School E-mail October 28, 1996

Return to School e-mail archive directory

Subj: Academic Challenge
Date: 96-10-28 13:43:40 EST
From: James.C.Klagge@bev.net (James C. Klagge)
To: school issues list@vt.edu

ACADEMIC CHALLENGE IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS A DISCUSSION PAPER (October, 1996) by James C. Klagge, School Board Representative, District F

This paper offers perspectives on some issues concerning our schools. It is designed to provoke productive discussion that I hope will eventually lead us in some satisfying directions.

Recently much attention has been focussed on our school buildings and our school budgets--but as relevant as these things are to education, they are not the essence of education, and it is important not to get distracted from that. The essence of education is what happens in the classroom and in the students' minds as a result of the opportunities and interactions with teachers and other students. Although schools have become the locus of a number of socializing tasks that cannot be ignored, their primary task is academic. The primary task is to enhance the academic ability and achievement of our students. Are we doing that as well as we can?

I do not wish to make this into a statistical debate about whether public education is failing our nation or not. I want to focus on the situation in our county, how we do things, and how they could be done better. (My knowledge is mainly based on the situation at GLE, Kipps, BMS & BHS, but I hope my comments are relevant to other schools as well.) Perhaps most vocal attention to this issue has come from parents of gifted and high-ability children, but the issue is relevant to children of all ability levels, and how we deal with it will have impact on all children. It also has relevance for all residents of the county, whether they have children or not--for the economic vigor and tax base of the county depend on the quality of education we provide to our children.

I want to divide my discussion into three parts--elementary level (K-5), middle school level (6-8), and high school level (9-12). The different levels raise different issues, though there are some common themes.

I will start with a common theme: As I mentioned before, schools have become the locus of socializing tasks as well as academic ones. In particular, schools need to be concerned with how students feel about themselves as students, as well as how much they achieve as students. The connections are obvious. On the one hand, students who don't feel like effective learners are less likely to become effective learners. On the other hand, academic success is one way, ideally the best way, to instill academic self-esteem. This issue is usually discussed in the elementary context, but it reaches all the way up to high school, and the decision whether to stay in school or drop out. Our job is not only to maximize achievement of those who stay in school, but also to maximize the number of those who stay in school and earn a diploma. You can see that we cannot afford to focus exclusively on either of these goals. Nevertheless, there is room for debate on how they are to be balanced against one another.

Elementary level:

Students are generally assigned to teachers at the elementary level in such a way as to give each teacher a broad representative range of students in terms of ability levels (producing what are known as heterogeneous classes). Because the federal government has certain requirements for special education students, these students are generally included in regular classrooms, but occasionally they are clustered into certain classes (rather than being spread out evenly) so that their needs can be met by fewer special aids. When math is taught, students are generally divided by ability levels. The higher ability students are taught the CSMP curriculum, others are taught the standard curriculum. This is generally done by pairing classes so that all of the CSMP children are taught by one teacher, and the rest are taught by the other teacher, for that period. Thus math is taught in (relatively) homogeneous groupings. Generally science and social studies are taught in the original heterogeneous classes.

Language arts is more variable. Sometimes different ability levels are taught different materials within the same classroom, sometimes they are taught the same materials but in different ways within the same classroom, sometimes they are grouped with children of similar ability levels from other classrooms, like the CSMP arrangement. For children who are identified as gifted, there must be a differentiated educational plan (DEP) which specifies how their learning will differ from the standard curriculum. But this only occasionally includes segregating them from other students into their own class. (Are DEP's being correctly used? Are they helpful?)

This raises a number of issues. Would children be better educated by grouping them on the CSMP model for language arts, or perhaps for all of their subjects? People have various views about this:

Academically speaking, some think the high-ability children will flourish no matter how you arrange things, others think they need as much attention to their needs as other students and can't be ignored. Some think children will learn best by working with peers of roughly equal ability so that the teacher's full attention can be on that group. Some think children will be inspired by being mixed with children of other (usually higher) abilities. (I think we need to be careful about the idea of using high ability kids as an inspiration to other kids in the classroom.) Some think heterogeneous mixing of abilities harms high ability children if there are not enough high ability children in the mix to constitute a critical mass of peers.

Socially speaking, some think heterogeneous mixing of abilities mirrors the real world and hence best prepares children to operate in real environments, others think the classroom needn't mirror the real world to be a preparation for it. Some think the more we group children by abilities the more we instill in them a sense of superiority or inferiority or fatalism, any one of which is an unfortunate attitude to have at any age, especially at a young and impressionable age. Others think such distinctions are already perceived by children and should be honestly acknowledged rather than disingenuously disregarded. Some think experiencing the variety of values and perspectives represented in a range of ability levels is itself educational.

