Even Brian Hicks can be right at least one-third of the time. [See Isn't the First 'R' Reading? in Friday's P&C]
Ever since the P&C's August series revealing just how disastrous literacy levels are in CCSD, administrators at 75 Calhoun have practiced damage control. Beyond the public hand-wringing by the CCSD School Board and administration, we can only hope some effective classroom changes are being made to improve the situation.
However, reports of the CCSD School Board's literacy committee show just how ineffective such committees are. According to an October 20th story, [School Board Discusses Creating Literacy Policy], district officials can't figure out how to measure grade-level reading. Chief Academic Officer Doug Gepford stated, "The issue that's troubling district officials is how to define what reading on specific grade levels means."
If Doug Gepford and Janet Rose can't figure out how to set a standard for each grade level, they should lose their jobs and the district should hire people who can.
These objections are just more of the same mealy-mouthed, self-serving drivel that passes for competence in CCSD administration.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
Unbelievable. This bureaucracy spent one meeting previously (early September?) unveiling a brand new flow chart reconfiguring the responsibilities of the bureaucrats in order to develop a literacy plan. And all of these people, even in their new positions, still cannot figure this out. Certainly this can't be the only district in the country who is tackling this. CCSD is trying to reinvent a wheel. Just ask other districts who are having success in the improvement of their literacy rates and go with it. This is ridiculous!
Part of the proposed policy makes no sense (surprise!) From the P&C:
"It mandates that the superintendent ensures that children are reading proficiently by the end of third grade, that intervention be given each year to students who aren't reading on grade level".
Reading proficiently and reading on grade level aren't the same thing. To me, reading "proficiently" implies above-average reading ability, and as we know - it's only in Lake Wobegon that all the children are above average.
Heck, CCSD would be making a tremendous improvement if they said nobody gets out of the 3rd grade without reading at a high 2nd grade level; nobody gets out of 4th grade without reading at a high 3rd grade level, etc. If we did that, kids going into 9th grade would, at worst, be reading at a high 7th grade level.
Amen!
Actually, Clisby, it would contribute to over-age middle-schoolers and ninth graders, two large problems all non-restrictive student body schools have and have had.
No credible research has ever found that retaining students between kindergarten and ninth grade has had any impact on accelerating deficit skills.
In fact, they should be given extra support while moving them ahead with their peer group. Nothing does more to stunt intellectual growth than the stigma of being left behind.
Note, at no time did I say students should be "passed" along; they should be given support toward "catching up" while moving a head with their age-appropriate group. That is different than passing them along.
Labels such as proficient, advanced, basic and below basic are simply a flawed means to simplify student levels for NCLB nonsense. The best way to utilize reading data would be to establish a baseline mean of all students at a particular grade level nationwide and measure all performance relative to the mean. A student who is within 5-10 percentage points either way to the mean is about at grade level, whereas above the 60th percentile would be above grade level, below the 4th would be below grade level.
Holding students back is an archaic and punitive means that has no value other than to create sub-groups. There is nothing better we can do to "fix" our schools than to make sure all students of a certain grade level have similar age levels.
Should say 40th, not 4th. Oops.
It would be great if people felt comfortable identifying themselves on this blog the way Clisby does.
Unfortunately, I cannot help but think the anonymous poster above is either a teacher or an administrator who does not believe ALL children can learn. It is the WAY they are being taught that is flawed. To say "There is nothing better we can do to "fix" our schools than to make sure all students of a certain grade level have similar age levels" is absolutely ridiculous. When a student is retained for his inability to function at grade level, the child's learning style needs to be addressed. CCSD just puts the kid right back in the same classroom teaching him the same way, without looking in the mirror at what needs to be CHANGED in the way the child is being taught. That would be good start in "fixing" this "problem."
Oh, I forgot to identify myself as a current teacher. So, I too, am not comfortable identifying myself.
Obviously, we have a failure to communicate fully here. Whether I post anonymously or not, I did not in any way insult Clisby's comments. In fact, I thought his post stimulated dialogue, and showed genuine concern toward students.
Blogs are meant to further dialogue between those espousing competing ideologies.
Your post (the anonymous teacher above),however, simply disparaged my anonymity and did little to advance the dialogue. Stating "I cannot help but think the anonymous poster above is either a teacher or an administrator who does not believe ALL children can learn.", unfortunately exhibits an inherent inability to reflect on what is being said before commenting.
That said...
Moving a student along to the next grade and adding the support system necessary to "catch them up" IS respecting a child's ability to learn. Leaving them behind with the stigma that comes with being "left back" is pigeonholing a student in a cycle of repeating/retention. ("Left back" was the term used for retention in the northeast back when--synonymous with left behind)
Holding back a student (besides going against much qualitative and quantitative data/evidence), does nothing but slap a child in the face for not reaching a specific subjective level in some academic area without recognizing achievements in others (this is mostly aimed at elementary school students.
Further, if the schools are as bad as critics say they are (that is a battle for another day), the philosophical argument for holding a student accountable (and back) holds less water.
Again, holding back a student also counteracts the enthusiasm for learning that comes from moving forward. There is much data regarding overage middle school students and their propensity toward becoming discipline problems, tuned out toward learning and mired in low performance. In fact, the predominant age for the below basic ninth grade students (the focal point of the new literacy conversation) is between 16 and 17. The 14 year-olds are reading close to grade level.
Consider struggling students who enter high school at 17 because they have been held back. Their skills are no better for having been retained. It does not work. Never has.
