Back to Erich Martel’s main page
|
Major Areas State Education
Agency Calendars Columns Directories Organizations |
WORKING GROUP #4 - MINORITY REPORT by Erich Martel, ehmartel@starpower.net, member, DCEC Working Group 4Department of Social Studies Woodrow Wilson H.S. March 7, 2005 COLOR CODE (what the colors of the fonts signify): Black Type: The text as it was sent to the Compact Coordinators and WG
4 members on 3/4/05; Blue Type: Text that I added or revised. THE REASONS FOR A WG 4 MINORITY REPORT On 3/4/05 at 7:57 AM, I sent this report to the Working Group 4 Facilitator and Coordinators: "Don, Aleta, Shanika,"I am requesting that you file my report with DCEC board of directors as "Work Group #4 Minority Report," so that it will have the opportunity to consider the points addressed in drafting its final, comprehensive report." At 9:25 AM, I received the following reply from Co- Coordinator Shanika Hope: "[…] We've incorporated many of your thoughts and suggestions ---- those recommendations we felt that outside of the parameters of our workgroup's charge we did not blend into the final report. If you feel strongly about any omissions, please feel free to forward that information to me and I will post it on the web portal. Additionally, some of your recommendations have been included in other workgroup's reports, such as the teacher certification point." DCEC Coordinators should give this report full consideration when consolidating recommendations for the superintendent’s consideration: Although the WG 4 Report contains useful recommendations, some are not. Some important components of alignment of missing: 1. Decisions were made in the name of WG4 without notice or on short notice. we run the risk of losing our spot but also our credibility." That seems not to be the case, since two other working group reports were posted the following week; it took another 3 weeks to post them to the public site (dcec.org); - On March 1, again in the early afternoon, with no advance notice, a new draft report was sent with instructions to review and return the same day before close of business; - On March 4, the WG 4 Report was submitted to the Compact Coordinators (& copied to WG4 members). It contained a few minor recommendations I had made in January.
3. The Report presents a number of popular opinions regarding teaching and learning, as if they are successful and educationally sound:
DELETE: b. "The curriculum and the way it’s taught will involve students in interactive learning, resulting in students who go beyond a temporary mastery of facts and achieve true understanding."Comment:
iv. The comparatively poor performance of our DCPS students is due to their mastery of smaller bodies of socially useful knowledge. The early onset of this "achievement gap" is described in "The Early Catastrophe: The 30 million word gap by age 3" in "The American Educator" (Spring 2003) (http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/spring2003/catastrophe.html). It is further described in the same issue in "Poor Children’s Fourth Grade Slump" ( http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/spring2003/chall.html) and "Words are Learned Incrementally Over Multiple Exposures" (http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/spring2003/stahl.html).Core Knowledge founder E.D. Hirsch examines the anti-fact prejudice and memory research in the Spring 2000 "American Educator," "You Can Always Look It Up … Or Can You?" ( http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/spring2000/LookItUpSpring2000.pdf).v. Children who begin school without the fund of general conceptual knowledge their more fortunate peers possess are, by definition, disadvantaged. The schools can either close that gap by giving students what they need: organized, sequenced and scaffolded subject-area content knowledge; or, they can perpetuate or widen the gap by withholding from them the facts that constitute the elementary particles of knowledge. In short, were such a view to be transformed into policy or practice, it would be an obstacle to the improvement of student achievement.
The curriculum will also be adapted to meet the unique needs of DC. In addition to what is being taught now, the new curriculum provides ample opportunity for students to engage in writing and build critical thinking skills. http://www.illinoisloop.org/thinking.html Teachers are teaching in a way that is engaging and developmentally appropriate, ensuring students learn the content in the curriculum and build the thinking and other real world skills they need. http://www.illinoisloop.org/dap.htmlDistrict of Columbia Educational Compact Aligning state learning standards, curriculum, professional
development, acquisition of materials, and instructional practices Co-Leaders: Shanika Hope and Aleta Margolis Facilitator: Don
Edwards Definition of problem/current state
Alignment of all teaching and learning elements begins with clearly described standards and frameworks. The deficiencies noted in the January 2005 Fordham Foundation evaluations (ELA - C; math - D) confirm the decision to replace them with standards adapted from Massachusetts, both of which received A’s.
Teacher certification standards do not describe the knowledge needed to be an effective teacher, e.g. early childhood (K-2/3) do not require competency in phonics/decoding (per the Report of the National Reading Panel (2000) and "Restoring Excellence" (2003). (See: "Increasing the Odds: How Good Policies Can Yield Better Teachers" (pamphlet) by the National Council on Teacher Quality* and Kate Walsh, "Teacher Certification Reconsidered: Stumbling for Quality" (www.abell.org/publications/detail.asp?ID=59).(*Sousa Middle School teacher Jason Kamras, a recent DCPS Teacher of the Year, serves on the advisory board; www.nctq.org)
Numerous new programs, reform models, curriculum, and other instructional approaches that promise to improve instruction and student achievement have been adopted despite the absence of well-documented research. When adopted, they have not been accompanied by evaluating their effectiveness. This trend has resulted in an inconsistent, fragmented instructional system, perpetuation of ineffective methods and failure to expand upon success (e.g. central office disinterest in the 1997-2001 NICHD-NIH Early Childhood Intervention Program run by Dr. Louisa Moats in 7 DCPS elementary schools)
T eacher professional development has not been linked to diagnostic assessments of student performance. The absence of a foundation of well-designed standards and the fragmented instructional methods prevented institution of ongoing, comprehensive professional development designed to equip teachers and aides with the skills and expertise necessary for effective instruction and remediation.
Often teachers are expected to implement the latest approach without the benefit of textbooks and other curricular materials (Some schools receive materials, others don’t; teachers receive enough materials for some but not all students; teachers receive materials after a program is expected to be implemented, etc.). Textbook and ancillary materials are often ordered with no teacher input or with little time to reflectively evaluate them (e.g. in January 2005, teachers received "classroom libraries," consisting of books many of which were of limited or no value. In 2001, the textbook decisions of ELA teachers were overridden in the textbook office. In 2004, college level textbooks were ordered for regular level Anatomy & Physiology courses. Vendors of highly regarded textbooks, like Saxon math [now an HBM imprint], have been arbitrarily excluded from consideration - because of publication date and lack of extensive ancillary products, often of limited usefulness.)
DCPS made misleading claims that the SAT9, a norm-referenced test, was aligned in the manner of a criterion-referenced test. The reliance on deeply flawed standards prevented the development of coherent curricula in many subjects. It was highly improper for DCPS to ignore the DoEducation’s warning and then claim that the change of assessments from SAT9 to Terra Nova would create alignment. That is what led to the recently imposed fine. That is why alignment must be taken seriously, as is now the case.
Short lived initiatives (either officially abandoned or unofficially left to fade away) are replaced by another program that "guarantees" improved student achievement. This has resulted in resistance from many DC teachers and administrators to new initiatives, believing their implementation will be short-term and half-hearted.
Tampering with the results of the SAT9 (Spingarn H.S. in 2000; Moten ES in 2002), the disarray of student academic records in all high schools, alteration of student grades by those with privileged records access and the certification for graduation of students at Wilson H.S. in 2001 & 2002 describe major flaws in the existing accountability systems.
Since the present SIS went into service in SY 1993-1994, DCPS failed to activate these two modules. As a result, annual transcripts in grades 7-12 are updated by the laborious process of affixing sticky cumulative record labels to transcript masters. Errors are corrected by white-out and manual typewriter. The "Letter of Understanding" is completed by a laborious and error-prone process of reading courses and grades from a computer screen and then entering the earned number of credits on the LoU form. At present the LoU must be given to parents/guardians in grades 9 and 12. Although they are to be completed by the end of September, they are often not done until 3rd or 4th advisory, too late to make a needed course change. II. What success looks like Within the next 6 months:
As subject-area standards are introduced, a calendar for the development of subject-area curricula, textbook selection, and teacher-training on the new curricula will have to be established in order to be ready for the start of school in August 2005. A five-year calendar describing the introduction of grade-level and subject-area assessments, including their effect on promotion and graduation (low vs. high stakes) must be prepared and released to the public.
Produce highly public and transparent curriculum information, including curriculum highlights to provide teachers, principals, parents, students, and all members of the community an overview of the new standards and derived curriculum, description of the assessments that will be employed, and other key features. This will act as a vehicle for engaging teachers, administrators, parents, students, and community members in discussions about curriculum and instruction.
These recommendations address the disarray and possibility of alterations in student academic records and the misrepresentation of students’ fulfillment of graduation requirements. A key recommendation is the establishment in each high school of an annually elected committee of teachers who will have, at specific times during the school year read-only access to student academic records (not health or discipline records) for the purpose of acting as oversight checks against improper alterations of grades or course completions and the misrepresentation of the completion of graduation requirements. (see: www.dcpswatch.com/dcps/030922.htm)Within the next 1 year:
State assessments are founded on the adopted standards and core curricula. Standards determine core curricula; core curricula constitute the subject’s assessment base. Teachers are responsible for teaching the mandated core content, on which students are assessed. There should be sufficient flexible time for teachers to spend more time on a unit that has generated greater interest or requires longer classroom time.
Instructional materials are provided in a timely manner – thus allowing teachers adequate review and preparation time. Student and teacher materials arrive prior to the instructional sequence and in adequate quantity.
Staff development time must be linked to evaluations of students’
needs, e.g. diagnostic results of reading disabilities (often, but
inaccurately confused with more serious learning disabilities) or reading
weaknesses, such as phoneme-grapheme confusion, must lead to staff
development focused on providing teachers with the skills, strategies and
materials for addressing them. A principal’s effectiveness in using staff development time to address teachers’ documented instructional needs should be an item in the evaluation of a principal.
Building critical thinking skills … was strongly emphasized by the young people who attended the DCEC youth forum. DELETE:
Coming out of public engagement meeting, there was a strong drive toward standards that clearly make students college and workforce ready. We recommend standards for high quality vocational education to ensure that students have mastered a basic core of knowledge that will qualify them to enter training programs in specialized trades and industries or pursue other career-oriented programs of post-secondary study.We also recommend that the superintendent hold principals and staff, especially in secondary schools (jhs, ms, shs) accountable for holding students to high standards of behavior and decorum while in school, "skills" they need for success in school DELETE:
The superintendent and his staff (assistant superintendents, chief academic officer, subject-area content-specialists) are now, on a daily basis, actively engaged in supporting the academic and logistical needs of the principals, teachers and support staff in the local schools. They will ensure that the identified curriculum content and skills are being taught and that students are making continuous progress toward mastery. When problems are encountered, they are evaluated and given assistance, as needed. Since the central office staff is service- and support-oriented, most problems can be addressed without need for external consultants.
Prior to the dissolution of the city-wide subject-area departments in 1993-95, the city-wide departments, such as the social studies department, and local universities (HU, GU, GWU, etc.) and museum educational outreach offices co-sponsored workshops around themes or topics relating to curricular objectives. These ties need to be reestablished.
