Well, a much better football weekend with two wins and one loss. The Bears suffered the loss to Kentridge, but played well. Other than the first play of the game where Kentridge scored on about a 65 yard touchdown run the Bear’s defense was superb. They gave up only two first downs the entire game. We just couldn’t get going offensively in the second half.
The Husky game was unbelievable, I guess. I decided to sword fight with my grandson with about four minutes left thinking they wouldn’t come back. By the time I quit after being smacked on the hand the game was over and I had missed the comeback. Upset with myself, but they won.
The Seahawks were stellar in all phases of the game winning with a shutout. I’m still going to take LoomDog’s advise and try to get in some other Bear athletes this week; volleyball, cross country, and soccer. Go BEARS!
Speaking of LoomDog, did you see his comment to the last post where he shared part of a conversation with a teacher from North Carolina? I share his concern with the potential unintended consequences of our state possibly adopting the standards after two years. How many more years will that mean of aligning new standards to our developed curriculum? More time and energy to do curriculum and assessment work at a time when we are intentionally shifting our energy to instruction. Another shift that contributes to the frustration that many of us feel with constantly changing targets ending in some adopting negative attitudes to change and the don’t worry this too shall pass syndrome. Some stability in targets would be welcome and appreciated.
There are some positives to this potential alignment with national standards including the fact that that they are currently written for only the content areas of Reading/Language Arts and Mathematics. This means that the majority of our work will not be interrupted unless and until other content areas become worthy of national attention.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Thursday, October 8, 2009
NCLB assessment comparisons . . .
I thought that Flypaper post sharing the comparison of state NCLB assessments was interesting enough to share. It compares the difficulty of these assessments in reading and mathematics and ranks them by difficulty for each of the twenty-six states in the comparison based on cut scores across all grade levels.
The point being made in the article is that the wide range of results is evidence for the need for common standards; a movement I have referenced in several previous posts. Though there is currently no agreement across states on standards, one would have to take acceptance of the standards one step further to agreement by states to use the same assessment and same cut scores. That might become more difficult to achieve as many states may not want to see the rankings based on common standards and cut scores. Politically, it is much easier to publicize state results when the cut scores are determined at the state level.
As of today, there are forty-eight states that have signed on to the common standard initiative with one being our state. OSPI is monitoring this process that includes K-12 standards in English/Language Arts and Mathematics and College and Career Ready standards. It was a wise political move to indicate interest as this is certainly a high priority for the Education Department and the current administration. Adopting the standards, however, will be a more difficult decision. Agreement on common assessments and cuts scores, the larger goal, will be even more difficult to achieve. There are so many obstacles to achieving this; imposing of federal authority on state’s rights; loss of local control over the content of what is taught, and the potential adverse publicity and political upheaval for states whose students will score at or near the bottom of the rankings where under state control students are meeting standard at a much higher level.
Rankings in this study suggest that our students would fare well as we are 16 out 26 in the reading assessment and 21 out of 26 in the mathematics assessment comparison. Of course this comparison does not include about half the states, but over time we have been led to believe that our standards and assessment are among the more difficult in the country. The study can be found here. It is lengthy and I have only looked at the information for our state. In general, our cut scores range from the middle to the upper third in the comparison except for grades 3 and 4 reading that are lower in comparison.
Of interest was the comment in the report referring to a “walk to the middle” by states with high standards who are concerned with meeting the 2014 NCLB requirement to have 100% of students at standard in reading and mathematics. There is a tendency to lower the cut score so that the requirement can be more readily achieved.
I'd post the comparison charts for you to see like the Flypaper post, but I still have not learned how to get them into my posts. The same for files I would like to refer to and PDF's, and . . . So much to learn - I guess I need help.
The point being made in the article is that the wide range of results is evidence for the need for common standards; a movement I have referenced in several previous posts. Though there is currently no agreement across states on standards, one would have to take acceptance of the standards one step further to agreement by states to use the same assessment and same cut scores. That might become more difficult to achieve as many states may not want to see the rankings based on common standards and cut scores. Politically, it is much easier to publicize state results when the cut scores are determined at the state level.
