2010 DC CAS Scores Online

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:15:51 you mentioned Accelerated Math. The teachers at my daughter's school liked it so much that the Parents actually paid for it out our own pocket when it was dropped frankly our scores have not moved either direction and don't reflect well on the school. You seem to have some insight on it, is it worth parents paying for it to continue.

How it works:
• Teachers can print out differentiated problem sets for students
•Students complete the problem sets and mark their answers on scantron cards, which are scanned into a computer, and then instantly graded

Strengths:
• For each completed problem set, students get a score sheet and additional problems if they need it
• The program then prints out a test, which is also graded by the computer
• Teachers can print out a lot of charts, graphs, certificates, etc.
• Administrations can gather a lot of data which helps them monitor students and teachers

Weaknesses:
• There's a long, complicated training process in order for teachers to use this program
• Very difficult to get new teachers trained
• It's incredibly time consuming
• It's particularly cumbersome to go through literally thousands of "objectives" to find the right combination for each student
• Students mark answers on scantron cards without showing their work, which is the nuts and bolts of math
• Lots of complicated computer glitches occur in trying to use the program

I don't know what the rationale was for adopting and abandoning this program. It might have been to make up for the limitations of Everyday Math, which many teachers and parents feel doesn't provide enough practice. If all or most of the teachers in your school know how to use Accelerated Math and like it, you should ask them for some justification for continuing it. If your school has had quite a bit of turnover, you might want to consider the difficulty of training new staff.

Something to consider: Several KIPP schools, which consistently post some of the highest math scores in the District, use Saxon Math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Something to consider: Several KIPP schools, which consistently post some of the highest math scores in the District, use Saxon Math.

Latin uses Saxon Math as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Something to consider: Several KIPP schools, which consistently post some of the highest math scores in the District, use Saxon Math.

Latin uses Saxon Math as well.

Good to know.

[Anonymous]

For lower grades, a 'Contexts of Learning Mathematics" (Fosnot) supplement is an approach I would recommend. It empowers children to develop numeracy strategies while working on real world projects, so that when algorithms are formally introduced they do not seem like 'magic' (a major reason so many children drop off mathematically; they simply do not have the foundational grounding in numeracy).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For lower grades, a 'Contexts of Learning Mathematics" (Fosnot) supplement is an approach I would recommend. It empowers children to develop numeracy strategies while working on real world projects, so that when algorithms are formally introduced they do not seem like 'magic' (a major reason so many children drop off mathematically; they simply do not have the foundational grounding in numeracy).

Great, but wasn't that what Everyday Math was supposed to do?

[Anonymous]

KIPP scores went down this year - there was an article about it in the Post Saturday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:KIPP scores went down this year - there was an article about it in the Post Saturday.

Saw that, apparently no school is immune to test score fluctuations.

[Anonymous]

Everyday Math is close but lacks the elegance of this program. This supplement actually does what EM wants (but doesn't entirely succeed in doing), which is why it is so elegant. Everyday Math still presents jarring algorithms that freak people out (lattice multiplication for example) in a linear fashion, just like other math programs. This program goes underneath the learner and supports them in a 'landscape of learning' trying out different computation techniques and larger problem solving strategies before a formal algorithm is introduced. It uses the children's own intuition about computation and number sense so that they present the solutions and share/defend their thinking with each other in really thoughtful projects. Different children are able to approach the projects with different solutions, relative to where they are in their landscape of mathematical understanding. It is MADE for differentiated instruction b/cause no one is excluded from trying at all levels, and during the 'conference' at the end, the children are challenged to advance by each other's thinking and solutions. When the algorithm is introduced, and there is nothing wrong with introducing algorithms, the children already have a foundation of which they have ownership on which to rest it. Interestingly, the children often find much more interesting, efficient, math strategies to solve real world problems than straight algorithms provide. At the end, they end up with a basket of tools that includes the algorithm, but also other ways of approaching math that will aid them life long (especially in higher math that calls for both skills, algorithms, and a true grasp of numeracy and creative problem-solving).
The modules don't take much time, and I truly think they are the missing link from which you can better work with a program like EM, then Saxon and then all the rest. The children are encouraged to 'mathematize' (think and defend their thinking) like mathematicians--and they love it. When concepts are introduced later they don't seem so arbitrary and top-down
The program it was developed in (Mathematics in the City) is akin to the great reader's / writer's workshop --the educators are all colleagues and idea-sharers. Same constructivist, teacher/student loved, approach. Yes, I'm enthused. Can't wait to try one of the modules with my students this year and slowly introduce more (K-6)
Here, check it out:

http://www.contextsforlearning.com/



http://www.contextsforlearning.com/faqs.asp

"Have any studies been done comparing Contexts for Learning Mathematics to other K-6 supplemental math programs?
An independent study by the Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction recently evaluated 28 elementary supplemental math programs. This study establishes that Contexts for Learning Mathematics is the best K-6 supplemental math program for teaching strategy development. In addition, this series is also recognized as one of the best supplemental math programs for meeting the diverse needs of today's contemporary classroom. Download a concise slide presentation on related findings or to access the full report go to http://www.k12.wa.us/CurriculumInstruct/Mathematics/default.aspx.

