Curriculum Alignment in SPS

  

Go to table-of-contents.
Go to reform-of-seattle-public-schools [parent index]


May 2009: the District communicated to Roosevelt High School that the Language Arts curriculum would be "aligned." This entailed eliminating popular electives. Read about this at http://saveseattleschools.blogspot.com/2009/05/high-school-la-curriculum.html; see especially Charlie Mas' entry

Oct. 22, 2009: SPS District office has just announced that it will schedule community meetings on District-wide Curriculum Alignment just before and after Thanksgiving


Here are some blog essays on this topic:

• Curriculum Alignment - Is it Good or Bad?
• Curriculum Alignment in SPS - Why

Go to reform-of-seattle-public-schools [parent index]
Go to Table-of-contents

Curriculum Alignment in SPS: WHY?

 

Go to table-of-contents
Go to curriculum-alignment-in-sps [parent index]


This is a quote from the first entry on this webpage: http://saveseattleschools.blogspot.com/2009/05/high-school-la-curriculum.html

"Basically, the district wants to align the curriculum from school to school for a couple of reasons. One is that there are enough students who transfer from school to school and find completely different things happening. Another is that the district wants to have some continuity about what is happening from school to school. I can see their point somewhat."

Do you want to know why I think the District is keen on Curriculum Alignment?

[If you don't, you can click here to return to the Table of Contents.]

The justifications the District has given don't sound very compelling, do they?  Not to me.  My guess is that Curriculum Alignment and Elimination of School Choice (SAP) are complementary parts of an agenda to increase the appetite for charter schools. 

Notice that SAP cannot be justified unless all the schools are identical in curriculum.

• Even so, I would still argue that aligning curriculum isn't enough to justify SAP, Within large urban school districts such as Seattle's, SAP has a huge downside: de facto resegregation. We know that the kids assigned to struggling schools having little supplementary fundraising are not getting as good an education as kids assigned to a school with a predominately white and middle-to-upper class student body. 
• Familes of kids who under the choice system would have elected to go elsewhere (say, Summit?  African American Academy?  Tops? - the first two of these programs were closed, remember?) will soon be--under SAP--stuck going to a struggling school they don't want to be in in the first place, and which is academically inferior to the school they would have chosen to go to.

Curriculum alignment, as we can see in the case of Roosevelt High School, can lead to narrowing and dumbing-down of the curriculum.  The schools to which the more advantaged children are assigned will become less appealing to families. The familes that can afford to will move their kids to private school.

Looking at these consequences of SAP and Curriculum Alignment, it is easy to see how families of all income levels will likely show a greater appetite for charter schools. Why? Typically

• Charter schools are choice schools; if demand for seats exceeds supply, then typically charter school seats are assigned by lottery.
• A parallel system of charter schools provides the choice that is to be largely (more probably, completely) eliminated by SAP.
• Charter schools are free to cater to a target clientele.  Some charter schools specialize in serving low-income minority children. Such charter schools are often punitive and highly regimented. Some charter schools specialize in serving more affluent clientele.  So a network of charter schools can provide something for everyone.

We already have a psuedo-charter school in Seattle. It is called the New School. It is also referred to as South Shore.  The New School will be the topic of a separate blog essay. I will mention a couple things about it here. ,

• The New School uses a PK-K curriculum "High/Scope" that sounds distinctly progressive. "High/Scope sets the stage for active learning: students have direct, hands-on experiences with people, objects, events and ideas. The children’s interests and choices are the heart of High/Scope programs, and a daily plan-do-review sequence provides the structure."  It sounds like the Grade 1-3 curriculum is similar in philosophy to the High/Scope curriculum: "The New School Foundation supports strong alignment between its pre-kindergarten experience and the K-3 experiences that follow."
• Rumor has it that Maria Goodloe-Johnson is sending her daughter to the pre-school program at the New School.
• There is plenty of evidence that MGJ does not support the non-charter public Alternatives schools in SPS, all of which provide progressive education to their students. (See The Sun is Going Down on Board Policy C54 and Alternative Schools .)

Don't these facts taken together tell us the MGJ likes choice and progressive curriculum as long as it is not within the non-charter public school system?

The next logical question that someone would ask is this:  Why do Reformists abhor free choice and progressive curriculum when it occurs WITHIN the public school system?  The most plausible answer I can think of is this:

                                 $$$$$$$$$

The individuals and organizations that are bankrolling the School Reform advocacy movement are first and foremost business people, whose most fundamental objective is to Make Money for Themselves and/or for Shareholders.  