As of today, there are forty-eight states that have signed on to the common standard initiative with one being our state. OSPI is monitoring this process that includes K-12 standards in English/Language Arts and Mathematics and College and Career Ready standards. It was a wise political move to indicate interest as this is certainly a high priority for the Education Department and the current administration. Adopting the standards, however, will be a more difficult decision. Agreement on common assessments and cuts scores, the larger goal, will be even more difficult to achieve. There are so many obstacles to achieving this; imposing of federal authority on state’s rights; loss of local control over the content of what is taught, and the potential adverse publicity and political upheaval for states whose students will score at or near the bottom of the rankings where under state control students are meeting standard at a much higher level.
Rankings in this study suggest that our students would fare well as we are 16 out 26 in the reading assessment and 21 out of 26 in the mathematics assessment comparison. Of course this comparison does not include about half the states, but over time we have been led to believe that our standards and assessment are among the more difficult in the country. The study can be found here. It is lengthy and I have only looked at the information for our state. In general, our cut scores range from the middle to the upper third in the comparison except for grades 3 and 4 reading that are lower in comparison.
Of interest was the comment in the report referring to a “walk to the middle” by states with high standards who are concerned with meeting the 2014 NCLB requirement to have 100% of students at standard in reading and mathematics. There is a tendency to lower the cut score so that the requirement can be more readily achieved.
I'd post the comparison charts for you to see like the Flypaper post, but I still have not learned how to get them into my posts. The same for files I would like to refer to and PDF's, and . . . So much to learn - I guess I need help.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Sharing our leadership journey . . .
The first zero wins, three loss weekend of football. The Bears, Huskies, and Seahawks all lost. Three straight days of agony. I’ve got to find another sport; these guys are driving me crazy.
On Friday Connie and I are making a presentation at the fall WSASCD on our teacher leadership learning model. When we responded last spring to the request for proposals we were engaged in the training with teams from all of our schools and also from the Riverview and Snoqualmie School Districts. After we were informed that our proposal was accepted we ran headlong into the budget adjustment process with teacher leadership being one of those programs that was placed on hold. It was a difficult decision for me, but given the circumstances the appropriate one to make.
As I began to think about preparing for our Friday presentation it bothered me that we would be sharing a model and experiences that are not in place this year. I shared my concerns with Connie and she made me understand that it was my call. I decided that it would still be important to share so we will be there on Friday. Amy has agreed to join us to share the Tahoma Middle School experience.
Why did I decide to share? Because I believe that the foundation that we have created to support our Classroom 10 initiative was made possible through this work. As a system, we have put in place mental models and skill sets that support communication and learning environments that engage in change and embrace a focus on the needs of young people. Planning templates, influencer strategies, system thinking, and the capacity to engage in skillful conversations have assisted in this work. We are also transferring much of what we learned to our work with our Ten Tech Teacher Leaders and I was also asked to work with Rock Creek’s leadership team last week and for one additional day. So, we are still doing the work, but in a different context.
Our success with the Classroom 10 initiative will be influenced by our ability to distribute leadership across our system. We need teacher leaders to support their colleagues in this change effort that have the communication skills and the capacities to develop, implement, and assess adult learning opportunities. In many cases they are better positioned to do this work than are those in formal leadership positions. Yes, I’ll share our journey because I believe that others might gain a better understanding of the importance of teacher leaders in ensuring that change sustains over time.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Is it cheating?
I found this article from a post on Cool Cat Teacher Blog September 19th about student cheating and their attitudes towards cheating. The article identifies the top five ways that students cheat electronically and goes on to discuss that many of today’s students do not see this as cheating.