If your philosophy is to be punitive toward those who have not reached the level they are supposed to have (by some test-based metric), then continuing to hold students back a grade is the modu operandi.
If we are truly trying to accelerate struggling students toward grade level goals, the mode should be to allow them to advance with their peer group (removing the stigma), while providing support mechanisms that move the student forward. If a learning disability can be readily identified as the source of a student falling behind, holding the student back one time is unlikely to cause long-term damage. When you start getting into 3 year spreads at the middle school level, you have a moral issue (whether older adolescent boys should remin at schools where significantly younger girls/boys are housed) and an educational issue (what has the particular student's retention done to move the student back to grade level standards)
Now which methodology is more respectful of the student? Allowing a student dignity, while looking to find supports for his/her skills deficit, or simply saying you cannot advance with your peers until you reach this level (with supports, of course).
Converse with a seventh grader who has been left back twice already and well on their way to a third time and see if they felt like being left behind helped them to gain skills.
Last thing...
Analyzing "learning styles", though sometimes helpful, is an archaic, incomplete method of determining the best methods for teaching. No student learns in any one way distinct from others. Students are all learning styles concurrently.
Do some research regarding multiple intelligences, and cross disciplinary connecting. I think you'll find that simply knowing if child is a predominantly kinesthetic learner is woefully insufficient.
All teachers should use practices that are visual, auditory AND kinesthetic at the same time...the imprint on short term memory is clearer and the transmission of information to long term memory is more complete when comprehensive methods are used.
And when you let the student stay with his/her peer group, and the student does *not* progress, what then? Do you keep on doing this? How exactly is this different from just passing a student along?
At some point, you either hold them back, or you pass them along. There's no #3.
Actually there may be a number 3, Clisby, though many would not consider it a popular choice.
Some children max out (reading, writing, math. etc...) at a certain level well below what the public deems appropriate for a 17 year old, or 18 year old.
These children often fall well below the normal range of IQ, yet do not have an IQ low enough to qualify for special education services; they are tweeners and are not served. (I have fought that battle)
They might, however, be able to benefit from another marketable skill (which they could be taking concurrently in high school with academic courses).
That is where we are failing them. We plug all children into a one-size fits all academic program, without acknowledging that humans basically max out at the level of their potential capacity (some slightly above, some slightly below), and to ignore that individuality is gross negligence.
I guess my question would be is it better to keep holding back a student until they grow so frustrated until they drop out (which most, inevitably do), or offer something tangible as a skill, while continuing to offer support structures to move the student toward their potential academic ceiling.
Having taught adult education in the past, I can tell you that folks who came in to get their diploma (but who had earned a skill and had significant work experience) were often more able to move forward in reading, writing, and math. The learning curve simply accelerates later. However, we need to get them marketable skills by age 18, whether skills that move them forward in academia, or functional skills that move them forward vocationally (and I am not talking about training for hotel cleaners and fast food workers, but AC, Automechanics, cosmetology, etc..) The worst we can do is leave a child as a 17 year old at the ninth grade level without a chance of graduating, and with no marketable skill to pursue.
I absolutely understand your position. It is frustrating to see children not being able to read by ages 13 and 14 (and 17). It is a function of the dysfunctional confluence of sub-standard schools, lack of community support, parental absenteeism, systemic disorganization, etc...We are all culpable for that.
But much to many folk's surprise, the system has passed far fewer students through as social promotions than one would think. Retention has been the norm rather than the exception, and it has produced significant numbers of students who are 16 and 17 when they reach high school. From a practical standpoint, it is over for those children. The drop-out numbers nationwide for over-agers are staggering as a percentage of the whole. Retention has truly not worked.
You might, with some validity, say that the support programs have not been there, just the retention. This is true in many cases. I think moreso, however, the supports are not tied to retention, though, and you can move a child forward without holding them back.
I think offering a vocational track for students is a fine idea. But I'm skeptical that a kid who can't read at least at the 8th grade level can acquire a whole lot of marketable skills beyond minimum-wage type jobs. Next time you're having your car worked on, ask the mechanic how likely his shop is to hire someone who's functionally illiterate to service that expensive computer technology in today's cars. And sure, I want my next AC installed by someone who can't read the specs or the electrical code. If we had huge numbers of these jobs relative to the labor pool, they'd have to take less qualified people and train them. Today? I doubt it.
Valid concerns all, Clisby. The good news is some of the smartest people I have met dropped out of high school (obviosuly older folks) and they did well for themselves through trades.
It is getting tougher to find work in masonry, carpentry, etc...
But honestly, the engineers and MBA-holders are among the hardest hit in Michigan right now.
Hopefully we draw a Boeing or two, attract some engineers, adn get some manufacturing jobs into the area...that usually stimulates vocational education.
If "we draw a Boeing or two" it will be the result of something other than CCSD's teaching style. I also believe CCSD's official position has been to max out most teacher's and administrator's expectations for many of our children. They set standards for most of the enrollment's abliity to learn at ;eve;s well below their potential. Imagine how debilitating this can be when this type of pegging starts as early as pre-K. CCSD's entire approach to teaching is flawed. The debate over social promotion and extra support proves CCSD is unwilling to explore the use of different and possibly far more successful teaching methods. Yep...our public schools should change the teaching methods to solve this problem, instead of moving the goal posts and declaring victory [in the classroom?].
"Valid concerns all, Clisby. The good news is some of the smartest people I have met dropped out of high school (obviosuly older folks) and they did well for themselves through trades."
I'm 56, and that was the good news when I was high-school age. I think that world is gone.
Post a Comment