[User:]

Justin,
I found this document : A Demonstration of Learning: Alternative Assessment in New Hampshire
If you google that, it will bring up a document.
Can you tell me if this is the basis for the pilot program. It gives details which can help parents better understand the program??
http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:ha7S_H0LPlEJ:www.ed.state.nh.us/education/doe/organization/adultlearning/Guidance/documents/ADemonstrationofLearning-updated704.doc+A+Demonstration+of+Learning:+Alternative+Assessment+in+New+Hampshire&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&ie=UTF-8

[User:]

You also mention in an earlier post:

" This empowerment and assumption of personal reponsibility allows the student to figure out what works and what does not so they may become an effective self-directed learner"

As I'm reading the document: A Demonstration of Learning: Alternative Assessment in New Hampshire

It states: Teachers function as 'coaches', with the confidence that students learn content not only through lecture but also through inspiration, experimentation, and practice.

Is this what you meant by becoming a "self-directed learner"? Because the teacher acts as a facilitator/coach?

Is this a Constructivist or Socratic approach you will be using in the classroom with this pilot program? It does sound like that is the teaching method based on the document?
Thank You

[User:]

Mr. Ballou wrote:

[Name:]

Mr. Ballou wrote:

[User:]

Mom with a Brain,

I apologize for not being able to answer your questions sooner, but I am just getting free from work now. To answer both of your questions....

[User:]

Jason,

I wish to clear up the fact of some of the quotes that you reference in your post. The first quote.....

[User:]

[Name:]

[User:]

Jason,

First of all, I apologize if you took the word skimming to mean anything of an insult. I am glad that you purchased and read the book, and the line was not to incite the fact of any expectations that I have for you.

In regards to your comments about teens and

[User:]

Thank You Justin. As I read from your posts on this pilot program, listening to the NPR radio program, and doing research on this initiative from the NH Dept of Ed, I picked up on the Constructivist methodology. I'm familiar with the Socratic approach, as I've seen it used in a private school in Manchester.

Here are my concerns with Constructivism/Socratic teaching in my observation of the private school using this approach in the classroom and from other documentation I will provide:

I found the theory to be extremely enticing. It was a way, they said, to teach "critical thinking". It allowed the students to discover knowledge. A way of teaching them how to learn. It all sounded great to the parents who signed on.

Here is how it worked in practice. The school realized it needed extensive training for the teachers. I think the guest on the NPR radio station mentioned the same thing. Since this was more of a discussion type learning atmosphere, the discussions went in many different directions leaving the students talking about all kinds of different topics. It wasn't structured well. It was hard for the teachers to reign in those discussions in order to identify the important material the students needed to focus on for things like tests, quizzes, etc.

The students also learned how to manipulate the teachers into talking about all kinds of topics that didn't relate to the material. That was a problem.

The students in the academic classes like math and science became frustrated because they weren't actually taught the material/concepts. We found resentment among the students, anger, and a loss of that "love of learning" we want to develop in students. Students would go home, the parents ended up either teaching the material, hiring tutors, or they'd call the one or two students who were gifted in that subject to help them learn it over the phone that night.

That method of teaching in the science and math classes lasted about one year before they realized it was not going to work. Students need direct instruction when learning math concepts, etc.

This is also a problem if you have teachers who are not experts in the material they are teaching. For instance, in some of the higher performing countries, teachers graduate experts in their respective fields. So guiding students in this way, isn't as big a problem when you have a teacher who is an expert in their subject.

With the focus on pedagogy over content in the schools of Ed, many of our teachers are not experts in fields like mathematics or science. That can present a problem.

On top of all of this, the students began to fall behind in their subjects. Because this takes up so much class time, the students weren't learning the material in a timely manner.

Several students left the school and upon entering another private more traditional school, found themselves behind their peers, academically. The parents also noted the SAT scores and felt their children didn't answer some of the easier questions based on the problems in the math and sciences.

While this experimentation didn't work out and the school has since made some major changes, there's also studies I found that are critical of the Constructivist approach. If you download the file, you can read about the problems they found with the "discovery" approach being used in the classroom. http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/kirschner_Sweller_Clark.pdf

IF you go to this site: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090326114415.htm

"Structure More Effective In High School Science Classes," This study Reveals, high school students in a classroom where the students are guided to discover science, fall behind their peers who are in a structured classroom setting. This is NOT the ideal way to prepare students for college science.

Finally, at this site http://mathwizards.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/constructivist-versus-traditional-math/ They give a good idea of the Constructivist approach used in mathematics and how it does not work well in the classroom. In fact, this site is dedicated to bringing a traditional/structured approach back into the math classes.

While I do appreciate the information you've provided, I do think parents need to proceed with caution when it comes to this pilot program. I would suggest parents sitting in on these classrooms. AS you can see from these two videos, there is little learning going on, but a lot of chaos. These are both videos from International Baccalaureate classrooms that also use the Constructivist methods.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1aQgwMuvGE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KpY54b5evg&feature=related

Note the last video is from a class "studying" the Nazi Ideal.

Parents should look closely at all of the links and files attached to this post before making any conclusive opinions.

[User:]

Are parents provided with an option as to which type of course instruction their child will receive? For example, if a senior level math class is included in this pilot program, do I have the option of having my son enroll in the same level math class that follows the traditional methods?

[User:]

Of course not....why in the world would a parent have any role in ensuring their kids get the education they deserve. Leave that to elitest board members and the professional we hire. After all, can't we trust them to raise our kids?

