online high schools: a disappointment?

Initial results from Washington's online high schools, at first glance, seem disappointing:

According to a state report released last month, nearly half of the students taking online classes in 2008 failed with an D or F grade.

Also, online school is not a get-out-of-WASL-free card. Full-time online students must take the test in person at a testing site set up by the school. Part-time students who take one or two classes online still test at their home districts.

Statewide, several online schools have a hard time getting their students to show up for the test, which results in mixed performance reviews.

In the six online schools the state studied, fewer than half of sophomores passed the reading WASL last spring, compared to 81 percent statewide. Less than 20 percent of those sophomores passed the math WASL.

Online school officials say the report is flawed. Students who skipped the WASL counted as a zero, which dragged the school average down.

Take out the “zeros” at Washington Virtual Academy for example, and 77 percent of their sophomores passed WASL reading. In math, 31 percent passed compared to 45 percent statewide....

Online school students at those six schools took the WASL 64 percent of the time, compared to nearly 98 percent statewide, the report said.

I'm pretty sure that the results can mostly be explained by the way online school is currently employed: as a second chance for students who've struggled in a traditional environment. A 50% passing rate, then, might actually represent a genuine success. We'll have to see longer-term results from districts that have a mixed approach. From a cost-benefit perspective, the lower infrastructure and instructional costs, even if the passing rate stays flat at 50%, might still make the project worthwhile.

Frenchification effort gaining steam?

As our curricula become more and more centralized, both in Washington State and around the country, the reason for the ironic development* is worth considering. Studies like The Fordham Institute's provide it:

Last week, the results of a national test called the National Assessment of Educational Progress showed that Washington fourth- and eighth-graders score above average compared to their counterparts in other states.

This week, a new report shows Washington is again above average, this time in how it defines "proficiency" on its own tests, the Washington Assessment of Student Learning, or WASL.

A report released today by the Fordham Institute and the Northwest Evaluation Association says the WASL has a higher passing bar in reading and writing than the average in the 26 states examined. The exceptions were reading in grades 4, 5, and 8, where the WASL passing bar was below the 26-state average.

The report, called "The Proficiency Illusion," underscores the fact that proficiency in one state means something very different than it does in others — and sometimes from grade to grade within the same state.

"America is awash in achievement 'data,' " the report says, "yet the truth about our educational performance is far from transparent and trustworthy."

Even if you can quibble with this particular study's methodology, you have to grant that every state has its own assessment, and with nearly no coordination across states, there's absolutely no mechanism to ensure equity under the provisions of No Child Left Behind.

NCLB makes a national curriculum not only necessary, but inevitable.




*For the irony-deficient: Frenchification is brought to you by the same president who served up Freedom Fries.

streamlining Washington's math curriculum

Not enough students are passing the math WASL, but that doesn't mean our standards are too high, according to an outside consultant.

"The bottom line is that Washington's math standards need to be strengthened," wrote Linda Plattner of the Maryland-based educational research firm Strategic Teaching, which was hired by the state to assess its math expectations.

The article notes some of the proposed changes. And who benefits--besides students and teachers, of course?

After the new learning requirements are written by the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, guided by this report, a Board of Education committee will recommend three to five commercial math programs that fit well with the state's standards.

This will be a change in approach for Washington state, where at least 100 different math programs are used around the state, said Corrine McGuigan, assistant superintendent for research and education development at the state Education Department and a member of the state Board of Education committee working on the math action plan.

"That doesn't mean that a district can't go off and do what it wants," she added.

One can only guess what those 3-5 privileged curricula will be, as the standardization of Washington's state education continues apace.

standardizing the curriculum in the Bellevue district

In Bellevue, teaching is becoming a committee affair.

Since he arrived in Bellevue 11 years ago, [Bellevue Superintendent Mike] Riley slowly has shifted control away from individual teachers to committees, mostly made up of teachers. Those committees determine what all eighth-grade English teachers or all high-school biology teachers will teach and why. Teachers then write lessons for all their colleagues to use, or they adapt them from district textbooks. Adjustments are made as problems arise.

