We invite you to share your experiences and to post information about advocacy, research and other gifted education issues on this free public discussion forum. CLICK HERE to Log In. Click here for the Board Rules.
Coming soon to a school district near you. (San Francisco Unified School District allows no acceleration whatsover in middle school).
-----
Parents: Math test doesn’t add up
BY ELAINE GOODMAN Daily Post Correspondent Monday, April 19, 2021
Palo Alto Unified students who want to skip a grade of middle school math must first pass five hours of tests exams that some parents say are in- tended to hold back higher-performing students as a way to close the district's "achievement gap." The optional tests, which the Palo Alto Unified School District will ad- minister next month, include a two-hour exam plus a three-hour exam given to fifth and sixth graders.
A fifth grader who passes the SO- called validation tests can skip ahead to seventh-grade math when they enter sixth grade. A sixth grader who passes the test may take eight-grade math when they're in seventh grade. PAUSD allows students to skip one grade in middle school math. But parents who talked to the Daily Post said five hours of testing for children in fifth or sixth grade is exces- sive. "Needless to say, 10 or 11 year olds are not used to such lengthy, high- stakes tests," said Daniel Guhr, who has three children in the district, in- cluding a fifth grader and sixth grader. Guhr, who heads an international education consulting firm, called a five-hour skip test "unheard of." In comparison, the SAT math subject tests, used in college admissions, are 60 minutes, Guhr noted. In addition, parents said it's not clear h ow the skip tests used by PAUSD were developed. "While math placements are available for students entering sixth grade and seventh grade, these tests are not standardized and results are not either published or predictable," said Ting Yao, who has two children in PAUSD schools, including a son in sixth grade. PAUSD Superintendent Don Austin told the Post that the concerns were coming from "a small group of parents who want to super-accelerate their students." "I don't think it's a real issue," Austin said. Sharon Ofek, associate superintendent of educa- tional services, described the validation test for sixth graders as "untimed." "However, time allotments (for scheduling purpos- es) add up to a total of five hours," Ofek said on Fri- day. "Students typically complete the assessments in a shorter time frame." Ofek didn't answer a question from the Post about how the tests were developed.
Eliminating lanes
The validation tests, known informally as "skip tests," are part of PAUSD's overhaul of its mid- dle-school math program announced in Decerrber 2019. A goal of the revised program is to reduce the "achievement gap" between disadvantaged students and others. A key piece of the plan is the "de-laning" of mid- de school math students. In de-laning, students are grouped together for math class instead of being di- vided into different classes based on their math pro- ficiency. "Experts in mathematics education agree that track- ing (or laning) students early in their education limits both high- and low-performing students, which ulti- mately leads to lower achievement overall," PAUSD said in a "frequently asked questions" document on middle school math dated Feb. 22. "Heterogeneous classes result in a deeper understanding of mathemat- is for the high achieving students, while simultane- ously raising the achievement of struggling students." But some parents disagree with the de-laning ap- proach, saying research doesn't support it. "PAUSD repeatedly claims that multilevel class- rooms are good for students and reduce disparities," said Allyson Rosen, whose daughter is a freshman at Palo Alto High. "I hear loads of complaints in middle school from parents and students about these classes. A teacher can be wonderful, but how do you deliv- er multiple lectures for multiple different levels in the same classroom? Everyone suffers because they don't get what they need."
Different approach in Los Altos
Some say they prefer the approach used in nearby districts such as Los Altos School District. In those districts, middle-school students generally have three math pathways. One is a "grade level" path that cov- ers the state's minimum requirements. Other students take an intermediate route that leads to algebra in eighth grade, while more advanced stu- dents may take algebra in seventh grade and honors geometry in eighth grade. PAUSD's overhaul of middle-school math is tak- ing place in stages. Changes to sixth-grade math are the focus this school year, with revisions to sev- enth-grade math planned for the 2021-22 school year and changes to eight-grade math in 2022-23. When asked whether the changes were accom- plishing the goal of closing the achievement gap at PAUSD, Ofek noted on Friday that the new approach to middle school math is now in its seventh month of implementation for sixth-graders. "Outcomes will be monitored as the instructional shifts are phased in over time," she said.
"Too easy and too basic'
Yao, the parent of two PAUSD students, said both her children have been frustrated with the district's elementary and middle-school math classes because they are "simply too easy and too basic." Her son passed the skip test and now, as a sixth grader, is tak- ing Math 7A, "a less boring class but (it) still doesn't give him enough challenge,' she said. Yao was looking forward to eighth grade, when her son would be in Geometry Honors, which she called shiable a "highly praised class." ." But now, the district has ap- parently eliminated Geometry H for eighth graders, replacing it with a class called Geometry 8. Yao said she hasn't been able to get answers from the district about the change. "Aside from the technicalities of the math curric- ulum, am even more concerned about the lack of transparency and lack of communication on such a significant change," she said.
Lawsuit
The debate over middle school math comes after one parent took PAUSD to court over his son's math placement. Parent Avery Wang sued the district in Santa Clara County Superior Court last year, alleging that PAUSD's math placement practices violated two sections of the California Education Code. Wang is a co-founder and inventor of Shazam, an app that can identify songs, movies or TV shows from a snippet of sound. In response to the lawsuit, PAUSD officials said they believed they were in compliance with the edu- cation code at all times. The two sides settled the case in December. The district agreed to move Wang's ninth-grade son into a more advanced math class and paid Wang $5,000. In exchange, Wang dropped his allegations of education code violations. But Wang still has concerns about middle-school math at PAUSD, including the upcoming skip test. "Five hours - what fifth grader could concentrate for that long?" he said. "Because of their new de-lan- ing philosophy, they want to make it as difficult as pos- sible for kids to break out of the one-size-fits-all plan."
As someone intent on minimizing performance gaps, I am puzzled as to why educators (where you are, where I am, and elsewhere) think that cutting down tall poppies is effective or merited, and how the public can buy into this.
How about they teach math well in the early years, so that later gaps are based on legitimate, irremediable differences in ability? No student should face barriers to math learning for social reasons. Likewise, no student should be held back from his/her potential for social reasons.
Reminds me of this short film. Worth a watch if you have 9 mins to waste, and are fed up with asinine educational policy:
I am a keen supporter of maths acceleration and curriculum compaction, but respectfully point out that understanding maths requires solid foundations, so thorough assessments for gaps in knowledge & skills before grade skips is appropriate. Whilst the expected concentration span of these students should determine the maximum length of each session, a total of five hours of assessment is not excessive, to ensure the full range of expected competencies is assessed.
It certainly makes sense to identify gaps prior to placement above the level of one's formal instruction history, but given the existence of publisher-provided placement tests in most math curricula, it would likely be more efficient to use those instead of a district-made test with no psychometric anchoring data. Or in the absence of placement tests, the end-of-course exam for the grade to be skipped. Those definitely exist for every commonly available published curriculum, and are highly unlikely to be designed for five-hour administration.
To be fair, it is possible that the district really is not requiring a test that is expected to take five hours. The time listed may be an upper limit intended to allow for extended time. (For example, our state high-stakes test allows for up to five-plus hours for each section--a full school day--but sections are designed to be reasonably completed by an NT student in an hour plus or minus.)
...pronounced like the long vowel and first letter of the alphabet...
As a firm believer in equal opportunities, not equal outcomes:
- the test being given for "skip" should be the same end-of-year test given for the grade level,
- the score allowing one to "skip" should be the same score allowing one to "pass" to the next grade level at end-of-year,
- the score which allows "skip" and end-of-year "pass" should be transparently available to all,
- students sitting for the "skip" test should have the same level of advance awareness of what is to be on the exam, as typical students are provided for the end-of-year exam,
- students sitting for the "skip" test should be provided the same advance access to any in-school test prep and/or test practice that typical students are provided for the end-of-year test,
- the skipped student should have the same access to remediation of any deficit or weakness that typical students or credit recovery students are offered.
FWIW, a quick look at the sample test item posted by the district leads back to this UC Berkeley project on performance assessments aligned to Common Core math standards, and their menu of end-of-course assessments:
Note that the MARS tests are actually only 80 minutes long in total, divided into two 40-minute sessions. So the nominal 5 hours of testing probably simply allows for 100% extended time.
I still don't agree with the rigid limitations on math placement options (especially, tbh, in a district as likely to be overweighted at the top end as PAUSD), but I think that in this case, the brouhaha over the validation tests is more a reflection of poor communication on the part of the district (which often is related to poor distrct-family relationships) than of unreasonable placement testing demands.
A problem in its own right, but a different problem.
...pronounced like the long vowel and first letter of the alphabet...
It seems like the solution to this problem is to allow gifted kids to go at a faster pace starting in kindergarten. The problem with this idea is that it is pretty easy to get a gifted kid through elementary math by the time they are in fourth or fifth grade and sometimes much earlier.
It seems like the solution to this problem is to allow gifted kids to go at a faster pace starting in kindergarten. The problem with this idea is that it is pretty easy to get a gifted kid through elementary math by the time they are in fourth or fifth grade and sometimes much earlier.
All true.
Then the *real* problem becomes inadequate teacher preparation or institutional flexibility.
Math class always feels like the edge condition in educational policy to me. There is literally no end to content, and free university resources exist to extend learning beyond the confines of K-12. It is a matter of will and ideology, and the ideology is plain.
As a firm believer in equal opportunities, not equal outcomes:
- the test being given for "skip" should be the same end-of-year test given for the grade level,
- the score allowing one to "skip" should be the same score allowing one to "pass" to the next grade level at end-of-year,
- the score which allows "skip" and end-of-year "pass" should be transparently available to all,
- students sitting for the "skip" test should have the same level of advance awareness of what is to be on the exam, as typical students are provided for the end-of-year exam,
- students sitting for the "skip" test should be provided the same advance access to any in-school test prep and/or test practice that typical students are provided for the end-of-year test,
- the skipped student should have the same access to remediation of any deficit or weakness that typical students or credit recovery students are offered.
It seems like the solution to this problem is to allow gifted kids to go at a faster pace starting in kindergarten...
Yes! All children need appropriate academic challenge and intellectual peers. For typical students, this may be found naturally in the classroom. For gifted pupils, some effort may be required to meet these needs.
The same IQ does not look the same on each gifted person; each student may have their own unique combination of strengths and weaknesses. Additionally, English language learners may more easily excel at math before other subjects.
As a firm believer in equal opportunities, not equal outcomes, to best meet each pupil's needs, schools should have aligned schedules, allowing each pupil to attend the level of each subject which is the best possible fit for them.
For example, a student may be two years ahead in math, one year ahead in science, on level in reading, a year lower in writing.
End of year tests for determining placement, such as math "skip," would be accepted as normal, and children fluidly moving up or down a level would be treated without fanfare, judgement, or shame.
A mix of ages is normal, natural, and healthy. It occurs as children play with siblings, cousins, neighbors, and participate in various youth activities... as well as in college/university, and future employment and volunteerism. A mix of skills and abilities is also normal, natural, and healthy. It would be great if schools acknowledged this, and doing so may well reduce the pressure of unrealistic expectations, and the resultant perfectionism, fear of failure, procrastination, and underachievement.
Originally Posted by Kai
... gifted kid through elementary math by the time they are in fourth or fifth grade and sometimes much earlier.
Depending on the student, if they are interested in taking the next level of math... facilitate the logistics to allow and support that placement. If they are not interested in taking the higher level of math at the moment, there appear to be a number of "electives" which schools could use to fill out a child's class schedule. For example, a world language, shop class, home ec, musical instrument, choir, phy ed, etc.
Many gifted pupils are not in a "rush" to graduate early, they simply need to learn something new every day.
Much can be accomplished by working with what is readily at hand, and thinking outside the box.
As a firm believer in equal opportunities, not equal outcomes:
- the test being given for "skip" should be the same end-of-year test given for the grade level,
- the score allowing one to "skip" should be the same score allowing one to "pass" to the next grade level at end-of-year,
- the score which allows "skip" and end-of-year "pass" should be transparently available to all,
- students sitting for the "skip" test should have the same level of advance awareness of what is to be on the exam, as typical students are provided for the end-of-year exam,
- students sitting for the "skip" test should be provided the same advance access to any in-school test prep and/or test practice that typical students are provided for the end-of-year test,
- the skipped student should have the same access to remediation of any deficit or weakness that typical students or credit recovery students are offered.
This is unquestionably the ideal and what I discuss in this post is relevant mainly to outcome, but I think a few cautionary points about the potential pitfalls are worth mentioning.
In reality, not all schools are good at identifying and remediating deficits and weaknesses in typical and/or accelerated students and their ‘typical’ students may only be achieving slightly better than passing scores. Within such systems, a student whose marks decline from ceiling scores amongst peers of his/her age to ‘above average’ amongst the new cohort (presuming scores/marks reflect level of competency/mastery), may come to look upon the grade skip as a disservice. Therefore, in practice, if an intervention (grade skip) is being contemplated, whilst it goes against the ideal, I would very respectfully suggest that it may be more appropriate (for their long term success) to ensure that the candidate is competent across the entire range of requisite skills, rather than just able to achieve an aggregate score above a minimum benchmark used to determine which student(s) in the older cohort should be held back.
DS successfully compacted four years of high school maths into six months in Yr 7, via an online maths program that allowed him to skip topics if he could demonstrate competency in all of the skills relevant to each topic in question. At the beginning of Yr 9 he was offered grade skips to do physics & chemistry as senior science subjects, but he turned this offer down for the reasons I described above - he didn’t think there were adequate assessment tools to confirm that he was competent in all the prerequisite skills and since he didn’t know what he didn’t know, he wasn’t prepared to take on the challenge if it might create gaps of which he could remain unaware.
In an ideal world, of course, every student would be educated in their zone of proximal development, and thus would be more likely to have a healthy perspective on imperfection (and grades as a possible venue for such). If that were the standing practice, skipping, compacting and acceleration would not have to be associated with negative impacts on self-perceptions tied to grade performance.
This is why, from a systems angle, increasing flexibility and normalizing the (excellent) list of placement strategies posted above ought to be advocacy goals.
OTOH, dstricts, schools and humans all diverge from ideal, to varying degrees, which is why placement decisions are ultimately highly individual, and the result of balancing the unique and holistic needs of the learner (and their family) within the practical constraints of a given educational ecosystem. I've mentioned before that in my FOO, my parents placed us with a target of about 1.5 grade levels -below- our projected true instructional level, mainly to compensate for asynchrony (in EF and social-emotional development, principally, and to some extent in fine-motor). Even when homeschooling, we have sometimes had to make tradeoffs between what a child might be capable of learning under perfectly scaffolded conditions, and what family resources (tangible and intangible) will allow for in the moment.
Which, again, is why placement decisions are ultimately individual.
...pronounced like the long vowel and first letter of the alphabet...
I'll add, too, that in an ideal world, all students (not only those seeking acceleration) would need to pass the end-of-course assessment to proceed to the next level, and would be offered access to remediation for any skill gaps identified in the process. I highlight this item on indigo's list (in the converse order) because in most systems, there is no remediation offered for skill gaps, nor is passing the end-of-course test required to pass to the next grade. Passing the course is, but that may be based on a combination of effort/participation grades and summative measures. I.e., passing in all of your homework on time but failing all of the tests may still be sufficient for a D.
...pronounced like the long vowel and first letter of the alphabet...
Yes, thank you, great post! I agree, the implications and ramifications of implementation in real life may be quite different that what "equal opportunity" looks like on paper.
My post highlights that gifted may routinely get less than a fair share of educational resources and support in the government schools.
In order to not veer off-topic, I created a new thread discussing: Rather than capping the growth of pupils at the top (for example by implementing a policy requiring burdensome math testing for acceleration), might more be done to bring up the performance of struggling students?
If you don't have time to read the whole thing, check out lines 414-448 in Chapter 1. Pretty awful.
Please do write to mathframework@cde.ca.gov about the proposed math framework, which aims to remove accelerated math pathways altogether. It will be decided mid-May, so they need to hear from folks now. Here is the CA Association for the Gifted position paper, to help frame a response: Gifted and Talented Services in Mathematics: Expanding Equitable Intellectual Access
I’m glad I’m not in PAUSD, or SFUSD, but this is now a California wide, and really nationwide, issue. I saw, and posted, years ago that the woke would come for the gifted. Even before that, with all our gifts, we failed to craft a narrative to justify supporting gifted children in schools. Now our problem is exponentially worse. Thank god for Davidson, and a few other organizations, but our battle is now even more steeply uphill. We are pretty much on our own. I don’t see public schools as offering much more than day care and woke indoctrination and shaming. Home school, or move to Idaho, Texas, Singapore, or Israel.
... we failed to craft a narrative to justify supporting gifted children in schools.
I believe the narrative to justify supporting gifted children in schools is this:
Originally Posted by old threads
For continuing growth and development, kids need: 1) appropriate academic challenge 2) true peers For typical kids, these needs may be met in a general ed classroom, however for children with higher IQ/giftedness, these needs may not be met without intentional effort in providing advanced curriculum, and grouping for instruction with academic/intellectual peers.
Some negatives which may occur when a child is not learning something new every day include these observations or signs that a child is not appropriately challenged.
Originally Posted by thnx
Now our problem is exponentially worse... our battle is now even more steeply uphill. We are pretty much on our own.
Yes, equal opportunity has morphed to equal outcomes, substantiated by a variety of questionable grading practices, and now is morphing into a concept of equity which contains a retaliatory and non-negotiable demand that anyone deemed to have "privilege" must be shamed, treated as less-than (aka pariahs), and denied future opportunity. A culture of work ethic, merit, math-facts, science, and correct/incorrect answers is quickly falling by the wayside, replaced with a preference for valuing feelings and raising the practice of taking offense to an art form.
Related thread: Thoughts on work of Drs E Frattura & C Capper? (Sept 2020) Link -http://giftedissues.davidsongifted.org/BB/ubbthreads.php/topics/247587/Thoughts_on_work_of_Drs_E_Frat.html#Post247587
Back to the topic of this thread... the Math Test... Allowing qualified students to accelerate in math is one way to meet the needs of gifted pupils, providing appropriate academic challenge in their zone of proximal development (ZPD), and quite possibly also with intellectual peers.
Adding a link to a related discussion thread, pertaining to limiting student ability to move ahead in math, on the East Coast of the USA, in Virginia: Virginia Eliminating accelerated math before 11th
