QSAC and the BOE Election

I just watched the video of the Hilton Neighborhood Association debate, in which Alissa Malespina twice made a point of noting the district's failing score in instruction and programming on the latest state Quality Single Accountability Continuum report. I was not familiar with either QSAC or the findings, which the district appealed. Having read Ms. Malespina's comments to the school board, as posted on the SOMA2015 website, I'd be interested in hearing any responses or other insights about QSAC's importance, the district's appeal or whatever else might help put this issue in context.

The SOMA2015 link:

http://www.soma2015.com/qsac.html

More on the system from Rutgers:

http://ielp.rutgers.edu/docs/QSAC_Guide_final.pdf

I believe this was discussed at the Sept BOE meeting.

IIRC, Ms. Grierson said we have addressed many issues that were brought up by the QSAC report (many of which she stated were issues with documentation, not the programming). Some BOE members pressed her on how it was addressed, and how they would know it was now all better? Ms. Grierson's responses didn't seem to satisfy the BOE, but there didn't seem to be anything concrete decided on how we would know that things were now all better.

I think Ms. Malespina's critiques are extremely valid, but I'm not seeing a solution (e.g., how to include an accountability piece) being presented after the critiques other than increasing 'transparency'. (Or did I miss it?)

Ms. Malespina's other comments on the "Let's Talk" software seems to be a sticking point for her that she repeated at the debates. I believe the BOE voted to use it on a free trial basis for some amount of time, then would later decide whether to purchase it. To me, this seems a reasonable starting point, although Ms. Malespina's comments that climate needs to change are likely also valid. However, I'm not sure that bashing a software free trial is the way to get the district to be solution-oriented around improving the climate when we also know we have a serious communication issue.

I'd agree that QSAC is something that should be paid attention to.

I cannot go into detail, but the state said we did not meet their requirements in "Instruction and Program" but said that we did meet their requirements in governance, Operations, Personnel, and Fiscal, Management.

The state said that our curricula and lesson plans were not well aligned enough with the Common Core and we lacked express differentiation for children with special needs, ELLs, and who were G&T. (Yes, they failed us for not having G&T differentiation.)

The SOMSD appealed the QSAC denial but the state did not restore any points. Therefore we had to approve a DIP "District Improvement Plan" for the areas where they state dubbed us weak.

I have to say that Peggy Freedson is a bona fide expert on curriculum and has long been someone who has embraced the idea that American curricula should be more content-rich.

sprout said:

However, I'm not sure that bashing a software free trial is the way to get the district to be solution-oriented around improving the climate when we also know we have a serious communication issue.

Maybe she once got burned by forgetting to cancel her Columbia House membership after ordering 12 records for a penny? In fairness, after hearing Dr. Ramos and Mr. Eastman praise Let's Talk, I can see how someone could get the impression that the odds of a financial commitment are in its favor.

Thanks for filling in a few of my QSAC blanks.

DaveSchmidt said:

sprout said:

However, I'm not sure that bashing a software free trial is the way to get the district to be solution-oriented around improving the climate when we also know we have a serious communication issue.

Maybe she once got burned by forgetting to cancel her Columbia House membership after ordering 12 records for a penny?In fairness, after hearing Dr. Ramos and Mr. Eastman praise Let's Talk, I can see how someone could get the impression that the odds of a financial commitment are in its favor.

Hopefully there will be an examination of how much and how well it was well used before a purchase. That said, defining a priori metrics of what success would look like are not exactly the District's strong suit.

JBennett said:

The state said that our curricula and lesson plans were not well aligned enough with the Common Core and we lacked express differentiation for children with special needs, ELLs, and who were G&T. (Yes, they failed us for not having G&T differentiation.)

Thanks, JBennett. Is if fair, though, to say that "they failed us for not having G&T differentiation" when it was just one of several areas of differentiation in the balance? That is, is it possible the district would have gotten no differentiation points regardless of G&T? (Understood if this is one of the things on which you can't go into detail.)

I have to say that Peggy Freedson is a bona fide expert on curriculum and has long been someone who has embraced the idea that American curricula should be more content-rich.

On the off chance that somebody parachutes into this thread without knowing this, I'll add that Ms. Freedson is filling the spot on a slate that Mr. Bennett occupied in the 2012 board election.

JBennett said:
I'd agree that QSAC is something that should be paid attention to.

