So long WASL, hello WCAP
Randy Dorn just released details on replacing the WASL with a new assessment, called Washington Comprehensive Assessment Program (WCAP), beginning in Spring 2010.
I'm excited to see Dorn make a clean break from the WASL, as opposed to spending time and money on an overhaul. The WASL had so much baggage that its reputation could not be redeemed with most families and teachers.
What will the WCAP be? According to OSPI's site:
Measurements of Student Progress (MAP) test in Grades 3 - 8
The MSP will differ from the WASL in numerous and significant ways. The grades 3-8 tests will be used as tools for teachers to evaluate the progress of students with almost immediate feedback.
The grades 3-8 MSP tests will be:
--Shorter, both in time required to take the test and the number of days needed to administer it.
--Less expensive and tied to technology.
High School Proficiency Exams (HSPE)
The High School Proficiency Exams (HSPE) will measure whether students have learned the required basic skills in reading, writing, math and science. These will be used to meet the state reading and writing graduation requirements.
Dorn includes more details on the tests, along with some detail on math and science tests, on the WCAP main page.
I don't think Dorn has the power to singlehandedly change the test (I haven't had time to dig deeper on this front). However, given the WASL's shaky reputation and high costs, I can't imagine Dorn will face much resistance from legislators.
I'm excited to see Dorn make a clean break from the WASL, as opposed to spending time and money on an overhaul. The WASL had so much baggage that its reputation could not be redeemed with most families and teachers.
What will the WCAP be? According to OSPI's site:
Measurements of Student Progress (MAP) test in Grades 3 - 8
The MSP will differ from the WASL in numerous and significant ways. The grades 3-8 tests will be used as tools for teachers to evaluate the progress of students with almost immediate feedback.
The grades 3-8 MSP tests will be:
--Shorter, both in time required to take the test and the number of days needed to administer it.
--Less expensive and tied to technology.
High School Proficiency Exams (HSPE)
The High School Proficiency Exams (HSPE) will measure whether students have learned the required basic skills in reading, writing, math and science. These will be used to meet the state reading and writing graduation requirements.
Dorn includes more details on the tests, along with some detail on math and science tests, on the WCAP main page.
I don't think Dorn has the power to singlehandedly change the test (I haven't had time to dig deeper on this front). However, given the WASL's shaky reputation and high costs, I can't imagine Dorn will face much resistance from legislators.
Comments
"The MSP will differ from the WASL in numerous and significant ways. The grades 3-8 tests will be used as tools for teachers to evaluate the progress of students with almost immediate feedback.
The grades 3-8 MSP tests will be:
# Shorter, both in time required to take the test and the number of days needed to administer it.
# Less expensive and tied to technology.
High School Proficiency Exams (HSPE)
The High School Proficiency Exams (HSPE) will measure whether students have learned the required basic skills in reading, writing, math and science. These will be used to meet the state reading and writing graduation requirements.
Dorn includes more details on the tests, along with some detail on math and science tests, on the WCAP main page.
I don't think Dorn has the power to singlehandedly change the test (I haven't had time to dig deeper on this front). However, given the WASL's shaky reputation and high costs, I can't imagine Dorn will face much resistance from legislators."
I know in an earlier thread someone mentioned that 9 schools had been piloting the MAP test. Do we have any feedback from them? Anybody hear anything?
Anybody know anything about the new HS test?
I am still sad and unhappy that we are still participating in high stakes testing. I don't believe that a standardized test should be tied to graduation. I believe standardized tests should be used to see if a state, a district or a school is doing it's job, and are not used to measure individual students performance.
So where is the accountability? Where are the high stakes for the responsible adults?
Um, that was what the WASL was supposed to be all about. Are you saying you want it back? ;-)
All joking aside, I really have no problem with using standardized tests for graduation. Without *something* that shows the kids actually learned something in their 13 years of public education, the degree doesn't mean anything. Employers have said as much.