Open enrollment Charter Schools would provide a much better business income opportunity than do open enrollment C54 Alternative schools.

SAP: Is it true that parents want "predicability"?

  
Go to table-of-contents.
Go to reform-of-seattle-public-schools [parent index]

Links to blog essays on this topic:

• http://saveseattleschools.blogspot.com/2009/09/where-to-start.html. In this blog, the author questions whether it is true, as the District claims, that most parents want neighborhood schools and predicatbility: She asks: where is the data to prove this?

SAP Plan to Elimate Choice

  
Go to table-of-contents.
Go to reform-of-seattle-public-schools [parent index]

Links to blog essays on this topic:

• The District says that parents want this. Is this true?
• Is this plan disadvantageous to many low-income and minority students?

Curriculum Alignment - Good or Bad?

 

Go to table-of-contents
Go to curriculum-alignment-in-sps [parent index]


An exellent report that address this question as the main theme or as a sub-theme:

• https://coreknowledge.org/CK/about/research/Report40.pdf. Questions that this report speaks to include the following:  Is Curriculum Alignment best practice? [No, since the district doesn't necessarily always pick the best curriculum. Think of SPS' adopted math curricula!] The experience of teachers in a curricularly aligned, data-driven, standardized-test-oriented reformed district.

Whole Language and Phonics

• Why do I list "Whole Language and Phonics" as a sup-topic this index?  What if the District chooses, of these two approaches, the inferior approach?  Public school children will suffer the consequences.
• http://www.halcyon.org/wholelan.html Best article so far to give pros and cons of Phonics Wins out. This article indicates that Whole Language curriculum leads to lower levels achievement on broad measures of achievement.
• For some interesting blog essays/comments on this topic, search the Core Knowledge site: http://www.coreknowledge.org/CK/search.htm, and use the search string "whole language phonics"
• for more interesting articles, search the web: google "whole language versus phonics"
  
  
  

Method challenges some education myths [Commentary]

 

Go to Table of Contents

This  blog entry is a commentary on the article Method Challenges Some Education Myths By Jason Song and Jason Felch, published October 18, 2009 in LA Times.

I suggest you read the article (click on the link) before reading this essay.


This article purports to summarize research that debunks as myth commonly held beliefs having to do with education. Notice especially that if the assertions of the article are accepted at face value, then we are forced to draw the following conclusion:

"The teachers that command the highest salaries in public schools (due to credentials and years of experience) "add" less value than less-qualified and less-experienced teachers. The less-experienced, less-well credentialed teachers are just as successful, and often more successful, at closing the achievement gap. This is true regardless of class size (smaller class size does not lead to higher achievement)."

Under the following circumstances, the assertions in the news article are very likely to be true:

1. One only looks at schools that have implemented and exhibit high fidelity to a reformist core curriculum and reformist teaching methods.
2. Teachers at the schools constrain the content of their lessons to the core-curriculum, which is to say, all of the teaching is geared to the test.
3. The only measure of individual achievement considered is individual scores on the district- or state-mandated standardized exam.
4. The only measure of teacher success considered is year-over-year aggregate change in achievement of the students in his/her classes for that school year.
5. The only measure of school success considered is the year-over-year aggregate change in achievement of the students enrolled in the school.

Research studies that only look at schools that conform to some or all of these five criteria will likely produce results that support the assertions of the newspaper article. Such research cannot, however be considered as constituting fair and valid tests of the stated hypothesis.

Now lets add another criterion to the five listed above. Let us limit our analysis to inner-city urban high schools, and test whether disadvantaged students at charter schools outperform their peers in public schools. We will mostly find that on narrow measures of achievement, charter schools outperform the public schools. We will also notice, if we are looking, that in violence-ridden neighborhoods, the charter schools are either sponsored by a branch of the U.S. Military, or are highly regimented and punitive.

Consider now asking the same research question, but this time of student performance at schools that have NOT been reformed. Suppose the researchers limited their study to schools that meet these criteria:

1. School located in large urban area, and having very high proportion of low-income and minority students.
2. Teachers do not "teach to the test." Instead, a small proportion of cumulative annual lesson time is devoted to test preparation. This lesson time focuses on test-taking skills, not on test content.
3. The school curriculum and educational philosophy is progressive; that is to say, it is rich and broad in scope, has a strong hands-on/active learning/project-based emphasis, is intellectually-engaging and challenging for students, and students are invited to help determine study themes.
4. The only measure of individual achievement considered is individual scores on the district- or state-mandated standardized exam.


