No Math/Science WASL grad requirement until 2013

At the end of this year's legislative session, it was voted to suspend use of the math/science portions of the WASL until 2013 according to an article in the Seattle Times.

If I can get this right, no class has ever had to pass the math, reading and writing portions of the WASL to graduation. I believe that was to start in 2008. The state is up to about 85% of students passing the reading and writing WASL and so, starting with the class of 2008, all seniors will have had to take and pass the reading and writing portions of the WASL to graduate. Only 56% of sophomores had passed the math WASL and just 38% passed the science WASL. (Just to keep in mind; if you don't take and pass the WASL, you cannot be issued a diploma and graduate with your class in the state of Washington. However, very few colleges or universities require a diploma to enroll. UW doesn't.)

The bill has a provision that would allow the state Board of Education to set an earlier date for either test. The Board of Education is likely to hear from the business community which stands behind the use of the WASL. From the article:
"Steve Mullin, president of the Washington Roundtable, an association of corporate executives, said the bill has too long of a delay for the math and science WASL requirements. "We'll be urging a full veto," he said."

The bill also requires the state Board of Education to study the prospect of replacing the math and science WASL tests with end-of-course assessments.

The governor has said she favors delaying the math and science portions but not the reading and writing portions. It is not known how she feels about end-of-courses assessments (such as in New York state where they have what are called Regents exams for single subjects).

I'm not against assessments. I just think the WASL is not the best test and needs tweaking. It is also a very expensive test at $18 per portion which works out to between $58-72 per student, depending on grade level. It's hard for me to believe we could not assess students for less cost (and plow that money back into the classroom). For example, the normative test, ITBS (Iowa Test of Basic Skills) was considered at gold standard for its type of test (multiple choice, scored by a machine) and cost about $3 per student. I sure wish there was some in-between test that cost less and was less reading and writing based in the math portions. (I've never gone to check out what the science portions are like. Anybody out there who has?)

I get when people say (especially business) that students graduating high school should be able to do sophomore level work. I'm not for letting kids off the hook.

One last thing; I wish there were a civics/lifeskills portion to the WASL. Kids need to know basic information (which we teach to immigrants before they can become citizens) about being an American citizen like how often we vote for President (senators, representatives) what is the Electoral college, why are 3 branches of government important, what are the Bill of Rights are, how to write a resume, etc.

Comments

Roy Smith said…
I hate to say it, but I have gotten to the point with the Washington Roundtable that whenever they say anything regarding education, my first reflex is to assume that doing the opposite is good public policy. Case in point: they are strong proponents of privatizing public education, even though charter schools have been beaten down by voters multiple times in this state.

The Washington Roundtable exists to serve the interests of business, not the interests of citizens.
Anonymous said…
I love the idea of having a civics / life skills section on the test! Last year, there was a group of people outside of the Seafair hydroplane races on the free Friday handing out flyers with the RCW that stipulates the state is responsible for teaching civics.
Anonymous said…
Once again I'm thinking of something Greg Thornton advocated: ditch the WASL and have benchmark tests throughout the year. It would probably be cheaper and take less time to administer. WenG
Anonymous said…
We focus so much on our low math and science WASL scores, that nobody every mentions civics. If it doesn't get tested it doesn't get taught. I'm not a huge advocate for standardized testing, but, if we need to add civics to the WASL, then so be it. I'm not one of the new-age type parents. I want my children to have the basics, like we had, and they are just not getting it in SPS
Anonymous said…
There are also EALRs on dance and visual art but we don't see WASLs for them. Oh wait, I see assessments will be required in 2008/2009 school year. The Civics EALRs page does not list a date for implementation. But there are Classroom based assessments available to fulfill the RCW, but no requirements are listed.

The frustrating thing about this current issue with the math WASL is how it ties in with Micheal's recent comments on the math curriculum. (I could go on and on myself about the same thing. Both Micheal and Bruce Ramsey said it well.)

The WASL is supposed to hold schools accountable for their teaching. The fact that so many kids do poorly on the math WASL is partly because of the poor design of the test, and partly because the schools do a poor job of teaching math. By agreeing to ignore the scores the legislature is helping the schools avoid accountability for the bigger problem of bad instruction.
Upon reflection, I think Dorothy is right. There is no one reason why kids aren't doing well on the math WASL. The state/OSPI needs to set out a clear path of change and give their reasoning and make sure it is comprehensive (i.e. don't just rewrite the math WASL).
Anonymous said…
"Once again I'm thinking of something Greg Thornton advocated: ditch the WASL and have benchmark tests throughout the year. It would probably be cheaper and take less time to administer. WenG"

Be careful what you wish for.

Along with these regular benchmarks comes a very structured district wide curriculum and daily teaching schedule. (In Philadelphia, for example, every algebra one teacher city-wide must cover the quadratic formula using the same textbook on the very same day.) Then every once in a while the district sends out the benchmark test which everyone takes on the same day, is scored by the district and is part of the student's grade.

I recently met a retired high school math teacher from Philly. She took early retirement instead of accepting the above rules. She still substitute teaches. Subs can teach whatever they darn well please.

This district wide schedule is coming to Seattle, witness middle school math. Sure, this may raise the floor with regard to inexperienced or incompetent teachers, but doesn't allow proficient or gifted teachers any autonomy. And, as someone commented on the recent Math post, leads to Eckstein no longer being able to offer Int II and Int III. (What about Washington?)

As for all the commenters who mention elementary schools who do their own thing mathematically, just wait, I believe the middle school district-wide mandates are going to spread.

That said, I do like the idea of more classroom based assessments. One of the features that the schools you hear about with underprivileged kids who shine on the WASL have in common is regular assessments, weekly assessments. And the information gathered is used to create/modify the instruction to fit the child's needs. This new district wide scheduling mandate doesn't seem to allow that much flexibility, does it?
Anonymous said…
In reference to what Dorothy says "Along with these regular benchmarks comes a very structured district wide curriculum and daily teaching schedule. (In Philadelphia, for example, every algebra one teacher city-wide must cover the quadratic formula using the same textbook on the very same day.)"

I am the parent who wrote earlier that I had one student whose pubilc school had a strong focus on multiplication in 3rd grade, and another child in a different public school who didn't get to multiplication until 5th grade, and it was a quick run through, with no repetition.

I am not a teacher, and don't fully understand the ramifications of a standardized curriculum, and am only speaking from a parents perspective when I say, I think a standardized curriculum offers consistency, and some insulation against schools or teachers that are not doing their job well or following the very vague EASLR's.

As for the second part of your statement
"this may raise the floor with regard to inexperienced or incompetent teachers, but doesn't allow proficient or gifted teachers any autonomy"

I don't think it's about the teachers really, I think it's about the students, and giving them whats best. One teacher may do fine with the autonomy and be very creative, passionate and competent, but the next may be very inexperienced or just plain incompetent. In an effort to give the proficient teacher autonomy, my child may have to suffer the incompetency of a less than adequate teacher. It doesn't seem right.

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Why the Majority of the Board Needs to be Filled with New Faces

Who Is A. J. Crabill (and why should you care)?