| |
|
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
VRI - 2015 Summer Institute!
Monday, February 9, 2015
New Data Raises Key Questions for Vermont Schools: NESSC Common Data Project
by Nancy Cornell February 9, 2015
The Common Data Project, released in December, 2014 by the New England Secondary Schools Consortium (NESSC), shines a light on some key indicators of school effectiveness, and raises important questions that should inform state and local conversations about school improvement, community supports for struggling students and their families, equity and basic fairness.
The Common Data Project, released in December, 2014 by the New England Secondary Schools Consortium (NESSC), shines a light on some key indicators of school effectiveness, and raises important questions that should inform state and local conversations about school improvement, community supports for struggling students and their families, equity and basic fairness.
The
2014 Common Data Project Report compares information on graduation rates,
drop out rates, college enrollment, and college persistence for all of the New
England states except Massachusetts: (Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode
Island, and Vermont).
Here are some key findings related to Vermont:
How did
high school graduation rates compare
across the five New England states included in the study?
·
In 2013, Vermont had the 2nd highest
high school graduation rate (86.6%) of the five states included in the report -
higher than CT (85.5%), but lower than NH (87.9%)
o However,
in Vermont, the 2013 graduation rate for economically disadvantaged students
was 75.2%
How did the
2013 high school dropout rates
compare across the five states?
·
In 2013, Vermont had the highest high school
dropout rate (9.6%) of the five New England States.
o The
2013 dropout rate for economically disadvantaged students was 18% - second
highest of all five states (exceeded only by CT at 18.4%)
o Vermont’s
dropout rate for students with disabilities was 19.2%, the highest in the five
New England states.
How did
2013 college enrollment rates
compare across the five states?
·
In 2013, Vermont had the lowest college
enrollment rate (52%) of the five states.
o Only
35% of Vermont’s economically disadvantaged students enrolled in college (this
was the lowest of all five states).
o Only
18.1% of students with disabilities in Vermont enrolled in college – the second
lowest college enrollment rate of the 5 states.
How did the
college persistence rates in 2012
compare across the five states?
·
Vermont’s 2012 college persistence rate was
80.6% (lower than every other New England state in the report, except Rhode
Island – 77.7%).
o College
persistence for Vermont’s economically disadvantaged students was 70%.
o College
persistence for Vermont students with disabilities was 63.1%.
If we’re serious about equity - about whether public schools
should serve all students; if we’re serious about aiming to ensure that all
Vermont students participate successfully in some form of post-secondary
education (2-year college, 4-year college, or post-secondary technical
training), this report is most helpful. It raises important questions, that should be the focus of action-oriented discussions in school
districts, in the Legislature, in the Vermont State College system, at the
Agency of Education, at the Agency of Human Services, and in state and local
inter-agency planning sessions. Here are some of the questions this data raised for me:
·
What should Vermont do to eliminate childhood poverty?
·
How do Vermont secondary schools, and Vermont
post-secondary institutions support economically disadvantaged families in planning for the post-secondary education
of their children – and what additional support should they provide?
o How
are schools in other New England states, (especially New Hampshire), reducing
their high school drop out rates, especially for economically disadvantaged
students?
o What
steps are schools in other New England states taking (especially Connecticut
and Maine) to increase the college enrollment rate for economically
disadvantaged students?
o What
explains higher college persistence rates for economically disadvantaged
students in other New England states (especially New Hampshire and Maine)?
·
How should Vermont elementary and middle
schools, and Vermont post-secondary institutions, assist economically
disadvantaged families in starting early
in their planning for the post-secondary education of their children?
Saturday, February 7, 2015
Homework in a Standards-Based Classroom
Homework in a Standards-Based Classroom
by Emily Rinkema and Stan Williams
by Emily Rinkema and Stan Williams
We have learned so
much about the brain in the past few decades, and it’s time to start applying
what we know to our teaching practices. We know that in order to maximize
learning, the brain needs:
- Clarity
- Time to consolidate new learning
- To feel safe
- To experience frequent success
- To work within the ZPD (Zone of Proximal Development)
Traditional homework practices often go against most of
these principles of learning. So…based on what we know about the brain and
learning, here are some dos and don’ts for homework in a standards-based class:
If you decide to assign homework, it should be:
- Clear and target-based: students should know exactly what they are doing and why they are doing it. The work should directly connect to the targets for your class.
- Differentiated: students should not all have the same work; base their assignments on their current needs, just as you would instruction and activities in class.
- Engaging: we want students to want to do work outside of class; this will prevent cheating and will improve work completion.
- Brief: students are busy. They often have 6-8 classes in addition to after school activities, family responsibilities, or work. Brains need time to consolidate—which means time to play and sleep.
- Graded: But not-graded does not mean optional; if you assign it, it should be important, which means you need to ensure that students complete it, even if that means taking time in class. Not graded also doesn’t mean not checked; we must give feedback on homework if we want students to value it (and feedback within 48 hours, if we want it to affect learning). Related note: no student should fail a class due to homework—it’s not an accurate enough measure of learning to base such an important decision upon.
- New Learning: when students are first learning a skill, we should be present to watch that learning and correct misunderstandings. If students practice a skill wrong, it is very difficult to undo the learning.