I predict that a high proportion of students at these schools will pass the state standard exams. If the measures of achievement are broadened to include student return rate, first choice rate, drop out rate, college-application rate, college entrance rate, advanced-degree achievement rate, etc., then students at these schools will strongly outperform students at the military and militaristic charter schools, and at non-charter public schools that follow the regressive Reform prescription.

I have found analyses that supports this prediction. In other words, there does exist data that shows that progressive education is more successful at closing the achievement gap than is reform education. The contrast in outcomes is especially stark when achievement is defined by authentic measures.

This blog essay is long enough. I will defer discussion of relevant research for a separate blog essay, to be written on another day.

I am interested to hear what others think of this LA Times article.

Method challenges some education myths

  

Go to Table of Contents

Blog note: Please comment on this article and/or go to Joan's commentary on this article.

Related articles:

• http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/10/challenging-classroom-myths.html%20Judging Judging teachers: Much of what you thought you knew is wrong | October 16, 2009 | "A new way of crunching test scores is turning conventional ideas in education on their head. The approach, called value added, has gained momentum in recent months as it has been embraced by the Obama administration and policymakers around the country, though it has generated strong opposition from teachers unions..."
• http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-teacher-eval18-2009oct18,0,4471467.story "In Tenn. and N.C., Terry Grier adopted and expanded a statistical method of tracking student progress. Union resistance scuttled more modest efforts in San Diego, mirroring a brewing national debate..."
• http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-teacherqanda18-2009oct18,0,5553420.story Commonly asked questions about the 'value-added' approach to teacher assessment
• http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-value-added-sources,0,2778110.story?page=2 Times research: Value added sources. In reporting on the value-added approach, The Times interviewed a dozen leading experts and reviewed more than two dozen research and policy papers from proponents and skeptics. [This article provides a] list of some of the papers reviewed by The Times.

Blog note: The last of these related articles lists very few high quality scientific sources. Many of the sources are reformist advocacy organizations.  The source lists leaves me with little faith in scientific credibility of the Times assertions in this series of articles.

Here is the article:


Districts and states that use the 'value-added' approach have had some surprising results: Class size, student background and schools' funding appear to be less critical than has long been believed.

By Jason Song and Jason Felch
October 18, 2009

LA Times. 

For years, schools and students have been judged on raw standardized test scores. Experts say this approach is flawed because they tend to reflect socioeconomic levels more than learning.

The "value-added" approach attempts to level the playing field by focusing on growth rather than achievement. Using a statistical analysis of test scores, it tracks an individual student's improvement year to year, and uses that progress to estimate the effectiveness of teachers, principals and schools.

Academics have also used the approach to test many assumptions about what matters in schools. Scholars are still puzzling over what makes for a great teacher or school, but their results challenge orthodox assumptions like these:

All teachers are equal. For decades, schools have treated teachers like interchangeable parts. Value-added results suggest there are sharp differences in teachers' effectiveness.

More money, more learning. The highest growth among students is often in poor schools with low achievement scores, according to districts and states that have adopted the value-added approach. Students at affluent schools sometimes have high proficiency scores but make little new progress year to year.

Teachers can't overcome a student's background. Recent research shows that with several effective teachers in a row, students can overcome disadvantages. Some studies suggest minority and poor students make as much progress as other pupils when placed with the same effective teachers.

Class size is key. Modest changes in class size have been shown to have little to no effect on student learning.

Bad teachers tend to teach in poor schools. Several studies suggest that there is more variation among teachers within a school than across schools. Effective instructors are often distributed across rich and poor schools, and they tend to stay at challenging schools longer than at ineffective ones.

Teacher experience matters. Although teachers are generally paid more for years of experience, research suggests that instructors show dramatic improvement in their first few years and then level off. Teachers with 20 years of experience are often no more effective than peers with five.

Teacher education matters. Schools routinely pay higher salaries to teachers with graduate degrees. But several studies have found that educators with advanced degrees do no better than those without, with the possible exception of high school math teachers.

Teacher credentials matter. Most public schools pay teachers more for certifications and advanced credentials. But several studies have shown that non-traditionally prepared instructors -- such as those in the Teach for America program -- have similar or slightly better outcomes than certified ones.


Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-myths18-2009oct18,0,4278154.story

Please comment on this article and/or Go to Joan's commentary on this article