New VA educational standards, racist?

[ZooRho]

New VA educational standards, racist?

Honestly I have no brain cells to comprehend what they are even saying. But I have seen some stuff in the Letter to the Editors.

 

SO someone have fun with this and have a chat about it. Personally the minimal I read this is totally stupid.

 

and on a personal level probably will mean I'll lose my after school tutoring job.

 

 

This is the title in case the link is for pay only.

 

Virginia adopts new method to measure students, drops AYP*

 

you can google the title and find other links.

 

Here is the link to a local paper but it may be for pay.

 

http://www.dailypress.com/news/education/dp-nws-state-achievement-goals-20120801,0,1422387.story#tugs_story_display

Edited August 10, 2012 by ZooRho

[Farrar]

So, if I understand this correctly, they tracked the scores by ethnic group/race - the way they do for each school district. And now, instead of saying you have to improve by school district, they're saying each ethnic group must improve? Thus, Asian students need to improve upon a 92% pass rate while Black students need to improve upon a 76% pass rate, and so on.

 

I have so many different problems with this that I don't even know where to start.

[Unicorn.]

Wow. How is what they are doing even legal?

[CheerioKid]

That's just insulting! Wackadoodle is right. One more reason to homeschool. I think I'll actually start a list of reasons and see how long it gets. Hmmmmm...

 

I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that I received my middle-schoolers' EOG scores in the mail today?

[Reflections]

These statements make it sound like they were NOT going to be able to meet the NCLB standards in 2014 and so they changed the rules so that they could meet them

 

Schools were required to meet AYP targets in reading and math under the federal No Child Left Behind law, with 100 percent of students in each subgroup passing by 2014 regardless of abilities or circumstance.

 

The state's new benchmarks are based on actual performance on state exams in previous years — its goal is to cut the achievement gap between students in high- and low-performing schools within six years overall and for each student subgroup.

 

The numbers are lower than pass rates under No Child Left Behind — but they're based on real data instead of "trying to reach 100 percent with no rhyme or reason," says Daniel Curry-Corcoran, executive director of accountability for Newport News Public Schools

 

Complexity aside, the new benchmarks are more realistic in terms of schools being able to meet targets, which Curry-Corcoran said will help alleviate some frustration. "Now we're actually trying to make this actionable in the classroom by attacking the failure rate rather than shooting for arbitrary growth," he said. "We have a more realistic chance now. We get to kind of reset."

 

And here it sounds like they have ALWAYS been tracking by race:

 

Schools were required to meet AYP targets in reading and math under the federal No Child Left Behind law, with 100 percent of students in each subgroup passing by 2014 regardless of abilities or circumstance.

 

Follow the money:

 

Under the new system, low-performing schools will be labeled as "priority" and "focus" schools, which means they'll be subject to state-approved and monitored improvement interventions.

 

One major change is that underperforming schools won't face sanctions such as offering free tutoring and transfer options to students. They will still have to implement state-approved improvement plans.

 

That's good news because it means schools can use federal funds for other resources, says John Caggiano, executive director of elementary school leadership in Hampton City Schools.

 

No telling what "other resources" they have in mind.

[*lifeoftheparty*]

I really need to go to bed b/c it took me about 10 minutes to figure out that you are NOT talking about VA, as in, Veteran's Administration.

 

I was getting nervous, thinking that I was going to have to start taking a test for my GI Bill or something..... :chillpill:

 

Off to bed....

[renmew]

I believe this is how LAUSD already operates. Every year we got a school and district report card, and test results were broken down by race, except when a particular group was too small in number.

 

I don't think I have a problem with it.

[Kathryn]

It's racist because they are holding different races to different standards, they aren't just tracking by race. Race, in and of itself, should not be a reason that less is expected of a child academically.

[Kathryn]

So, if I understand this correctly, they tracked the scores by ethnic group/race - the way they do for each school district. And now, instead of saying you have to improve by school district, they're saying each ethnic group must improve? Thus, Asian students need to improve upon a 92% pass rate while Black students need to improve upon a 76% pass rate, and so on.

 

I have so many different problems with this that I don't even know where to start.

 

That's my understanding. And, yes, they're doing it because they weren't going to meet NCLB. That does not in any way excuse this. Again, they aren't just tracking scores based on race, they are determining that Asians are smartest and must get the highest score, then whites, then Hispanics, and then blacks.

[dbmamaz]

I read an article a few months ago saying that instead of offering extra help getting in to college based on race, some colleges did it based on economic status instead, and had great results without having to . . .well, talk about race.

 

however, if blacks have (statistically) consistently scored lower and NCLB tactics didnt change that, are we not allowed to address that?