But the WASL, in addition to being really expensive, is being used for purposes that it was not designed for. Not only graduation requirements, but look how it's being used in determining Advanced Learning eligibility for grades 4-7. Why? "Because it's what we have". Totally inappropriate.
http://www.seattleschools.org/area/
advlearning/ansgiftelig3.htm
Let's hope that if the new tests are going to be used in ways that affect student graduation, eligibility, etc., they are actually designed for those purposes.
Randy Dorn said something similar on The Conversation today, about how he used to be a HS principal and knew he was handing diplomas to kids who had the credits, but not the skills.
Here's the thing I don't get: shouldn't the TEACHERS be "vetting" the kids' abilities and performance in their individual CLASSES? Why do we feel that we need an additional test to assess a kid's abilities in, say, reading and writing, when that student has gone through four years of English in high school?
If teachers are simply giving kids a "pass" despite their inability to demonstrate competency, then such an "exit" test would be necessary. If this is in fact the situation, however, then the reforms should go much deeper than standardized testing!
While standardized tests are effective at measuring the performance of groups of students, I do not think they are effective at measuring an individual students performance. I do not think that a students entire academic HS career can be measured on one day, in one test. I think graduation should be based on cumulative data collected throughout a students HS career. Teacher input is far more valuable to me than a one day "test" snapshot. And along with class finals, classroom tests and quizzes, teacher assessment, portfolios, etc, a child can be held accountable over a long period, which of course gives a much more balanced picture of what that child has done.
If the DISTRICT and SCHOOLS were held accountable to standardized test results wouldn't that make a diploma valuable in the community?
Similarly, I wonder why we don't use an existing, proven test for lower grades, such as the Stanford Achievement Test.
That said, this looks very much like a step in the right direction.
"We found a real bonus from MAP related to our outliers — those students performing significantly above or below grade level. Because each item is anchored to a vertically aligned scale covering all grades tested, the adaptive test for each student was not tied to grade-level content. Teachers, for the first time, were receiving information about the actual performance level of these students and about content appropriate for their needs.
"The grade-level equivalent scores we received from traditional tests long had been a source of confusion because, in spite of frequent explanations, nearly all of our parents interpreted an 8.5 grade-level score for their 5th graders as evidence the students were capable of and should be working on 8th grade content. This myth often was perpetuated by teachers new to the school district who didn’t yet understand that grade-level equivalent indicated simply that these students had responded to items from their own grade level similarly to average students in the higher grades.
"In contrast, the adaptive test selected item difficulty and cognitive complexity based on each student’s response pattern, moving outside of grade-level constraints as appropriate. With this information, our teachers finally could create an instructional plan that would support challenging and reasonable academic growth for every student, not just identify a few proficiency targets that were impossible for some and already achieved by others."
Helen Schinske
I am excited that the MAP/MSP will adjust itself to meet the students where they are at. My life revolves around special education and advanced learning students, and the WASL has not been a good measure for either....
Teachers are told to "pass" kids who don't have the skills. This is a top-down decision. Yes, reform is needed.
Let us start seeing some of that holding people accountable. Let us start with the administration's total neglect of the items raised in the Phi Delta Kappa $125,000 curriculum audit.
Education has largely disappeared and been replaced by politics.
I would hope that the use of standardized tests won't allow a teacher to simply give kids "a pass". Wouldn't that be reflected in that school or that teachers performance? The test should be a safety net. It should be used as a way to hold teachers and schools accountable and make sure they are doing their jobs. If school A is doing very well on it's standardized test, and school B with students of similar demographics is not doing well on the same test, then we know school B is not doing a very good job. The test should allow us to identify these types of situations.
Standardized tests can be effective in measuring the over all performance of a school. They should not however be used to measure the individual performance of a student. What if the student is attending school B?
Yesterday, I cut and pasted the text from OSPI's site about the tests, where they wrote out "Measurements of Student Progress (MAP)." Today, it's apparent that was a typo, and they've edited their site so that it says "(MSP)."
This is a big difference, because the MSP tests Dorn plans to implement will be homegrown, just like the WASL. They will not be the MAP tests that Helen shared such interesting information about.
Darn.
Both today's Times and PI have interesting articles on Dorn's plans. Seems like no one is clear yet whether he can unilaterally change the tests, or will need legislative approval.
