Fairy Tale Land

Please enjoy this guest blogger, my wife Kate, who wrote a fairy tale of the SINI, SQR, QIP, etc., etc. process that a Title funded school goes through.  She did this for a graduate class, in hopes of simply explaining this process.  I found much humor in her story.  (Many of you may not fully understand all the names in the story unless you're familiar with the Potsdam Central District.)  Enjoy.

Once upon a time, there was a land called Stoney AAKers.  It was beautifully diverse, and rich in knowledge.  Lord James had been chosen to govern this land, this honor bestowed upon him after many successful years among the ranks of the scholarly.  Stoney AAKers was known for its commitment to being developmentally responsive to the academic, social, and emotional needs of their young, middle-level apprentices.  All their young apprentices were held in the highest esteem, with expectations set above the norm on all occasions.  Why, Stoney AAKers was even recognized as an “Institution to Watch” by the State of York’s educational system, one of only few in that state and one of simply hundreds country-wide.  Newcomers traveled from reaches unknown simply to experience Stoney AAKers and the impeccable scholars contained herein to tutor their young.

All was well within the province.  Lord James was a fortunate leader.  For he had master teachers of the highest degree enriching his youngest subjects the topics of the utmost importance and world-relevance:  mathematics and reading.  The tutelage of young subjects was successful, with nary a failure to be spoken of.  (Of course, there were exceptions, but very few.)      

One fine day, many years ago, before the rule of Lord James, the king of the country, King SED, had declared that “All young subjects enrolled in the lands of York shall be assessed in the utmost important and world-relevant contents of mathematics and reading, as to compare ourselves with the rest of the State of York, the entire country and beyond.”  King SED was convinced the assessments would benefit the people of his kingdoms.  And so it began…the tests!

Now, although Lord James and King SED had not always seen eye-to-eye, and apprentices had always been subjected to one form of yearly testing or another, Lord James and his master teachers had confidence in their work, and confidence in their King SED.  How could these assessments possibly affect the apprentices in anyway but positive?  Surely, their work and creative instructing would pay off, and prove to King SED the high caliber institution Stoney AAKers had proven itself to be for so many years.

Unfortunately, Lord James and his master teachers were mistaken.  Although most of their young apprentices had successfully completed the assessments, King SED had other ideas.  He decided he needed to change the cut scores of the examinations, ultimately altering the final scores of Lord James’ young apprentices (done after the tests were actually given…over the summer).  As a result, many of Stoney AAKers’ most needy students had failed to meet the minimum requirements set forth by King SED.  Alas, Stoney AAKers would now be labeled a School in Need of Improvement (SINI), much to the dismay of Lord James and his master teachers.

Upon receiving the news of Stoney AAKers’ designation as a SINI, Lord James was well into the next year of apprenticeship.  He was completely unprepared for the news that a small portion of his neediest students did not perform satisfactorily on King SED’s assessments during the previous year of apprenticeship.   This had never happened during Lord James’ habitation in York or during his tenure as Stoney AAKers’ leader.  However, Lord James would soon find out how costly the cut score shift would be.  To begin, Stoney AAKers was considered a Title l institution.  This meant each year, Lord James had to complete a Consolidated Application to receive Title l funding from the State of York. This was usually done in the summers, when the young subjects of Stoney AAKers were on summer hiatus.  Unfortunately, when Lord James was notified of his institution’s SINI designation, it was well into the fall semester of instruction.   This meant he had to redo the entire Consolidation Application, which included collecting all new information regarding the subpar performance of his neediest subjects.  This process took at least 20 hours to complete.  Lord James was not compensated monetarily for these extra efforts and was still expected to perform his duties as a loyal servant to King SED in his role as the leader of Stoney AAKers.

Just when Lord James thought matters could not get worse, he was informed that due to the fact Stoney AAKers was a Title l funded institution and was now on the dreaded SINI list, his institution was mandated to provide Supplemental Educational Services (SES) (additional tutoring to needy subjects after school hours – in addition to the extra tutelage they received during the school day;  AIS did not count, nosiree) to any of his poorest subjects performing at all levels on King SED’s yearly assessments, not simply those scoring below the king’s standards.  As one can imagine, this could be a costly venture.  King SED required Lord James to set aside monies equaling 20% of his total Title l funds he had received from his King.  Now, those monies were not to come from the Title l funds themselves, since they had already been designated to be used elsewhere in the budget.  Lord James would have to be creative and find those funds from somewhere unknown to him or King SED.  For King SED had no intention to defray the cost of the extra tutoring of SES to Stoney AAKers’ poorest subjects.   King SED simply expected full cooperation from Lord James and his master teachers, despite what it may cost them.

