2010 6th Graders

This is a shout out to the members of the 'The Scores are Falling!' quintet.

I remember my delight, as a youngster, at the Chicken Little story. Her sense of urgency, her belief that she must save the farm from impending doom, the obviousness of her mistake, which was painfully evident to everyone but her...I just howled. But only recently have I pondered what the story might feel like from the perspective of our heroine. Bummer.

In 2007, Corbett's 3rd Graders got a bad rap. They showed up poorly on the State of Oregon Assessments. Their 52% passing rate in 3rd grade math was particularly irksome to the few people who noticed. I was one of the few, and I was asked by teachers and board members what we were going to do about it. "Nothing." Of course. Wouldn't you just know it?

And what should we have done? A new math program? Pull the kids out of recess to have them do extra math? Take away their music until they learned their fractions? (No, wait, music is a GREAT place to learn fractions, so that won't work...). Add an extra hour of math at the expense of P.E.? (Don't laugh. There are schools where this is common practice!)

What did we do? We trusted our teachers. We trusted our practice. We trusted our past decisions. We trusted that fact that cohort ahead of them had passed at over 95% in 2006 before the benchmark was changed. We didn't panic.

Today we still have the third grade assessment results for 47 of our current sixth graders. Some are now in the Charter School, others are in Corbett Middle School. Of those 47, 23 failed to reach the 3rd grade math benchmark in 2007. That's a 51% passing rate. Today, 17 of the 23 (74%) have met the 6th grade math benchmark. Why is that number familiar? Oh, of course, it's very close to the State passing rate for 6th grade math last year, which was 73%. And our 74% mark counts only those student who DIDN'T meet the 3rd grade benchmark. What about our entire cohort of 47 students?

This year, taking all 47 cohort members (including those who did meet in 3rd grade) into account, their passing rate in math is 87%. Say it again: 87%! They are, in fact, out-performing those students who have since joined us and for whom we have no 3rd grade results. (Private schools, of course, don't administer the assessments.)

The class ahead of them? The one that had a 95% passing rate in 3rd grade? Last year they posted an 86% rate on the 6th grade math assessment. And this year they are running at over 80% in 7th grade math. And so it goes on.

This year, Corbett Middle School (grades 6 through 8) has passed 80% of all of the tests taken in Reading, Math and Science combined. The class with the highest passing rate among all three cohorts? The Sixth Grade! These kids are knocking it out of the park.

So in the spirit of free speech, I say that we let Chicken Little be Chicken Little. (I'm certainly not going to be the one to explain what is really falling on her head!) But fair warning, CL, denying reality is an uphill battle in most circles.

"The Research Says..."

IN EDUCATION, RESEARCH IS NOTHING. RESULTS ARE EVERYTHING.

I suppose I'm to the point in my career where it's OK to say what those who know me best have long understood. When someone says the words 'education research' to me, I lose all interest in whatever they might have to say next. Educational research is good for a laugh among the people who are informed enough to get the joke, but that's about all it's good for.

RESEARCH IS WHERE RED-FACED ADMINISTRATORS HIDE WHEN THEIR EFFORTS PRODUCE NO RESULTS. ("GEE, WE DID IT JUST LIKE THE DIRECTIONS ON THE BOX SAID, BUT THE WHEELS ON MY NEW SUPER-SONIC BIKE STILL DON'T POINT THE SAME DIRECTION!")

RESEARCH IS FOR WINNING ARGUMENTS WHEN NEITHER REASON NOR COMMON SENSE NOR PAST PERFORMANCE ARE ADEQUATE TO JUSTIFY ONE'S POSITION.

RESEARCH IS FOR INTIMIDATING THOSE WHO MIGHT BE NAIVE ENOUGH TO FALL FOR IT AND WHO HAVEN'T READ THE RESEARCH THEMSELVES.

Of course it isn't always appropriate to laugh out loud, but then I'm not always limited in my responses to only those that are deemed appropriate. And sometimes it's just too funny. But not always.

Sometimes there is a kind of sadness associated with conversations about research. When the person is earnest. When that person does something related to education for a living. Perhaps it's a person with a lot of experience (or with one year's experience 20 times over, because nothing of significance seems to accumulate over time). When that person makes an appeal to research, it's truly sad. Especially if they do it in public. I try not to be in the room on such occasions. But even then, colleagues who don't see the tragedy find it humorous to pass relate the event...and of course I laugh along, and they never notice the sadness just around the edges of my eyes...

There's no research, for example, that 'proves' that multi-age practice increases student achievement. Still, it does. Why do I think so? Corbett's 10th graders who qualify as 'Economically Disadvantaged' have had an average passing rate of 81% in Reading over the past three years. They have never been as low as, say, 67%. And they have averaged 64% in 10th grade math, with their lowest year being 50%. They've never dropped as low as 45% in all that time. Why? They have come up through the grades in multi-age classrooms. And someone who wants to argue otherwise has a challenge that is greater than just Googling multi-age. They have to overcome the facts on the ground. (Maybe they could claim it's the self-contained 9th grade classrooms...which absolutely no research supports!)

Research is nothing. Research in the hands of those who have never produced any results is less. And it's sad. But in a funny way.

Results? They trump research. To produce results is to hold the trump card. Holding the trump card, always, is like always being 20 steps ahead...