Resources for Further
Reading:
·
“Five Hallmarks of Good Homework” by Cathy Vatterott: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/sept10/vol68/num01/Five-Hallmarks-of-Good-Homework.aspx
·
“End Homework Now” by Etta Kralovec and John Buell: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/apr01/vol58/num07/End-Homework-Now.aspx
·
“Opinions about Homework: A collection of summaries of articles” by Kim
Marshall: http://www.greenwichschools.org/uploaded/district/pdfs/Homework_Committee_2012-2013/Homework_-_Kim_Marshall.pdf
Common Teacher Concerns and Brief (and opinionated) Responses
“If I don’t assign homework, we’ll never get through
all the content.”
If you’re relying on homework
to get through content, then you have too much content. Our job is to ensure
learning, not to cover material.
“But what about reading. Reading is different, right?”
Reading homework is tricky.
If it’s reading for fun, as in the student chose the reading and it’s at the
student’s level, then reading homework is beneficial. If the reading is
assigned, however, you need to ensure that the student can access it. That
means you need to know that it is within the student’s independent reading
level (which is usually different than their ability to understand within your
class), and that you know their reading rates (a chapter of a novel may take
some students 30 minutes, and others 2 hours—the latter is not a reasonable
request).
“If I don’t grade homework, students won’t do it.”
Not true. Students will do
work that is meaningful, clear, and that leads to success. There is a
significant difference between not grading and optional. You need to set the
expectation that the homework is a mandatory part of the learning cycle; and
when it isn’t finished or accurate, students will need to do it (even if that
means you rearrange your class time to get it done). Additionally, just because
you are not grading it, does not mean you aren’t collecting it—if you assign
it, you should look at it to ensure learning and catch misunderstandings. Just
stamping “done” or “not done” is not effective.
“I don’t have time to create differentiated,
target-based homework”
Then don’t assign homework.
The good news is that not having to assess homework will clear up time for you
to work more on differentiated, target-based classroom activities that will
lead to better, more efficient learning, which will mean you won’t need to
assign homework anyway!
“Homework teaches accountability, responsibility and
time management skills. If we don’t teach these now, we are doing students a
disservice. In college they will have tons of homework and it won’t be
differentiated, so we need to prepare them.”
There are a few ways to
respond to this. First, most traditional homework practices don’t teach these skills—they reward students
who already have them and punish those who don’t. It is much more effective to
actually teach these skills while you have students in front of you in class,
not when they are at home. Second, by helping students maximize their learning,
we are preparing them for future learning. We should not sacrifice good
teaching practices now in order to prepare students for bad teaching practices
later. In addition, in college, students most often have 2-3 hours of class per
day (max)—in high school, they have 5-7 hours. If we teach students how to work
independently and manage time (both of which can be done most effectively in class), then they will be prepared.
Brought to you by
@cvulearns (Emily Rinkema and Stan Williams, erinkema@cvuhs.org and swilliams@cvuhs.org)
Wednesday, January 7, 2015
Responsive Facilitation & Public Speaking: Building Essential Skills for Youth-Adult Partners in School Change
Responsive Facilitation & Public Speaking: Building Essential Skills for Youth-Adult Partners in School Change
Audience: High School Students, Teachers, Administrators, School Board Members or other Faculty partnering in school change efforts
UP for Learning will be sponsoring two highly effective workshops this February and March addressing Responsive Facilitation with Daniel Baron & Public Speaking with Dona Bate: Building Essential Skills for Youth-Adult Partners in School Change to support any high school youth-adult team currently reshaping the nature of learning in their schools.
UP for Learning will be sponsoring two highly effective workshops this February and March addressing Responsive Facilitation with Daniel Baron & Public Speaking with Dona Bate: Building Essential Skills for Youth-Adult Partners in School Change to support any high school youth-adult team currently reshaping the nature of learning in their schools.
February 5, 2015 Responsive Facilitation Workshop in Barre; register at: http://tinyurl.com/upbaronlabor.
February 6, 2015 Responsive Facilitation Workshop in Rutland; register at: http://tinyurl.com/upbaroncsj.
March 17, 2015 Public Speaking Workshop in Montpelier; register at: http://tinyurl.com/updbate.
February 6, 2015 Responsive Facilitation Workshop in Rutland; register at: http://tinyurl.com/upbaroncsj.
March 17, 2015 Public Speaking Workshop in Montpelier; register at: http://tinyurl.com/updbate.
Deadline: Registrations will be accepted on a first-come, first serve basis and space is limited.
Contact: Mary Whalen, Director, of UP for Learning, (802) 595-2561 or mary@upforlearning.com
Contact: Mary Whalen, Director, of UP for Learning, (802) 595-2561 or mary@upforlearning.com
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Vermont Council on Reading Spring 2015 Conference: Lucy Calkins and Katherine Paterson!
Vermont Council on Reading
2015 Spring Conference
The Common Core and More:
Pathways and Bridges to Literate Lives
A Day with
Lucy Calkins
and
Katherine Paterson
Friday May 29, 2015
Sheraton Conference Center
870 Williston Road
Burlington, VT 05403
870 Williston Road
Burlington, VT 05403
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)