Administratively speaking, some think the best teachers should be assigned to the highest ability children, others think they should be assigned to the lowest ability children. Some teachers would prefer to work with a broad range of children, others would prefer the focus allowed by homogeneous grouping.

I don't know if it is possible to reach consensus on all, or even any, of these issues. However, I think that setting them out and distinguishing them from one another might help make discussion more productive. I am inclined to think that such wide divergence of opinion on these issues makes the current flexible system the best one--in which some teaching is done to heterogeneous groups, others to homogeneous groups. At this point I don't think our system should try to dictate to schools how they arrange these things. I would rather let principals in consultation with teachers and parents make these decisions. That puts a lot of responsibility on the principals, but I think that is where it should be. But they do need to know that the administration will back up reasonable decisions.

An important concern, however, is that each ability level (within each classroom) contain enough peers within it that there be a critical mass. (I don't know if there is consensus about how many constitute a critical mass--I've heard numbers ranging from 6 to 15.) This may sometimes require clustering (as opposed to even distribution). I also think an important concern is that, especially in early grades, we do what we can to avoid labeling and grouping that reinforces either superiority or inferiority complexes; and we recognize and encourage the idea of children moving between ability levels (both through time and between subjects)--instead of being fixed once and for all. However, the more we value heterogeneous grouping, the more important it is to limit class size. If we expect teachers to deal with a variety of students, we have to limit the numbers involved. Finally, we need to reexamine the extreme version of inclusion that allows highly disruptive emotionally disturbed children in the classroom. Such inclusion benefits no one, harms many, and should not be perpetuated by appeal to an abstract philosophy of inclusion.

From a teaching point of view, it is virtually impossible to teach and challenge all the students in a class if there are too many different ability levels represented. The likely effects of this are either burn-out and low morale in the teacher, or a watering down of the approach so that too much time is spent in self-guided or peer-assessed reading and writing. This can have value in some circumstances, but it does not really constitute education. The administration defends the heterogeneous classroom model as being in conformity with "Best Practices". I think this means it is supported by current research. But while it may be the best practice IN THEORY, I'm not so sure it is the best practice IN PRACTICE. If we had smaller classes and teachers who could prepare and supervise 4 different lessons for a single class, that would be great. The reality is that some classes are not so small, and some teachers are not so able. I am concerned that we are expecting too much of teachers, even though some can probably manage it. Perhaps we should try to have an anonymous survey of teachers about their views on heterogeneous classes.

Even if we encourage more clustering, or grouping on the CSMP model, I think teachers need the chance, over a period of years, to teach different ability levels if they wish to. That means they need to have adequate training and resources to meet the needs of different levels. This suggests greater support and opportunity for in-service training. (Gifted resource teachers can play a valuable role in that regard, that would benefit not only gifted children, but those at other levels as well. So far the county has provided such resource teachers mainly to the smaller schools.) To the extent that some teachers are perceived as better than others, I think it is a mistake to assume that the better teachers should automatically be assigned the high ability grouping.

But how we group students for learning is only one of the relevant issues. Here are some others:

No matter what we do to structure how education takes place, the fundamental factor is the teacher-student relationship. Insuring talented and enthusiastic teachers is most likely to lead to an effective education for all students. This requires measures to support teacher morale, as well as measures to ensure effective procedures for teacher evaluation and improvement, and, if necessary, termination. In particular, it is important to be able to monitor the implementation of the curriculum, especially the differentiated curriculum for gifted students. The core of a gifted novel-unit, for example, is the guided discussion of the material, not simply the book itself. We need ways of assuring students are having those discussions, not just reading those books.

Quite important, though I mention it only in this brief paragraph, is that the county is at work on new curricula, partly under the influence of the state's new standards of learning (SOL's) and partly from our own periodic revisions. These should increase the academic challenge to students at all ability levels, and at all grade levels.

Finally, though we often focus on differentiated curriculum for different ability levels, we might also look at differentiated evaluation. Some parents of high-ability children complain that it is too easy for their children to get good grades, so they don't try as hard as they might. This comes from teachers grading all of their (heterogeneous class of) students by the same standard. Perhaps teachers should give parents the option of having their children graded in comparison with their ability, so that good grades would not come so easily. This individualized grading would not require homogeneous grouping, but would create more of a challenge.

Middle school:

The problem of academic challenge has been most discussed recently concerning the middle school level. Test results in our county comparing academic achievement with academic ability have suggested that at the middle school level the higher ability students were not achieving up to that ability in many cases. (There has been some disagreement as to the correct interpretation of test data. Some issues await a better understanding of the data.) Regardless of the correct interpretation of the specific results, this seemed to agree with the experience that some parents had that their children were not being adequately challenged at middle school.