Teachers and schools who have more students in this situation than would be expected based on demographics also need an intervention. In this case, fault does matter, and the adults at fault should see consequences, up to and including termination.
I was in no way advocating that a student who "hasn't mastered the material" should be promoted. I just don't think that one single test, given on one single day, could possibley be an accurate measure of the students "mastery of material". I think teachers should evaluate whether the student has "mastered the material" through a broad range of assessments and data including finals, quizzes, teacher evaluation, portfolios, etc. Isn't this the whole reason that we hire teachers? Isn't this why we give report cards and grades? Isn't this why kids either pass or fail a class? If we do not value a teachers assessment of our student, why even have teachers? We could just have schools that have rows and rows of cubicles where kids can work online and just take a test to show when they "master the material".
If school B is not doing their job then a standardized test will show that and there should be an intervention by the District, and of course support for student who were the victims of school B's inefficiency.
"Bill Bentley, Sequim schools superintendent, said the new grades three-eight test system looks like one Sequim teachers already use: the Measures of Academic Progress.
Taken twice annually — once at the beginning and at the end of each academic year — MAP tests show how students are progressing or regressing, Bentley said.
“(Dorn’s proposal) all sounds like MAP to me,” Bentley said. “If that is the case, then we would be very supportive of that. We strongly believe the system we have in the district does all of those things. It provides teachers ... a much better way than the current assessment system. A growth model is a key to having a reliable (testing) system. That looks really positive.”
Helen Schinske
Many states and districts do not follow the social promotion style that Seattle does, and your exageration of teenagers in kindergarten is non existent. Our neighbor district in Shoreline won't promote a child who hasn't passed his classes. They do lots of intervention for kids at risk of not passing....they offer tutoring, remedial classes, summer school, etc. But after the intervention if a student hasn't mastered the material they do not move on.
Personally, I agree with this method. I like the intervention strategy, and I like that they hold kids accountable.
Do you perhaps look at the social promotion issue from only a special ed or disability stand point? Have you thought about the kids who goof off, show up without their books or supplies, skip school, refuse to do homework, and generally don't care about school? Should they be promoted too? Is there any point you would agree with not promote a kid?t would you not promoting a kid? Should we have a 10th grader who can't read or add 10+10?
Where is the line?
Now, these are students with disabilities, but schools WILL be serving these disabled students in age appropriate classrooms. And no, it doesn't have to be a big doomsday for the student, or a diservice to anyone. In short, if they are going to be doing this for disabled students (and they absolutely are) then they might as well figure out how to differentiate appropriately for everyone. Otherwise, instead of "social promotion" we'll simply have "special ed promotion"... and the same students who you now think aren't ready.. will still be moving on. And we already find huge amounts of inappropriate "special ed promotion". That is, students placed in special education because of teaching deficits, early birthdays, and lots of reasons... other than actual disability.
It isn't bitterness to point out some obvious facts, and problems with simple-minded solutions. It is a complex problem you know. These sorts of things need to be determined on a case by case basis. Will it be better for this particular student to go on... or will the student benefit from repeating a grade?
I had a feeling you were only speaking about special ed students, I however, was not. Obviously disabled children need tailored accomodation, or, IEP's which I think they get. If a 12 year old student has a 5 year olds academic ability isn't that built into his IEP? Isn't his expectation or "pass" based on his level of ability?
But lets remember that special ed students only make up a small percentage of kids that are not "passing". What do you propose to do with the rest? What about the ones who skip school, don't do homework or classwork, goog off in class and dont give a darn about school? What about them? should they get passed too?
The name "social promotion" has very negative cannotations, but the fact is, learning social skills (and learning attitude) is a big part of what happens in schools. And you must have age appropriate (or close) classroom peers for that skill.
Passing isn't really a concept in SPS. And I've never seen anything like it in an IEP. Everybody moves to the next grade. General ed and special ed. In fact, if you want to retain your child in the same grade for an extra year... it's almost impossible and you must fight hard for it. My child repeated K... as did a few others. It wasn't a big deal then, as the district had too many first graders and actually requested this of us due to their capacity issues. But I know of many others who have had really, really big battles trying to get their kids to repeat. (In both special and general ed).