I cannot go into detail, but the state said we did not meet their requirements in "Instruction and Program" but said that we did meet their requirements in governance, Operations, Personnel, and Fiscal, Management.
The state said that our curricula and lesson plans were not well aligned enough with the Common Core and we lacked express differentiation for children with special needs, ELLs, and who were G&T. (Yes, they failed us for not having G&T differentiation.)

The SOMSD appealed the QSAC denial but the state did not restore any points. Therefore we had to approve a DIP "District Improvement Plan" for the areas where they state dubbed us weak.
I have to say that Peggy Freedson is a bona fide expert on curriculum and has long been someone who has embraced the idea that American curricula should be more content-rich.

While I agree that QSAC is worth paying attention to and of real concern, I find it mildly hypocritical of SOMA 2015 team making hay with this since alignment to common core was one our main failings and Save our Schools NJ which Ms. Raab is active with , has so many members that demonize common core in their rush to denounce standardized tests.

JBennett said:
I'd agree that QSAC is something that should be paid attention to.

I cannot go into detail, but the state said we did not meet their requirements in "Instruction and Program" but said that we did meet their requirements in governance, Operations, Personnel, and Fiscal, Management.
The state said that our curricula and lesson plans were not well aligned enough with the Common Core and we lacked express differentiation for children with special needs, ELLs, and who were G&T. (Yes, they failed us for not having G&T differentiation.)

I'm glad to hear that they failed our District on G&T differentiation, as well as on special needs differentiation. I'll have to read up more on the QSAC, as I'd like to understand it better (and see if it helps identify which districts are doing these things well).

In my experience (as a parent who has dealt with both special needs and G&T differentiation failures, sometimes at the same time), our District is weak at both types of differentiation, and tends to leave it to the skill/willingness of the individual classroom teacher, with widely varying results. Perhaps having the district challenged on it will help lead to meaningful change.

DaveSchmidt said:

JBennett said:

The state said that our curricula and lesson plans were not well aligned enough with the Common Core and we lacked express differentiation for children with special needs, ELLs, and who were G&T. (Yes, they failed us for not having G&T differentiation.)

Thanks, JBennett. Is if fair, though, to say that "they failed us for not having G&T differentiation" when it was just one of several areas of differentiation in the balance? That is, is it possible the district would have gotten no differentiation points regardless of G&T? (Understood if this is one of the things on which you can't go into detail.).

I have to say that Peggy Freedson is a bona fide expert on curriculum and has long been someone who has embraced the idea that American curricula should be more content-rich.

On the off chance that somebody parachutes into this thread without knowing this, I'll add that Ms. Freedson is filling the spot on a slate that Mr. Bennett occupied in the 2012 board election.

Dave,

Yes, not having G&T differentiation was _one_ reason we did not pass Program & Instruction in QSAC. Not the sole reason at all, but it was cited. To me this is significant because G&T has been a relatively neglected area of education for many years. People have said to me NJ's law on G&T "doesn't have teeth," but here is an instance of it having teeth and us being asked to do more.

"That is, is it possible the district would have gotten no differentiation points regardless of G&T? (Understood if this is one of the things on which you can't go into detail.)."

I prefaced by statement with "I can't go into detail" because I admit there are many details here I do not know, just like I would not know all the details of the annual financial audit. If you want evidence of how being on the Board has a long and steep learning curve here it is, you are asking a question I do not know the answer to.

QSAC compliance is completely managerial. It is the kind of thing Board members are told we are doing, but we don't know precisely what happens, what rubrics the evaluators have, what they look for, how much time they spend visiting the district etc. We do not communicate with the evaluators or do anything to prepare for QSAC evaluation.

JBennett said:

QSAC compliance is completely managerial. It is the kind of thing Board members are told we are doing, but we don't know precisely what happens, what rubrics the evaluators have, what they look for, how much time they spend visiting the district etc. We do not communicate with the evaluators or do anything to prepare for QSAC evaluation.

Thanks again. This speaks to another question I had, which was whether anybody had an opinion about QSAC's metrics, its credibility as a report card. Sounds like that would be tough to judge.

mod said:

While I agree that QSAC is worth paying attention to and of real concern, I find it mildly hypocritical of SOMA 2015 team making hay with this since alignment to common core was one our main failings and Save our Schools NJ which Ms. Raab is active with , has so many members that demonize common core in their rush to denounce standardized tests.

