Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Regional School Committee, November 9, 2010
I'll do a longer blog post soon on last night's meeting, but here is a brief summary of probably the part people are most interested in anyway from the Gazette -- the math report (http://www.gazettenet.com/2010/11/10/consultant-amherst-replace-elementary-math-program). You can also read Dr. Chen's full report (http://www.arps.org/node/2479), as well as curriculum director Beth Graham's response (http://www.arps.org/node/2483), on the ARPS website.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
57 comments:
I will say here what Rick Hood would not let me say last night -- and instead of asking it in a venue where it could be answered in real time, I am now forced to ask it knowing that those of ill intent will use it to bash teachers before it can even be answered. So be it.
Some 74% of the prospective elementary school teachers who took the first math-only licensing exam flunked it. See http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2009/05/19/aspiring_teachers_fall_short_on_math/
Mitchell Chester (Deval Patrick's Guy) said: "Not all our students are receiving a strong math education. For him to say that is quite significant!
What is not being said is that all of the teachers who took the exam the year before probably would have done just as poorly, as would those the year before that, etc.
What is not being said is that if 74% of the 2009 Cadre didn't essentially have a high school knowledge of math, we can presume that 74% of the teachers in the Commonwealth as a whole don't -- they came from the exact same programs with the exact same educational approaches and materials.
And as Amherst - by law - hires teachers from this group that only has 26% of its members competent in math, one can presume that a significant percentage of the Amherst teachers are not competent in math. There is a very strong statistical possibility of many Amherst teachers (perhaps not 74% but still a significant percentage) who are not competent in math.
Are the teachers in this district competent in basic math? Should not competency in math be considered a condition of employment? And what are we to do now that the teachers "gave up" their training days to get the override passed....
Ed Cutting, MEd, CAGS
ed@educ.umass.edu
And if anyone wants to know why UMass students riot, well ask Rick Hood why you have to live in town 25 years before you are allowed to speak in public...
this link doesn't open to the article.
I hope to see more on the internal report: having read it a bit more, it seems that quite a bit is still missing: (1) Advanced Placement course enrollment, by demographic, and test participation, Amherst Regional High School, 2007-2010 (2) Course Enrollments, Mathematics, Amherst Regional Middle and High Schools, by demographic, 2008-2010 (3) Grade 8 Math Course Enrollment vs. Demographic Subgroup and MCAS Performance for 2007, 2008, 2009, Combined (4) SAT Scores in Mathematics, Amherst Regional High School, 2007-2010 (5) Nothing in the report on the Section “Comparative Reviews and Studies”. I *seems* like this is the complete report. Is it? Did I miss some of this information? I would also hope to see the raw results from the parent Math survey. I think this is a fair expectation and is simple for the Administration to provide, she should also have presented the results by school (ES, MS, HS)- this is critically important. I encourage people to email Beth Graham and ask that this data be made available to the public.
Reflecting on what Abbie said, there is one very simple (and free) way to really get all this data -- have Amherst and all the related elementary schools volunteer to participate in the NEAP. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/about/schools/2011DistrictsFactSheet.pdf
This is FEDERAL, is demographically and everything-else adjusted on a national basis to give an honest assessment of where we are with whom we are educating and where we should expect to be based on where other equals are under similar circumstances.
Truth is stronger than falsehood, and if Amherst truly does have the best teachers in the country, the NAEP results will show that. Likewise, if there truly is racism and such, that will show up too.
This is like a paternity test - do you want the truth or not?
Ed, priceless: I love the idea of the Paternity Test! If the methodology is sound and the results are recognized and accepted elsewhere, I say let's go ahead and get the truth.
How long would it take (what is the cycle time in measuring and assessing)?
If no one on the SC seems to care how well Amherst does on the MCAS why do you think they will care or should care about how well Amherst does on the NAEP assessment?
Anonymous 5:46 - I just want to clarify that I didn't hear anyone on the Amherst SC say that we don't care about MCAS. I do care about MCACS, including the fact that this year's 3rd graders are below the state average. But I also believe, and I hope you agree, that we can't just look at MCAS, and that was a concern I had about Beth Graham's report. There was no mention of % of kids in 8th grade algebra, or % of kids taking 4 years of math, or how kids do on math SATs, etc. I believe a more balanced picture is appropriate.
I also take seriously the observations made by Dr. Chen, that many children aren't challenged in their math classes, and that the curriculum is too hard for teachers to teach. And I also take seriously the comments from the parent surveys showing that half of parents have concerns about rigor and low expectations in math.
Again, I'd like to have a serious discussion here ... but comments (made anonymously) like "the Amherst SC doesn't care about our MCAS" just don't help this dialogue progress, and they don't accurately reflect the reality.
Catherine, what is the next step here? Is it up to the SC or the admin. to choose to act (or not) on Dr. Chen's recommendations?
Anonymous 11:59 - the SC does NOT choose the textbook adopted in math or other subjects; that is a decision made by the superintendent (typically following a recommendation from some committee of teachers). The SC controls budgets, so certainly we could devote (or not devote) resources to purchasing new materials and/or professional development.
My understanding is that Beth Graham will present her recommendations in mid-January, and the superintendent will then inform us of how the district will proceed regarding these recommendations.
the SC does NOT choose the textbook adopted in math or other subjects; that is a decision made by the superintendent
This is where I have to say (a) I am from Maine and (b) am more familiar with education on a national basis than in Massachusetts -- but having said that, the purpose of the School Committee is to set policy. That includes what the curriculum shall be and that inherently means what the textbooks used will be.
If nothing else, the School Committee has the "power of the purse" which means which books the SC will (or won't) allocate money to purchase. There may be something funky in Massachusetts laws that give the teachers some special power -- I am surprised that the ability to negotiate the trimesters wasn't instantly ruled as a topic outside negotiation and hence null & void by DESE but I digress...
Catherine, I have (somewhere) a Maine School Management Association briefing booklet to School Committee members that explicitly states that it is the School Committee's job to make the final decision on the textbooks...
And if nothing else, a Superintendent picking books you don't like becomes an issue in the Supt's performance review....
Ed - sorry, I should have been clearer. The SC can make general policy, which could include "the elementary schools will use a reform math curricula" or "the elementary schools will teach Spanish". But the superintendent ultimately chooses the books within that domain (e.g., Investigations versus Everday Math versus Think Math! are all reform curriculum, and the SC has no say in which of those would be used). So, again, we could say, and we have said, that teaching Spanish is important in elementary schools, and so this is now policy. But we couldn't say "you must use the Habla Espanol textbook."
Has anybody thought to ask, "How many times in the past decade, two decades, three decades, etc. has the school system spent many tens of thousands on new math textbooks that were supposed to represent the final, superior, long-lasting answer to teaching math?"
"tens of thousands" each time!
What assurance do we have that in a few years we won't have new school committee members who will contract with a new math expert who will recommend we purchase a
new and different and "better" curriculum?
Dr. Chen was hired by the acting superintendent. Why not address what he wrote and said instead of attacking...well what is it that you are attacking anyway? Attacking just to attack?
Someone asks questions about the amounts of tax payer dollars that have been spent on countless answers to math instruction in the school system and they get attacked for attacking. Gotta love this blog!
Just to clarify -- the Regional and Amherst SCs last year unanimously asked for an evaluation of our math curriculum. We did NOT require an outside consultant, but Dr. Rodriguez chose to hire one, since the position of curriculum director had not been filled. After Dr. Rodriguez's departure, then superintendent Geryk elected to continue with hiring an outside consultant to do this review. The SC did not require the use of an outside consultant; that was the choice of two superintendents. However, this is the first review of our K to 12 math program in at least the last 10 years, and possibly longer. Regularly evaluating curricula and programs is something that the vast majority of districts do, not because they have some people on the SC insisting on such reviews, but because the superintendents and administrators want to know whether their programs and curricula are indeed working. So, posters should just be clear about what they find objectionable -- is it hiring an outside consultant (if so, complain to Maria Geryk for her choice in doing this), or is it reviewing our curricula (if so, complain to the SC that you don't believe regular evaluation of our curricula is beneficial for kids in Amherst).