They quote a survey by Common Sense Media that states:"35% of teens use their cell phones to cheat by:
*26% store info on their phone and look at it while taking a test
*25% send text messages to friends, asking for answers
*17% take pictures of a test – and then send it to their friends
*20% use their phones to search for answers on the Internet
*48% warn friends about a pop quiz with a phone call or text message"
I am wondering how prevalent this is in our district. I don’t have any data and I am not aware of conversations where administrators are seeing this as a significant issue. Are our students not engaging in this behavior in similar percentages or perhaps they are more adept and avoid being caught? I would be interested in your experiences. Is this just a high school and college issue or are similar behaviors and attitudes seen in younger students?
They quote a survey by Common Sense Media that states:"35% of teens use their cell phones to cheat by:
*26% store info on their phone and look at it while taking a test
*25% send text messages to friends, asking for answers
*17% take pictures of a test – and then send it to their friends
*20% use their phones to search for answers on the Internet
*48% warn friends about a pop quiz with a phone call or text message"
I am wondering how prevalent this is in our district. I don’t have any data and I am not aware of conversations where administrators are seeing this as a significant issue. Are our students not engaging in this behavior in similar percentages or perhaps they are more adept and avoid being caught? I would be interested in your experiences. Is this just a high school and college issue or are similar behaviors and attitudes seen in younger students?
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Another football weekend . . .
I just got home from the Seahawk game to close another not so successful football weekend. Thanks to the Bears it wasn’t winless, but certainly “my” teams did not all do well. The Huskies came back down to earth with a thud and the Seahawks continue to drive me crazy. I don’t consider myself one of those fanatics, but it does cause me some grief when they could or should have won and this was one of those games.
I hope this season will not continue to be win one, lose two, but that has been the case in each of the last two weeks. Last week it was the Huskies that won, this week the Bears, and next week I still have hope for all three.
I hope this season will not continue to be win one, lose two, but that has been the case in each of the last two weeks. Last week it was the Huskies that won, this week the Bears, and next week I still have hope for all three.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
My growing concern . . .
At the system level, the proposed national core standards are bothering me for many reasons, one of them being what Ethan and Jonathan share in their comments about mixed messages and the potential for more years of alignment to changing standards, curriculum development, gap lessons, and adjusting assessments. Energy expended on this work is energy and time not focused on the how of implementing Classroom 10 and the heart of learning, the interactions between adult and student in the classroom. We have been engaged in this alignment and development work with the many revisions to state standards for too many years.
The thought of spending two more years on state standards with the potential for federal math and English standards to follow simply frightens and upsets me. If at that time we must or will officially “adopt” them at the state level than why not just bite the bullet and do so now? Please understand, I am not endorsing adoption, but I would like to get a better sense from state level officials about the potential for adoption in two years. Information in the OSPI press release does not provide me with a comfort level or the necessary direction to identify how our system should respond to the potential for these changes in a relatively short period of time.
I am also concerned with the pressure from the federal level to adopt them in order to qualify for billions of dollars in innovation funding. Yes, I know the likelihood of our state qualifying in round 1 or future rounds may not be great because of the other equally disturbing criteria that must be met to qualify, but I don’t like being placed in the position of potentially adopting simply to qualify for enhanced funding. And, isn’t it sad that the Gates Education Foundation or here, located in our back yard, is supporting the work of 15 other states with their proposals. They have recently made the decision to support any additional states that can answer eight questions affirmatively with question two requiring adoption of the national core standards by June 2010. Reading the OSPI press release, the earliest we would do that is in two years leaving us out of any support from the foundation, seen as a critical component of any successful proposal.
I think that there are some good arguments for having a set of national core standards, but NCLB created mandates giving states autonomy over content that should not be expected to change as rapidly as I feel we are being pressured to do with this proposed set of standards. Perhaps this change should be embedded in long needed changes to NCLB legislation that makes sense and provides direction and support that we can all get behind. From information in this article, however, it doesn’t appear that this administration is in any hurry to take on that challenge. It does appear, however, that they are willing to share with us through RttT funding criteria what we should be doing without supporting us or showing us how to do it.