Worth noting. Thanks.

Also worth noting, to me, is this quirk in the rubric: A school like Columbia can improve its four-year graduation rate from a low of 85 percent (2012) by getting 25, 30, even 35 additional freshmen to earn their diplomas on time -- potentially turning around an entire classroom's worth of lives -- and gain just a single point.

DaveSchmidt said:

On the off chance that somebody parachutes into this thread without knowing this, I'll add that Ms. Freedson is filling the spot on a slate that Mr. Bennett occupied in the 2012 board election.

It's a shame Jeff is stepping down--he has been one of the most serious, intellectually honest and diligent board members we've had in the 17 years I've lived here.

But I'm really heartened that Freedson decided to step up, because frankly it's rare for someone with her expertise and bona fides to agree to serve on a BOE. I do hope she gets the opportunity, and that Eastman and Pai are reelected. Not just because they're already familiar with the district's (is terrifying too melodramatic a word?) budget realities. They've also introduced what I believe could be a game changing access and equity policy, the kind I think a lot of us have hoped for years could be put into effect here. I'd feel most comfortable with the policy's implementation being overseen by those who brought it to the table.

What amazed me is how EVERYONE has jumped on this Open the levels to all bandwagon. It wasn't so long ago that a suggestion to have lower level students be in the same classroom as high achieving students would have raised a fevered opposition, both in MOL and in the community. Now we have this eerie consensus that this move is absolutely the right thing to do, with every sitting BOE member and every BOE candidate happily giving their endorsement.

What the heck happened? If this policy change was such a no brainer why wasn't it enacted earlier?

What happened? Nothing yet...right about now it seems like li service

xavier67 said:
What amazed me is how EVERYONE has jumped on this Open the levels to all bandwagon. It wasn't so long ago that a suggestion to have lower level students be in the same classroom as high achieving students would have raised a fevered opposition, both in MOL and in the community. Now, we have this eerie consensus that this move is absolutely the right thing to do, with every sitting BOE member and every BOE candidate happily giving their endorsement.
What the heck happened? If this policy change was such a no Brauner why wasn't it enacted earlier?

I think the difference is that it is not deleveling. Rather students would have the ability to pick the appropriate level and move up or down levels, if necessary. Deleveling, on the other hand, got rid of the levels. Quite a big difference, I think.

In other words, this is no "game-changer" but an innocuous, fairly-meaningless move. It recalls a line from Hitchcock's North by Northwest: "Games, must we?"

dg64 said:

I think the difference is that it is not deleveling. Rather students would have the ability to pick the appropriate level and move up or down levels, if necessary. Deleveling, on the other hand, got rid of the levels. Quite a big difference, I think.

Very big difference indeed.

I know enough people who've had major problems with level placements to know that this is not a meaningless move...if implemented correctly, it insists on the removal of a variety of administrative roadblocks that currently exist (and that allow teachers and administrators to apply flexibility unevenly and/or non-transparently).

xavier67 said:
In other words, this is no "game-changer" but an innocuous, fairly-meaningless move. It recalls a line from Hitchcock's North by Northwest: "Games, must we?"

dg64 said:

xavier67 said:
What amazed me is how EVERYONE has jumped on this Open the levels to all bandwagon. It wasn't so long ago that a suggestion to have lower level students be in the same classroom as high achieving students would have raised a fevered opposition, both in MOL and in the community. Now, we have this eerie consensus that this move is absolutely the right thing to do, with every sitting BOE member and every BOE candidate happily giving their endorsement.
What the heck happened? If this policy change was such a no Brauner why wasn't it enacted earlier?

I think the difference is that it is not deleveling. Rather students would have the ability to pick the appropriate level and move up or down levels, if necessary. Deleveling, on the other hand, got rid of the levels. Quite a big difference, I think.

I think it's related to the placement of control.

With deleveling, all the control is still with the administration and teacher. Students and parents do not have input into their educational experience.

With open access, more control of students' educational experience is given to students and parents.

So, I wouldn't expect complaints unless there comes a point that this open access ends up reducing access (and loss of control) to courses in a new way (e.g., too many people want to sign up for AP, so a lottery system is implemented to decide who gets to take it).

susan1014 said:
I know enough people who've had major problems with level placements to know that this is not a meaningless move...if implemented correctly, it insists on the removal of a variety of administrative roadblocks that currently exist (and that allow teachers and administrators to apply flexibility unevenly and/or non-transparently).

xavier67 said:
In other words, this is no "game-changer" but an innocuous, fairly-meaningless move. It recalls a line from Hitchcock's North by Northwest: "Games, must we?"