Catherine, In trying to understand next steps, can you tell what is the K-16 council? What are they charged with doing and what have they done so far? Also, why through 16?
Janet McGowan
Anon 10/14, 9:51
I'm guessing that Anon 10/12,7:40
and Anon 10/14,7:54, weren't focusing on who hired who. It appears more a question about how many times we will re-invent the wheel at great cost (not just in terms of dollars but also in terms of teachers needing to throw out one perceived right approach and master another newly perceived right approach).
As CS says,regular evaluation is desirable. I agree. But, "why not address" the answers to the questions raised by those Anon as part of the process?
Questioning anons:
If Dr. Chen is right that Investigations doesn't teach complex enough math, is hard to teach, isn't liked by most teachers, doesn't close the achievement gap, isn't challenging enough for advanced elementary students -- need more reasons to spend money?
What is Amherst's history with Investigations? When was it adopted? When was it fully implemented, or has it been? Have all classes had all of the materials needed to teach the program, and when did that happen? Are all teachers, including new teachers, trained in teaching it? How much money has been spent on materials, books, and training for teachers? In other words, had it really been given a chance? Given a tight budget, does it make sense to throw out Investigations before it has been fully implemented and spend scarce funds on another program based on the opinion of one expert when we know that another expert might give an entirely different opinion?
Anonymous 9:00 - Investigations has been in use in the Amherst schools for 20+ years. I would say it has been giving a very good chance. Some would say it is clearly working well, others would say it would work if we only spent more $$ on math coaches, and others believe it isn't working (and that spending increasingly large amounts of money on this curriculum is less of a good idea than getting a new one).
I think many are missing Dr. Chen's point that we need to get our kids doing math at a much higher level. We should look at and aim for European and Asian levels of achievement -- take the best and most appropriate and use it. The goal is to have all kids doing more complicated math at a younger age -- math that they are able to do but currently aren't asked to do.
Catherine Sanderson said,
"Investigations has been in use in the Amherst schools for 20+ years."
Catherine, this is a wildly inaccurate statement. The Amherst district began partially implementing Investigations during the 2004-2005 school year. It was not fully implemented in the Amherst schools until the 2008-2009 school year. Perhaps your 20+ years was a typo and you meant to say 2+ years, which is hardly long enough to know if a certain curriculum is going work.
Investigations was chosen as a curriculum for use in Amherst in the 1980s and has been in use since. I think you may be describing the second version of Investigations, which was implemented in 2007/2008. But this is our curriculum and has been for 20+ years. Now, were some teachers not using it as recently as 2004-2005 because they were using their own curriculum and/or designing their own materials? Yes, that seems very likely. It has clearly been implemented and used more regularly of late (as there has been pressure to increase horizontal and vertical alignment).
Catherine:
Your twenty year figure for Investigations use is just plain wrong.
Well, then I guess all of the information given to the Math Curriculum Council in 2007 by Jere Hochman was wrong. What curriculum did we use prior to Investigations?
Curious Observer, I have previously posted that Massachusetts 4th grades scored at or near the top of the WORLD in math and language arts in the 2007 (the most recent) TIMSS study (the one that famously compares academic achievement between nations). MA got permission to have their state's results disaggregated from US results. Therefore, MA 4th graders ALREADY are above international levels of achievement, on average, and Amherst students (in 2007) scored significantly above state averages. How much has changed since then? I don't know but it's rash to think the whole world turned upside down since that year.
Catherine, Investigations was introduced to Amherst schools in the very late 90s early 2000s, I don't remember the exact year. Some teachers used it a lot, some did not. In Dr. Hochmann's push to align all the elementary school curricula, it was named as the district math program, I believe in 2006 or 2007. Where you read or heard the 20 year figure, it is an error. (If I recall, I once pointed this out before to you.)
Ken - A long-time member of the district described choosing Investigations as our curriculum in the mid-1980s at a math curriculum meeting. I assumed she was right.
What curriculum do you believe we switched FROM in 2000?