 

I guess your point is that lowering goals isnt a way to bring equality, but . . . you also cant just say 'you should be able to get their scores up' and make it happen.

[Kathryn]

I read an article a few months ago saying that instead of offering extra help getting in to college based on race, some colleges did it based on economic status instead, and had great results without having to . . .well, talk about race.

 

however, if blacks have (statistically) consistently scored lower and NCLB tactics didnt change that, are we not allowed to address that?

 

I guess your point is that lowering goals isnt a way to bring equality, but . . . you also cant just say 'you should be able to get their scores up' and make it happen.

 

But, as you pointed out, race isn't the determining factor. They have categories of achievement for lower income, ESL, and delayed children.

[kaylk in tx]

The passing %s listed aren't for a student to pass. For example, Asian students don't have to score a 92% in order to pass the test. Passing score is still the same for all students. The %s are for the subgroup. For a SCHOOL to get a passing score, 92% of their Asian students must pass the test. They're trying to set more incremental goals for each subgroup that take into account the subgroup's starting point, instead of the NCLB's blanket 100%. Clear as mud now? This is one of those times where years spent speaking edu-speak comes in handy.

[Momof3littles]

Are there any additional news articles on this? I'd like to read more about it.

 

At first glance, it makes me very uncomfortable.

 

eta: I already did a google search and couldn't find the type of news articles I am looking for. I guess I'm using too broad of search terms.

Edited August 10, 2012 by Momof3littles

[renmew]

It's racist because they are holding different races to different standards, they aren't just tracking by race. Race, in and of itself, should not be a reason that less is expected of a child academically.

 

The final goal is the same for everyone. What they are doing is looking for patterns within each subgroup, so that they may point special resources where they are needed. Because race/culture might be part of the reason some groups are scoring low/high, if they are. And we know they are, so why not talk about it, study it, and try to find a way to fix it.

[SonshineLearner]

That's freakin' hilariously sad!! :( This sets up all kinds of problems, although I can see that then scholarships and such can be adjusted.... (but aren't they already?)

[Dobela]

I do beileve that race based criteria is coming at some point, especially if our president stays the same. Obama backs race-based school discipline policies

[dbmamaz]

yeah, i do wonder why they dont do by economic instead of race. unless they dont have that data? i dont think i ever had to list my income when my kids were in public school

[Sebastian (a lady)]

It's racist because they are holding different races to different standards, they aren't just tracking by race. Race, in and of itself, should not be a reason that less is expected of a child academically.

 

Actually, the score that will be a passing score will be the same, no matter what the demographic category of the child is.

 

What has changed is the goal for the percentage of students in each group passing. The intention is to avoid having the high pass rate of one subgroup mask the lower performance of another group, creating a situation where corrective action wasn't needed even though there were many students who weren't learning.

 

(The crackling sound you hear is hell freezing over as I justify something from the public school system. But the fact is that a 100% passing goal was never based in reality. It totally ignores the family disarray that some of these student have to deal with. And it didn't take into account issues like second language acquisition or learning disabilities. I do think that more students should be graduating literate and with basic math skills than do at present, especially with the high per student expenditures. I doubt, however, that the reforms we're willing to undertake and the educational system we seem to think is required is going to get us to much of a higher level.)

[Sebastian (a lady)]

That's my understanding. And, yes, they're doing it because they weren't going to meet NCLB. That does not in any way excuse this. Again, they aren't just tracking scores based on race, they are determining that Asians are smartest and must get the highest score, then whites, then Hispanics, and then blacks.

 

This is a change in goals for passing RATE not what consitutes a passing score.

[TravelingChris]

In my school zone, the high school passed on everyone except black students. The really big problem is that once you have 15 and 16 and 17 year olds who don't know how to read and add, they usually have a big attitude problem too and after years of not getting help, they generally are not very interested in learning. It is only after they are allowed to get out into the real world that some of them decide they do want to learn and then get help with passing the GED or literacy help. SOme do that in prison and some do that in the community. BUt most of the people who didn;t manage to learn to read by the time they are in their mid to late teens have a much larger problem than just their lack of literacy.

[Kathryn]

I get that it's by group and not individual. I still think its racist to say we expect a higher percentage of Asians to pass than blacks. They've already singled out disabilities, ESL, and economically disadvantaged for the pass rates also. I, personally, haven't seen reliable data that race, in and of itself, is an educational barrier. Thus, I feel it is racist to set benchmarks based on race.

[kiana]

Actually, the score that will be a passing score will be the same, no matter what the demographic category of the child is.

 

What has changed is the goal for the percentage of students in each group passing. The intention is to avoid having the high pass rate of one subgroup mask the lower performance of another group, creating a situation where corrective action wasn't needed even though there were many students who weren't learning.

 

(The crackling sound you hear is hell freezing over as I justify something from the public school system. But the fact is that a 100% passing goal was never based in reality. It totally ignores the family disarray that some of these student have to deal with. And it didn't take into account issues like second language acquisition or learning disabilities. I do think that more students should be graduating literate and with basic math skills than do at present, especially with the high per student expenditures. I doubt, however, that the reforms we're willing to undertake and the educational system we seem to think is required is going to get us to much of a higher level.)

 

:iagree: with all of the above.

 

The one thing I'd like to add is that I'd really, really like to see more evaluation based on student progress instead. I think if a high school gets a student who is of average intelligence but for whatever reason is reading at the 3rd grade level, and a year later that student is reading at the 6th grade level, I think the high school is doing a good job with that student. But the tests will just say 'behind grade level'.

[Reflections]

:iagree: with all of the above.

 

The one thing I'd like to add is that I'd really, really like to see more evaluation based on student progress instead. I think if a high school gets a student who is of average intelligence but for whatever reason is reading at the 3rd grade level, and a year later that student is reading at the 6th grade level, I think the high school is doing a good job with that student. But the tests will just say 'behind grade level'.

 

 

:iagree: And with today's technology/software that should be easy to track and not time consuming on office staff.

[Kathryn]

:iagree: with all of the above.

 

The one thing I'd like to add is that I'd really, really like to see more evaluation based on student progress instead. I think if a high school gets a student who is of average intelligence but for whatever reason is reading at the 3rd grade level, and a year later that student is reading at the 6th grade level, I think the high school is doing a good job with that student. But the tests will just say 'behind grade level'.

 

:iagree: And with today's technology/software that should be easy to track and not time consuming on office staff.

 

I can totally get behind that.

[ravinlunachick]

Dobela, that linked article is pretty OTT and biased. Google turned up a plethora of right-wing, inflammatory headlines, but in case anyone wants to read the actual text of the Executive Order, here it is:

http://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/26/executive-order-white-house-initiative-educational-excellence-african-am

[kaylk in tx]

I get that it's by group and not individual. I still think its racist to say we expect a higher percentage of Asians to pass than blacks. They've already singled out disabilities, ESL, and economically disadvantaged for the pass rates also. I, personally, haven't seen reliable data that race, in and of itself, is an educational barrier. Thus, I feel it is racist to set benchmarks based on race.

 

But the different goals are based on how the subgroups are already scoring. You want every subgroup to make progress until, hopefully, the differences in passing rates are negligible. If 40% of blacks are passing (totally random #), it doesn't make sense to set their goal at 92%. It will ake more than one year to make up that gap. Also, if Asian students are already at a 90% pass rate (again, random #) it wouldn't make sense to set their goal lower than what they're already at. The intent is to see progress across all subgroups, eventually erasing those gaps.

 

Also, someone else mentioned a school not passing if one out of only three students in a subgroup didn't pass the test. In Texas, which I believe was the state mentioned, there is a cutoff. When I was teaching, it was five. If your school had fewer than five students in a subgroup, that subgroups scores were not broken out for analysis.

[Kathryn]

But the different goals are based on how the subgroups are already scoring. You want every subgroup to make progress until, hopefully, the differences in passing rates are negligible. If 40% of blacks are passing (totally random #), it doesn't make sense to set their goal at 92%. It will ake more than one year to make up that gap. Also, if Asian students are already at a 90% pass rate (again, random #) it wouldn't make sense to set their goal lower than what they're already at. The intent is to see progress across all subgroups, eventually erasing those gaps.

 

Also, someone else mentioned a school not passing if one out of only three students in a subgroup didn't pass the test. In Texas, which I believe was the state mentioned, there is a cutoff. When I was teaching, it was five. If your school had fewer than five students in a subgroup, that subgroups scores were not broken out for analysis.

 

Okay, I'll just trust you. My brain is too fried to think about this anymore while I'm PMSing and have two whiney kids who won't leave me alone.

[ZooRho]

it is crazy that they are changing the system to avoid the NCLB stuff.

 

Which even though it is my GREAT AND WONDERFUL job that I'm probably losing, as a taxpayer it is a boondoggle. What a waste of money, time, talent and resources.

 

I don't have an answer honestly I don't but just changing the name of something doesn't help the kids when the rubber meets the road.

 

They changed one school I was at revamping some things, teachers and some students, the new students were coming from an under performing school too.

 

BUT since it was a "new" school they didn't have to offer the NCLB stuff that year, but did the next because it failed.