[Name:]

Of course not....why in the world would a parent have any role in ensuring their kids get the education they deserve. Leave that to elitest board members and the professional we hire. After all, can't we trust them to raise our kids?

[User:]

Mom with a Brain,

Respectfully speaking, the information that you presented does NOT have anything to do with the grading pilot that CHS is using. The pilot does not have teachers changing their techniques in order to teach concepts. The same methods for teaching the concepts are completed. (including note taking, classwork problems, discussion, scenario completion, etc....) and STILL DIFFER depending upon subjects taught, learning styles, and other factors that the teachers use to determine effective methods in conveying information.

A great example of this is when I am teaching research techniques, ( a skill set,) I may cover with the class the basics, but will allow them time to locate, analyze, and evaluate sources for credibility and content. At this point, students gain both the knowledge, (terms like MLA format, credibility, basic techniques in locating sources....) and then apply them in their own search which, unlike some of the examples you used above, are EXTREMELY focus and objective oriented. We may then, as a class, look at the examples they found and have a discussion on the validity of the examples.

All of this, by the pilots methodologies are formative, since the students are FORMING their base knowledge and skill sets, so I do not mark down in the grade book a point-value based grade since we should not grade on the amount of work, but the quality of the work. Once revisions, discussion, formatives are checked off by the teacher, I may assign an assignment, either in class or out of class that REQUIRES they use their knowledge base and skill sets to SHOW me they understand....in which the completed assignment they turn in will be graded and included in their class grade.

We place more weight on the fact of them SHOWING THEY KNOW rather then them just FOLLOWING THE PROCESS....this way, the grade that they get at the end of the semester is a true indicator of both WHAT THEY KNOW and WHAT THEY CAN DO.

I do understand that their have been ideas on how to revolutionize teaching, and we have seen fads......this policy IS NOT trying to change the way teaching is done, as it STILL requires practice, (formative assignments) and also proof of knowledge and skills, (summative assignments) I urdge ALL of use to talk to the students and look at tese procedures, but I want to be VERY CLEAR in the fact that the PILOT is not a TEACHING METHOD, as the sources above are trying to show with the ineffectivity of Open based, lassez faire educational methods as a permanent fixture of the classroom.

In closing, the pilot is here in order to paint an accurate picture of student understanding, and in my experiences in the classroom, is showing itself to be extremely effective in fostering great student responsibility and accountability.

Justin Ballou

[User:]

KBD,

To answer your question,

[User:]

Jason,

[User:]

Justin,

If this is truly a pilot program that is to be evaluated and not shoved down our throats, shouldn't a control group be included?

Besides, as a parent who does not agree with this program, I would like the option of being able to enroll my son in classes that utilize the old tried and true methods of learning. No offense, but parents who do not wish to have their kids be guinea pigs should be provided with alternatives. After all, if a program can succeed, there is also a chance that it could fail...

This program still does not address another of my concerns. In my mind, tests are also a means of evaluating the teacher's performance. If students are allowed to retake tests - and only the higher grade is accepted - how do we effectively evaluate the quality of the educator since the revised grades artificially inflate the teacher's performance? In my mind, an effective teacher helps the kid BEFORE he fails, by identifying issues through homework assignments and by providing tutoring / help as required. Besides, the threat of failure on a test used to be sufficient motivation for students to study.

Implementing this type of program encourages students who are great test takers to slack off - after all, why bother with the homework if 1) it's not really required and 2) I can maintain excellent grades without needing to take advantage of the retest option? This is setting up great students for failure in college since they will not have developed the study skills necessary to succeed.

I appreciate your attempt to improve upon tried and true methods. I truly believe that you have the students in mind when implementing this type of program. Unfortunately, there is a reason that the old methods are still used - because they work. A pilot program that is not widely used should not be implemented in over half of the school. A program like this should be studied more thoroughly before using our children as test subjects to prove / disprove a theory.

[User:]

There seems to be a fatal flaw, there is no way to compare apples to apples (unless I do not understand how the comparison is going to be done - which is entirely possible). I am assuming the junior psych class grades will be compared to last years junior psych class. The students are totally different, who is to say that this year's class is just smarter than the prior years class (or vice versa). How exactly is a determination going to be made.

I have to be honest (I am a pessimist by nature) this seems like a program designed to ensure the students get a better grade so the teachers look better. Justin, that is not meant as a jab at all, you seem very involved, I appreciate the time you are taking and your heart seems in the right place, I just can't help thinking that one of the motives is better grades for the sake of the teachers.

[User:]

Justin,
I do appreciate your willingness to address so many concerns from all of us. I think some of us have "doubts" about a new program.

I have no doubt in my mind that a big part of the problem is the curriculum used in the NH classrooms. I gave you a video of a math prof critical of the constructivist math programs used in our NH classrooms. http://mathwizards.wordpress.com/category/math-videos/

This pilot program is based on constructivist methods used by the teacher. This seems to be expanding the problem instead of eliminating it.

The NAEP (National) math scores were released this week, roughly half of our 4th and 8th grade students failed.

The State Dept of Ed's (NECAP) showed a much higher proficiency rate for the 4th and 8th graders.
http://mathwizards.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/naep-vs-necap-nh-students-lose/
The site explains how the NH Dept of ED is misleading parents when it comes to the proficiency of our students. So it's hard for people to completely trust another program.

When I research Outcome Based ed, one of the complaints among parents seems to be the NON-Academic assessments that take place. I think it would help to be completely transparent with all competencies and assessments. If "values" or "attitudes" are being assessed, this will certainly cause concern for parents as it has in the other areas where it's been implemented.

There are harsh critics of "discovery" learning and Constructivism. Unfortunately parents often times find out when it's too late. That's what I think parents would like to avoid. I will attach a one more link to check. http://www.psy.cmu.edu/faculty/klahr/klahrnigam.2-col.pdf

The document from the NH Dept of Ed, says this is a Constructivist program, and you did confirm that. The problem is, there are studies that show it doesn't work.

Maybe in your class things will be different. I think the program itself leads parents to be "suspect" and "doubtful" and rightfully so. There's a lot of evidence this kind of program does nothing to improve the quality of academics in a school.

I think it's important for parents to know:
Will non-academic assessements be given to the students? If so exactly what will be assessed and why?
Can parents view the assessments?
Where are the comprehensive studies this improves the academic quality of eduction?
Is this type of program used in the top performing schools in the top performing countries?

Before spending valuable time on teacher training, or classroom time, I think it's important to show results first. Where's the hard evidence this works?

[User:]

[Name:]

[User:]

The problem is, there seems to be this shifting AWAY from content, to a more "fuzzy" (constructivist) approach in the classrooms. Half of our students failed a basic math exam. It seems to me there should be MORE focus on academic content, yet the gentlemen on the radio show downplayed the importance of content.
http://www.nhpr.org/node/27325

http://mathwizards.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/focus-on-curriculum-not-merit-pay-charters-etc/ In this article, the education researcher is calling on a focus on curriculum, similar to what the math professors are saying. The curriculum lacks content. No amount of re-shaping a classroom will fix that problem.

Ravitch in this article http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/09/15/critical_thinking_you_need_knowledge/
addresses Outcome Based Ed (which is Competency Based Ed) as more of a "FAD" that offers no real results.
""Outcome-Based Education'' in the 1980s, one "innovation'' after another devalued academic subject matter while making schooling relevant, hands-on, and attuned to the real interests and needs of young people."

It's been re-packaged under a different name (Competency Based Ed) and now being sold to NH public schools via the NH Dept of Education.

I'm failing to see how this pilot program is so different from what other schools experienced in the past.

It seems to me that if the NH Dept of Ed wanted to improve the quality of academics in the schools, they would start by improving standards http://www.edexcellence.net/detail/news.cfm?news_id=338&pubsubid=1171#1171

I tend to think that people become angry with the Education establishment when they see another program being thrust upon them that ignores the lack of academic content in the curriculum.

[User:]

Mom with a Brain,

First I would like to appologize for not answering your questions in a more timely fashion. I am, in all honesty, just getting home from my small business and also presenting to the school board. I hope you understand the circumstances.

To field a couple of your questions, I will say that I would like some more time to review the sources as well as the links you provided. I would like to make sure that I can articualte any of my points clearly, and so I ask for a little more time so that I may do some background research.

Until then, I would like to say a couple of things to answer some general questions that I am seeing:

1. The grading pilot and the idea of competency based education, although related, stand apart from each other. Looking at the Competency-based system as it is implemented at CHS, and has been since CHS began, I see that it is effective and is extremely content driven. I do understand the concerns that are being voiced, and I am not attempting to discredit them, but in my personal experiences with correct implementation, I have seen them work.

The grading pilot, whether used in Competency-based schools or not, is a method to ensure that grades represent what the student knows or is able to do. What we end up seeing is that come time for the summative assessment, the student needs to be able to perform both content based applications as well as skillset, (effective writting, research, public speaking, critical thinking, etc...), based applications. In my classes, as well as the classes of other educators that are using the formative/summative assessment method, there is a growing trend in both student motivation as well as increased knowledge and skill base.

2. Looking at the amount of people that are piloting may be a shock as we view the number, (roughly 50%), but we must keep in mind that this does not mean that teachers are using it for ALL of their classes. If two teachers are teaching a course, both are using the pilot in order to ensure both equity and consistency. I will attempt to find the numbers that may paint a more accurate picture, but please be patient, since I want to make sure that they numbers are "real" instead of projected.

3. For assessments, there is constant communication between the teacher and student as to the expectations of Summative assignments. Rubrics are used, for these large scale assignments, and act as both a guidline and method of communication to the parents of the community what is expected of students. Values and attitudes, (in my classes) are not assessed, but rather what the student knows, (content) and what they are able to do, (skillsets).

4. In confirming the "constructivist" approach, I can say that it maybe a tool in the educators toolbox, but in my methods, is not the only tool. It greatly depends upon what is being taught, student objectives, class dynamic, etc.... In differentiating my instruction and using many practices, I see that ALL types of learners are able to master concepts at multiple levels. In my professional opinion, I personally do not believe that an educator should teach using just one method. And in discussion and classroom observation that I have done in CHS, there are many tools at work.

5. Lastly, in using data to compare, since students are all different, we need to assume that you can compare year to year results on many indicators and it will be just as accurate as comparing pilot class to non-pilot class in the same semester, due to the fact that no 2 classes are the same. Also, there are other factors at work that cause changes in classroom dynamic that make it difficult to compare results from the same semester. (an example of this is that my afternoon psych class may have more AP level students since the AP classes take place in the morning as part of the master schedule). We do see that their is a more accurate comparison if we compare to years past, since, for the most part, classes are offered at the same times each semester of each seperate school year.

In closing, I would like to emphasize that I am posting my personal experiences and observations. I am very lucky to work in a district where parents have a concern, and that I am able to communicate with them about their concerns. I do not take personal offence at the questions, and hope that I am able to clarify some of the points being raised. Also, I am not trying to advertise for one program or another, but instead, attempting to give you some insight as to the effective implementation of the pilot.

Again, thank you for the opportunity, and I look forward to your questions.

Regards,
Justin Ballou
CHS Social Studies.

[User:]

Justin, the question that comes to mind is how you can compare year to year ... I realize the pilot GRADING system is just that ... a GRADING system rather than a teaching pilot ... how can you possibly compare this year's kids to last years grade-wise? Maybe last kids were smarter, did better when it came to tests than this years ... or perhaps it's the reverse ... I'm not sure how it can be a good comparison.

[User:]

[User:]

I've said before, that I could not keep up with the discussion of this issue on this thread. I got lost way back!

Generally speaking....I'm not just referring to this issue and this town, but, who are the people that make decisions such as this (pilot grading)? Are they the "super-intellectual" dare I say "elite", no clue of real world, type people? Or are they regular Mom's, Dad's and general common sense thinkers?

Anyone that did not see the 10/28 sb meeting has to watch the first few minutes. Two student reps were discussing the pros and cons. One was that some students are relying too much on the re-test, therefore not taking the first test seriously. Ralph said he spoke with a student that was happy with this program, because the student said "I don't do homework anyway, so its good that now I don't get graded on it now".

Few people on this forum have commented that a program of this type will of course work very well for the conscientious students, but for some others, this program is not the best choice.

For the record, Ralph did say that he did not agree with this pilot program. And Dr Cutler did say that they will be evaluating the results of this program. Justin..do you know when the evaluation will happen

[User:]

Chris,

I know that we will be taking a look at results and grades at the quarter and also the semester. In looking at the grades though, we need to understand that there is a cultural change occuring and that we will be looking at many characteristics.

To open this up to my honest prediction, as well as what I am seeing in my classes, (as that is all can speak about with certainty....) I am seeing that students are doing more of the homework and class work and aremore invested since they know that in my class, they need to complete it all in order to EARN the possibility of a retake.....with other criteria of course. (Example: For my World Studies Class, the students needed to complete all the formatives along with completion of the inclass review and show up and participate afterschool in order to be considered for a retake. This way, I know that they did the work and were invested in themselves and their education before just giing them "another attempt at passing")

I hope this answers your question. Let me know if I can be of any other service.

Thanks
Justin

[User:]

Justin, do the kids in your class that qualify for the retake take the retest all at one time? If not, is there a possibility of "sharing" questions or do you make up a different test for each child to get to their learning style and ability?

[User:]

Town Resident,

[User:]

Greetings and good tidings!

Since I am posting attached documents, this seemed like an appropriate place for this since it has not been previously posted.

[User:]

What ARE the competencies? I think it would help to list ALL of the Competencies that will be graded. Especially if they are NON-Academic.
I think parents need to know exactly what NON-academic competencies will be assessed.

This is the biggest controversy among critics of Outcome Based Ed. With half of the 4th and 8th grade students failing the basic math test (NAEP) in NH, many parents think the focus should be on teaching the core academics. http://mathwizards.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/naep-vs-necap-nh-students-lose/ IF the competencies are non-academic, that shifts the focus in the classroom.

The NON-Academic competencies need to be listed and thoroughly examined by parents.

As you will read from this site, this is a controversial program:
"Today many on both the right and left passionately oppose an outcome-based approach to education, though clearly not for identical reasons. "Outcome-Based Education: Has It Become More Affliction Than Cure?" explains why such a good idea has led to such conflict.

A major reason for the clash is that states turned over the crucial task of defining outcomes to the very education officials most threatened by the process. Although having adopted, in general principle, a focus on results, many educators have proceeded to promote vague outcomes emphasizing values, attitudes and behaviors -- often reflecting quasi-political and ideologically correct positions -- rather than knowledge, skills and other cognitive academic outcomes."

http://www.americanexperiment.org/publications/1994/199408manno.php

With only 29% of the Campbell 11th graders "proficient" in Science, it seems logical that the emphasis would be on bringing the other 71% of the 11th graders up to proficiency. http://reporting.measuredprogress.org/nhprofile/reports.aspx?view=20

If the competencies are a way of changing "values, attitudes and behaviors", this does nothing to help those students who are lacking academic knowledge.

[User:]

Mom with a brain

Your article is 15 years old. Certainly a lot has changed and improved in 15 years. You seem to be trying to convince us in Litchfield that we are doing things wrong. Whatever the problem is in Bedford, it doesn't mean it's a problem here.

Every high school class has a curriculum guide posted on line as well as the core competencies. Go to www.Campbellhs.org - the top drop down menu for academics, choose any department and you can read the curriculum guides, core competencie and teaching strategies and resources used.