That Waldorf child that was never taught to read would be ostracized in a 3rd grade class. Perhaps that child could be in a 3rd grade class with a tutor or pull out for reading, but to expect the teacher to accomodate this child is unreasonable. It is unreasonable to expect a teacher to provide "instruction that people participate in at their level", when "the level" is 4 grades below the class she is teaching. Kids "participating at their own level" would be expected when the level is within an acceptable range for the age/grade.
If we are to have no enforcible performance expectations or "passing and failing" why give kids grades? Why issue report cards? Why have prerequisites for certain classes? Why have a test to get AP credit? Why have a test to get into Lowell? After all shouldn't all teachers just be able to differentiate? Why have graduation requirements? Heck, why issue a diploma? Isn't issuing a diploma or not issuing a diploma passing or failing a kid?
Again, I am not talking about mainstreamed special ed students. I understand that they have special needs, IEP's and aides that assist them when their needs are more than the classroom teacher can accomodate. I am talking about regular ed students.
That Waldorf child that was never taught to read would be ostracized in a 3rd grade class.
Not really. They got a little special ed pullout, and it was no big deal. And really, there are bullying standards and classes these day too. BUT, yes the teacher of the 3rd grade absolutely, and unequivocally had to teach the child... and in the third grade for 90% of the day. Sorry, public school, you don't get to choose.. and you don't get to "fail"... even if that's what they did when you were a kid. Report cards report where somebody is... I guess I don't see that as related. No, if you get all 1's.. you still don't fail, (have you ever heard of it in SPS? I haven't.) but your parents do have an idea of the progress you are making and you can take action based on that.
Oh yes we do. It's called a diploma. If you fail enough classes in HS then you don't earn enough credit to graduate. If you don't earn enough credit, you either drop out or return for another year or more until you earn enough credit and get your diploma.
What do you think happens to all those kids who got passed along and socially promoted for all those years? They are the kids who do not have the skills to pass their HS classes? All those years of getting "passed" finally catches up with them. They become the 50% of SPS kids who drop out.
I agree with AutismMom on this one:
"lots of stuff is retaught many times in different grades. So what? It's called review, spiralling curriculum, and lots of other things. If you don't get it in third grade, you'll get it in forth"
The trick, and the stickly part, is to have the resources in place to help the students get what they're missing.
Frankly, the whole "grade" thing is somewhat mystifying, and a legacy of the golden olden days when students were widgets. We've since learned that, as AM says, students develop at different rates in different skills; they have different backgrounds and environments; they each have unique challenges and aptitudes.
Me, I'd be in favor of some system that had no "grades" at all: Students master subjects or not, and if not, then developmental resources are applied to give the extra push.
In this view, ALL students are "special ed": Each has unique needs, each would have an IEP and an SLP, and resources would increase or decrease according to student needs (which would include external resources dedicated to addressing outside factors, factors of environment and parent/guardian ability, or lack thereof).
But this would, if not properly designed, be a logistical nightmare, and would also require a paradigm shift in the way we look at, assess, and reward education: Is its purpose to educate the child, or pass the child through a series of hoops so the child can enter society on society's terms (or not: capitalism requires various levels of expertise, and even a pool of unemployed - having some students "fail" at getting through the hoops fills the low-pay, low-skill slots and allows for a mobile and available workforce for those jobs that those who jump through the hoops successfully can choose not to take.
Good stuff, if we can afford it, and if parents, students and staff can wrap their minds around the idea that it's okay for a student to be getting "remedial" developmental work, that it's not a stigma. Many believe it is: "Johnny is brilliant! Why is he getting BASIC skill instruction?!"
So let's at least give a hand to the district for addressing developmental needs (and the aforementioned safety net needs) All these new initiatives require time, money, and buy-in tho': Some other things might have to give. Are people willing to give up some things to get others?
Not a teacher, so I'm just wondering how this 5, 6, 7 year grade span of differentiation actually works in a classroom, and if gen ed classroom teachers can or should be expected to do it?
