Superintendent says achievement gap can't be closed
I was blown away by this San Jose Mercuty News article. In the article, Palo Alto Superintendent Kevin Skelly shares his thoughts on the achievement gap.
When it comes to closing the achievement gap, Palo Alto schools Superintendent Kevin Skelly says educators are deluding themselves. And he dares to say what's become almost unspeakable publicly:
"It's just not possible for the average kid who comes to this country in seventh or eighth grade, or even third grade, without a word of English and parents with little formal education, to match the achievement levels of kids whose mom has a Ph.D. in English from Stanford and can afford to stay home and spend time supplementing the education of her kids.''[...]
Yet totally eliminating the gap would be "the triumph of hope over experience,'' said Skelly, who came from San Diego 19 months ago to take the helm of Palo Alto's 17 schools. When educators set that lofty goal, "We're not being honest, and it's to our detriment.''
Here in the shadow of Stanford University, those socioeconomic and educational differences are arguably magnified. While many professors, high-tech workers and other professionals have paid a premium to live in the city to send their children to highly regarded schools, other parents come from working-class backgrounds, some busing their children from East Palo Alto and eastern Menlo Park.
Make no mistake, Skelly said, his schools should — and do — try to bring up the achievement of Latino and African-American students. But idealistic rhetoric creates high public expectations for schools, while letting families, politicians and society in general off the hook, Skelly believes. By themselves, schools can't overcome the influence of parents, friends and communities, he said.
He believes preschool deserves more funding to better prepare more students to learn, and schools should ensure all students are prepared for college — so they don't end up taking remedial classes at community colleges.
I didn't think it was possible for such an educated man to be so dumb... oops. That's right, civility. OK, let me try that again. Superintendent Skelly is just plain wrong. He's buying into the excuse that because external factors make it more difficult for some students to achieve, that it is simply beyond the school's ability to control.
I find it interesting, that while the Superintendent thinks that it is impossible to close achievement gaps, "school should ensure all students are prepared for college." Given his previous statement, wouldn't that be impossible? In his mind, wouldn't those external factors would make it unrealistic to expect those poor minority children from broken homes and gang communities to be able to be ready for college?
Given that the Superintendent has a doctorate in education and thus he knows more about public education that I do, I'd be inclined to believe him if it weren't for one little thing. Schools across our state are closing the achievement gap. If it is truly impossible, then how does Kevin explain these schools? How does he explain Grant Elementary, in San Jose Unified, just 20 minutes down the freeway that has boosted proficiency rates for their Hispanic and English Learner students by 35 percentage points in language arts and 50 percentage points in mathematics since 2002? Are those Hispanic kids just smarter than his Hispanic kids? Are those parents more involved than his parents? Is that community more supportive than his community? Does 20 minutes down the freeway really make that big a difference. I'm pretty confident that if Kevin checked, he'd see that those Hispanic students down the road were very similar to his own.
The difference isn't the external factors, but rather what happens in the classroom. The schools that are being successful in raising student achievement for poor and minority students and closing achievement gaps don't accept Kevin's explanation. They study other successful schools to identify successful practices. They modify their classroom strategies until they see the desired result. They know that all students can reach grade-level, because they're proving it every day.
As I read the article, I couldn't help but daydream of a cage match where Kevin had to explain his educational theories to principals from these high performing, high minority schools. I'd love to see what Ben Chavis (American Indian Public Charter), Jorge Lopez (Oakland Charter Academy), Mikara Solomon-Davis (Ralph Bunche Elementary) or Chuck Holland (Victoriano Elementary) would have to say about the "impossible task" of closing achievement gaps. These principals have all done it.
Maybe if Kevin visited some of these schools his attitude would change.
Comments
There is a BIG difference
There is a BIG difference between closing the achievement gap and having the majority of the kids performing at or above grade level.
If all the students in a fifth grade class are performing at or above grade level, it is possible to have a performance range in say, reading levels between 5th grade and sophomore in high school. This is a huge achievement gap.
It is a laudable goal to have all kids performing at at least grade level, but I don't see how the achievement gap can be closed unless the performance level of the higher kids is depressed.
If a kid enters school not speaking a word of English, he has to learn the class material and learn a foreign language. If a kid enters school speaking English, she has to learn the class material. Unless it takes no time or effort to learn a foreign language, the non English speaking kids has less time and less access to materials.
So, why shouldn't the English speaking kid either 1) learn more of the class material; or 2) spend a fair bit of class time wasting her time? After all, she has the same amount of hours in the class room and isn't learning a foriegn language.
Jane
Depends on how you look at the gap I guess
Thanks for the comment Jane.
I'm not saying there will never be a gap in scores between students, but we can close the gaps between the percentage of students of various minority groups at grade-level, i.e. scoring proficient on the criterion-based standards test. It is theoretically possible to get 100% of kids to grade-level. We're not grading on a bell curve here.
I'm not suggesting that we need to get the high performing kids to tank. I wish public education in our state was having the problem you're describing with a wide range of abilities, with grade-level being the floor. Unfortunately, we're a long, long, long way from that problem. The gap that our state education community talking about closing is the gap in the percent of students at grade-level proficiency. That's the gap Kevin is talking about.
Unfortunately, in our state, we're not even getting more than two thirds of our White kids to grade level and unfortunately the minority and poor children are in the mid-30 percent range. That's the 30 percentage point gap that we should be closing.
Regardless of whether the student enters school speaking English or not, we need to make certain they're learning English. It might take reducing the emphasis on art, music, computers, etc., while they learn that basic skill. Once it is learned, then they're on more of a par with their English-only peers.
I'm greatly concerned that many of our English learners aren't first generation to our country, but second and third generation. We're obviously not doing a great job in helping people acquire basic skills in English.
Thanks,
Dave
Hi Dave, "I wish public
Hi Dave,
"I wish public education in our state was having the problem you're describing with a wide range of abilities, with grade-level being the floor." I was trying to be less negative than usual. The situation is much more dire in my children's school. My daughter's fifth grade class has a range of reading levels from first grade to high school. The high kids get ignored.
I agree that it is theoretically possible to get all kids on grade level, but it will take some kids longer than others. And there will be significant cost. I fear that the cost would be to ignore the high performing kids. There are only six hours in the school day. How is a teacher supposed to get kids to jump four or five grade levels in one year when previously, the kids have been able to manage one grade level in four or five years? And how do they teach the other kids at the same time.
The school people have to decide which kids get the teacher's attention.
My own children go to a rural California public school. The school religously preaches and practices heterogenous groupings...regardless of how harmful it is.
"Regardless of whether the student enters school speaking English or not, we need to make certain they're learning English. It might take reducing the emphasis on art, music, computers, etc., while they learn that basic skill. Once it is learned, then they're on more of a par with their English-only peers.
I'm greatly concerned that many of our English learners aren't first generation to our country, but second and third generation. We're obviously not doing a great job in helping people acquire basic skills in English."
I agree completely....but now the strategy seems to be to make sure that no one gets to learn....and, that is a way of closing the achievement gap....If no one gets to achieve....there is no gap.
Jane
An unnecessary choice
Jane,
Thanks for the follow-up comment.
So, what is the alternative, to simply give up on the poor and minority students as Superintendent Skelly suggests?
I don't think there is a choice required between ignoring the high performing kids and remediating the lower performing students. As I mentioned in the original post, there are schools that are doing both. They're helping their poor and minority students close on their Asian and white peers when it comes to student achievement. Just because something is hard, schools shouldn't be given permission to give up.
It is unfortunate that your daughter's school hasn't found a way to meet the needs of all the students. In your specific case, the heterogenous grouping isn't working. Then why are the still doing it? I'm sure if you asked, they'd say one of two things. First, they'd say that they've always done it this way and everyone is happy with the result. Two, they'd say that "research has shown" that the children's psyche will be damaged if they're grouped by ability. Both of those are just excuses. Schools that are doing well at closing the achievement gap don't continue practices if they don't work. They actually change their strategies based on what other successful schools do to see if it works for them. That's what you or I would do if we were in charge.
Unfortunately, you're right that there are students who are years behind by the time they reach fifth grade. I've seen research which suggests that an ineffective teacher can help a student make about .5 years of academic progress while an effective teacher can help a student make 1.5 years. You can see that if a student gets ineffective teachers, year after year, it is pretty easy to be 3 years behind by 5th grade. By the time the student gets to 5th grade, years behind their peers, they're candidates for behavior problems, loss of interest in school and eventually dropping out. That's why it is essential that schools are identifying children early who need intensive remediation so they can get the help they need. Not only do they need to identify them, but they need to provide intensive, effective remediation, which may well fall outside the traditional 6 hour school day.
This brings me to another huge issue of mine, social promotion. If students didn't pass on to the next grade unless they had mastered the skills of their current grade, we wouldn't end up with students who are years behind their peers at 5th grade. Yet, year after year, well meaning educators pass students on to the next teacher without foundational skills they'll need to be successful in the next grade.
In 2008, 13% of 5th graders in my local school district tested in the very bottom proficiency level, far below basic, yet the retention rates are in the 1-2% range. We're passing students onm year after year without the basic skills they'll need the next year. That's not doing them any favors.
Thanks,
Dave
closing the gap
is it true or false that a student who is three year behind grade level will take three years to reach grade level performance?
I think it takes longer
In order to to make up three years in three years, you'd have to learn two years of content each year, the year you're behind plus the normal year's worth of content. So, I'm inclined to suggest that it is probably closer to 6 years to make up 3 years of gap.
Hi Dave, Thanks for
Hi Dave,
Thanks for continuing the conversation. I have discussed the heterogenous grouping with my children's school district. It is a small district, so I discussed all the way up to the superintendent. I have been told:
1. It is illegal to group kids by skill levels.
2. Since my child will score advanced on the standardized tests, there is no reason for a teacher to spend (waste) time with her.
3. They have also told me that heterogenous grouping is good for all children.
"Two, they'd say that "research has shown" that the children's psyche will be damaged if they're grouped by ability"
I have heard that as well, along with the implication that I am a racist elitist because I don't want my child to be sacrificed for the good of the masses.
I think we are in agreement on a lot of things. I don't know what to do about the kids who don't catch on in the lower grades. I have heard that retention is terribly bad for kids, but it also seems cruel to keep passing them on when they don't have the necessary skills for each grade.
Jane
I agree entirely.
Jane,
Yes, I think you're right. We do agree on many school issues.
The next time you see the Superintendent it might be fun to ask him/her to give you the Education Code section that prohibits grouping students by ability to facilitate instruction. That would seem to preclude programs like GATE.
The #2 comment is incredible. That's the ultimate example of an educator who thinks he/she knows more than some dumb parent.
Speaking of GATE, if you haven't seen it, you might want to look at the California Association for the Gifted web site. There are some local regional associations which might also be of help.
I'm sure you've already looked, but if there are charter school options, those might be worth a look. We had our middle school kids in an online charter school - CAVA for a year, which worked well, but does require a parent to be available to supervise the student. Fortunately, we were in a position where both my wife and I are home during the day, so it worked well for us.
As for retention, I've heard the same things. That's why it was so nice to see the research I included in the original posting, which suggests that retention does in fact improve achievement. As I mentioned, it also requires that the student not be put right back in the same ineffective classroom.
I'm sorry to hear about your Superintendent's attitude. You might also consider running for the local school board. It gives you the opportunity to have an impact, plus it would be really fun to see the Superintendent's face when they find out you won. :-)
Thanks,
Dave