[regional_school] Re: Is "Grade Level" a Load of Hooey?
- From: "Ellen Weber" <eweber1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Regional School" <regional_school@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 23:02:37 -0400
Interesting and well said Dan. Key is to create tools that add to a learner's
growth. Intelligence -fair assessment, as I see it, focuses also on a criteria
(rubric) list - negotiated between student and faculty for a specific product
or piece of work. Same assessment is used by student to create the product - as
is used by faculty to assess the product. These assessments are not only indiv
then - but are also doable in busy classes, and create intelligence-fair
assessments that also double as learning tools for learners. What do you think?
Ellen
Ellen Weber (PhD)
Director - MITA International Brain Based Center
PO Box 347, Pittsford, NY 14534
MITA Brain Leaders and learners blog: www.Brainleadersandlearners.com
MITA Brain Based Center Web Site at www.mitaleadership.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Drmacich
To: Denise Bartalo ; Bill Bendschneider ; Carolyn Bennett ; Mary Berger ; Wasa
Bouphavong ; G Brown ; Amy Brown ; Pat Cavanaugh ; Jason Charno ; Sandra
Climaenhaga ; A Colon ; Rochelle Corey ; Deana Darling ; Deana Darling ; Brian
Erway ; Karen Fisher ; Dennis Francione ; Shalanda Garfield ; Lynn Gatto ;
Nancy Gersh ; RJ Glomboski ; Synthia Green ; Richard Greene ; Gretchen Haag ;
Shawn Haarer ; Kate Hathaway ; Kyra Hawn ; Joseph Henderson ; Sara Hughes ;
Julia Kantor ; Roger Klimek ; Jack Langerack ; Barb Lemcke ; Joan LoCurto ; Tom
Mackey ; Jennifer Malinchak ; Katheryn McCullough ; Gena Merliss ; Jessica
Metras ; Nancy Monachino ; Gwynne Mosch ; Barbara Moynihan ; Kevin Murray ;
Jessie Nimeh ; Maureen Nupp ; Anne-Pat Nuzback ; Rich Ognibene ; Tom Pappas ;
Sheila Pearlman ; Norreen Pelusio ; Liz Porta ; Pamela Pruitt ; Todd Pschierer
; Kari Ritter ; Rosemary Rivera ; Emily Roberts ; Peter Rosenthal ; Scott
Schaefer ; Chojy Schroeder ; Sharon Silvio ; Pete Smith ; Ralph Spezio ; Mathew
Taber ; Leslie Vermeulen ; Jennifer Wheeler ; Mary Wilkins ; Thomas Witmer ;
Ruth Young-Card ; Lee Zelazny
Cc: Regional School
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 10:43 PM
Subject: [regional_school] Is "Grade Level" a Load of Hooey?
I like what this author is saying. It makes much more sense to
stress individualized standards for each kid & give them frequent formative
feedback, rather than expect them to measure up to other students who have
different needs, experiences, family support, etc. Let's focus on the
individual & take him/her as far as we can.
Dan
--- On Tue, 4/7/09, Lynn Ellingwood <lellingw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Is "Grade Level" a Load of Hooey?
At the heart of the "achievement gap" is the contention that
lots of low-income minority kids are "not at grade level" and are often said to
be several "grade levels" behind.
But what do we mean by "grade level"? Grade level is the score
of the average child in a particular grade on a norm-based test. But, by
definition, 50% of all children are always below grade level. When using
standardized, norm-based tests, you always guarantee that half of the students
taking the test are below grade level. So when we say that low-income blacks,
for example, are not at grade level, aren't we overlooking the rather obvious
fact that LOTS of kids -- in fact, HALF of all kids by definition -- are below
grade level?
Further, aren't we overlooking the fact that standardized tests
are rather poor measures of what students know and can do? And as a colleague
of mine reminded me recently, "Most kids need family and adult support to
become readers. And as we know, many kids don't have that support. Thus the
need for schools --in loco parentis." So aren't we also overlooking the fact
that low-income minorities often don't have this kind of family support, so
their being "behind" is not all that surprising?
So why not accept that lots of low-income minority kids do not
read at the level of their white, affluent peers and -- instead of
pathologizing them for this and then handing them a dumbed-down, See Spot Run
curriculum with lots o worksheets -- work with them from where they are and at
their own pace? In other words, why not just accept that all kids learn
differently and at different paces? Would this just be too ridiculously
practical? Instead of giving them the dumbed-down curriculum, you give them all
the support and encouragements and structure they need without framing their
development as "behind" or "slow" or "impaired." It's just where it's at. They
are where they are. Don't sacrifice PE and art and music so they can do more
phonics drills. Give them a broad-based experience of schooling that still
makes it fun and interesting. They may not read Moby Dick -- ever. But they may
not want to read Moby Dick, even if they could. (Confession - I tried to read
it once and gave up because I found it lethally boring.) Am I missing something
here?
In the end, here's what I think this would accomplish. We'd
reframe the "achievement gap" and replace it with what we know to be true of
all kids (actually, all people): a continuum. We know that ability varies
greatly on everything, and that some kids are simply better at reading than
others. There's nothing wrong with this, in the same way that there's nothing
wrong with the fact that some kids are better communicators than others or
better dancers or better weavers or better at computer games than others.
Reading is tricky, though, because it's seen as so foundational, and there's a
belief (probably romantic) that while it's OK for kids to be better at some
things and not others, ALL kids have to be equally good at reading. Maybe they
just aren't? And, since reading is so heavily affected by socioeconomic
factors, it only makes sense that affluent kids will be slightly better at it
than low-income kids.
Given all of this, we'd see growth measures in place for each
student and completely get rid of norm-based standards and measures and only
measure students in relation to their own growth and development.
Other related posts:
