through NCLB, teachers in the Philadelphia District say they are also measured on the number of students who pass each grade level. I believe the two are tied together because the graduation rate isn’t a raw number of how many students receive diplomas, but how many students receive diplomas on time within the standard 4 years of high school. I completely disagree with this. If the acronym is truly No Child Left Behind why do we punish schools for slowing down and allowing a student to take 4 ½ or 5 years to graduate?
Teachers from around Philadelphia have come forward to say they feel intense pressure to pass students. They say the pressure comes from their principals in the form of memos, emails and an enormous amount of paperwork that must be completed before a student can fail a class.
The District actually has a policy that requires teachers to give every student at least a 50 even if the student didn’t attend class or do the work. Some principals in different buildings have raised that minimum grade to 60. Passing is 65 in the District. Teachers are understandably upset with this policy because it is undermining the teachers’ professionalism. This is grade inflation pure and simple! Principals say the directive is coming from the Superintendent’s office.
Social promotion has occurred in Philadelphia for decades, and sadly, it is still common in ND in elementary schools. This is a dangerous path we are taking. Students used to be responsible for coming to school prepared to learn the material and earn passing grades. Now, more responsibility is placed on teachers to make sure students pass.
Most of the social promotion problems in ND occur at the elementary. ND high schools set their graduation requirements based on credits and most have very strict attendance policies. For example, my sons’ high school enforces an attendance policy that states after 12 absences in a semester the student will lose credit for that class. Letters start going home to parents after the fifth absence has occurred in any one class warning the student and family that they are in danger of losing credit for that class. The Bismarck District where I work has rewritten their attendance policy. BPS has written stronger language requiring that students who miss 20 days or more may be required to attend additional programming, i.e. extended day, summer school, etc. I don’t think social promotion serves any good purpose at any level. If students haven’t mastered the material at one grade level how can we expect them to be successful at the next level?
Monday, June 15, 2009
Parent Involvement Efforts
Recently both elementary schools that I work in Bismarck, ND received a considerable amount of money from the federal government through the PIRC grant to increase parental involvement in our school communities.
Parent Information and Resource Center or PIRCs help implement successful and effective parental involvement policies, programs and activities. Because research has shown a strong positive correlation between student academic achievement and parental involvement, more money and resources are being dedicated to strengthening the partnership between school and home. As stated in our text, this is so important it is the eighth goal of Goals 2000 Educate America Act of 1994. It is well known that high performing schools engage parents as partners in the education process. They welcome parents and keep them informed. They look for ways to actively engage parents in helping their students.
Our text also provides great tips for meeting with parents and how to best convey important information effectively, but it also discussed the changing face of our families in this nation. There are more two-parent working homes, single parent homes, more blended families and therefore fewer and fewer parents are making themselves available for a meeting with their child’s teachers in the first place. As a result, proponents say PIRC grants may be more important than ever.
Currently, our staff members are meeting this summer to plan activities that will begin immediately this fall. One idea discussed will be to host in-service nights to provide training to parents on using Power School to monitor their students’ attendance and grades. Another idea is to host a Family Math Night to show parents what activities might be done at home to reinforce math skills. We are investigating spending some dollars on creating a parenting resource area of our library and securing more dollars to have the school library open evenings and weekends for parents to use the computers and other resources.
Now comes the controversial part of this BLOG. These all sound like great ideas, right? And the research is there to back up the positive correlation between parent involvement and student achievement, right? But a very wise colleague of mine who retired last year asked me this question just before her last day, “When did we start spending more time, money and energy on trying to rehabilitate poor parents than we do trying to catch this generation from falling?” She said her last two years in the Title I program at our school had her spending more and more of her time planning events for parents than she spent planning learning lessons for her students. The final straw for her came the day a reading student of hers came to her door after school had just let out and asked her to listen to her read the new book she had just learned. Mrs. X had to say, “No”. She didn’t have time because she had to finish the last minute details for that night’s parent activity event.
I agree that many parents just need to be shown what they need to do to help their child do their best in school and they will do it, but I don’t know if we should be using precious educational money to chase down parents with 6, 7, sometimes 8 events a year to try to get them to care. If 1, 2 or maybe even 3 outreach attempts don’t do it, why would 6? When do we say, “Those parents had their chance to be students. Now we need to turn our attention, time, and money towards this next generation and give them the same shot.” Can you imagine the extended school programs, extra instructional assistants and smaller class sizes those dollars could provide? Isn’t there a positive correlation between those things and student achievement, too?
Parent Information and Resource Center or PIRCs help implement successful and effective parental involvement policies, programs and activities. Because research has shown a strong positive correlation between student academic achievement and parental involvement, more money and resources are being dedicated to strengthening the partnership between school and home. As stated in our text, this is so important it is the eighth goal of Goals 2000 Educate America Act of 1994. It is well known that high performing schools engage parents as partners in the education process. They welcome parents and keep them informed. They look for ways to actively engage parents in helping their students.
Our text also provides great tips for meeting with parents and how to best convey important information effectively, but it also discussed the changing face of our families in this nation. There are more two-parent working homes, single parent homes, more blended families and therefore fewer and fewer parents are making themselves available for a meeting with their child’s teachers in the first place. As a result, proponents say PIRC grants may be more important than ever.
Currently, our staff members are meeting this summer to plan activities that will begin immediately this fall. One idea discussed will be to host in-service nights to provide training to parents on using Power School to monitor their students’ attendance and grades. Another idea is to host a Family Math Night to show parents what activities might be done at home to reinforce math skills. We are investigating spending some dollars on creating a parenting resource area of our library and securing more dollars to have the school library open evenings and weekends for parents to use the computers and other resources.
Now comes the controversial part of this BLOG. These all sound like great ideas, right? And the research is there to back up the positive correlation between parent involvement and student achievement, right? But a very wise colleague of mine who retired last year asked me this question just before her last day, “When did we start spending more time, money and energy on trying to rehabilitate poor parents than we do trying to catch this generation from falling?” She said her last two years in the Title I program at our school had her spending more and more of her time planning events for parents than she spent planning learning lessons for her students. The final straw for her came the day a reading student of hers came to her door after school had just let out and asked her to listen to her read the new book she had just learned. Mrs. X had to say, “No”. She didn’t have time because she had to finish the last minute details for that night’s parent activity event.
I agree that many parents just need to be shown what they need to do to help their child do their best in school and they will do it, but I don’t know if we should be using precious educational money to chase down parents with 6, 7, sometimes 8 events a year to try to get them to care. If 1, 2 or maybe even 3 outreach attempts don’t do it, why would 6? When do we say, “Those parents had their chance to be students. Now we need to turn our attention, time, and money towards this next generation and give them the same shot.” Can you imagine the extended school programs, extra instructional assistants and smaller class sizes those dollars could provide? Isn’t there a positive correlation between those things and student achievement, too?
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Military Academies and Junior ROTC
The USA Today reports the U.S. Marine Corps is expanding a network of military academies but are being accused that it's a recruiting ploy. Every student wears a uniform, participates in Junior ROTC (Reserve Officers Training Corps) and takes military classes. Over 12 public military academies have already opened nationwide. Congress passed a bill in 2008 that included increasing the number of Junior ROTC units across the country from 3,400 to 3,700 in the next 11 years. All military branches are trying to increase their ROTC programs. Protests by parents are expected. More students from military academies end up joining the military after graduation. Between 5% and 10% of graduating seniors from public military schools end up enlisting; whereas only 3% of all regular high school graduates join the military. Proponents say the academies aren't recruiting tools but focus on discipline, ethics and civics, giving at-risk teens a place where they can flourish. Chicago, home of current Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, has five public military academies and is the only district with schools representing all four branches of the military. Duncan sees the schools as another option for kids who don't fit well in a traditional educational setting. Students at the public military schools in Chicago have struggled. Chicago's military schools did reduce chronic truancy from 24% to 8.5% from 2007 to 2008 and increased the average ACT exam score from 15.8 to 17.3, out of a possible 36.
In March 2009, Master Sergeant Cindy Loraas visited with the Mandan School District’s Curriculum Committee about starting an Army Junior ROTC program in the District. Ms. Loraas stressed the program would not involve combat and there would be no obligation to enroll in the military after completing the course. Other points the committee was asked to consider were; the army would provide 100% of the funding for Class A uniforms, BDUs/ACUs and will provide part funding for other aspects of the class, the program would be an elective class which could be taken all four years of the high school on a levels system, the class would require one 2-hour block or two 1-hour blocks of time each week, there would be possibilities for ROTC Scholarships for students taking the class as well as advanced ranking for ROTC students who continue in the military. Ms. Loraas relayed to the group that some negative responses should be expected from parents because of the military relationship, gaining access to student records, and allowing the ASVAB test, but generally the Junior ROTC programs are well-received in the Midwest. The committee agreed the Mandan high school principal should begin developing information to alleviate parental anxieties about allowing their students to participate. The MPS Curriculum Committee voted unanimously to recommend to the school board that the Army Junior ROTC program begin at Mandan High School.
Would you want/allow your child to enroll in a Junior ROTC program? Do you think ROTC programs belong on public high school campuses?
