Co CK-based school scores 100% on reading Colorado is one of the states that has adopted the wacko new "performance based tests" that are skewed towards progressive education values, this school is further proof that schools that concentrate on the basics also tend to do the best even on the new tests. The new tests are not true OBE tests, since they combine problem solving with needing to know a lot of basic facts as well. A true OBE test would have to test to a lower academic level of proficiency, and pass everyone who had the correct attitudes. The new tests tend to flunk everybody, especially in math. > From: LScheffers@aol.com > Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:42:40 -0500 (EST) > To: conserv-exceledu@listproc.bgsu.edu, > education-consumers@tricon.net Subject: Fwd: Colorado > (successful Core Knowledge results) > On the recent Colorado test results this school received 100% on > proficiency in reading (with fourth graders?) I had asked for > additional information on their reading program. I thought many of > you would be interested in the content of this entire post, since > the outcomes have been so positive. > > Lauren > --------------------- > Forwarded message: > From: barbk@indra.com (Barbara M. Kostanick) > Sender: owner-core-net@TUCC6.TUCC.Trinity.Edu > Reply-to: core-net@TUCC6.TUCC.Trinity.Edu > To: core-net@TUCC6.TUCC.Trinity.Edu (Multiple recipients of list) > Date: 97-11-21 04:53:30 EST > > At 09:15 AM 11/20/97 -0500, you wrote: > >In a message dated 97-11-20 03:09:27 EST, you write: > > > ><< I do not teach at a CK school. I think that the CK curriculum > >has > > merit. I don't think it benefits CK to make a big deal out of > > "successful" test results in charter schools, however. If any > > public school tested only the students whose parents cared enough > > to show up for parent-teacher conferences, they would raise their > > test scores dramatically. Compare apples to apples. Making > > obviously exaggerated claims about any particular program or > > product will eventually damage its reputation. > > > > >> > > > >How about comparing this CK charter school's results with other > >non-CK charter school results on the same tests? > > > >Personally, I do not know of any school, public or private, that > >has 100% reading proficiency results these days. Certainly, in > >Illinois, the reading scores *state-wide* just dropped > >dramatically, including scores in wealthy suburban districts with > >low student/teacher ratios and all the amenities. > > > >Can anyone give more information on just what this 100% school is > >actually doing with its apparently highly successful program? > > > >Lauren > > > Hello - > > I'm one of the parents who organized High Peaks Core Knowledge > Elementary. We were thrilled when the state announced that we were > one of two schools in the state to have all children reading at the > "proficient" or "advanced" level. > > First, we are not a charter school. We are a focus (magnet) school > emphasizing the Core Knowledge program. We spent a great deal of > time in our proposal discussing how reading would be taught. We > proposed a structured reading program which would incorporate > systematic, intensive phonics and excellent, challenging literature. > In the same vein, we proposed that the Core Knowledge history would > be taught not from traditional history books, but instead using a > variety of original source materials, historical non-fiction, > historical fiction, pictures, realia (things you can touch, feel and > use), drama and poetry. > > I believe that our success may be attributed to several factors: > > 1. We hired truly outstanding teachers who were committed to the > program and who were particularly committed to our approach on > teaching reading. They all are systematic and thorough, pushing each > child to stretch a little further. They are excited by the material > they cover and the kids really pick up on their enthusiasm. They > work hard and the kids work hard. I believe that it is notable that > ALL of our teachers with elementary-school-age children have chosen > to enroll their kids at our school. 2. Each classroom has a > plentiful supply of excellent literature at many different levels of > challenge. Some books are shared by the class as a whole, and > teachers use this opportunity for close reading, shared discussion > (a la Great Books) and many writing projects. Kids read a lot. > Because they have the chance to read material well above their > "nominal" grade level, they have strong vocabulary skills. Because > they often read different materials around the same topic (such as > the Revolutionary War) and engage in class discussions and writing > excercises, they learn to contrast and compare different points of > view, make inferences, and draw conclusions. 