How do you think of your materials with respect to other reform curricula in the US that treat proportional reasoning—do you see them as similar or an alternative in some way?

One of the main differences between US curricula and the RME approach in Holland (and our materials) is the way that topic is treated. In the traditional US curricula, proportional reasoning is usually introduced in grade 6 or 7 as a special topic. In the Netherlands, the ratio table is the prevalent model for multiplication and division (rather than the array, which is more typical of US materials). Thus proportional reasoning is emphasized at the start, as soon as multiplicative thinking is being developed. In our materials we begin multiplicative work with the open number line and grouping of repeated groups. Then we develop the ratio table and use it as a model for multiplication (See our curriculum unit, The Big Dinner). Next we introduce the array in the unit, Muffles Truffles. This array model is extended to division in the Teachers' Lounge and to 3-D arrays in The Box Factory. All three models are used subsequently in minilessons as we work on computation. When we begin work on fractions, equivalence is emphasized in Best Buys, Ratios and Rates, the double number is used as a model for addition and subtraction of fractions emphasizing proportional reasoning, and arrays and ratio tables are used with multiplication and division (see Parks and Playgrounds). Proportional reasoning is at the heart of our work with the ratio table and the double open number line. You will also find many minilessons using these models to develop proportional reasoning in our Resource Guide, Minilessons for Operations with Fractions."

[Anonymous]

Many thanks for the info on this.

[Anonymous]

You're welcome. I truly think the program is a 'gift' to elementary math. It is priced SO fairly (a complete concept package like multiplication/division with teacher guide, five modules, seventeen posters, extension games and mental math) is priced in the 150.00 range at Heinemann with their discount applied. This is what I ended up purchasing (the 3-5 multiplication and division one) as it would almost come to more to purchase the components separately. The beauty is--you don't have to buy student books or a "text book line". You getmodules that are completely self-contained, self-explanatory and contain all the reproducibles you need with the children. I truly believe that Fosnot designed and marketed this line as a labor of love--b/cause she believes in the approach (and I can see why) she wants it to be user-friendly and accessible. If I had a child in a grade 6th or under (too old now unfortunately) I would really encourage the school/teacher to hook up with the short contexts for learning training (she gives them in NY and all over--I took one in DC area this summer) though I think if you had a real math buff teacher, they could figure it out just from the materials. The actual materials are truly a pittance compared to most educational supplies. $150 for a complete program? Parents could just pass the hat.
THIS is the kind of PD and research based strategies that I wish Rhee would invest in and provide to all teachers. No teacher could return to a classroom not jazzed after being exposed to something like this. I am not sure why her curriculum and design people are not bringing in the cutting edge. It's not "new math"--it's just a research based supplement to existing program to make it work better. *Sigh*. There is so much exciting stuff in education based on how we know that children really learn.... *sigh* I wish great teaching strategies (not reinventing the wheel) but just good ideas and systems to enhance curriculum and practice were always being modeled to teachers and invested in by DC schools. I wish THAT was where her focus was. From what is saw, in DCPS, it was up to individual teachers to seek it out and make it happen on their own. I always felt latitude to do this--DCPS was so disorganized I found that as long as I did what was 'required' I could otherwise pretty much be a free agent--but in terms of consistency and reaching all the children (and not introducing practices that you think work but are inadvisable) it would be great if some real inspiration and help came top-down. I find that some schools are organized enough to do this as a school/team--but usually without the help of the system at large.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, that's a nice goal. But is it reasonable, given what we know about human beings? I'm not suggesting that we give up on any student's potential, but, if a student comes into a class 2-3 years below grade level, do you think it's reasonable to expect that they will "grow" by more than one grade level per year?
For that matter, if the student is 2-3 years below grade level, would our current standardized assessments be able to measure growth for that particular student?
Are you a parent, educator, advocate or what? Clearly, you've accepted the NCLB rhetoric, but do you have experience to back up your convictions? Have you taught any students that are 2-3 years below grade level? Have you used any of these "innovative ways to overcome barriers"? Accommodations are fine, but I've never witnessed the use of accommodations to accelerate the learning of a student who is several years below grade level. Have you?