I don't beleive there are any non-academic competencies other than a general school wide expectations for behavior in ADDITION to core competencies for each subject:
Academic
1. Read, write and speak effectively
2. Exhibit critical thinking and problem solving skills
3. Use resources to obtain information and facilitate learning
Civic/Social
1. Exhibit personal responsibility
2. Work cooperatively in an atmosphere of mutual respect

These are not graded - only core academic competencies for each class are graded



Here is what a report would look like; Each competency gets a grade shown as percent out of 100 (** means there are no grades for that competency, yet):

English -
SubTotal Term #1 Writing ** 100
SubTotal Term #1 Vocab 100.0 100
SubTotal Term #1 Reading 100.0 100
SubTotal Term #1 100.0 100


Social studies -

SubTotal Term #1 Vocab 89.4 100
SubTotal Term #1 Analysis 87.5 100
SubTotal Term #1 Synth 94.2 100
SubTotal Term #1 ALL ** 100
SubTotal Term #1 89.9 100

[User:]

How does one judge anything? One way is by looking how well a program worked in other school districts. So one would have to look to the past in order to make that judgement.

Parents do not want to find out, 5-10 years later, a program didn't work. Or didn't work well.

There are certainly critics of Outcome Based Ed and they make valid points. It seems reasonable for parents to be aware and make sure the same mistakes do not occur again.

With any program that's introduced in the classroom, it can sometimes take years for any measurable results.

Parents being aware of the failures of the past will have the ability to monitor the program as it's administered in Litchfield.

It is worth giving ALL the facts, even if those facts show this hasn't worked well in the past.

If there are improvements/and/or changes that eliminate the criticisms, that needs to be conveyed to parents.

[User:]

Looking at what worked and didn't work in other places is fine but you keep pointing to research that is not about what is going on in Litchfield and then trying to compare the two as if it was apples to apples. It's not. Competencies are sent home in every class and are posted on line as well. Every parent should have and know them - it's not a secret. And the grades reflect them.


Pre-calculus core compentencies:
Concepts • Students will demonstrate skills and knowledge associated with the course content.
Problem Solving • Students will "apply a variety of strategies… to solve mathematical problems" (NCTM, 2000).
Communication • Students will "use the language of mathematics to express mathematical ideas precisely" (NCTM, 2000).

Here's a Pre-calculus grade format:

SubTotal Term #1 Concept 91.7 100
SubTotal Term #1 Communic 88.3 100
SubTotal Term #1 Prob Sol 91.3 100
SubTotal Term #1 90.6 100

Music competencies:
Notation 1. Students will read standard music notation and demonstrate competence in using that notation.

Evaluation 2. Students will analyze, describe, and evaluate music and music performances using correct terminology.

Relation 3. Students will demonstrate an understanding of music in relation to history, culture, other arts, other disciplines, and careers.


Here's music format;

SubTotal Term #1 Evaluate 120.8 100
SubTotal Term #1 Relate 100.0 100
SubTotal Term #1 Notate 98.2 100
SubTotal Term #1 102.9 100


Honors Physics:

Core Competencies:
1. Scientific Technique - Students will develop an understanding in order to evaluate, solve, and explain solutions to
problems via the scientific process.
2. Scientific Investigation - Students will use microprocessor-based data collection labware (and other lab equipment)
to investigate natural phenomena and communicate findings through a standard reporting method.
3. Scientific Research - Students will research, review and interpret significant scientific developments and produce
tangible, project-based applications.

GRade format:

SubTotal Term #1 invest 103.3 100
SubTotal Term #1 tech 87.9 100
SubTotal Term #1 research ** 100
SubTotal Term #1 93.9 100

(these grades are fictional but the format is real so they may not add up)

Failing a single competency means you failed the whole class - the stakes are higher since every concept matters and you can't pass by camouflaging low grades in one competency with higher grades that pull up the average in another competency.

Stopped by a math classroom after school this week and it was full of kids - the teacher commented that last year almost no one stayed after for extra help but now her classroom is full everyday because kids know the stakes are higher because you can't just skate by with good "homework' grades. You have to actually know the stuff and do well on summatives ( summative can also be what is traditionally taken home to do if it is to demonstrate knowledge not practice learning)

That seems to jive with what Mr. Ballou has said about his classrooms this year as well. The point of a pilot is to be able to see the strengths and weaknesses and build on the strengths and correct/eliminate the weaknesses.

[User:]

Cindy, please provide documentation that is available for Anne Marie to use that independently reviews the program in Litchfield.

1) My guess is that anything available for the Litchfield program was probably written by people who have a vested interested in the success of the program.

2) Absent an independent evaluation of a program, how else do you expect someone to evaluate the good / bad of a new program? Comparing what we have implemented to what others have tried is the only way for someone to develop an informed opinion.

3) Elected members should not belittle taxpayers who have taken the time to try to form an opinion based on fact. You can crucify Jason all you want for his style issues, but don't you think some of your comments in your previous two posts echoed his style a bit?

[User:]

[User:]

Bedford recently reported on their science NECAP results. Keeping in mind that Bedford has also been using the Competency Based Ed in their schools for about two years now.

In 4th grade 2009
79% proficient up from 68%

in 8th grade 2009
36% proficient down from 47%

in 11th grade 2009
43% proficient

Since the high school is fairly new, they do not have the data to compare from 2008

I think my point has been, with the large numbers that are NOT proficient and given the fact that Bedford requires their students to pass these competencies, including attending summer school, how come so many students still are considered NOT proficient?

I believe some of the fault could lie in the curriculum selected. As I've pointed out in earlier posts, there are plenty of credible people who point to the flaws in curriculum. What that means is, if the curriculum leaves out content, a student can get an "A" and still lack content knowledge.

