On January 18, 2000 the School Board posted a sample academic ends policy on the District's Web site at http://www.iowa-city.k12.ia.us/Board/EndsDraft.html. It invited staff input regarding the draft. The purpose was to seek the opinions of the in-house experts. Twenty-two responses were received from individuals and groups including a special presentation by LARS.
Since that time the Board has also heard from Dr. H. D. Hoover, known to most local staff, as he is around the world, as one of the top experts on tests and measurement in general and the ITBS in particular. Quotes representing substantial portions of his presentation have been organized and made available on the Web at http://www.uiowa.edu/~cyberlaw/SchBoard/Other/hdhoover.html.
The purpose of this document is to group and summarize those staff comments and provide some Board response to them (indicated by the change in margins).
The Board has consistently indicated from the beginning that its setting of "ends policies" would involve an ongoing, back and forth exchange of ideas with staff and outside experts. As it anticipated, and its comments below indicate, it has significantly modified its original draft options in response to the input it has received from staff and Dr. Hoover. Even though it ultimately "adopts" a policy it anticipates this dialogue will continue.
Grade Level &endash; Nine comments were received expressing concerns over using the term "grade level." Grade level is a difficult term to define accurately. Students in any specific grade or class may be achieving up to seven "grades" apart. Will grade level be the average for the class or grade within a school?
Dr. Hoover and LARS also expressed concern regarding the sloppy use of expressions such as "grade level." The Board anticipates that its ends policy will either provide a definition of the phrase or not use it.
Years Growth &endash; Eight comments were received expressing concerns over defining "a year's growth." How will a year's growth be defined? Will growth be defined solely by ITBS? How will a year's growth be measured in grades K-2 where ITBS is not administered? Seven responses stated that an expectation of 90% of students reading at grade level in the 4th grade is unrealistic and unattainable.
As with "grade level" if "a year's growth" is to be used it will need to be defined. The Board's initial draft options indicated a desire to utilize measures in addition to ITBS scores. It has not changed its willingness to do that, and indeed is, of course, quite willing to consider any additional measure that can be agreed upon by staff that offers the features that make the ITBS useful for these purposes. Dr. Hoover noted that it is possible to use ITBS in K-2, and that this District has simply chosen not to do so. LARS and Dr. Hoover expressly agreed that standards should be "realistic and attainable," and that is the Board's intention as well.
Teaching to the Test - Focusing on a goal of 90% grade level achievement will result in a narrow view of reading achievement and cause reading instruction to be limited to only the skills measured by a specific test. This practice could minimize the complexity of literacy development and result in teaching to the test.
Dr. Hoover spoke of the dangers of "teaching to the test." The Board is also aware of those concerns. However, Dr. Hoover pointed out that they are most likely to occur with what he called "high stakes testing." This has sometimes included a city council actually taking over from and abolishing a school board, or closing a school, or paying bonuses to a school, administrator or teacher, or switching to a voucher system for parents in a "failing" school. The ICCSD Board has never considered using any of its academic ends as "high stakes," but only as a way of monitoring District progress and providing additional resources in the most cost-effective way. Dr. Hoover also commented that "teaching to the test" is not all bad in some contexts &endash; if, that is, what is being tested is something that really should be taught.
Retention &endash; Two comments were received expressing concerns that adopting this draft would result in student retention based on failure to reach a prescribed achievement level.
There is a great deal of controversy surrounding the relative merits and demerits of both "social promotion" and "retention." The Board has not addressed these arguments one way or another, but has so far indicated no interest in a retention policy. Indeed, the Board might very well conclude such a decision would not be one for the Board in any event under its policy governance model.
Current Levels of Growth & Proficiency &endash; Four responses asked if current levels of growth and proficiency were considered in order to determine if the drafted goals are realistic and obtainable.
Yes, the Board fully intends to start from where we are.
Changing Proficiency Levels - One response questioned what would be done to ensure continued progress if and when the 4th grade 90% reading proficiency level is reached.
The Board is looking at the possibility of using some of Dr. Hoover's suggestions regarding "continued progress" &endash; but with no percentages and a more modest goal, as LARS suggested.
Student Progress Over Time &endash; Nine comments were received encouraging the Board to adopt a policy which required parents and educators to look at student progress over time for all students.
The Board may very well end up here. At a minimum, it is persuaded that "growth over time" should be an important element of whatever it comes up with, although it is hard to measure.
Multiple Assessment - Two comments urged the Board to use growth over time and measuring this growth using multiple assessments.
See above with regard to the use of assessments in addition to ITBS scores.
Special Needs Support &endash; Four comments were received regarding additional financial resources to work with "special needs" children.
Additional Support for Schools Not Meeting the Ends Goals &endash; Three comments asked where the additional resources would come from for support of those schools not meeting Ends goals.
Reallocation of Resources - Four comments questioned if the extra support to schools not meeting goals would jeopardize resource levels of those schools attaining the goals.