Many of the comments I have made for the elementary level are also applicable to the middle school level. For example, math is the only subject in which there is strictly homogeneous grouping of ability levels. And clustering is sometimes used to achieve a critical mass of students of a certain ability level.

These similarities to elementary school arrangements are sometimes justified by reference to the "middle school concept." I'm not sure I have a complete understanding of what this involves, but part of it is this: The middle school concept is in contrast to the junior high concept. A junior high is modeled on a high school format, with homogeneous grouping for classes in all core subjects. The middle school concept resists this rush to differentiate, and retains some of the transitional socializing begun in elementary school, while readying students for the high school.

Outside the core subjects (of math, language arts, science, and social studies) students have to choose electives in 7th and 8th grades. There have been complaints that few electives were sufficiently challenging, and there are on-going attempts to increase the offerings of challenging electives, including additional foreign language offerings.

The middle school has been sensitive to concerns recently expressed concerning academic challenge, and has set this as a priority to deal with. Extensive surveys were done of teachers, students and parents. The results of these are generally positive (though not unanimous). Those who have had bad experiences cannot be discounted or "disproven" even if they are not shared by a majority.

Like the elementary level, the middle school emphasizes flexibility as a way of dealing with the grouping issue. There will be a more careful attempt to ensure a critical mass of students of given ability levels in classes, while retaining different ability levels within classrooms. But there are also opportunities for independent or group projects, and other sorts of arrangements to ensure students get challenged. It would be good if we could get gifted resource teachers into the middle schools as well. Recently we have funded one additional gifted resource teacher for this purpose. Gary McCoy recently attended a conference on the International Baccalaureate program for middle schools, and that would be a challenging new direction we may be able to go in.

Many of my comments from the elementary level are applicable here. The most important is the need for parents to discuss concerns about challenge with their child's teachers and principal. Not only differential material but differential evaluation are possible. My impression is that principals are concerned to preserve the experience of a variety of values and perspectives in language arts and social studies classes that they feel is provided by heterogeneous classrooms. And they want to provide sufficient challenge within that context by flexible arrangements.

My daughter moved this year into 9th grade. She mentioned that in her classes she now seems to have only students who hold the same political views as she does, whereas last year there was much more diversity. She wondered why this was, and whether it had to do with the fact that she was now taking all honors classes. I can't help but think that it is. I don't want to claim there is a strict correlation between academic level and political viewpoint, but there may be rough correlations--certainly noticeable ones. After we discussed this she wanted to make clear that she still supports having honors classes, even in the middle school. But we had an interesting discussion of the value of a diversity of viewpoints in the classroom--something that may be undermined by homogeneous classes.

I think discussion of tracking and grouping raises profound issues of social values: Are the differences between students an impediment to their education, or an asset? Will differences be exacerbated through tracking or grouping? Should education concern itself with these issues, or merely with academic accomplishment? At this point, I am inclined to support the principals in their stance on these issues--but my purpose for this paper is to open up this discussion, not to close it.

High School:

High school classes involve a good deal of ability-grouping in all core classes. Indeed, one accreditation group suggested we have too much of it. (Auburn HS has only two levels for its language arts--honors and college-bound, though some think "college-bound" is a misnomer since it covers all other levels.) Some people wonder why we resist grouping at lower levels if we are so willing to have it at the high school level. That is a good question, since it looks like we are trying to dig in our heels on a slippery slope. While it may be difficult to draw a principled line between middle school and high school, I think that should not undermine our confidence in the value of heterogeneous tracking before high school. Like choosing a drinking age, or a driving age, drawing difficult lines is not necessarily arbitrary or bad.

Because of extensive grouping, academic challenge has not been as much of an issue at this level. Students can pretty much be challenged as much as they want to be by the courses they choose. But two important issues have arisen.

International Baccalaureate at the high school level: The initial budget proposal last year included $40,000 to begin an IB program in the county. IB is a systematic program on the level of advanced placement classes, with special attention to interdisciplinary connections between subjects, independent study, and a social service component.

Despite being impressed by this program, I voted against its inclusion in the budget (and it was eventually eliminated by the financial crunch in any case). I don't think we could offer this in all 4 high schools, and I don't think it would be fair to offer it in only some of them. Perhaps some way could be found to offer IB in some high schools, and offer some other special programs in others, but at this point I haven't seen any reasonable proposal along these lines. I also think that much of the value of IB is provided by AP classes. (IB works best in systems like Salem that have only one high school.) I'm open to further discussion of this that is sensitive to equity concerns within the county.

Strengthening Graduation Requirements: The administration has recently proposed strengthening graduation requirements so that students are challenged by a more stringent program (even if that is not really their preference). This is partly motivated by a concern that all of our graduates should have the tools to get further education. Community colleges, which often get students who did not originally intend to get further education--and so did not take college prep courses--have to offer remedial work that could have been done in high school. Perhaps we should require those courses of all of our graduates. It is partly motivated by changes in what the state plans to test our students on. Future tests for all 11th graders will cover algebra and geometry, world geography and world history.