That argument has been made in these videos : http://mathwizards.wordpress.com/category/math-videos/

This program also uses a Constructivist methodology in the classroom. I posted studies that showed this chosen method does not work well.

http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/kirschner_Sweller_Clark.pdf

Justin confirmed this is the methodology that's to be used by teachers. In the study above it states:

"Although unguided or minimally guided instructional approaches are very popular and intuitvely appealing, the point is made that these approaches ignore both the structures that constitute human cognitive architecture and evidence from empirical studies over the past half century that consistently indicate that minimally guided instruction is less effective and less efficient than instructional approaches that place a strong emphasis on guidance of the student learning process. "

The Constructivist approach means that the teacher "coaches" or facilitates learning. They no longer use a direct instruction approach in the classroom.

These are some of the facts that cause concern and definitely need to be addressed.

If the Bedford kids are all passing the competenies, why are so many still NOT proficient?

[User:]

MOMwithAbrain,

I'm curious as to your interest in this pilot program here in Litchfield, being someone from Bedford. Are you a teacher or researcher? Just wondering...

Thanks,
Pete

[Name:]

MOMwithAbrain,

I'm curious as to your interest in this pilot program here in Litchfield, being someone from Bedford. Are you a teacher or researcher? Just wondering...

Thanks,
Pete

[User:]

Cindy,

I was not looking for the Litchfield handbook that explains the policy. You criticized Ann Marie for using Bedford as an example, stating that it is not 'apples to apples' with Litchfield, so I am looking for an evaluation / study by an independent research group related to Litchfield specifically. The handbook only explains WHAT the policy is and what it INTENDS to accomplish, but it does not address the long term EFFECTS of said policy.

If the program is so groundbreaking and wonderful, then I would imagine that we would have plenty of groups interested in studying the policy and its effects on education. My guess is that we do not have such a study available, so Ann Marie is absolutely correct in using the information that IS available to evaluate the pros/cons of this program.

It also does not matter to me whether Ann Marie lives in Litchfield, Beford, or Wisconsin. I looked at moving to Bedford and compared the school districts and felt that Litchfield was comparable to Bedford but had more affordable taxes. So, in my personal opinion, it is absolutely reasonable to compare what was implemented in a similar school, to determine the outcome there, and to attempt to correct the problems when we implement the same program. The only way to 'fix' the program is to have an honest discussion related to the failures / shortcomings of the program...you can't fix something if you don't understand where you went wrong in the first place...

As for the style comment, perhaps you are not aware how condescending many of your comments are, but I would ask that you reread them, looking at them from someone else's point of view. Since I do not know you, I cannot tell how you INTEND for your words to come across, but they DO come across just as nastily as some of Jason's.

"Your article is 15 years old. Certainly a lot has changed and improved in 15 years. You seem to be trying to convince us in Litchfield that we are doing things wrong. Whatever the problem is in Bedford, it doesn't mean it's a problem here."

What's the point of that comment other than to discredit a concerned taxpayer (and she is a taxpayer if she pays Federal Income taxes, some of which are redirected to NH for educational purposes)? It certainly does not add anything to the conversation... The age of the article does not matter if the program implemented is the same as the program evaluated. It also belittles anyone who dares to question this policy and, as a result, indicates that you are not really interested in having an honest discussion about whether the policy is one that should even be implemented.

"Looking at what worked and didn't work in other places is fine but you keep pointing to research that is not about what is going on in Litchfield and then trying to compare the two as if it was apples to apples. It's not."

You say that it's not 'apples to apples' but you do not provide evidence / facts that support this position. You threw out a haughty, self-righteous comment in the same fashion that Jason sometimes throws around his words. What makes your statement more credible than hers? It is also what prompted my request for a study that COULD be used to evaluate the long term effects of the program in Litchfield - and you pointed to our handbook... So, I repeat, if such a study does not exist, how else do you reasonably expect someone to evaluate the policy?

Peter,

Not knowing Ann Marie, couldn't we assume that she may have a family member in the school district, whether niece, nephew, child (she could be divorced and her husband could live here), or, if she's old enough, perhaps a grandchild?

If we believe that 'it takes a village', don't we all have an interest in seeing that each child succeeds, regardless of which school they attend? Shouldn't we also believe that input from someone who's been there could be valuable, despite them living out of district?

[User:]

[Name:]

[User:]

Thank you Keri, I will try to explain as best I can. I do think sometimes it can be rather difficult to be clear about what one is trying to say when a "conversation" takes place over distance and time.

[User:]

I am an education researcher . I have good friends who live in Litchfield who thought that my input would add value to the discussion.

I hope I am adding some valuable information as I too, continue to try to better understand exactly how this program will be implemented in the classroom.

This is a state wide effort that comes from the NH Dept of Ed. This will most likely be implemented in many other schools in NH.

I do understand this is a Litchfield discussion board, I hope my input was helpful in some small way. However if you would like to keep this discussion limited to Litchfield residents only, I would understand and gracefully bow out of the discussion.

[User:]

Momwithabrain....please do not allow those that would be happy with mediocre education disuade you from helping in any way you can. We yearn for exactly what knowledge you have from studying the topic and in the end, a more educated electorate can only make more educated choices for our children. Much thanks!!!

[User:]

As I thought about this topic this evening - I think part of the "problem" is not understanding curriculum and how it's developed/implimented in Litchfield or any of the history behind it.