In order to comply with King SED’s expensive and seemingly ruthless commands, Lord James found himself contacting scholarly tutoring vendors near and far (as far as the complete opposite side of the country) in multiple ways (this, all according to King SED’s handy-dandy rule book) including email, phone and snail mail.  In turn, Lord James also had to inform parents of his young subjects attending Stoney AAKers of the institution’s SINI designation.  (No, it was not like the “Institution to Watch” distinction…this was the “bad list”.)  Once all vendors and parents had been initially contacted, again, Lord James found himself contacting  the scholarly tutoring vendors interested in attending the Scholarly Tutoring Vendor Ball, informing them of the date of said ball, using the same multiple contacting devices previously used for initial contacts.  Next, Lord James was mandated to inform all parents in the land (you guessed it, in MULTIPLE ways – email, phone and snail mail) as to the date of the Scholarly Tutoring Vendor Ball.  Out of 76 possible vendors (all from King SED’s royal list of vendors), only ONE vendor agreed to attend this ball, stating Lord James’ Stoney AAKers was too far off the beaten path for them to travel.  One vendor was within two hours distance, but since parents were responsible for transporting their offspring to and from SES provided services, said parents opted out of using that vendor.  (The vendor, by the way, had offered computers for every student.  This is against the rules King SED has set forth pertaining to SES services for the State of York – and the vendor did not even know it).  Luckily, for Lord James and the young subjects of Stoney AAKers, the local BOCES agreed upon servicing the neediest students in the land.

Now, one must understand…Stoney AAKers was mandated to set aside approximately $75,000 to offset the cost of SES services mandated by the King.  Remember, that money could not come from the Title l monies granted to Stoney AAKers by King SED.   So, Lord James found himself scrambling desperately for coffers to borrow from.  He decided to withdraw money from his Fund Balance to cover the expenses of SES as mandated by his King.  In his royal rule book set forth upon the SINI designation of Stoney AAKers, King SED guaranteed that any unused monies from the $75,000 could be reinstated to the fund it was borrowed from…so long as Lord James fulfilled his duty of preparing the waiver needed to do so.  (Unfortunately, for Lord James and his subjects, some of the due dates and deadlines for the waiver process happened to fall BEFORE the SINI designation of his institution.  As a result, any extra monies from the $75,000 in the first year of SINI designation is, for all intended purposes….lost to poor Lord James and his subjects.)  Since a SINI designation by King SED lasts a minimum of two years, maybe Lord James and Stoney AAKers will get some monies back after their second year of the SES implementation, provided they follow the process for a waiver to move the funds.

The next challenge Lord James faced was the King’s mandated School Quality Review (SQR).  For this, a Stoney AAKers team reviewed the entire institution.  This process took almost three solid weeks during the early winter months.  While Lord James’ master teachers and their subjects were on Winter Holiday, Lord James seized the time to complete yet another step in King SED’s SINI Process called the Comprehensive Educational Plan (CEP).  In order to do so, Lord James depended on the work he had done for the Consolidated Application, SES plan, as well as the SQR.  This took the entire week to complete. 

Lord James wished to be certain his efforts and the efforts of his master teachers were in the best interest of his young subjects.  He also wanted to investigate all possible reasons for the subpar performance of his young subjects on the King’s reading assessment.  In order to do that, Lord James ordered a Quality Improvement Process (QIP) be completed.  This committee process is run by Prince SESIS (Special Education School Improvement Specialist).  Prince SESIS’ task was to lend unbiased, constructive criticism of Stoney AAKers (as well as Larryland, where the very youngest subjects begin their fine apprenticeship in the State of York), offering research-based solutions to the areas of concern based on data and student outcomes of Stoney AAKers middle level apprentices on the King SED’s reading assessment.  It is Lord James’ hope the QIP will afford all young subjects of York the opportunity for a comprehensive and consistent educational plan district-wide (in Larryland, Stoney AAKers and The Chambers – where the eldest apprentices are instructed).  The majority of Lord James’ young subjects had met or exceeded King SED’s expectations and Annual Yearly Progress (AYP).  So long as the subgroup of special needs subjects continues to make AYP (as seen fit by King SED) for two consecutive years, Lord James and Stoney AAKers will no longer be designated a SINI school.

If Stoney AAKers does not make AYP (as seen fit by King SED – who knows where those cut scores will go next?), Lord James and his master teachers will continue to have their work cut out for them to prove that, despite the subpar performance of only the neediest of middle level subjects, Stoney AAKers is still, indeed an “Institute to Watch.”

It was now early May.  Spring had sprung…along with King SED’s yearly assessments once again.  Only time will tell if SES efforts at Stoney AAKers will close the gap of subpar scoring of the neediest subjects attending this fine institution.  Lord James was about ¼ of the way through King SED’s lengthy two-year process and found himself questioning:  Is it worth it to Stoney AAKers to be subject to all the extra unfunded efforts of SES mandated by King SED in order to receive his Title l funding?  After little deliberation, however, Lord James had to admit, despite the exhausting SINI process, King SED’s Title l funds were well worth the extra time and effort.  Where else would he find almost $400,000 in the tough economic times of the day to hire extra master teachers to enlighten his young subjects in the content areas of mathematics and reading?  (And he was going to need them more than ever now.)   

As fairytales go, this one is fractured, I know.  However, Stoney AAKers remains beautifully diverse and rich in knowledge, just as it had always been.  Lord James and his band of dedicated, master teachers remain steadfast in their mission to being developmentally responsive to the academic, social and emotional needs of their middle level apprentices.  That is not to say they have not been left dazed and confused by King SED’s latest decisions.   No matter, they will strive for the excellence they have always sought, improving and changing whatever necessary to meet their goal.  Most fairy tales end with Happily Ever After…but for Stoney AAKers we must wait and see for sure. 

Simply Wrong

Contained within the SED’s blueprint for middle level education, the Essential Elements of Standards-Focused Middle-Level Schools and Programs, you will find much written about the necessity for schools to be developmentally responsive to the students’ needs. Currently, what is the most pressing need for students? My faculty believes that it’s ADVOCACY. Below is the perspective from one brave classroom teacher. He eloquently states what we are feeling in reaction to forcing children to endure the exams which will not provide accurate information regarding our students, teachers, or administrators. Bravo to those who believe that our children need a voice, that teaching is a noble profession, and that enough is enough.

Simply Wrong - by Doug Saber

Disappointment, frustration, and exhaustion have turned to disgust, anger, and a resolve to be a voice for the students.

At first, we teachers lamented the directive to set the testing time at 90 minutes. We understood that our students would be confused and scared by this length of quiet focus and predicted accurately that they would complete the test booklets in a fraction of the time allowed. We were only a little surprised that some kids actually snored and drooled during the nap time which the balance of the test time became.

Now, we teachers are appalled – and not because the results of our students on these tests are supposedly soon to become the basis for decisions about our ability and permission to serve children in the classroom. We are appalled because our testing program has violated what is fair and appropriate for our students. The most significant call to serve our students has emerged – a responsibility to make public the wrongs which have occurred.

Specifically, it is simply wrong to ask teachers to cover a given body of information and skills with their students, allow the students to strive for mastery of the same set of concepts, and then surprise the students and teachers with high-stakes-test questions which were beyond the curriculum! 6 of 30 questions in the Grade 5, Book 1 Form D Mathematics Test attempted to assess material either not directed to be taught at all during Grade 5 mathematics (division of fractions, adding and subtracting fractions with unlike denominators, and volume) or directed to be taught after the assessment as part of the May-June performance indicators (probability and plotting points in the first quadrant).

Try this analogy:
A coach and his players spend weeks, even months, practicing for the upcoming lacrosse season. The coach identifies the important skills for his players to learn. He gets his players to understand a variety of concepts related to offensive and defensive schemes common to the game of lacrosse. The coach and his players do not know completely the magnitude of the competition they will see at the first tournament of the year, but feel good that they have prepared themselves as a quality lacrosse team.