It also puts the administration and teachers in a wholly different role than gatekeepers. Their focus can now be about access and engagement and really making sure parents and students know the choices before them

xavier67 said:
In other words, this is no "game-changer" but an innocuous, fairly-meaningless move. It recalls a line from Hitchcock's North by Northwest: "Games, must we?"

I don't think it's meaningless for students and parents to have the ability to make informed choices about level placement. I don't know all the details, but it seems to me that open access would also make it possible for a student to level up as well as down if a class seems to have too little or too much challenge. Deleveling, on the other hand, was a one size fits all strategy that would have to rely heavily either on differentiation or watering down of curriculum to be successful.

Given that the devil IS often in the details, that's why I can't see this as anything more than lip service at this point. Yes it's a bigger step than previously taken (even just to bring it up in a formal way), but without any sense of how the elections, scheduling, transitions back and forth, extra support, and the day-to-day in-class impact are to be handled, it's stilla bit much ado IMO.

Everyone seems to focus on the open access element of the proposed policy (to which my initial reaction was one of relief and hope.) But as Ctrzaska suggested above, I'm now a little leery of this being just a lip service for several reasons. The district already has a similar policy in the books that says "It is the policy of the Board of Education to ensure equal and barrier-free access for all students to school facilities, courses, programs, activities, and services, regardless of race, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, religion, level of English proficiency, socio-economic status, or disability." So why this new policy and why now? And what does it say about the district's level of commitment to this proposed policy? And what is the meaning of other elements in the language?

The proposed policy brings three new elements to this existing one: 1. students' right to have access to every academic program/class/levels; and 2. after-school support for students (the district already has other kinds of support listed in the propose policy); 3. a realignment of K-12 curriculum. ALL of these elements are either target or center around a successful completion of AP at Columbia.

My concerns that this is lip service more than anything else are based on the following:

1. The lack of specificity in how this will be implemented (see all the dodging by the Board in the Village Green article: http://villagegreennj.com/schools-kids/will-access-equity-policy-move-s-o-maplewood-schools-good-great/ ). How this policy will be implemented given the overwhelming budgetary constraints?

2. The legal context (the ACLU lawsuit and the DOJ OCR resolution) and the critical need to meet these external imperatives. Is this the raison d'être?

3. A curious inclusion of a reference to a "mutual accountability" for the families and the district. ("While this Policy does not guarantee success for student achievement, it nevertheless greatly empowers students, as it is informed by mutual accountability for educational success amongst students, parents and guardians, and the South Orange and Maplewood School District.) I have my suspicions as to why this language was included in the proposed policy (see my concern #2 above).

If in the end this is not just a lip service, if there really is a deep commitment to its implementation, I worry about the proposed realignment of curriculum that sees AP as the holy grail of K-12 education. If embraced fully, I don't see how this won't narrow the educational experience of many students and perhaps even narrow the curriculum itself (which is why some schools around the country are dropping their AP program).

I would be happy to be proven wrong but this is where my current thinking is.

xavier67 said:
The district already has a similar policy in the books that says "It is the policy of the Board of Education to ensure equal and barrier-free access for all students to school facilities, courses, programs, activities, and services, regardless of race, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, religion, level of English proficiency, socio-economic status, or disability." So why this new policy and why now?

I think the answer to "why now?" is that in a context where previous policies haven't worked, and we have a new superintendent on board and new building leadership across the district, and we must address the legal issues you pointed out, now is the obvious time to try this approach. Many people seeking a rational middle way between rigid tracking and deleveling advocated for it years ago, but its consideration was simply sidelined by Brian Osborne's unsuccessful attempt to fit every student into a single paradigm.

xavier67 said:

If in the end this is not just a lip service, if there really is a deep commitment to its implementation, I worry about the proposed realignment of curriculum that sees AP as the holy grail of K-12 education. If embraced fully, I don't see how this won't narrow the educational experience of many students and perhaps even narrow the curriculum itself (which is why some schools around the country are dropping their AP program).

Oh, I think this school district is in no danger of dropping or scaling back its AP programming any time soon. (I have not heard of any school districts dropping their AP programs because of narrowed curriculum...! Can you provide further info on that?)

