I am Dr.
Nancy Chamberlain, and I am again before you today to express another aspect of
my concern over the proposal to use heterogeneous grouping and the “Challenge
for ALL” model in Middle Schools.
The MSTF has
adopted 4 guiding principles, two of which are Challenge, relating to rigorous
and developmentally-appropriate curriculum, and Equity, relating to access to
the rigorous curriculum. While I applaud
the MSTF for their focus on these goals, I have concerns that the proposal to
use the Challenge for All in a heterogeneous classroom model will achieve
neither.
My first
concern centers on our struggling learners.
On page 3 I have given you a figure with a concept that you have been
studying – the difference between Equality and Equity.
Below the figure
I point out several questions that we should be asking about our current
system, and about the proposed one:
What is the % of kids who need
supports to achieve proficiency at CURRENT curriculum/standards?
·
Standardized test scores for current
JH students show that about 17% of kids fail the MSP EVERY YEAR from grade 3
onward; that number climbed to about 27% on the SBA last year.
·
Those percentages are very similar
for current 4th, 5th and 6th graders, the
population that would be in MS in 2017.
·
The percent below standard is roughly
40% for Low Income and 70% for ELL student populations. (1)
What are the supports we use now (and
that are failing those struggling kids)?
What will the % needing support be
when we shift the dashed line HIGHER with “Challenge for ALL?”
What are the ADDITIONAL supports we will need to give those struggling
learners when we raise the bar even higher?
·
Have
those supports been identified?
·
How
will families be involved?
·
How
much will the supports cost?
A recent
study by the Association for Middle Level Education, the very group that has
been promoting “the middle school philosophy” has shown a significant decrease
in the number of MSs utilizing the heterogeneous class model, and an increase
in using ability grouping between 1993 and 2009 7(2).
The AMLE
study also showed that MSs increasingly had to turn to pull-out remediation
classes in place of electives – up to 63% of MS used this as a way to help
struggling learners who were not being served within the context of the
heterogeneous classroom. In other words,
in class differentiation wasn’t working, so struggling learners had to give up
an elective in order to receive extra help.
How is that equitable?
WHAT IS OUR PLAN
TO ACHIEVE EQUITY FOR THESE STRUGGLING LEARNERS?
OSPI Report Card
McEwin, C. Kenneth and Greene,
Melanie W. The Status of Programs and
Practices in America’s Middle Schools: Results from Two National Studies , Association for Middle Level Education
(2011)
17 – 70%
(depending on group)
QUESTIONS
What is the % of kids who need supports to
achieve proficiency at CURRENT curriculum/standards? 17-70%
What will the % be when we shift the dashed line
HIGHER with “Challenge for ALL?”
What are the supports we use now (and that are
failing those struggling kids)?
What are
the ADDITIONAL supports we will need to give those struggling learners when we
raise the bar even higher?
No comments:
Post a Comment