MOMwithAbrain, it feels like after every response when you refer to your website and the information you have there, that you are trying to convince "us" we are following a certain prescribed curriculum that has had problems else-where and that we are "wrong." That is just the impression I get and I may be totally wrong so I apologize.

Perhaps because everyone is looking at it from their own angle - our own biases - and not stepping back to see the issue impartially - we are all right - and we are all wrong.

I am not an educator. I have a science background in a related field and someday I would like to get my Masters degree to teach middle school or high school science - but I am not there yet. I have had a long history of involvement in education as a layperson, volunteer and parent - so I speak as a layperson and not an educator. I may not explain things clearly or precisely - and am often short of time so quick answers come out in such a way as I do not intend. I will try to explain what I know - and we can see if it makes sense...

[User:]

Thank you for doing your best to try to explain this pilot program. I do think people are a bit reluctant to look towards the next program that is going to be used on their children given the history of education in this country. Let's face it, the track record doesn't always leave parents feeling confident in the folks making these decisions.

I also look at education with broad lenses because I have researched the reformers, curriculum, and the government's role in education.

For instance when I read your post you said:
"When Litchfield looks to develop curriculum - a group of professionals with expertise in that field come together and research all the data (pro and con) about the various programs and learning philosophies out there. They look at grade level expectations and National standards such as NCTM and determine what it is that LITCHFIELD students should learn and know at each level. After that is determined and articulated - they look for resources to meet those educational requirements. I am not aware that we have ever blanket adopted a program or resource in it's entirety"

From my research those who are called to choose curriculum sometimes lack expertise in that field. Let me explain, when choosing math text books, are there any mathematicians on that selection committee? I can assure you that there are plenty of mathematicians who are eager to offer their assistance in this process and are frustrated that they are often times left out of that equation. This leads to schools/states choosing substandzard materials and/or standards. It seems logical that one would include experts in that field, yet often times they are left out of the process.

You also mention the NCTM standards as a guide. The NCTM standards have been heavily criticized in the field of mathematics for their lack of basic math skills. http://nychold.com/myths-050504.html

So when I hear anyone in the education establishment refer to the NCTM standards as their basis for curriculum, that causes me great concern. I would ask you this, have you reviewed the findings from the National Math Panel? I think that is a better gauge of where your students should be in the field of mathematics. Or you can look to the states that have the best math standards in the country: CA, and Mass.

If I were a parent in Litchfield, I would read the National Math Panel's findings, attend school board meetings and ask why my child was not on par with those findings. (if that is the case)

You also mention looking to grade level expectations. I assume you mean those set by the NH Dept of Ed. Those GLE's have also been heaviy criticized by the prestigious Fordham Foundation. http://www.edexcellence.net/detail/news.cfm?news_id=338&pubsubid=1171#1171

It was mathematicians who critiqued NH standards and graded them at an "F". Even with the addition of the GLE's Fordham states that these are not an improvement in the framework.

So again, I would be very concerned about any curriculum that is geared towards the NH Standards/GLE's or the NCTM standards. The science standards were also graded at an "F".

Currently the U.S. Dept of Ed is looking to create "Common Core Standards" which are essentially National Standards. Arne Duncan, the Secretary of Ed says this:
"When children are told they are "meeting a state standard," the logical assumption for that child or for that parent is to think they are on-track to be successful. But because these standards have been dummied down and lowered so much in so many places, when a child is "meeting the state standard" they are in fact barely able to graduate from high school. And they are absolutely inadequately prepared to go to a competitive university, let alone graduate. And so we have to stop lying to children. "
http://www.edgovblogs.org/duncan/2009/06/excepts-from-secretary-arne-duncan%E2%80%99s-remarks-at-the-national-press-club/

He essentially admits that the states (and NH is among them) are lying to children when they are told they are proficient. It doesn't give parents a lot of trust or comfort knowing states like NH dumbed down their standards.

When those in charge of making some of the most important decisions in education continue to drop the ball, it's hard to put your trust in them yet again.

I think there are better ways to improve the quality of education but first one has to understand where the problems come from and then look to those who promote real reform.

Our students deserve quality academics and unfortunately that is sometimes missing from the curriculum and textbooks. No amount of tweaking the classroom practices will fix a substandard textbook.

Parents want results. Parents need to know that if the state tells them their child is proficient, that they are truly proficient. Waiting a few years for results that may or may not improve quality is a lot to ask from a parent who has been purposely misled from the NH Dept of Education.

The Federal Dept of Ed is getting ready to take more control over education because so many states have failed their students. One may agree or disagree with that decision but the bottom line is, Governor Lynch's Dept of Ed has not been held accountable for these failures and parents like me expect to see real reform instead of a shift in power to the Feds.

I am open to an honest dialogue on this subject and open to looking at efforts that are a proven success. You can find that in Mass. where they are implementing reforms that are proving successful. http://mathwizards.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/an-interview-with-sol-stern-the-impact-of-e-d-hirsch/

I'm sorry to say, I'm not convinced this pilot program is the key to success for the students in Litchfield. I say this with all due respect because I can tell from your posts you are passionate about improving the quality and your heart is in the right place. At this time though, I must respectfully disagree with the path that's been chosen simply because I think there are better ways to attack reforming education.

[User:]

[User:]

Mark this in your favorites folder. http://usworldclassmath.webs.com/ You can follow them on Twitter and Facebook.
You will get an honest critique of the math standards once they are realeased in December. This is a non-partisan group of mathematicians (you can see who's endorsed world class standards at the web site) parents, teachers and school board members from across the country.