But frankly, I think the danger of narrowing that you cite exists already, quite independently of this policy's success or failure. The reason for it is some combination of parent preferences and budgetary constraints. In an upper middle-class northeast community heavily populated by people in professions like law and finance, there will be a natural inclination for parents to want to see their kids' education prepare them for higher ed in the professions, especially those that pay well. Over time the local curriculum will come to reflect this; but there needs to be some counter-pressure to ensure Intro to Careerism 101 doesn't become a substitute for an actual liberal arts education.

Fortunately the community still has a fair number of artists and musicians in it, so hopefully a little balance will be sustained.

JCSO said:

(I have not heard of any school districts dropping their AP programs because of narrowed curriculum...! Can you provide further info on that?)

One prominent, if dated, example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/education/07advanced.html?pagewanted=all

ETA an even earlier dropper:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/01/nyregion/high-school-drops-its-ap-courses-and-colleges-don-t-seem-to-mind.html

(As far as I can tell, neither school has gone back to AP in the years since.)

ETA something a little more current:

"We've noticed some of the private schools dropping AP courses and even some public schools."

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/april/advanced-placement-courses-032213.html

Granted, those examples may fall more under "narrow the educational experiences of" than "narrow the curriculum itself," depending on what xavier67 meant by that or how JCSO took it. On the face of it, I don't see much distinction. (I noted, however, that Scarsdale, for one, did frame its decision as a curricular issue.)

Thanks for the links, DaveSchmidt.

So this trend, which I think might better be characterized as a trickle, seems limited to schools and districts rather unlike ours--i.e., private or extremely affluent, not terribly diverse ones. (Scarsdale is 76% white, 11% Asian, 7% Hispanic, 3% multiracial, 1% African American, and 0% of students are free and reduced lunch eligible.)

The advantage of AP over some other high-quality program of study is that its standards and testing are external, so watering down a program to accommodate (or placate) weaker students is less likely. Especially in public schools and diverse districts where a lot of kids struggle to get prepared for college, I think it remains important to have these kinds of educational options. I don't see any threat to their availability here.

Another article on Scarsdale notes, BTW, that “Large numbers of students still want to take AP tests and do very well on them," and that of the kids who took the exams despite having not taken the course (US News cites a 56% participation rate), 96% passed.

There more and more independent (from the College Board) research that evaluates AP programs, as well as educators who are coming out against them.

http://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2013/05/13/new-report-challenges-beliefs-about-the-value-of-ap-classes/

https://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/advanced-placement-courses-need-more-than-a-makeover-jack-schneider/

https://theconversation.com/pushing-students-to-take-advanced-placement-courses-does-not-help-anyone-45350

http://dianeravitch.net/2013/05/16/what-is-the-value-of-ap-courses-and-tests/

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/03/30/ap

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/ap-classes-are-a-scam/263456/

None of these researchers and authors discuss AP programs and the narrowing of the educational experience and the curriculum. Yet I know of no other school district who wants to realignment their K-12 curriculum so that all students will have a shot at AP success. This is such a narrow goal with a relentless emphasis on academic achievement as defined by the College Board. When we recall the recent thread about the colleges that Columbia graduates plan to attend, what impressed me above all was the range and the diversity of interests represented. Is this proposed move pushing us in that direction?

I am also a bit disturbed by how the AP program is more tied to the college admissions game than to the quality of our children's educational experience. And more and more school districts seem to be caught up in the AP arms race, spurred by all the HS ranking crap etc.

This is not to argue that district shouldn't offer challenging courses and educational opportunities to ALL students. And when there is desire to experience these challenges, we should devote resources to help those kids to succeed. But I'm not convinced that this priority has to be funneled through the AP program.

By definition, AP classes are designed to be equivalent to undergraduate courses. They are standardized nationally and the program was started by the College Board.

Parents want AP courses. The District will stop caring about AP courses when the parents do.

xavier67 said:
I am also a bit disturbed by how the AP program is more tied to the college admissions game than to the quality of our children's educational experience. And more and more school districts seem to be caught up in the AP arms race, spurred by all the HS ranking crap etc.
This is not to argue that district shouldn't offer challenging courses and educational opportunities to ALL students. And when there is desire to experience these challenges, we should devote resources to help those kids to succeed. But I'm not convinced that this priority has to be funneled through the AP program.