In March 2009, Master Sergeant Cindy Loraas visited with the Mandan School District’s Curriculum Committee about starting an Army Junior ROTC program in the District. Ms. Loraas stressed the program would not involve combat and there would be no obligation to enroll in the military after completing the course. Other points the committee was asked to consider were; the army would provide 100% of the funding for Class A uniforms, BDUs/ACUs and will provide part funding for other aspects of the class, the program would be an elective class which could be taken all four years of the high school on a levels system, the class would require one 2-hour block or two 1-hour blocks of time each week, there would be possibilities for ROTC Scholarships for students taking the class as well as advanced ranking for ROTC students who continue in the military. Ms. Loraas relayed to the group that some negative responses should be expected from parents because of the military relationship, gaining access to student records, and allowing the ASVAB test, but generally the Junior ROTC programs are well-received in the Midwest. The committee agreed the Mandan high school principal should begin developing information to alleviate parental anxieties about allowing their students to participate. The MPS Curriculum Committee voted unanimously to recommend to the school board that the Army Junior ROTC program begin at Mandan High School.
Would you want/allow your child to enroll in a Junior ROTC program? Do you think ROTC programs belong on public high school campuses?
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
National Standards: Friend or Foe?
The June 1, 2009 issue of the USA Today stated “4 States Yet to Agree to Standards For Academic Rigor” This article immediately caught my attention because of the discussion my peers and I have been having in our Principles of Teaching and Learning graduate class through Valley City State University regarding the affect of mandated learning standards on our profession.
Briefly summarizing, the article explains that at present there are 51 different sets of standards in the 50 states and District of Columbia. That could be changing. On May 29th, 2009, 46 states agreed in principle to develop a set of common rigorous criteria. This charge will be led by the National Governor’s Association, the same group who developed Goals 2000 which eventually became the framework for NCLB. This whole issue is an attempt to better prepare our high school graduates for higher education or the workforce. This is important because it was reported this week that 4 year colleges only graduate 53% of entering students within six years. We can do a better job of preparing our students.
National standards will certainly make it easier for kids to remain academically successful even if they transition from state to state. American citizens are a very mobile group of people and it is not uncommon for children to attend schools in a number of states before they graduate from high school.
There are no common definitions for proficiency among any of the 50 states and DC. NCLB leaves it to each state to figure out for themselves what students have to do be proficient. Critics of NCLB cite this as being one of the major flaws of the law. A school may make AYP in one state but not make it in another. Students may be deemed proficient when going to school in one state and then face the shocking reality that they are not proficient in the new state to which they have moved. I have personally seen this occur. A family with three children moved to Bismarck from Arizona. All three children were proficient or advanced on the Arizona state test in all areas. Their scores ranked them as only novice or partially proficient in North Dakota.
The nation has 51 different ways of saying that all 4th-graders have met math standards and these are not usually the same results that NAEP, our nation’s report card, presents. Comparison studies have been done with NAEP results and State test scores, and found that most of the time the state test results show that more students are proficient than NAEP does. Sometimes the difference is quite large, as much as 60 percentage points or more.
I’m curious to know how my classmates feel about this possibility of national standards. Have we come to accept the state standards enough to consider the possibility of a set of national standards? At least for the core subject areas of Math, Reading, Language Arts and Science?
Briefly summarizing, the article explains that at present there are 51 different sets of standards in the 50 states and District of Columbia. That could be changing. On May 29th, 2009, 46 states agreed in principle to develop a set of common rigorous criteria. This charge will be led by the National Governor’s Association, the same group who developed Goals 2000 which eventually became the framework for NCLB. This whole issue is an attempt to better prepare our high school graduates for higher education or the workforce. This is important because it was reported this week that 4 year colleges only graduate 53% of entering students within six years. We can do a better job of preparing our students.
National standards will certainly make it easier for kids to remain academically successful even if they transition from state to state. American citizens are a very mobile group of people and it is not uncommon for children to attend schools in a number of states before they graduate from high school.
There are no common definitions for proficiency among any of the 50 states and DC. NCLB leaves it to each state to figure out for themselves what students have to do be proficient. Critics of NCLB cite this as being one of the major flaws of the law. A school may make AYP in one state but not make it in another. Students may be deemed proficient when going to school in one state and then face the shocking reality that they are not proficient in the new state to which they have moved. I have personally seen this occur. A family with three children moved to Bismarck from Arizona. All three children were proficient or advanced on the Arizona state test in all areas. Their scores ranked them as only novice or partially proficient in North Dakota.
The nation has 51 different ways of saying that all 4th-graders have met math standards and these are not usually the same results that NAEP, our nation’s report card, presents. Comparison studies have been done with NAEP results and State test scores, and found that most of the time the state test results show that more students are proficient than NAEP does. Sometimes the difference is quite large, as much as 60 percentage points or more.
I’m curious to know how my classmates feel about this possibility of national standards. Have we come to accept the state standards enough to consider the possibility of a set of national standards? At least for the core subject areas of Math, Reading, Language Arts and Science?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