The day of the first tournament game comes. The coach and his players are told that from time to time during the lacrosse game that they will be directed to jump in a swimming pool and play water polo. When the coach and his players are first told, they are shocked and dismayed. When they are plunged into the pool the first time and many of the players sink (most figuratively and a few literally – even some of the most skilled lacrosse players), the coach and the players want to protest and scream that such an arrangement is simply unfair. The tournament chairman assures the coach and his players that they should not worry about the water-polo episodes dispersed throughout the lacrosse game since they won’t really count. The tournament chairman offers a weak and ridiculous explanation that a group of data wonks somewhere are doing research to see how well using various aspects of water polo to measure the performance of lacrosse players works. It takes no time for the coach and his players to point out that getting in the pool does change their performance in the lacrosse parts of the lacrosse game. When they are dripping from head to toe and their equipment is wet, they find that they cannot focus on what they had striven to accomplish during those months of lacrosse practice. The game does not go as anticipated. The players worry that they will be labeled as a bad team or scrub players. The coach worries that he might be criticized by parents about his ability to lead the squad. As the team heads home from the competition, all are left to wonder. Should we have known somehow that this might happen so we could have prepared differently? Should we change the way we get ready for the opening of the season next year? Do we even care about this sport anymore if the organizers allow such craziness to occur? Did the tournament organizers actually profit from our misery? Why? We thought lacrosse was supposed to be fun.

The coach and his players returned to the tournament the following season (i.e., Book 2) only to discover the same ridiculous arrangement. The tournament director and his staff were still throwing lacrosse players into pools. The results got even worse as the lacrosse players resigned themselves to the expected failure they recalled from the prior season. The players swore that if their coach was forced to bring them to the same tournament in the future that they would go through the motions and care little, if at all, about the outcome of the games.

The sequel part of the analogy is based on the experience with the Grade 5, Book 2 Form D Mathematics Test which like Book 1 covered material either not directed to be taught at all during Grade 5 mathematics (multiplication of fractions, subtracting fractions with unlike denominators, and volume) or directed to be taught after the assessment as part of the May-June performance indicators (probability and plotting points in the first quadrant). Another 6 of 30 questions were beyond the curriculum!

Symmetry

I love symmetry. I love symmetrical objects and designs. If you doubt me, take a look at my house. There’s a reason we selected to build a colonial style home. We even have matching doors on each side of our porch. There’s a sense of balance to symmetrical objects which seem to appeal to me. I appreciate balance in many aspects of life. When I think about eating the snack I know I shouldn’t consume, I think to have “just a little” in moderation. I remember training as an athlete; I would always balance my workouts and routines. In my classroom, I would look for a balance of activities and approaches. There are few areas in which balance isn’t justified.

This past week we have endured the NYS ELA Assessments. There’s been opposition to standardized testing since the concept has been used. Personally, I’m not against a standardized accountability system. As a teacher, parent, and principal, I acknowledge the merit of this process. Yet, something seems unbalanced. We teach compassion and empathy, yet I witnessed children break-down and cry while completing these exams. We understand the value of positive relationships; unfortunately, many of you probably didn’t have the chance to work on this with the children this week. We have endeavored to differentiate our instructional strategies and assessments, the state has not.

Why do we, the educators, work on these daunting tasks when the state education department is presenting a different paradigm? The answer is clear to any of us who have ever seen the light bulb beam when understanding is reached. We know how best to teach and how children learn. Our moral obligation as educators now reaches farther than striving to expand our skills with children. In this current era of education, our responsibility extends so that others understand the importance of moderation and balance. An educational philosophy is more than an idea, strategy, or approach. It’s the impetus behind the idea, strategy, and approach.

If your philosophy is incomplete, in flux, or still on the back shelf since you completed that undergraduate requirement of writing an Educational Philosophy, then I encourage you to place your thoughts about this past ELA exam into words. You, I assume, are like me. It’s not all bad, but something just doesn’t seem right about what we did to our children. It’s unbalanced, more than simply a house with only one door. More like a house with only one door…on the third floor.

I would encourage all to provide the SED the feedback that they’ve requested, in any avenue available.

Have a great weekend. Let’s get ready for another round of assessments. Yeah Math!