Now lets think about what is available to kids working below grade level. Kids that are 1, 2, 3 years behind their classmates, or 7 years behind them like Autismom's scenario. What are they offered? Why isn't there a remedial class for them? Why not place kids that are one year behind in a remedial class for kids that are one year behind? Why is this type of service hailed for kids needing advanced services while parents shoot spit balls at the thought of the same service being offered for kids that are behind? Why are self contained classrooms (or one on one support) considered a disservice to kids that are behind, when it is norm for advanced kids?.
Try telling the parent of a child a Lowell that their student should go to RBHS and the classroom teacher will differentiate the instruction for their student. It wouldn't go over very well would it?
No grade levels, only graduation requirements (EALRs and GLEs).
Student is given regular common assessments (by, say, a school assessment coordinator) to determine need, and then is assigned to one of, say, three levels in any given subject: below, at, above level. Each of those levels has some range of ability represented in students, but not the hugely disparate range often found in today's gen ed classes.
Teachers are teamed, and have sufficient parapro resources.
Lessons allow for multiple access points: Skills are taught before concepts, tasks can be accompished in multiple ways.
It involves a paradigm shift in the way we think of classrooms. This is most apparent in the elementary level, where students are moved up, en masse, whether they have ALL the "required" knowledge at the given level or not. In MS and HS, there is more flexibility in assigning a student who excells in reading but lags in math to an advanced reading course and a developmental math course.
Because self-contained special education classes have been a disaster. One on one, most people like, but is rarely paid for, and is sometimes not so great. They almost never work or appreciably develop any skills. Because nobody gives a crap about them, in any way. Most remedial classes have also been shown to be ineffective.
We may wonder if "differentiating" works... but we absolutely know that self-contained special education programs do NOT work, or does NOT work well. I'm not a big fan of the advanced learning self-containment either... at least, as it stands, with the ever growing list of kids who claim they can not be served in "regular ed" determined at the ripe old age of 5 and want special privileges. If we have a small group of kids, whose needs absolutely can not be met in a regular classroom, then fine I get it and support it. But what we have now is a large group of the most privileged families claiming to have "special needs"... when really, that advanced material should be available to everyone. Because advanced material isn't available to everyone, I would claim that the sort of segregation hasn't been really successful and has only served the interests of a few. Furthermore, you test in K and never again have to prove anything. In that case, the exclusivity is actually what the families enjoy.
PS. The kid who is many years behind... is always being threatened with self-containment. And they definitely don't want it, and nor do they view it as beneficial. So, there you are... the kid will be in your class, and the kid DOES get something out of it. That too is a big myth. If you don't understand everything, you almost always understand something and learn something.
The district *does* at least pay lip service to the idea that students with disabilities may require advanced learning programs. I have heard various anecdotes about whether it works out well in practice, but it's misleading to suggest there's no policy at all in place.
Helen Schinske
It can be tricky, maybe rare, but it does happen.
In some schools, there is "walk to read" and maybe "walk to math" (?) where kids travel to different classrooms to receive instruction at their level in specific areas. It can be very difficult logistically, but some see good results with this type of program. But it doesn't fit with the "everyone in __________ grade will be doing this" philosophy.
So why do self contained special ed or remedial classrooms not work? If you are going to make these types of sweeping absolute statements then you should support them with factual information? Not saying your wrong, just saying if you want people to hear what your saying then instead of just saying "it doesn't work" you'll need to say why and back it. Otherwise it's just an opinion.
And how about other self contained programs like Montessori? SBOC? Why do they work?
My youngest son gets pulled out of his 5th grade math class once a week to work with a group of students who need extra assistance. It works great for him. His math skills are steadily improving, and the teacher has made it a poitive experience...she brings popcorn, plays soft music, etc.
Same thing happened to him in 1st grade. He was pulled out to work in a small group with a reading specialist. Same positive results.
This is not full time self containment, but it is definately separating kids by skill level, and I can say first hand that it worked very succesfully for our son.
Why does self containment work for some programs and groups but not others, and why does it not work for special ed specifically Autism mom?