3. Kids do a lot of > writing. (Apparently our writing scores were the second best in the > state, though only 78% of our kids met the proficiency standard.) > Our gut feeling is that writing helps reading and reading helps > writing. Since the statewide reading assessment required students > to write short answer or multi-sentence responses, strong writing > skills play a big role. 4. We are clear about our approach to > reading instruction with both prospective families and prospective > teachers. Use of a systematic, structured approach is not optional. > Teachers use a lot of whole-class, direct instruction strategies. > (Though not the SRA Direct Instruction Program.) 5. We use > standardized test data to evaluate what we're doing well and to help > identify areas where we may need to rethink instruction. For > example, even though our Math Computation scores were exceptionally > high, we found that the detail data showed that kids weren't very > successful with fractions. We're working with our teachers, our > textbook publisher (Saxon) and accountability team to identify and > implement some alternative instruction in this sub-area. Then, next > spring, we'll see if it worked. 6. We have high expectations for > all our kids. Like Marva Collins, we believe that if you lead, the > kids will follow. (And when parents see how well their kids are > doing, they become your biggest supporters.) > > Some frequent misconceptions: > 1. We don't prescribe exactly how each teacher will teach each > subject, how much time will be allocated, or how literature books > will be selected. (Though we do expect the CK selections & content > to be covered.) 2. We do not expect that the teacher will use all of > the Open Court literature or workbook materials. Using everything > would require children to spend far too much time filling out > worksheets and not enough time on other important learning > objectives. We leave it to the teacher's own good judgement. 3. > While we are located in a very affluent community, our students come > from a wide range of households accross the entire district. Some > live in very expensive homes, others in mobile home parks. More > than 40% of our kids come from families where both parents are > employed. Somewhere between 5-10% of the kids speak a language > other than English in the home, though not many require formal ESL > services. This is consistent with many other schools in our > district. 4. Children are admitted by lottery. We never see their > special education status, prior academic record or discipline > history until after they're enrolled. There are no special criteria > for admission, though preference is given to in-district students. > 5. Funding is per-pupil on the same district formula applicable to > all elementary schools. We do not get extra funding for Chapter 1 > or for extra supplies money since those funds are directed to > schools with significant disadvantaged populations. (Out of > approximately 30 elementary schools in our district, about 12 have > Chapter 1 programs.) 6. Parents fund-raise for additional materials > for classrooms, just like at every other school in our district. > (Our base allocation for consumable materials and all custodial > supplies is around $70/pupil/year.) our fund-raising per student > was comparable to many other schools in our district. > > As one of the earlier posters mentioned, the Statewide Tests were > not a controlled experiment. On the other hand, there are a lot of > charter and magnet schools around the state, and many fine > neighborhood schools. I think that we are not too far from the > approach suggested by Bonnie Grossen in her NICHD Reading Synthesis, > "30 Years of Research: What We Now Know About How Children Learn to > Read." (On the web at http://www.cftl.org/30years/30years.html) > The Great Debate may still be ongoing, but increasing numbers of > families are voting with their feet. In our district, three > additional CK programs were established based parental demand for > access to our program. We tried to build our program based on the > research we found and we're thrilled that it seems to be working. > > I believe that CK played a significant role in our success, but I > also want to find out more about the writing program at another > school in our district. While only 80% proficient in writing, it > was the top-scoring school in the state (we were second at 78%) AND > they had a higher percentage of kids at the "Advanced" proficiency > level. They're not a CK school, but I'm still very interested in > observing what they do, because we can learn something. Ultimately, > there is no reason to subject teachers and students to any kind of > standardized tests or assessments if we aren't willing to examine > the results and use the data to improve what we do. We're thrilled > at our achievement, but the real measure of success will be in how > we choose to use information to further enhance and improve the > program. > > Regards, > Barb Kostanick > barbk@indra.com > > > EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE