Dr. Kennedy was really sweet when delivering the news last night at the BOE meeting. She had jokes, she had props, she had our attention and she relished it, at one point teasing with the recommendations saying "that's what your' here for isn't it"...However, as I listened to Dr. Kennedy disperse the curriculum audit findings of her team, I found it was no laughing matter to find out how much teachers are doing every day, that is actually ineffective. As you read the information below, let me know if you agree, that the information disclosed by the auditor indicates that there was NOT a whole lot of teachin' goin' on (for whatever reason).
Curriculum Audit Info presented by Dr. Kennedy
Dr. Owen Roberts, is the outside auditor that was hired by the District. He audited Edison Schools, Compass Learning, 95 Percent Group, Open Court Reading, the APEX program and Reading 180. He sent the surveys to specific schools that had those specific programs. There was an incentive offered to have your name entered into a raffle for turning the surveys in. The auditor sent the survey to specific schools that had the specific programs.
The auditor was looking for implementation fidelity, curriculum alignment, school buy in and engagement, implementation, teacher readiness and evidence based implementation. He found that we need a monitoring system and a protocol to check for fidelity.
"Fidelity is defined as the extent to which a program is delivered in accordance to the intended design. That would include delivery (teachers), how often and where lessons are conducted, the materials, targeted population, who was delivering (teacher or aide), qualifications of person delivering the program and whether or not there was training."
What the auditors found, is that with the exception of the Edison Program, the other programs were not done with fidelity. Materials were not utilized (especially with Open Court) as there was not enough time to implement Open Court. The curriculum alignment is not adequately aligned to the state standards and the exception as reported by the by school practitioners. The reading intervention did not provide adequate differentials so they could get more information about each identified program. Teachers are not ready to present Open Court. Open Court provided the least evidence of impact on student learning. Open Court was low for everybody audited and showed declining achievement for Edison. At Franklin Edison achievement was declining and at Northmoor the gap was widening using Open Court.
Compass learning, Open Court and APEX did not have the appropriate school engagement in the decision making to implement. What that is saying is there was no buy in from the schools on these programs.
Teacher's knowledge of how to use the data generated with Open Court, Compass Learning and APEX were inadequate to support instructional decisions made in the classroom.
The primary school program interventions, namely the Edison Projects 95 Percent group, professional development support had a moderate to high positive impact on student achievement. Open Court had a low impact on student achievement.
Compass learning, Open Court and APEX did not have the appropriate school engagement in the decision making to implement. What that is saying is there was no buy in from the schools on these programs.
Teacher's knowledge of how to use the data generated with Open Court, Compass Learning and APEX were inadequate to support instructional decisions made in the classroom.
The primary school program interventions, namely the Edison Projects 95 Percent group, professional development support had a moderate to high positive impact on student achievement. Open Court had a low impact on student achievement.
Compass Learning's impact was inconclusive due to several reasons - inadequate time for full implementation of the program, inadequate professional development to support teacher practice and no evidence of a monitoring process in place of program fidelity review.
17 comments:
Thank you for encapsulating all this information here. It was a LOT to take in last night.
What amazes me is that even with the data that was reported, the district is sticking with Compass Learning for many schools.
Did you happen to catch anything about Open Court? I don't recall what they said would be done with that curriculum. I THINK I heard that it would be gone. Is that right?
They are keeping Compass Learning from what I understood - even though the findings were inconclusive.
I think this is a pretty accurate assessment. Many of these programs are effective when implemented the way in which they were intended. However, systemic/organizational and personal variability can easily undermine integrity.
I am out of the loop with Compass Learning. The last I heard (within the last two years) was that Apex replaced Plato as the system used for students to complete failed classes via the computer. The last I heard Apex was used for summer school just 9 months ago. When did Compass Learning come on board?
Isn't Open Court the reading program brought in by Dr. Royster--the one that almost all teachers (and I guess so parents) didn't like. I honestly thought Open Court had been pitched. However, I have seen my 2nd grader come home with some of the Open Court stories.
Emerge, what did you mean about not much teaching going on was effective and/or not much teaching was going on? I'm not being argumentative here, at all. Did you mean that the teachers weren't following Open Court and 95% with fidelity and, therefore, the assumption that nothing was being taught.
Most of these programs affect primary schools, so I'm wondering what teachers were doing instead of adhering to these program. Is it possible that what there were doing was effective even if Open Court and 95% might not have been adhered to as often. I don't know much about it; just asking.
The level of fidelity in the programs indicate to me that there could not have been much learning (as confirmed by test scores) or teaching going on.
True all of this info affects the primary schools - there is minimal information for high schools that was presented, that I have not gotten to yet.
I am sorry I missed Kennedy's presentation--I missed her second one and promised her that I wouldn't miss her third. Didn't know it would be when I couldn't get there.
I think you only mention the lack of fidelity to Open Court, Compass, and 95% and Reading 180.
I do believe teachers stopped using Open Court--they must have other reading materials to use and I'm not sure what reading 180 is and/or in what classes it is used. 95% is professional development.
I believe teachers can be doing something very productive in their classes without fidelity to these two programs (Open Court and Reading 180)--there's math and other subject areas besides reading).
I hope a primary teacher clarifies the importance (or lack of importance of these programs) to their daily regime. Many of the programs bought by 150 are not that effective or useful (at least, according to teachers).
Perhaps lack of fidelity to these programs might reveal that the programs themselves are not that effective--just guessing. However, I doubt that it means that teachers are doing nothing in their classes all day.
Also, did the report indicate that teachers at all schools or just some schools weren't using the programs with fidelity. Test scores throughout the district aren't low--so I wonder how fidelity to these particular programs are used to determine why scores are low or high when they are high. (Clear as mud, right)?
I would like to see Kennedy's report in its entirety--she undoubtedly didn't have time to cover it all at the meeting.
Dr. Kennedy's report has been posted on D150s website.
Thanks for this summary. SO . . the audit found the programs were not implemented and run properly and SO . . . effectiveness was compromised. How does the District know which program is best to keep???
Wouldn't one reading program that can be adjusted for different student abilities be the right approach in a budget-strapped District?
Open Court was implemented during Royster's tenure. Teacher's were never happy with it because the school never allowed sufficient time in the school day to execute the lesson plans, etc. I also remember they stopped purchasing the associated workbooks for the students at some point.
IB to me looks much the same. A watered down version of what it should be. And now the District wants to implement MYP.
My children school's just implemented MYP and this alone is quite an undertaking.
These programs continue to fail or under deliver because there seems to be no recognition of necessary resources and time that is required to implement and maintain such programs.
Therefore, Frustrated, sounds as though you are saying that failure to implement is not a teacher failure but rather an administrative failure to provide what is necessary for implementation.
Yes, now I recall the district stopped buying the workbooks for Open Court and then reprimanded teachers for running off materials because too much paper was being used. Besides teachers, especially new teachers, had to scramble to find copies of old workbooks.
I believe that teachers have made the best of a bad situation--does anyone know if any reading program was chosen to replace or supplement Open Court? I know that my 2nd grader does read at school and does bring home reading and language assignments--so work is being done.
My whole problem with the recommendations is the fact that the schools closing are always south of Forrest Hill. The children in that area are constantly being asked to adapt, when they are the most vunerable in the District.
The learning opportunities that may shake out in the long run are promising, but in the short run... let's just hope parents are able to keep their students focused.
The audit information for Washington Gifted's curriculm and programs didn't show up on the current plan. They should have been on the block, just like any other school. I did see where their extrcurriculars were audited. So, I will be patient and trust that a full review of the program has happened and the result is the Trewyn MYP recommendation.
Someone should look into how Kennedy "found" this external auditor.
I am now confused--I skipped over the Roberts' part. Must we always hire a consultant or, in this case, an auditor? What did that cost?
Emerge, are you still sticking with this assumption, "that the information disclosed by the auditor indicates that there was NOT a whole lot of teachin' goin' on (for whatever reason)?"
I am still reading the audit to indicate that is the district, not the teachers, that did not provide the resources and time to fully implement these programs. Certainly, it is not individual teachers who are supposed to allign the curriculum with state standards. Actually, committees made of up teachers once did do that job--but I have a feeling that that job is no longer intrusted to teachers--could be wrong.
Did they recieve prior approval to hire an outside evaluator? If not, who paid for the evaluator?
Sharon said:
"I am still reading the audit TO INDICATE (emphasis mine) that is the district, not the teachers, that did not provide the resources and time to fully implement these programs."
So much for an open mind, I guess. Could it be the same way in which you read/respond to comments? Do you read only what you want to read? Do you find only what you want to find? Do you look at the issues objectively?
So, Jon, if you won't to disagree with me, go ahead. But say something to contribute to the discussion. How did you read the report? Who didn't follow the program with fidelity, the teachers or the administrators?
I meant, if you "want" to disagree...
Both
Post a Comment