CDE to look at test scores differently & the state is mandating Gifted and Talented be recognized (Boulder: how much, school districts)

[froggin4colorado]

Please look for more articles to come primarily in CDE's website and in the news.
Bottom line: In the past, high status schools have scored well and low status schools scored poorly or average, striving hard to score high/advanced. Now, students will be looked at to determine if they have a year's growth. At least 2 data points (CSAP scores from one year to another- tough to do on Fort Carson and other military installations bases/posts with a high turnover) must be included to determine how much a student has grown in a year.

The theory is that students who are in high socio-economic school districts come to school already average or performing high/advanced and remain average/high. This is to determine if students are growing academically or just plateauing.

Also, the state has FINALLY said we will identify gifted and talented early on. Studies show that if a student isn't identified and challenged by the 4th grade than frequently the student "averages" out.

Other educators, feel free to add or clear up what I have posted. I have only had to attend 2 short sessions on this in our district.

[Bob from down south]

Originally Posted by froggin4colorado

Please look for more articles to come primarily in CDE's website and in the news.
Bottom line: In the past, high status schools have scored well and low status schools scored poorly or average, striving hard to score high/advanced. Now, students will be looked at to determine if they have a year's growth. At least 2 data points (CSAP scores from one year to another- tough to do on Fort Carson and other military installations bases/posts with a high turnover) must be included to determine how much a student has grown in a year.

The theory is that students who are in high socio-economic school districts come to school already average or performing high/advanced and remain average/high. This is to determine if students are growing academically or just plateauing.

Also, the state has FINALLY said we will identify gifted and talented early on. Studies show that if a student isn't identified and challenged by the 4th grade than frequently the student "averages" out.

Other educators, feel free to add or clear up what I have posted. I have only had to attend 2 short sessions on this in our district.

So there's an assumption of linear "growth?" A HS junior who progresses from 3rd grade to 4th grade reading level is viewed as more appropriate high school performance than a junior maintaining "plateaued" college level proficiency? Too funny.

The German schools separate out their students at about the 4th grade level..."gifted" to the college track, "capable" to the technical/vocational track, and "morons" to the craft vocational track. So you'll know if junior is headed for university or janitor school before he's 10 years old. So have we taken a first step in that direction?

[froggin4colorado]

The paper will be putting something in the paper in the next day or so.

When you look at these numbers, remember that it is percentile not percentage and anything above 50 is normal/good. The median, or 50th child's score is looked at.
Imagine a number line, the 50th person will be sitting at the number that you are looking at. You have no idea where the 49 above or below are at on the scale, just scattered about- but the 50th child is on the percentile number posted in the paper.

[SaxLuva]

I lived in Germany for 9 years and personally, I think their system is great. However, it's not until the junior high school level that they begin testing and directing out to various schools. Not everyone is a brain surgeon, nor is everyone a landscaper. However, the aptitude tests given send these kids in the right direction and high school dropouts are practically nonexistent. The mass majority come out of some kind of school, whether it is higher education or a trade school, with the tools to make a living. In my opinion giving a young person, a trade in order to support themselves is much better than letting them fail or quit school and not be able to support themselves. Not everyone is cut out for school and the German's have figured that out and given their people an alternate way to be self-sufficient determined by the individual's capabilities.

[Katarina Witt]

I thought schools always had to make "adequate yearly progress" (AYP). That's where the good schools have had a hard time; it is easy to make progress when a school is scoring quite low, harder when they are already near the top of the range. And they are rating schools, not students. If they have started to rate students based on CSAPs, it's news to me. (I am not being sarcastic, I mean I haven't heard of it.)

From what I have heard of Germany's system, the students are separated out at a pretty young age (around 10), which, IMO, is a bad idea. There is no allowance for "late bloomers" in such a system. Also, not all of the kids attend a traditional academic high school, which makes comparisons difficult.

[SaxLuva]

I honestly mean no disrepect, but hearing about something and actually seeing it in action are 2 very different things. I've seen, first hand how well the German system works and the children are not "separated" out and certainly not at the age of 10.

[Katarina Witt]

^^^I will take your eyewitness account. Even so, I don't like the idea of deciding in middle school that someone is not "college material". I like our system with all its flaws better.

[SaxLuva]

It works for the German people because they have a different culture and way of thinking, as do most Europeans. Doesn't make them wrong, just different. As far as us adopting the system, I'm sure you're right, the system probably would not work here.

[froggin4colorado]

Kat,
Higher socio-economic schools have students who come into the school system knowing more, have more support at home, and more are labeled as gifted and talented. However, as many educators know, that often instruction is given to the class as an average, leaving the outliers who are way up there to hang (even if they aren't considered TAG/GT). These outliers will do well on the CSAP for a few years and then eventually end up scoring like the average student. So, in reality, they haven't been making the growth that they are capable of doing because the teacher taught to the class average and not individually. Therefore, students who start out performing high can often plateau out if thier needs aren't addressed. (The state has also FINALLY addressed gifted and talented programs in the schools, we must have them! This hasn't been the case. Additionally, those who work with this population must have the appropriate background, training, education, etc...)
On the other side of the spectrum, students who start out low, like Bob has mentioned above, we will be able to see how little or much growth has taken place. That low student might be 4 years behind at one point and then finally get an intense year of instruction (like he/she should) and make 3.5 years growth in one year, which is so awesome, but still score poorly on the CSAP. However, you will now see that the year has been a very successful one for him rather than seeing pure failure.
Now, D8 is looking individual growth like I discussed above (SLG), but the state is actually looking the entire grade as a whole and finding the middle person and seeing where those scores lie. We will have no idea where the highest person is or the lowest. So, this is not the average, only the median.
In the past, AYP looked at the entire class to see if they where proficient and then where graded on how many made proficient. But, what about the student who started out a kindergarten level in 3rd and missed proficient by 2 points or the gifted and talented student who only gained 20 points in one year? The districts who look at individual growth will now see this. The problem with the new system that CDE has laid out is that you only see the median, no one else.
Also, the public will read the paper and not realize that 50 percentile is average/good growth and instead will freak out when they see that number. Otherwise, 50 percentile can be seen as "WHAT?!!".

[Katarina Witt]

I read an article about this new "system" in the Boulder Daily Camera yesterday, and I guess I should say, "mea culpa" to a certain extent. They are trying to compare individual students now, but the methodology is a little screwy, IMO.

I'm not so sold on the G & T business. I've had two kids go through K-12 and then to college. I've seen lots of kids misidentified as both G&T and non-G&T. As Garrison Keillor likes to say "all the kids are above average". Most of us parents feel that way.

Even in elementary school, most schools do some sort of ability grouping in reading early on and by 4th grade or so in math. In middle school, there are honors classes, and in high school AP, IB, college-level classes such as CU-Succeed. I've seen that it makes very little difference once they get to college what honors track they have been in.

The old system also had the flaw of just seeing the median. None of these school ratings say a thing about how an individual student will do in a particular school.