The Letter of Understanding, which lists DCPS graduation requirements already completed, those not yet completed and those on the students current schedule, will be mailed to the student’s home in July or August prior to each student’s start of grades 9, 10, 11 and 12 (see DCPS Directive #521, November 12, 1992). By fully utilizing these two functionalities of the database (Student Information System) counselors will have more time to actively counsel and advise students. Within the next 3 years:
Everyone is singing the same song—and is excited about the new curriculum. There is a public understanding of what student success looks like and the road map to move students to success. Student success leads all students toward college and/or workforce readiness. While the system of instruction is coordinated, it is not rigid. Voices at the community meetings felt strongly that teachers must be allowed and encouraged to teach in a way that incorporates each student’s passion. III. Strategies—short term and long term—for achieving success We begin this section with the following assumptions:
Strategy 1 Create and widely distribute Academic Information Packs and Guidelines for Educators. In addition to its current charge, the Standards Review Panel* produces: 1. A brief (2-3 page), user-friendly Academic Information Pack for each grade level. These information packs provide parents, guardians, students, and the community at large with clear information about what to expect in each grade level. They will include a brief overview of content to be covered in each subject area, as well as suggestions for parents/guardians to support their children’s learning at each grade level. Academic Information Packs are critical tools for involving parents. They will establish a common language to unite parents, students, and educators around a focus on instruction. 2. Grade level/subject specific Guidelines for Educators
comprised of: and a description of similarities and differences between the new curriculum and our current DCPS practices. (The reason for this step is to ensure that teachers and aides citywide are prepared to bridge their current practices with the newly adopted instructional practices.) This information should be completed and made available to teachers and the public by June 2005, so that all can be prepared for fall 2005 implementation of the new curriculum. *An alternate strategy would be to create Curriculum Review Committees which would work in close communication with the existing Standards Review Panel to produce the two documents outlined above. Strategy 2 Provide high quality, relevant professional development that is aligned with the new curriculum.
Strategy 3 Adopt and publicly announce new assessment tools by spring 2005, so educators and students can adequately prepare for success. Educate teachers and aides about the new assessment tools, beginning in summer 2005. With the exception of students whose IEPs or 504s provide otherwise, standards-based, system-wide assessments will be objective and designed to measure students mastery of previously determined minimum level of the mandated subject-area assessment base. These tests may constitute a portion of a student’s final, end of course grade.
Strategy 4 Adopt and distribute textbooks and other instructional materials in a timely manner. Instructional materials are provided in a timely manner – thus allowing teachers adequate review and preparation time. Student and teacher materials arrive prior to the instructional sequence and in adequate quantity for the number of students being taught. STRATEGY 5 Ensure that the arts are embraced as a critical component of the curriculum. The attached report offers details on the value of the arts for the intellectual and social development of our children. It also presents strategies for incorporating the arts into students’ DCPS educational experience. IV. Roles of the sectors in achieving the goals Elected Officials
Parents
[1] Killion, Joellen “What Works in the Elementary School Results Based Professional Development” National Staff Development Council (2002). [2] Garet, Michael S. “What Makes Professional Development Effective? Results from a National Sample of Teachers” American Educational Research Journal, Winter 2001, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp.915-945 [3] M. Fulan as quoted by Joellen Killion (2002) “What Works in the Elementary School Results Based Professional Development” p. 17. [4] The National Partnership for Excellence and Accountability in Teaching (1997) “Revisioning Professional Development” Accessed January 13, 2005 http://www.nsdc.org/library/policy/npeat213.pdf. [5] Goldstein, Miriam “Schools as Learning Communities” In Educational Leadership 61 (8). Accessed May 17, 2004 http://www.ascd.org/cms/objectlib/ascdframeset/index.cfm?publication=http://www.ascd.org/publications/ed_lead/index.html [6] The National Partnership for Excellence and Accountability in Teaching (1997) “Revisioning Professional Development” Accessed January 13, 2005 http://www.nsdc.org/library/policy/npeat213.pdf. [7] Avery, Patricia (1999) “Authentic Assessment and Instruction”. Social Education (65) 8 pp. 368-373. National Council for Social Studies. |
Send mail with questions or comments to webmaster@dcpswatch.com
Web site copyright ©1997-2009, DCWatch