What I remember is no specific program. One of the issues the elementary schools had was that each did its own thing, and within a school, teachers at a grade could be using different programs, in all subjects. Hochmann made it a priority to create a district-wide elementary curriculum coordination. There was no "math program" that I could say was generally used building to building. Scott Foresman had a math series some used, others were quite eclectic, others Investigations-math-philosophy-oriented before Investigations came along. But even the first several years of Investigations, there was no requirement of using it, until, if I'm not mistaken, maybe 2006 or 7 or so. I saw another poster wrote 2008-9, but I was already out of the system that year, and the decision about Investigation had been made towards the end of my time in the schools. The district did not really get "Frameworks conscious," and stayed unrealistically "MCAS-phobic," until the mid-2000s, because we had the luxury of greater %s of higher achieving students, and subgroup scores were not yet disaggregated re AYP. When the state starting cranking up the heat on all districts about that, we had to scramble to catch up to what many in the state already had to be focused on (the Frameworks and MCAS) because of lower achievement.
So, to me, the key issue isn't how long we've been using Investigations. The key issue is that we have an outside consultant telling us that math in our elementary schools is not challenging and that the curriculum (Investigations) is too hard to teach, we have 3rd grade MCAS scores (after 4 years of this curriculum) that are lower than the state average, and we have parental dissatisfaction (based on surveys over the last 3 or 4 years) with the elementary math curriculum. We also have evidence from a random assignment study that the curriculum we currently use leads to lower math achievement than other curricula.
Now, Ken will say that our math scores climb in 4th (sort-of) and 5th (more) so clearly math is going well. I'm not so convinced by that, especially in light of the lower % of kids in our district doing 8th grade algebra than we see in some other districts.
But I'm just puzzled as to what else people we need to see in order to think switching math curricula might make sense -- when we have that recommendation from an outside consultant, lower math scores than state average after 4 years of using that curriculum, and parental concern with elementary math. That seems like pretty convincing evidence stuff isn't going well (as measured by multiple approaches).
Catherine:
Why don't you let the Curriculum Director, K-16 Math Council and the Superintendent do their job and wait for their recommendations to come out in January?
Oh, and now that its has been shown that the 20 year figure you threw out there is wrong, all of a sudden it doesn't matter how long we've been teaching Investigations? You are so predictable.
Anonymous 10:33:
First, I have a blog to share my opinion. That's what I'm doing. I guess you want to read it ... hence you are on my blog. I certainly am waiting for recommendations (though the K to 16 math council actually isn't the body to form recommedations, based on the policy on evaluation adopted by the SC - which is my job), and I will be very interested to see what the superintendent recommends in January. If you would prefer not to know my opinions (about math or other things) prior to hearing a recommendation from the superintendent, you should definitely avoid reading my blog.
Second, I heard from a long-time administrator of the district that we adopted Investigations in the mid-1980s, as I've said repeatedly. If that person was mistaken, I'm sorry. Thus far, we have Ken saying that he thinks Investigations is a more recent purchase. That is not what I've heard, but again, I wasn't working in the district or living in Amherst in 1985 so I really have no way of verifying Ken's view or the long-time administrator's view.
But again, can you clarify how you think our MCAS scores in 3rd grade, Dr. Chen's observation about the curriculum, and parent feelings about Investigations are less meaningful if we've had the curriculum 20 years versus 5?
Investigations was a disaster. A lot of parents are seen sitting in the lobby at Sylvan and Kumon getting real math for their kids. Pretty sad statement about Amherst math. An outside consultant told us it was a deficient math program. What else do people need? Obviously previous curriculum directors haven't done their job. Previous superintendents haven't done their job. That's why the school committee has had to work overtime (and then some) to figure out how to help the schools. More power to them. We gave up and moved our kids to private school. The school committee is trying to help you. I guess you don't want better schools. And as for the former Amherst teacher who keeps posting contrary comments here... he'd throw away an entire class of 25 kids just to say he helped one struggling child. And to him that's a success. To me it isn't. You helped one kid who was struggling, while 24 others were left behind.
How much money has Amherst spent on Investigations in the last five years? on materials? on teacher training? Does it make financial sense to throw out a program that has not been fully tried (a program that is used quite successfully in other school districts)and purchase something else? You cannot fault the Investigations program if teachers have not been adequately trained in using it. Besides, this is Amherst -- what are the odds of choosing a math program that will make everyone happy?
Anonymous 7:00, what an absolutely ludicrous statement to post about "leaving 24 students behind" for the sake of 1, and being "happy!" Since it's me you seem to be referring to, I can speak to the inaccuracy of that statement, as well as how insulting it is. Thanks for your sincere appreciation of my efforts on behalf of the children of the town.
During the time Investigations was used from 2006-2009, Amherst students outperformed the state average of ALL groups of students on the math MCAS grades 3-5 (in 2010, grade 3 did not), at the same time as our state was scoring the HIGHEST in the nation in math (NAEP testing), and also at the same time that our state scored as the highest-achieving "nation" in the WORLD in 4th grade math (2007 TIMSS). So to recap: kids achieving higher than the average across the board, when that average was the highest in the nation, and in fact, at least in 2007, the world. Yes, I can understand why you consider Investigations as being such an unmitigated disaster. I commend you on your use of extensive data to back up your claim.
In my reading of Dr. Chen's report, by the way, I don't recall the use of the word "deficient," either. But hey, why let facts get in the way of such a powerful and compelling argument?
Finally, my name is Ken, not "some teacher from Amherst." I, at least, don't hide behind anonymity so I can lob stinkbombs, in spite of all my horrific qualities as a teacher.
Ken:
In my opinion, Catherine NEVER should have published that Anon 7:00's post. What happened to not posting letters that bash specific people, especially teachers, Catherine?
And I also noticed the characterization of Dr. Chen's report calling Investigations deficient. Dr. Chen's report never called Investigations a deficient curriculum. What he did say was that it was a tough curriculum to teach.
Anonymous 2:51 - I publish everything unless it bashes a current teacher or principal or superintendent. That's it. Ken is (a) not a current teacher, and (b) posting on my blog, which I think means people can react to what he is saying.
Thank you so much for the clarification, Catherine, as to who is fair game for bashing. It is very helpful to have this information.
Ken, don't always agree with your postings, but am glad you post. You care and your postings are thoughtful.
Re: getting a bit blasted -- imagine how CS feels. Someone posted attacking her for just giving her opinion. A shocker for an elected official I guess.
Or maybe she shouldn't have ideas unamed anons disagree with.
Another anon.
I believe all voices should be heard ... so, I appreciate Ken's postings, and others. I also believe people have the right to disagree -- as many do with me (I'm pretty sure I'm bashed more on this blog than Ken). I wish people would be more respectful when they choose to bash anyone -- me, Ken, another anonymous poster, etc. So, I hope everyone reading this blog will consider for just a moment whether they feel they would be glad to own their words if they had to sign their own name. I am providing a forum for discussion, and people can use that forum to discuss education, or to criticize me or other posters. But I don't believe in censorship.
"Thank you so much for the clarification, Catherine, as to who is fair game for bashing. It is very helpful to have this information."
Let me articulate the distinction I think Catherine is making: a current teacher currently working in the system is expected to maintain a level of professionalism and that precludes the teacher from responding to ad hominum attacks on himself/herself/itself. Accordingly, she is going to censor such attacks.
However, a RETIRED teacher (eg Ken) is free to say whatever he damn well pleases and therefore is able to defend himself and thus is not needing of the level of protection afforded to current teachers.
The distinction I think she is trying to make is between current teachers talking about current conditions and current students --- which would get very messy very quickly --- and everything else....
Anonymous 5:54 - thank you for saying what I meant in a much more eloquently way. Clearly I'm a much better professor (and aerobics instructor) than politician.
I appreciate the supportive comments, and Anon 5:54, I agree with you (and Catherine). It is much more problematic for teachers to engage here by name, whatever side of the discussion (argument? tirade?) they're on.