I will continue to follow these developments and periodically share updates and my thinking. I fear that this has the potential to pit state against state at the federal level, to be disruptive and divisive at the state level, to reinforce the perception that all teacher associations are against change, and to make the work at the local level more difficult to maintain focus and use diminishing resources efficiently and effectively. Who knows, maybe this is what “they” want. We certainly know that many in powerful positions see charters as the savior to all our public school problems. Too bad they don’t know about the Tahoma School District and the many others whose teachers are just as committed and successful as those in the charter schools being portrayed as saviors for our youth.
The thought of spending two more years on state standards with the potential for federal math and English standards to follow simply frightens and upsets me. If at that time we must or will officially “adopt” them at the state level than why not just bite the bullet and do so now? Please understand, I am not endorsing adoption, but I would like to get a better sense from state level officials about the potential for adoption in two years. Information in the OSPI press release does not provide me with a comfort level or the necessary direction to identify how our system should respond to the potential for these changes in a relatively short period of time.
I am also concerned with the pressure from the federal level to adopt them in order to qualify for billions of dollars in innovation funding. Yes, I know the likelihood of our state qualifying in round 1 or future rounds may not be great because of the other equally disturbing criteria that must be met to qualify, but I don’t like being placed in the position of potentially adopting simply to qualify for enhanced funding. And, isn’t it sad that the Gates Education Foundation or here, located in our back yard, is supporting the work of 15 other states with their proposals. They have recently made the decision to support any additional states that can answer eight questions affirmatively with question two requiring adoption of the national core standards by June 2010. Reading the OSPI press release, the earliest we would do that is in two years leaving us out of any support from the foundation, seen as a critical component of any successful proposal.
I think that there are some good arguments for having a set of national core standards, but NCLB created mandates giving states autonomy over content that should not be expected to change as rapidly as I feel we are being pressured to do with this proposed set of standards. Perhaps this change should be embedded in long needed changes to NCLB legislation that makes sense and provides direction and support that we can all get behind. From information in this article, however, it doesn’t appear that this administration is in any hurry to take on that challenge. It does appear, however, that they are willing to share with us through RttT funding criteria what we should be doing without supporting us or showing us how to do it.
I will continue to follow these developments and periodically share updates and my thinking. I fear that this has the potential to pit state against state at the federal level, to be disruptive and divisive at the state level, to reinforce the perception that all teacher associations are against change, and to make the work at the local level more difficult to maintain focus and use diminishing resources efficiently and effectively. Who knows, maybe this is what “they” want. We certainly know that many in powerful positions see charters as the savior to all our public school problems. Too bad they don’t know about the Tahoma School District and the many others whose teachers are just as committed and successful as those in the charter schools being portrayed as saviors for our youth.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
National standards released . . .
The national standards in mathematics and English were released this week with little fanfare. There was some mention in blogs I follow, but not as much as I had anticipated. There was also an OSPI press release found here and one in the Washington Post here. Our state is one of the 48 that have joined the initiative. Included in the release is the following statement by Superintendent Dorn.
“I’m pleased to be part of the new standards team,” said Randy Dorn, state superintendent of public instruction. “A common benchmark of standards for all states will make our education system more efficient and cost-effective, and it will give our kids a better chance at competing in a global economy.”
Superintendent Dorn’s comment would lead one to believe that as a member of the team we would be adopting the standards, yet later in the press release we find the following.
. . . The common standards created by the NGO and CCSSO will be examined thoroughly and transparently. Any changes to the state’s standards would not occur for at least two years, and then only after an ample opportunity for public review and comment.
This is good to know because we are in the first year of implementing revised mathematics standards. This means that most school systems are engaged in the alignment process once again and it is good to know that this work will be necessary for at least two years. We have already had to adjust to too many revisions to standards in mathematics and science over the years.
We also know that at the federal level the education department has endorsed the standards and is recommending that all states adopt them. Adoption could also become a requirement or criteria used to qualify for Race to the Top and other federal grant opportunities. This will certainly place our state in a difficult position in the short term if the standards are not adopted for at least two years. It will be interesting to watch how this unfolds over time. There could be pressure to adopt from outside the school community and pressure to preserve autonomy from inside. What advice would you give the superintendent and governor?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)