|
0 members (),
123
guests, and
31
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,261 Likes: 8
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,261 Likes: 8 |
Stop Wasting Money Teaching Millions of Students Content They Already KnowThomas B. Fordham Institute, Advancing Educational Excellence September 19, 2016 by: Plucker, Makel, Rambo-Hernandez, Matthews, and Peters ...
consistent evidence that very large percentages of students perform above grade level.
...
estimate that 20–40 percent of elementary and middle school students perform at least one grade level above their current grade in reading, with 11–30 percent scoring at least one grade level above in math.
...
large percentages of students performing well above grade level—more than one grade level ahead.
...
8–10 percent of Grade 4 students perform at the Grade 8 level in reading/English/language arts
...
2–5 percent scoring at similar levels in math.
...
one out of every ten fifth-graders is performing at the high school level in reading
...
nearly one child in forty at this age is performing at the high school level in mathematics. Using midpoints of percentage ranges given, it seems that: 20% of kids are at least one grade level ahead in math, 2%+ are 4 years advanced. 30% of kids are at least one grade ahead in reading, 10% are 4 years advanced. This feeds the obvious problem of what a child doesn't learn when underchallenged (as discussed in a recent thread). IMO, these percentages also help illustrate that gifted programs which teach one year ahead often do not meet the needs of gifted students. A one-year grade acceleration (grade skip) may also not meet the needs of some gifted kiddos. Related thread: Johns Hopkins: How can so many kids be invisible?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 13
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 13 |
I didn't actually read the article- shame on me. But I'll comment anyway with just one point.
How are there measuring where kids actually are grade level wise? I mean, I have a piece of paper with the WJ -IV results on it that say my child is performing at a > 13 grade level almost across the board (except speed). But in real life what does that look like? Yes, he can read anything but he doesn't have the life experience to really understand high school literature. He wouldn't thrive in a high school literature class.
Math would be slightly different. He could work six years ahead, but his EF skills wouldn't keep up being placed there in and BM school.
I'm starting just now to realize that school teaches a lot more than just grade level content. It teaches a steady progression of EF skills, it builds up life/social experience. Just because a test says your child is x years ahead doesn't mean they'd actually thrive in a BM environment at that level.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 4,076 Likes: 6
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 4,076 Likes: 6 |
My takeaway is that there should be more opportunities for academic challenge as a matter of course, through multiple options, including within the core curriculum of each grade level, as well as through more radical programming.
...pronounced like the long vowel and first letter of the alphabet...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 144
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 144 |
I didn't actually read the article- shame on me. But I'll comment anyway with just one point.
How are there measuring where kids actually are grade level wise? I mean, I have a piece of paper with the WJ -IV results on it that say my child is performing at a > 13 grade level almost across the board (except speed). But in real life what does that look like? Yes, he can read anything but he doesn't have the life experience to really understand high school literature. He wouldn't thrive in a high school literature class.
Math would be slightly different. He could work six years ahead, but his EF skills wouldn't keep up being placed there in and BM school.
I'm starting just now to realize that school teaches a lot more than just grade level content. It teaches a steady progression of EF skills, it builds up life/social experience. Just because a test says your child is x years ahead doesn't mean they'd actually thrive in a BM environment at that level. I wonder about this general approach of talking about years ahead or behind in a lot of these reports and articles. There was a previous news article comparing school districts: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...-your-school-district-compares.html?_r=0"Sixth graders in the richest school districts are four grade levels ahead of children in the poorest districts." I could never quite pin it down but I assume the real data was maybe 4 standard deviations higher on the same standardized tests. Since it seems really unlikely you could take an entire school district and just advance everyone up some number of grades.
Last edited by BenjaminL; 09/19/16 02:10 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,261 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,261 Likes: 8 |
My takeaway is that there should be more opportunities for academic challenge as a matter of course, through multiple options, including within the core curriculum of each grade level, as well as through more radical programming. Well said! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,261 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,261 Likes: 8 |
I didn't actually read the article- shame on me. Agreed.  How are there measuring where kids actually are grade level wise? Read the article. You may also wish to read the related thread linked in the OP. I have a piece of paper with the WJ -IV results on it that say my child is performing at a > 13 grade level almost across the board (except speed). But in real life what does that look like? Yes, he can read anything but he doesn't have the life experience to really understand high school literature. He wouldn't thrive in a high school literature class.
Math would be slightly different. He could work six years ahead, but his EF skills wouldn't keep up being placed there in and BM school. Agreed. 1) The point which you raised, while valid, is a separate topic from the findings of the study, which are summarized by the linked article. 2) When contemplating accelerated grade placement, the Iowa Acceleration Scale ( IAS) is the go-to tool, and it considers many factors - not just the results of one achievement test. 3) The article mentions, " ... uniformly positive benefits when academic acceleration is implemented thoughtfully." I'm starting just now to realize that school teaches a lot more than just grade level content. This seems related to the thread what kids don't learn.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,261 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,261 Likes: 8 |
I wonder about this general approach of talking about years ahead or behind in a lot of these reports and articles...
I could never quite pin it down but I assume the real data was maybe 4 standard deviations higher on the same standardized tests. The article which you linked makes its "SEDA data sets" available to peruse if you choose to identify yourself and agree to their terms of use. Since it seems really unlikely you could take an entire school district and just advance everyone up some number of grades. Agreed. However the article linked in the OP did not suggest that. Neither did the article which you linked... it merely provided a comparison of averaged scores in various school districts, and correlated this to median family income. This is interesting, and I started a new thread for it: NYT interactive: Money and academic success. Did you have thoughts on the research and article in the OP?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,261 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,261 Likes: 8 |
How are they deciding grade level? I doubt they are looking at common core to get this data. It is my understanding that the data comes from the plethora of tests ushered in to ensure common core standards are being followed. The article's linked "recent policy brief" provides detail. If so many kids are past what is being taught (which is the headline sort of), then teaching really isn't needed. Teaching that content may not be needed... these kids may need or benefit from being taught something new.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,035
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,035 |
If it is an adaptive test and the kids are being given x grade questions and passing but not grade x+1 questions like the paper said then they grade level is accurate for that subject. This doesn't apply to non adaptive testing. But really it says what we know - bright kids benefit more from gifted programmes that accelerate slightly than gifted kids who need more. If you select by achievement you get achievers not gifted a lot of the time.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 4,076 Likes: 6
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 4,076 Likes: 6 |
The data sets analyzed included both adaptive and non-adaptive testing:
Fixed: Wisconsin SBAC, FSA, NAEP
Adaptive: California SBAC, NWEA MAP
Loosely comparing the WI and CA SBACs does suggest that a bit of the effect may be due to non-adaptive testing--but not all, or even most, of it.
Some of the usual caveats about grade equivalents (samples intended to determine normative status, rather than mastery of all grade-level topics) may still apply, though if these are truly criterion-referenced measures (designed to demonstrate mastery of standards), then the grade equivalent caveats are less significant.
...pronounced like the long vowel and first letter of the alphabet...
|
|
|
|
|