Catherine, re an earlier post: math choices made in 8th grade are a function of circumstances at that point in time, not circumstances that ended 3 years previously (i,e., 5th). I expect algebra enrollment is still an issue, but I notice you don't connect it to the 6th grade math program--closer in time to 8th--which has been in use 2 years and which you say you like. I'd be more accurate to say, "Aha! It's that darn 6th grade curriculum Catherine likes that's causing low algebra enrollment in 8th." But I won't because it would be silly.
Ken - I agree that there are real differences between posting as a current versus former teacher. And I appreciate your voice here (and I know that others do as well).
I have heard from MS teachers that kids come in to ARMS unprepared to do pre-algebra in 7th grade ... and yes, the move to Impact in 6th to 8th (which I supported) was supposed to help that. But the current 7th graders are the first kids who have had Impact, so it is too early to tell what the result will be.
I've also heard from 6th grade teachers that many of the kids they get (after 6 years of Investigations) aren't prepared in math ... and I take that seriously.
I believe that preparing all kids for algebra in 8th grade SHOULD be our goal (I know not all people agree with this as a goal). And I believe you can't start in 6th grade (or 7th grade) with that as a goal, but that you have to really start in kindergarten with that as a goal. It therefore strikes me that the K to 5 curriculum is very important ... and I specifically asked Dr. Chen (when he gave his report to the SC) about whether Singapore Math would prepare more kids for 8th grade algebra than Investigations, and he said it would.
Catherine, in order for me to be able to really respond, I would need to know how many 6th grade teachers have said that, and exactly what they mean. I think we both agree that anecdotal evidence is not the same as hard data. I work from the baseline that math as is intended to be learned in MA is measured--for good or for ill--by the MCAS, and all children take that regardless of math program. Therefore, it measures the math knowledge the state wants children to have. If we score above the norm by 5th across the board, in all subgroups and in the aggregate, it means that students in this district are better prepared than the average student in the state (which again, I'll note that our state average is at or near the top of all 50 states), both overall and compared subgroup by subgroup. In this sense, MCAS is the "program equalizer." So I need to see more data to understand how that is really a mirage. The data tells me we have an achievement gap, not low levels of math achievement.
I agree with Dr. Chen that Investigations is not easy to master for teachers, and a simpler math program makes sense from that point of view. I also agree that a concept based program is preferable to a pedagogy based program, with the caveat that no matter what the program, teachers ALSO have to be well-trained to teach diverse populations (and of course, a pedagogy model could be adapted as a content model with appropriate training). The national math group standards he referenced are all undeniably strong. Where I was disappointed was a complete dismissal of all MCAS data, on the pretext that the data is not "robust" enough for conclusions to be drawn, and that conclusions would be too based on philosophical preference (I forget his exact words). But that, of course, is the issue with interpreting ALL data, so I found his decision a cop out--especially since I'd reviewed some math data trends from Amherst with a DESE data guy, and he felt conclusions could be drawn.
Finally, Singapore Math may indeed be wonderful, though the What Works Clearinghouse has not ruled in that direction yet. But I'd like to see data relating to its transformative use in a STRUGGLING district, not only PR about its use in strong districts.
I am surprised that the "Achievement Academies (AA)' offered last year have not entered into any discussions about the math program. Were they successful? What was the compliance rates? If they were successful, why don't we expand them to be year round? It was disappointing to see the 3th grade MCAS drop so precipitously last year, did the AA actually make it worse?
Finally, if it true that ARPS is paying UMass ~$100,000/year for the new collaborative effort, why aren't those folks who are whinging about *potentially* spending money for a new math curriculum criticizing that use of resources, which got NO public input or outside evaluation and whose impact on students is entirely uncertain?
Dr. Chen said that he mined the MCAS data deeply, but alone it wasn't enough information to go beyond correlation to show casuality. Meaning MCAS scores seem to show a connection to some things (maybe income, ethnicity, school, curriculum, etc.) but not what is causing the effect. Beth Graham's presentation seemed to miss this issue completely. Maybe this is why the school committee policy is to have a deeper analysis of data, looking at much more than MCAS scores.
Abbie - the Achievement Academy was offered to kids who were "in warning" or "not proficient" in MCAS. So last year's third graders were not offered the option to attend AA because they had never taken the MCAS before (during their second grade year). If they offer AA again this year using the same criteria, we would expect lots of fourth graders, especially from FR, to be invited to join AA.
It had to be an expensive endeavor - so it would be nice to see if the $$ was spent wisely or in the correct manner, to benefit those who needed it. It was offered 3 afternoons a week from 3:05 until 4 pm (one day for reading, one day for math, one day for general study skills), and two buses (from my kids' school) drove everyone home. Teachers were offered extra pay to teach AA.
I too, would like to know whether AA helped at all. To do that in a significant manner, though, you have to track each kid's pre-AA MCAS score and see if there was any improvement and how much. And then compare that to the general level of improvement obtained from non-AA kids who had scored in a similar range (meaning AA-eligible kids who did not elect to attend). I don't know if the school is allowed to mine that sort of information.
anon@1127:
you are mistaken. Indeed, at WW the AA was offered to 3rd graders. That is a FACT. I don't know whether it was offered at the other schools. Their invitation was based on their 2nd grade achievement and on their current 3rd grade teachers recommendation.
Curious Observer, you are more accurate than I in describing Dr. Chen's wording about his reason to not include MCAS data. However, my conclusion is the same. Dismissing the MCAS data was unfortunate for 2 reasons: 1) there are actually are recognizable trends about our math MCAS data, and 2) according to NCLB and the MADESE, MCAS data should be the foundation of decision-making about data for districts.
It is one thing to describe a trend, list several possible causes, and conclude you can't decide which is the probable cause. It's another to sidestep it entirely. Here is an easily reconizable and undeniable trend: our students grow on the math MCAS from 3rd to 6th, each year getting stronger, in the aggregate and across all subgroups, and this has been the case since 2006. VERY FEW other districts in MA have this trend; scores fluctuate, going up some years, and down others, in some or many subgroups. So to completely disregard this taints, to some degree, what otherwise was a very interesting and well-thought-out report.
Dear Ken,
You do have a point, in the absolute sense. On the other hand, Dr. Chen is setting up higher bars for ARPS in his recommendations.
Let's read the begining of the recommendations:
"In a community characterized by its unique almost bimodal socio-economic demographics, the parallel pursuit of equity and excellence is a difficult balancing challenge for ARPS. Using a conventional standard, current achievement levels of ARPS schools are quite respectable. However, the Community has a lot to offer itself, as documented in the Strengths section, it should aspire to demand more from itself. As we wait for the NCLB to be reauthorized based on a new set of blueprints in the very near future, it is advised that the Community take this opportunity to look beyond AYP, MCAS and the usual norms. The following recommendations were carefully designed to help the Community do just that. The goal is to work with higher efficiency toward both excellence and equity."
I am particularly struck by his suggestion about "look beyond AYP, MCAS and the usual norm." It is not that he is ignoring MCAS data; he is actively urging us to look to international/higher standards.
Yes, we are doing well (except for some subgroups) in MCAS. But we may want to try to realize ARPS's full potential--as Dr. Chen prescribed.
Anonymous, the School Committee should want a wide range of data, and Dr. Chen is not wrong to counsel the need to look beyond just MCAS. However, that is different than IGNORING it entirely, as he did in his analysis. But beyond that, I find it frustrating that people are just ignoring reality. You said it's important to be at the top internationally, which necessitates the need for something different. Well, I've posted--this is now the 4th time--that MA already IS there. Here's the link: http://www.doe.mass.edu/news/news.aspx?id=4457
I'm curious what people think the MCAS test is, if not an assessment of the math knowledge the state requires children in the Commonwealth to learn at a given age. Performing at a high level on the MCAS MEANS the having learned the math BETTER than most students in the state, who take the same test regardless of what math program they used.
I'll go through the logic one more time. MA is near the top of the world in 4th, and MA is at the top of the nation in 4th, and Amherst is above the average that produced the at-the-top-of-the-nation and near-the-top-of-the-world. Just what are people wanting or looking for? I get frustrated because the REAL issue that all the data shows us is the achievement gap, which to address it, would mean looking at what is causing some groups to underperform, and using resources to focus on that. I sense the discussion getting hijacked from that goal, as almost ALWAYS happens in Amherst, and across the state, and nation.
I would still LOVE for someone to help me understand how "low levels of math learning" could lead to the performance level I described (and linked to) above. There's unfortunately more subjectivity than objectivity in Dr. Chen's report, because he is so light in data and relies heavily on interviews, and his observations of classes over a short period of time. Did he interview kids, or only what adults had to say about kids? Did he interview only those from the community who showed up to talk to him, which is a self-selected sampling of the most energized on the topic, most likely in the negative. That's not invalid data, but it is dangerous to use that more subjective data, but not more objective MCAS data. Finally, a UMASS math professor wrote a few months ago of how "inspired" he was watching math learning in our elementary classrooms. The same math learning Dr. Chen found to be at a "low level." Which of those well-informed informed but SUBJECTIVE opinions was more "right?"
Anyonymous, a 2-part answer.
Anonymous, the School Committee should want a wide range of data, and Dr. Chen is not wrong to counsel the need to look beyond just MCAS. However, that is different than IGNORING it entirely, as he did in his analysis. But beyond that, I find it frustrating that people are just ignoring reality. You said it's important to be at the top internationally, which necessitates the need for something different. Well, I've posted--this is now the 4th time--that MA already IS there. Here's the link: http://www.doe.mass.edu/news/news.aspx?id=4457
I'm curious what people think the MCAS test is, if not an assessment of the math knowledge the state requires children in the Commonwealth to learn at a given age. Performing at a high level on the MCAS MEANS the having learned the math BETTER than most students in the state, who take the same test regardless of what math program they used.
I'll go through the logic one more time. MA is near the top of the world in 4th, and MA is at the top of the nation in 4th, and Amherst is above the average that produced the at-the-top-of-the-nation and near-the-top-of-the-world. Just what are people wanting or looking for? I get frustrated because the REAL issue is the achievement gap, which to address it, would mean looking at what is causing some groups to underperform. That may or may not entail changing programs depending on the analysis, but that decision would be based in real data and real need, and in that case I would actively support it.
Part 2:
I would still LOVE for someone to help me understand how overall "low levels of math learning" could lead to the performance level I described (and linked to) above. There's unfortunately a great deal of subjectivity, and less objectivity, in Dr. Chen's report, because he is light in data and relies heavily on interviews and his observations of classes over a short period of time for his analysis. But did he interview kids, or only what adults had to say about kids, and only what he observed them doing? I don’t know, I’m asking. He interviewed only those from the community who showed up to talk to him, which is a self-selected sampling of the most energized on the topic, most likely on the negative side. That's not invalid data, but it is slanted, and to use that more subjective data, but not more objective MCAS data is confusing to me. Finally, a UMASS math professor wrote a few months ago of how "inspired" he was watching math learning in our elementary classrooms. The same math learning Dr. Chen found to be at a "low level." Which of those well-informed informed but SUBJECTIVE opinions was more "right?"
According to: http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_16577161, a study done at Stanford University shows Massachusetts ranking about 20th among industrialized countries, and the U.S. overall is ranked at 31st.
Thanks for the link to the study. It is interesting and I'll have to read it more closely. On a quick read-through, the three issues I see with that study versus the TIMSS data are: 1) TIMSS was 2007 and that data is from 2005 and 2006. So the TIMSS data is more recent. 2) TIMSS is one assessment that all participating students take, while the study you reference used 2 different ones, further complicated by the fact that one test has data from one year and another test from another year, and draws conclusions about how performance on one correlates to performance on another. That is less reliable than data from one single assessment, given at one time. 3) TIMSS is universally recognized as the major international study of comparative math and science knowledge.
I appreciate your sharing that link. BTW, in 2011, there will be the next TIMSS study and we'll get to see where everyone is more in "real time."
Glad you liked the link Ken. Appreciate your assessment of it. Thanks!
Post a Comment