Teachers can take detours of a day or two to re-teach if they need to, but not much more, without committee approval.

Riley calls Bellevue's efforts "coordinated" or "coherent" curriculum. Critics deride it as "scripted."

The article, in true journalistic fashion, outlines the pros and cons and gives voice to teachers who both hate and love the new curriculum. The core disagreement is how much flexibility the new process allows--critics say it makes robots out of teachers, while proponents praise the amount of guesswork it takes out of the system.

In a way, it reminds me of curricular change my colleagues and I enacted at Capital High School over the past year. Crucial differences, though, made our process not only acceptable to all the teachers involved, but invigorating.

First, although we standardized some elements of instruction, we also purposefully respected teacher autonomy. We set up a book list and outlined lesson plans for specific activities like literature circles, but left it up to individuals to implement the curriculum in the way that worked best for them. We met frequently to discuss what was working and what wasn't, but at no time did we all follow the same daily plan.

Second, not only did we respect teacher autonomy, but we respected student autonomy, too, including three sessions of literature circles where students, with input from parents and teachers, chose their own books and read them together with small groups.

Third, and most important, our impetus to change came from the bottom up. We saw that certain students weren't being reached by a one-book-fits-all structure, and so we worked for months to revamp our curriculum. No principal, superintendent, or government flack breathed down our necks. Instead, we worked as professionals, and the result was impressive: student engagement, teacher confidence, and even district recognition.

Standardization, to a degree, has its benefits. The trick is finding the right degree--and teachers have to lead the way.




(Oh, and to Mike Riley, who thinks this country needs a national curriculum: what, are you crazy?)

proud member of a "Dream Team"

Apparently the teachers who worked on revising Capital's 9th grade English curriculum are going to be recognized as a "Dream Team" at the next school board meeting. This past summer, I wrote:

I've learned that it's pretty darn tough to choose texts for a wide range of reading abilities, genres, styles, and backgrounds. I've had to read books I would never pick off a shelf--Slam!, Uglies, The Runner, Sabriel--and to re-examine every facet of my teaching in the light of research and my peers' expertise. Most important, though, I've learned the reward and intellectual satisfaction of collaborative curriculum construction.

Even in the summer.

It's paid off throughout the year. We have engaged, motivated students, mirroring the engagement and motivation of the professionals who have labored mightily to provide a rich and rigorous experience in the freshman year.

It's great to be recognized--and even greater to work with such amazing, committed people.

face the music

I spent the past three days at a national qualifying forensics tournament, hearing sad stories about how regional speech and debate programs are suffering as schools drop classes to fit in more WASL prep.

Thankfully, the Olympia School District still values electives, with robust art, technology, debate, business, and manufacturing programs--and now ranks as a top district for its outstanding music education.

That is, among the top 100 in the country.

The eighth annual survey is sponsored by the NAMM Foundation, a nonprofit association working on behalf of the musical instruments and products industry....

The survey also asked districts about how many students continue in music after high school graduation.

That's another area where Olympia shines, said Dan Lundberg, the district's music coordinator and Capital High School's band director.

"We do have a lot of kids who are adults now that are music teachers or that are playing on the side," he said. "They continue with it at some point in their life again."

Lundberg attended Olympia schools and learned to play the trumpet. He has taught in the Olympia School District since 1978 and last year was named Outstanding Music Educator by the Washington Music Educators Association.

Congratulations to Lundberg and the other unheralded music teachers in our district--the work you do changes lives.

Oh, and legislators, while you're staying in Olympia, come and check out Oly or Capital's music offerings, and then see if you can justify pillaging the arts in the name of standards.

parlez vous dérivé?

The Times, always willing to spend other people's money, supports Gregoire's math initiative.

A critical voice on this must be that of Terry Bergeson, the superintendent of public instruction. It is to Bergeson we must all look for leadership as 296 school districts begin aligning their math curricula and installing teachers qualified to teach math. Schools will have to increase their math classes to accommodate students who will have to skip electives and tackle more math.

Gregoire has outlined the road map. Bergeson can lead the way [emphasis added].

Meanwhile the grandest of all unintended consequences, the Frenchification of American education, continues apace.