Our county currently offers two academic diplomas--a standard diploma and an advanced studies diploma. Roughly, the standard diploma requires 4 credits in English, 2 in math, 2 in science, plus an additional one in either math or science, and 3 in social studies, as well as some other requirements, for a total of 21 credits. This would be increased to 4 credits in math, 4 in science, and 4 in social studies. There would still be a total requirement of 21 credits, but less room for electives. The advanced studies diploma requires 23 credits, including 4 English, 3 math, 3 science, 3 social studies, and 3 foreign language. The proposed change would require an additional math, an additional science, and an additional social studies, decreasing room for electives by 3.

The administration's proposal does not turn these diploma requirements into strict requirements. Students can graduate with the old diplomas as long as their parents' meet with the principal and sign a waiver that they understand that doing so is not in the best educational interests of their child.

This is an interesting proposal and deserves extensive discussion. My comments, again, are meant to open discussion, not close it. I have two kinds of concerns about this proposal.

Electives: Clearly students would be taking more core classes to meet these new requirements. The administration estimates that we would need 7.4 additional teaching positions in core subjects county-wide. Unless we get money to hire these positions, this will require eliminating positions in elective subjects, and hence fewer elective offerings. Perhaps we can say that education really means education in the core subjects, but I think this is too narrow a view. Since people complain about excessive specialization even in college and graduate school, perhaps we shouldn't be too anxious to encourage it in high school.

Perhaps some elective courses really are not valuable enough to make them worth taking in place of some core courses. But if that is true, maybe we should make those judgements independently of this proposal and improve or eliminate them on those grounds.

If we do move in the direction of this proposal, it might be best to do that slowly to see what the effects are. We could, for example, increase the requirements one at a time and assess the results before we do more. I think we need to encourage our students to take 4 social studies units now, to perform well on state tests. And we need to provide a way to get all students taking algebra and geometry. I don't know if the state was right to decide to test on these, but given their decision we need to prepare for it. The state has decided it will not grant math credit for any class lower than algebra. This is unfortunate since it precludes valuable classes like consumer math. The HS's are planning to offer algebra as a 2-year course, for those for whom it would be a real challenge. After the first year, called Algebra A, they would get no official math credit from the state, but we would credit them as having taken a year of math, for purposes of counting the 4 math credits towards graduation. (I don't like this accounting method--If the state doesn't count it as a math credit, then I don't think we should either. Perhaps we should require 3 math credits for graduation, and offer Algebra A as a way to prepare for that, but not as part of its satisfaction.) Students are also allowed, by the state, to count the final course of a vocational program as a math credit. I don't see any reason now for requiring all students to take four years of science. (As I recall, when I was in HS I took 3 years of science, and 3 years of social studies.)

Drop-out Rate: One of the important concerns in this county is the drop-out rate. The administration has been working on ways to deal with this over the last few years. We need to think about what the impact of this proposal would be. It seems as though it could only worsen the problem--and we should try to figure out how much it would worsen before we go ahead with it.

The proposal does have the provision that the new requirements can be waived by parental permission. Would that obviate the concern about the drop-out rate? It will certainly put principals in a difficult position, having to advocate more stringent goals to families of students who are already questioning their ability to succeed in school.

Conclusion:

To those who have advocated significant changes, my comments will sound disappointing. (Remember, they are comments to provoke discussion, not commitments that I am determined to stick by.) I don't think we should impose structural changes on the principals, dictating to them how to improve academics in our schools. Partly because some changes that have been advocated--e.g., strict grouping--are not clearly the best way to go, and partly because of the value of decision-making autonomy within each school. (But we can certainly take about setting expectations that academic performance be improved.) I do support sufficient clustering that students have a critical mass of peers in their class, and teachers have a narrower variety of abilities, and no extremely disruptive students, in their classes.

I think the heart of the issue comes down to the quality of teachers we have, and the quality of their interaction with our students. I think the main changes to be made are: adequate support for in-service training for teachers for challenging curriculum; additional gifted resource teachers for elementary and middle schools; a full-time supervisor for the gifted program; smaller class sizes, especially in core subjects in the middle schools; and improved monitoring procedures for evaluating the implementation of the curriculum, including gifted curriculum, and evaluating teachers. But I am open to discussion of further changes.

Finally, I am circulating this by e-mail and other means. Please feel free to make copies and pass them on to others who may be interested. I would appreciate feedback by e-mail JKLAGGE@bev.net, phone (951-0649 or 231-8487), mail (220 Huntington Lane, Blacksburg, VA 24060) or in person. Thank you for your concern with, and attention to, this issue.

email: admin@gisone.com