You can also watch the Fordham Web site. While they will be a good source for math standards, I'm assuming they will also critique the english and science standards too.

I will caution that the individuals chosen to draft the standards have been criticized for not being again, experts in their field. ie...I think there was ONE mathematician on the panel and I know that English profs were critical that the panel lacked Language Arts profs. (by experts I mean Phd's)

http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.6c9a8a9ebc6ae07eee28aca9501010a0/?vgnextoid=60e20e4d3d132210VgnVCM1000005e00100aRCRD&vgnextchannel=759b8f2005361010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD


IF you scroll down further, to the "REVIEW" Committee, there are names on that list that you can note for future reference. They are the ones who will give you the best information on the math standards.

Jim Milgram, Stanford Univ Professor of Mathematics
William Schmidt, Michigan State Univ. Univ. Distinguished Prof.
Vern Williams, Math teacher
W. Stephen Wilson, Johns Hopkins Univ. Prof of Math

These gentlemen will be the ones to watch once the standards are released. Their opinions are well respected among those seeking true reform in mathematics.

I do have some of their personal e-mail addresses if you should ever need to contact them. I think at this point they are going to withhold info/opinions on the standards until they are made public.

However if you want an honest critique of your math texts/programs in the schools, I'm sure they'd be happy to give you their opinions.

[User:]

Thanks, MOMwithAbrain. I have taken a quick glance and can't wait to dig in further. First impressions are; "Here we go again." It sounds at a cursery look that we are headed down the path of NCLB which was developed by lawyers and politicians and not people with expertise in teaching and learning (side note: the goal of NCLB was good - how it was implimented was not). If what you say is indeed happening with the development of CCSSI then no wonder the result. How in the world could they leave out skill mastery of Geometry and Alg II in math standards? Did they not realize that the last SAT revision included the addition of skills thorugh Alg II ? That happened for a reason.

That is why I am leary of Federal gov't involvement in local affairs but I will take a look to see what is going on....

Ah well - I will set some time aside later this coming week and read through the material. Thank you very much.

[User:]

Good Evening All,

I am glad to see the positidialog amongst members of the board.

Momwith ABrain: Y make some good pointa about the idea of Standards based assessment and the effect on children and learning. I too am leary about any program that states it is "the coolest thing since sliced bread" in the education world.....so I believe that we do have to look at all of these as they come.

With that being said, we need to identify that the Standards based system and the grading pilot stand alone......they are not needed in conjunction so that the other program works.

Also, Campbell has seen Competencies be effective in both content and skill set education. I can say that my grades reflect skills and knowledge....not values and non-academic subjets. What I can say is that competencies that are used at CHS are helping to identify strengths and weaknesses in what students know and are able to do so that the indidual teacher in the classroom can adapt both lessons anddelivery to help the most amount of students master the given knowledge and skill sets.

Again, the grading pilot and the COmpetency based system should be discussed and described in seperate ashions, since they are not the same thing.

Maybe we start aseperate section on the Competency based system used to foster that discussion.....I am if there are those involved and willing.

I hope you all have a great weekend!
Justin Ballou

EDIT NOTE: After reading Mom with a Brains post above, I would like to make a clarrification....

When I said that teachers **sometimes** used the methods that she cited in an earlier post does not mean that those methods are used all of the time.....It matteres what content or skill is being taught and also what methods would be most effective at that given time.[/quote]

[User:]

[User:]

Since I was willing to criticize Cindy's posts, I feel I must also be willing to acknowledge when she gets it right.

So, Cindy, thank you for taking the time to respond to my comments and, in my opinion, step it up when responding to Ann Marie's comments / questions.

On topic, though, I understand the idea behind the core competencies, which I think are a good idea. It is great for students / parents to understand what should be learned / accomplished during the course - so long as those competencies are related to the coursework directly and do not involve areas that are evaluated subjectively. Based on the info Cindy provided, it seems as though the program meets this requirement.

My problem is with the test / review / retest method that has been incorporated. If the point is to get students to complete the assigned tasks, then there are other methods that accomplish this than bribing students with the possibility of improving their grades through retesting. In my high school, homework wasn't always required, but those teachers would grade random problems that had been assigned. Since students didn't know which homework / problem would be graded, you were incentivized to complete the work or take the chance and hope it wasn't the one graded.

I still do not understand the basic philosophy behind retesting... If a student understands that they get one chance - and only one chance - to pass the test, then that should be sufficient to encourage them to study the first time around. If students are not grasping concepts, that should be evident through homework assignments (or glazed eyes) - recognized either by the student or by the teacher - and the assistance should be provided PRIOR to the first test (after all, they need to pass that test to pass the class).

[User:]

[User:]

Your last post was right on Cindy!
I took a master's class in teaching techniques and it was based on that there are many ways for kids to learn. Some are visual learners, some can read and absorb the material, others can learn in other ways. While one student may excel at multiple choice tests others may rather write an essay or another might choose to do a presentation on what they know.

While I was in college I once took a stats test that was only 3 questions and I accidently reversed the formulas for question 2 and 3. While I did the formulas correctly I only received a 66%. I would have loved a chance to correct my errors because Statistics did not come easy to me and I really had to work at it.

People want to talk about the real world but how many of you have had a boss say good effort but you need to redo this?

[User:]