Equal Access to Rigor: Middle School ELA BOARD PRESENTATION - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Equal Access to Rigor: Middle School ELA BOARD PRESENTATION February 10, 2020 Teachers and Administrators Presenting Lauren Wolter, ELA 7, 7th Grade Teacher, Longfellow MS Heidi Lippe, ELA 8, Content Team Leader, 8th Grade Teacher, Whitman MS
Lauren Wolter, ELA 7, 7th Grade Teacher, Longfellow MS Heidi Lippe, ELA 8, Content Team Leader, 8th Grade Teacher, Whitman MS Clint Grochowski, Principal, Whitman MS Seth Larson, Ph.D., Principal, Longfellow MS Mark Carter, Director of Secondary Education Willie Garrison, Supervisor of Equity; Student and Family Services Therese Kwiatkowski, Supervisor of Special Education David Dentinger, Supervisor of Secondary Education
The audit conducted by CESA #1 was made up of the following work.
The team:
Wauwatosa School District Goals #3
careers, and citizenship.
school welcomes and supports all children, staff and families.
students excel.
FIVE RECOMMENDATIONS and the DISTRICT VISION
The Audit conducted by the team from CESA #1 culminated in 5 recommendations for our district. 1. Instruction - Foster high levels of student engagement, choice and rigor into authentic practices in reading, writing, speaking, and listening, and language study. (Core Principles of Teaching and Learning & Instructional Framework) 2. ELA Curriculum/Schedule - Strategically phase out ELA tracking to support a more, equitable, rigorous, and collaborative ELA curriculum for all students. (Policy 5440, Equity Plan) 3. Resources - Build, use, and maintain robust instructional materials and classroom libraries. (Curriculum Review Process) 4. Professional Learning - Develop a multi-year professional development plan that focuses on differentiation, scaffolding, and best literacy pedagogy for both teachers and students. (Professional Learning Committee and Professional Learning Plan) 5. Assessment - Develop rigorous, valid, and reliable student assessments and rubrics aligned to standards, and implement more effective practices that promote reliability and empower students as responsive learners. (Professional Learning Communities, Common Summative Assessments)
DD
The current structure of middle school ELA courses for grades 7 and 8 does not align with our district’s vision that all students should have equitable access to high levels of learning. The two levels of ELA (Advanced and Regular) are not proportional by race, ability level, or economic status, as seen by these data from 2018. (Grade 8, Longfellow and Whitman, 2018) Students of Color Regular ELA 51% Advanced ELA 20% MS Proportional 41% Students with Disabilities Regular ELA 14% Advanced ELA 1% Proportional 13% Students Who Are Economically Challenged Regular ELA 32% Advanced ELA 10% Proportional 30%
The gaps we see in student access to rigorous courses in middle school persist into high school. These data show the percent of students going into AP English classes their junior year (2018). A student from Advanced English is almost 3 times more likely to take an AP English class junior year than a student from Regular English 10. Students from ADV English 10 41% Students from REG English 10 15%
Students With Disabilities (SWD) participating in general education classes with access to general education curriculum Co-Planning and Co-Serving between General Education and Special Education teachers
beneficial to many
Environmental Scan: Tracking in MS ELA
more than one level of ELA).
After having examined CESA #1’s recommendations and validating them with our district’s vision, and after having analyzed our students’ data and conducted an environmental scan, we propose the following:
ELA (English Language Arts): Advanced ELA and Regular ELA. Grade 6 currently has only one level.
Teaching and Learning Department are recommending that, beginning 2020-21, all students receive the Advanced ELA curriculum and that there be only one level for grades 7 and 8.
In meeting with our middle school teachers over a number of sessions, we held discussions related to the proposal. These are comments that represent the feedback gathered at those meetings.
❖ “What we’re doing is morally reprehensible.” ❖ “We need to de-track yesterday.” ❖ “We can absolutely do this [have all students take the advanced level] if we work together.” ❖ “Tracking in ELA implicitly tracks kids everywhere else!” ❖ “This change can work if we (teachers) get the help we need.”
Middle School ELA teachers have expressed a desire for the following supports in having all students take one level of ELA. TIME Time to prepare for the change; time during the school year for planning, work and collaboration TRAINING Professional development (e.g., differentiation, universal design for learning, workshop model (a curricular model aligned with equitable achievement for all students: low floor / high ceiling), foundational literacy skills SUPPORT Co-Plan/Co-Serve Model (collaboration with Special Ed Teachers), instructional coaches, interventionists
solution was tracking.
it is, in fact, harmful.
instructional frameworks and strategies that we weren’t aware of ten years ago--for example, Universal Design for Learning (UDL), co-planning/co-serving, scaffolding, differentiation, and the workshop model, to name a few.
In our sixth grade ELA program, all students are in one level.
in seventh or eighth grade.
sixth grade than in seventh, which has two levels.
[APHG], a college level course. After the first year, approximately half of the students in APHG took the AP test in May 2019 and 70% of those test-takers received a 3 or higher--a percentage surpassing the state average. The mean score of our students also surpassed the state’s mean score.
Studies to AP Human Geography, there was no significant change in all students’ grades.
Districts reporting that they have used the workshop model to support having one level of MS ELA:
Cedarburg, Elmbrook, Merton, Oconomowoc, Pewaukee, Port Washington-Saukville,
Comments from these districts:
model for more effective differentiation.
choice, strategy groups and literature discussion groups.
autonomy
A glimpse of one day in Writer’s Workshop
End of Unit Assessment for Learning: Students will create a narrative that has realistic characters, tension, change and conveys an idea, lesson or theme. Teaching Point: Writers develop the setting and the character’s relationship to the setting.
Student A Below Grade Level Skills Student B Grade Level Skills Student C Above Grade Level Skills
Student A is writing a narrative based on a situation or experience that occurred in their personal life. Student A is recalling details of the setting in this prior moment and using precise details and figurative language to better describe the setting and show how this place / time affected the people/characters. Student B is writing a narrative based on a storyline he/she wishes
working to implement precise details and figurative language within their short story to better describe the setting and shows how the character relates to the setting in a way that matters to the plot. Student C will take a cross-curricular approach and synthesize Social Studies content about an ancient civilization with the plot of a historical fiction novel to create a narrative. Student C will develop the setting based off of their understanding of Ancient India through precise details and figurative language and shows how a character evolves in this setting.
ELA Middle School: What Goes On in a Workshop Based Classroom
Watch a teacher explain the workshop model: Workshop Model- teaching Watch a teacher conference with a middle school student: A Reading Conference: Teaching Intertextuality to a Student (5-8) Watch two students discuss the books they are reading: Partners Discuss the Different Perspectives of Characters in a Text (5-8) Watch a teacher use Writer’s Workshop to differentiate instruction: Differentiating Instruction through Writer’s Workshop
The Readers Writers Workshop Model supports Recommendation #2 from CESA #1 to “strategically phase out ELA tracking…” by focusing on:
challenging all students with high expectations We currently use Writers Workshop with positive results and RWWM is used by many surrounding districts with positive results. providing all students access to rigor RWWM incorporates differentiation, “voice and choice,” collaboration skills, low-floor/high-ceiling, all of which promote high levels of engagement and success insuring our courses are culturally responsive. RWWM uses rich, diverse texts and a variety of strategies honoring a wide range of learners
Our district began a comprehensive K-12 ELA review in 2018-19, which will continue into the 2020-21 school year. Professional development is an integral part of this review. We have worked--or will be working--with the following consultants, presenters and resources:
Our district began a comprehensive K-12 ELA review in 2018-19, which will continue into the 2020-21 school year. Professional development is an integral part of this review. We have worked on--or will work on--the following areas.
Doors
For” Documents
We have met with a variety of stakeholders, including parents, teachers, administrators,and students, and these are the most common recurring concerns:
Range of learners leading to a lowering of standards
7th Forward Exam Scale Scores (Range of Learners)
Range of Learners
success of the lesson before it is taught (content teachers & special education teachers)
Longfellow and Whitman combined ELA data 2019-2020 (2/6/20)
ELA 2019-2020 Total number of referrals from class 6th Grade one level 4 7th Grade regular 7th Grade advanced 11 1 8th Grade regular 8th Grade advanced 4
2018-2019 - In All A.P. Human Geography Classes 12 total referrals 2019-2020 (2/6/20) - In All A.P. Human Geography Classes 2 total referrals
EAST/WEST HIGH SCHOOL: Referral Count
Middle School ELA teachers have expressed a desire for the following supports in having all students take one level of ELA. TIME Time to prepare for the change; time during the school year for planning, work and collaboration TRAINING Professional development (e.g., differentiation, universal design for learning, workshop model (a curricular model aligned with equitable achievement for all students: low floor / high ceiling), foundational literacy skills SUPPORT Co-Plan/Co-Serve Model (collaboration with Special Ed Teachers), instructional coaches, interventionists
are two levels of ELA (English Language Arts): Advanced ELA and Regular ELA. Grade 6 currently has only one level.
administrators) and the Teaching and Learning Department are recommending that, beginning 2020-21, all students receive the Advanced ELA curriculum and that there be only one level for grades 7 and 8.
➢ Tracking between classrooms at the middle school level increases inequality in high-school without increasing achievement (Carbonaro, 2005; Gamoran, 1987; Montt, 2011; Shavit & Müller, 2000; Van de Werfhorst & Mijs, 2010) ➢ Tracking may influence teachers’ approach to instruction due to implicit bias created by “tracking” label (Pallas, Entwisle, Alexander, & Stluka, 2004). ➢ A study of sixth‐grade teachers in Texas revealed that expectations were lower and teachers created less demanding assignments for students in their non‐advanced classes (Worthy, 2010). ➢ Researchers found that teaching was more disjointed and rote in low-track than high-track classes. 8th grade students in low-track classes received 40% more lecture than students in high-track; discussion time was half that of high-track groups. 9th grade students engaged in seatwork nearly 4 times as much as students in high-track
➢ The benefits of between-class grouping (separating students from the same grade into high-, average-, and low-achieving classes) were negligible. (“Summary: What One Hundred Years of Research Says About the Effects of Ability Grouping and Acceleration
➢ When non-gifted Black and Latino students are placed in gifted classes, they show major gains in reading. (Card, Giuliano, 2016) ➢ When students who are typically performing below grade level are given texts above grade level and work with a more proficient peer, they make significant gains. (Morgan et al, 2000; Brown et al, 2017) ➢ LINK: International studies show that the United States is one of the most tracked education systems in the world, but tracking hasn’t led to high achievement for the country. Instead, it has brought about stark racial divisions in opportunity and achievement. (Boaler, 2019)
➢ In American education, students in classes of predominantly white students are given more educational advantages than their Black and Latino peers:
lessons, and over 20% more lessons viewed as engaging. (The New Teacher Project’s National Report, 2018) ➢ When struggling students are exposed to grade-level tasks their performance increases by almost one academic school year. (The New Teacher Project’s National Report, 2018) ➢ The practice of tracking in U.S. schools, the sorting and grouping of students by perceived ability has long been critiqued by educational researchers. Tracking resegregated schools and provide an inferior education for students in the lower tracks (Wheelock, 1992, Slavin, 1993).
➢ Higher performance in advanced science course work (e.g., AP) in high school is related to higher first-year GPA and higher first-year science GPA; as such, teachers should encourage students to participate in advanced high school science course work when planning their curriculum for science learning (Does the Level of Rigor of a High School Science Course Matter? Pamela K. Kaliski and Kelly E. Godfrey, 2014) ➢ High expectations for all students, sufficient resources and a commitment to the belief that students can achieve when they have access to enriched curriculum, it can be an effective strategy to help students reach high learning
John.Teachers College Record Vol. 110, Iss. 3, (Mar 2008)
➢ Low-track classes tend to be primarily composed of low-income students, usually minorities, while upper-track classes are usually dominated by students from socioeconomically successful groups (Highland, 2006). ➢ Studies theorize that the disproportionate placement of poor and minority students into low tracks does not reflect their actual learning abilities (Oakes, 1987; 2005). ➢ Teachers of the high-track courses were found to be more enthusiastic in teaching, better at providing explanations and more organized than teachers of low-track courses(Oakes, 2005). ➢ While the enrichment and/or acceleration of curricula is considered to be a major benefit to gifted and talented students (Roger, 2002), lessons taught in low-track classes often lack the engagement and comprehensiveness of the high-track lessons, reflecting their more remedial
and would if not taught under a tracked system (Abiola, 2016).