The Board recognizes the importance of these questions but has not yet addressed them. Every individual, family and institution allocates finite resources according to some sense of priorities and goals &endash; whether they are articulated or not. Unless additional resources can be found this means that other priorities get less resources. For example, one of the consequences of the District's decision to go to all-day kindergarten was an increase in the number of students enrolled in some other classes. Some ends may be met by shifting time rather than personnel or financial resources. For example, elementary teachers might choose to spend proportionally greater time improving students' reading comprehension and proportionally less on other activities. Other ends might require additional personnel and funding. The Board is conscious of its need have at least some notion ahead of time as to what the "costs" as well as the "benefits" of its ends will be.
Testing &endash; Eight responses question if the policies would be measured by multiple assessment, including criterion-referenced assessment, classroom qualitative and performance data and standardized testing data. Survey responses recommend using multiple measures.
Yes; see above.
ITBS Match &endash; Two responses questioned if the ITBS measures what and how we teach in the ICCSD.
Dr. Hoover responded to this concern with the suggestion that if we aren't teaching what the ITBS is testing perhaps we should be. The Board recognizes this is something it needs to review.
Ultimate Accountability - One response stated that they assumed the board has ultimate accountability for ends policies.
That is the Board's assumption as well.
Norms &endash; Three responses ask which norms will be used for measurement? State or National?
Probably both, although that has yet to be decided.
Generalizations &endash; Three responses questioned the practice of making generalizations derived from standardized tests.
It's not clear what "generalizations" the writer has in mind. Some might be warranted and others not. As for additional measures, see above.
School Comparisons &endash; Two responses expressed concern that ITBS data will be used to affirm a growing belief that some schools are better than others schools.
That is not the Board's intention. Dr. Hoover expressed the opinion that, from his perspective and that of the ITBS scores, there is no reason for a parent to want to get their child into one school rather than another in Iowa City. Properly understood and presented, ITBS can indicate why there are differences between schools &endash; and where the District might wish to put additional resources.
Test Administration Dates &endash; One response asked when ITBS would be administered? Spring? Fall? Both times?
It is unlikely the Board will involve itself in decisions of this kind under its policy governance model.
Measure Learning &endash; One response encouraged measures of assessment, which encompass all learning styles and accurately reflect learning.
The Board would welcome such measures &endash; and being shown how they might be used along with the ITBS scores. Lest there be any confusion on the matter the Board also wants to repeat and make expressly clear that the "ends" it is engaged in developing, whether academic or other, are primarily designed for its own use. In no way do the Board's selection of standards and measurements limit in any way whatsoever the use of any additional measures of assessment found to be useful by the Superintendent, principals or other administrators, teachers, parents or students.
Grade Level Expectations &endash; Five responses asked if the Ends policy expectations would be the same for all grade levels.
The Board contemplates having ends expectations of some kind for all grade levels. If there are good reasons for them to vary from grade to grade they will; otherwise they probably won't.
At Risk Students - One response asked what considerations would be given to at risk students.
Whole Child - One response expressed concern of sending a message contrary to the philosophy of meeting the developmental needs of the whole child when the focus is solely on the achievement of certain percentiles and grade equivalents.
K-12 &endash; One response was concerned that the ends focused on elementary and left out secondary students.
Student Definition &endash; One response questioned how "all students" would be defined. Does the definition include students with IEP's and ESL students?
There are many goals of a school district other than merely academics. Some may find representation as ends at some point. So the establishment of ends for measuring academic achievement does not diminish concern for the "whole child." It just gives us some insight as to how we're doing with that part of the child that involves academics. As for "all grade levels" (not just elementary), see above. The Board contemplates consideration of all students &endash; those "at risk," those with IEP's and ESL students.
Advisory Group &endash; Three responses recommended the Board form an advisory group to provide input. Two responses suggested the Board receive input from educators (LARS, reading recovery teachers, classroom teachers and administrators) in developing Ends Policies.
See above regarding the Board's ongoing dialogue. It has already received helpful input from LARS. The input from teachers and administrators is summarized in this document. At the present time the Board would prefer to continue to hear from everyone rather than focus on a formalized, fixed "advisory group" as such.
Public Understanding &endash; Two responses questioned if the public actually understood the meaning of Ends Policies.
The policy governance model for boards in general, and school boards in particular, has many short and long term benefits for the community and board members alike. Among them is the establishment of an organizations "ends" or goals. This does, however, involve radical change from "the way we've always done it." Especially in the early stages of this innovative improvement there are occasional bumps in the road. The Board recognizes that it will take some time for it to fill the potholes and smooth them over. Central to that effort is widespread understanding and support from staff and the community. The Board endeavors to increase that understanding with its monthly community forum meetings in the schools, occasional references during regular board meetings that are televised, and with Web postings of all relevant documents -- including this one -- among other things.