I'm a parent of DCPS children. In my professional capacity, I get to read tons of psychological evaluations done by DC Superior Court. It breaks my heart that there are so many 17 year olds in special education classes since elementary school who can't read or write. Often their parents have no idea that their child is multiple grades behind where they should be until the Court becomes involved. DCPS just keeps passing them along until they get to the 9th grade where they continually repeat the 9th grade. It's amazing to me that NCLB doesn't test 9th graders. Most dropouts don't even make it to the 10th grade. I'm not talking about parents who have no interest in their child's education. I'm talking about parents who have gone to every IEP meetings and requested their child receive additional help. It's been going on for years, but NCLB gives the school system a sense of urgency to fix it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I'm a parent of DCPS children. In my professional capacity, I get to read tons of psychological evaluations done by DC Superior Court. It breaks my heart that there are so many 17 year olds in special education classes since elementary school who can't read or write. Often their parents have no idea that their child is multiple grades behind where they should be until the Court becomes involved. DCPS just keeps passing them along until they get to the 9th grade where they continually repeat the 9th grade. It's amazing to me that NCLB doesn't test 9th graders. Most dropouts don't even make it to the 10th grade. I'm not talking about parents who have no interest in their child's education. I'm talking about parents who have gone to every IEP meetings and requested their child receive additional help. It's been going on for years, but NCLB gives the school system a sense of urgency to fix it.

Not really. NCLB doesn't address social promotion and special education students are rarely retained. It's just not done. But I encourage you to bring this to the attention of Michelle Rhee. Ask her why there are so many special ed students in DC high schools that can't read and what she's planning to do about it.

I can tell you with certainly that testing is not going to fix this problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm a parent of DCPS children. In my professional capacity, I get to read tons of psychological evaluations done by DC Superior Court. It breaks my heart that there are so many 17 year olds in special education classes since elementary school who can't read or write. Often their parents have no idea that their child is multiple grades behind where they should be until the Court becomes involved. DCPS just keeps passing them along until they get to the 9th grade where they continually repeat the 9th grade. It's amazing to me that NCLB doesn't test 9th graders. Most dropouts don't even make it to the 10th grade. I'm not talking about parents who have no interest in their child's education. I'm talking about parents who have gone to every IEP meetings and requested their child receive additional help. It's been going on for years, but NCLB gives the school system a sense of urgency to fix it.

Not really. NCLB doesn't address social promotion and special education students are rarely retained. It's just not done. But I encourage you to bring this to the attention of Michelle Rhee. Ask her why there are so many special ed students in DC high schools that can't read and what she's planning to do about it.

I can tell you with certainly that testing is not going to fix this problem.

NCLB doesn't really give the schools that sense of urgency with special ed students until secondary school. For a subgroup to "count" towards AYP it has to have 25 students. At the elementary level, at least, it is common to have under 25 students in testing grades who are receiving special education services. Many elem. schools did not meet AYP performance targets for special ed this year but the sub-group did not hit the magic number, 25. This includes some of the higher scoring elem. schools in the city. The lower performance of sped students in elem. can be somewhat hidden. As a city or in the secondary schools, special ed might be flagged as not meeting NCLB goals because of the number of kids. It just doesn't really show up at elementary level for every school and if it did, maybe many special ed kids wouldn't get to 9th grade in such bad shape.

[Anonymous]

Let's be real here. NCLB is just a mandate for testing, reporting, and sanctioning schools. It doesn't provide any remedies, unless you think restructuring and closing schools is a remedy.

You can't fatten a pig by weighing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm a parent of DCPS children. In my professional capacity, I get to read tons of psychological evaluations done by DC Superior Court. It breaks my heart that there are so many 17 year olds in special education classes since elementary school who can't read or write. Often their parents have no idea that their child is multiple grades behind where they should be until the Court becomes involved. DCPS just keeps passing them along until they get to the 9th grade where they continually repeat the 9th grade. It's amazing to me that NCLB doesn't test 9th graders. Most dropouts don't even make it to the 10th grade. I'm not talking about parents who have no interest in their child's education. I'm talking about parents who have gone to every IEP meetings and requested their child receive additional help. It's been going on for years, but NCLB gives the school system a sense of urgency to fix it.

Not really. NCLB doesn't address social promotion and special education students are rarely retained. It's just not done. But I encourage you to bring this to the attention of Michelle Rhee. Ask her why there are so many special ed students in DC high schools that can't read and what she's planning to do about it.

I can tell you with certainly that testing is not going to fix this problem.

NCLB doesn't really give the schools that sense of urgency with special ed students until secondary school. For a subgroup to "count" towards AYP it has to have 25 students. At the elementary level, at least, it is common to have under 25 students in testing grades who are receiving special education services. Many elem. schools did not meet AYP performance targets for special ed this year but the sub-group did not hit the magic number, 25. This includes some of the higher scoring elem. schools in the city. The lower performance of sped students in elem. can be somewhat hidden. As a city or in the secondary schools, special ed might be flagged as not meeting NCLB goals because of the number of kids. It just doesn't really show up at elementary level for every school and if it did, maybe many special ed kids wouldn't get to 9th grade in such bad shape.

What do you think of the fact that the next year's teacher is being judged on the CAS scores of a child who was passed along by prior (sometimes multiple teachers)? What do you make of the fact that teachers are actively dissuaded from holding children back who might need remediation and benefit from a combination of a repeated year and services? There is so much doesn't make sense about how these tests are administered/used within a system that just doesn't make sense. I have nothing against reasonable testing used as a reasonable tool. Why is it SO HARD to get it right....