[regional_school] Re: Is "Grade Level" a Load of Hooey?
- From: Dan Drmacich <dandrmacich@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: regional_school@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 12:47:00 -0700 (PDT)
For the most part, that sounds pretty reasonable to me & probably to most kids,
as well.
--- On Wed, 4/8/09, Ellen Weber <eweber1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Ellen Weber <eweber1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [regional_school] Re: Is "Grade Level" a Load of Hooey?
To: "Regional School" <regional_school@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2009, 11:02 PM
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:
