Communities divided over proficiency based learning

While much of the state appears gripped with concern over the new standards, Springfield has had an entirely different experience, according to Michael Ruppel, a high school teacher there.


www.vtdigger.org

Communities divided over proficiency based learning By Tiffany Danitz Pache Apr 8 2018, 7:46 PM 1 Comment Share Tweet Share Email David Sharpe Rep. David Sharpe chairs the House Education Committee. File photo by Mike Dougherty/VTDigger For almost 150 years, teachers, parents and students in Vermont tracked progress using a percentage system. The higher the better, and as long as you got a certain score at the end of the year, and spent enough hours in class, you passed to the next grade. A few years ago, the state decided the old way of doing things wasn’t working anymore, and in 2014, the State Board of Education adopted education quality standards that, along with proficiency based learning, are meant to ratchet up student knowledge and skills before they head off to college or enter the workforce. Some communities love the changes, others yearn for the old days. This divide was on display Thursday during testimony before the House Education Committee. Some parents worry their kids will have trouble getting into college without a traditional transcript. Others wonder what will happen as each school district creates their own way of teaching and grading to suit their students. The Agency of Education, for its part, has said schools aren’t required to change the way they grade students, but must put in place proficiency based graduation standards that ensure all students meet certain basic standards before they graduate. These new standards must be in place by 2020. Most community members who testified last week said the changes in how students are taught and graded are happening too fast. The new proficiency based learning standards are meant to provide more opportunities for all students, allowing teachers to offer instruction to students based on their level of learning, as opposed to using a one-size-fits-all approach in the classroom. It’s the biggest change to how high school students are evaluated in more than a century. Since the 1870s, Carnegie Units have been used to track students through four years of English, three of math and one and a half of physical education on their way to graduation. Projects and tests were marked on a scale of 0 to 100 percentage points. But in recent decades, many states have decided that too many students have had to sign up for remedial courses as college freshman. And many students are unprepared to enter the workforce, employers say. Enter proficiency based learning. Under the new system, each student has a personal learning plan catered to their interests and abilities. Students progress toward graduation at whatever pace they are able to master the subject matter, rather than being required to spend a certain number of hours studying a topic. Theoretically, this allows lower-achieving students more time to understand what they are learning, while higher-level students can supplement their high school experience with internships, college courses or special projects. Grading has changed, too. Gone are the A,B,C and D, scoring system. The traditional grading system has been replaced with numbered levels 1-4, which indicate whether a student has accomplished certain goals. However, the state is not asking schools to ditch their old grading systems. It has been left up teachers in each school district to figure out how to measure proficiency in various subjects. This has been time consuming, said Amy Cole, director of curriculum at Essex, who said a two-year turnaround for the new standards is too fast. Cole agrees with the general direction, but urged lawmakers to slow down and put more resources into schools and professional development. “We are literally building the plane while we fly it, and teachers are nervous,” Cole said. “It was a short implementation period for something so tremendous as dismantling a 17th century system.” Marc-Andre LaChance, a teacher from Champlain Valley Union High School, said he has problems with “Standards Based Grading.” “Teachers are afraid to challenge the avalanche called SBG,” LaChance said. At Champlain Valley, teachers use a software system to track learning targets aligned with locally designed graduation standards. The system has confused students. LaChance says one sophomore had 419 scores or data points for one school year. “He doesn’t understand what it all means, he can’t figure out how those scores translate into an overall number in a specific standard. For the first time in my teaching career, I can’t explain the numbers or grade equivalent,” LaChance said. A resident from Stowe, John Pelletier, gave a 10-page middle school report card to lawmakers when he testified last week. “I can’t read a report card from a student who had all As before,” he said. “The numbers didn’t work, the scaling was wrong, they had to reissue report cards. We have to have the grading system in now to meet the 2020 deadline.” Some are nervous that children won’t be able to get into college under the new system, Cole said. Pat Fitzsimmons, AOE’s team leader on proficiency based learning, told lawmakers that college admission officers accept a variety of transcripts, and that the new report cards provide more details on student abilities. Deputy Education Secretary Amy Fowler cited a New England Board of Higher Education position paper that says proficiency based graduation requirements aren’t a barrier to college. Amy Fowler Amy Fowler, Vermont’s deputy education secretary. File photo by Amy Ash Nixon/VTDigger While much of the state appears gripped with concern over the new standards, Springfield has had an entirely different experience, according to Michael Ruppel, a high school teacher there. Teaching has been transformed at Springfield High School, Ruppel said. In the old paradigm, students were taught a subject for a period of time and then moved on. Now they can get feedback, revise their work and improve, he said. “As we develop stronger proficiency based curriculums we have seen assessment change,” Ruppel said. “I used to give multiple choice tests, now I do a project where students are working for real changes … it is more rigorous.” But Ruppel agreed that the timeline has forced teachers to set aside other work as they shift how they teach. With different districts adjusting at different rates, and developing their own curriculums, Cole said there was a looming issue of inconsistency. “Kids are going to move from district to district and this will be a problem,” Cole told lawmakers. “We would have resented you if you told us how to do it, but the differences between school districts are absolutely problematic and are causing anxiety for us.” Fowler said there was no path forward that would please everyone. “Going back to a Carnegie based system where you get four credits for each class would be upsetting to some constituents as well,” she said. Maine and New Hampshire are also working to put proficiency based programs in place. Maine approved a proficiency based program in 2012, but it has hit some snags that may delay implementation by a year or two. New Hampshire adopted a program in 2013, the same year Vermont passed Act 77, which lays out the reforms. Pelletier from Stowe said he didn’t understand why Vermont was moving so fast. “We are leapfrogging everyone,” he said. “We are running an educational experiment on our kids based on theory, not proof that this has worked in another state on a K-12 basis. A medical experiment like that without parental consent would be illegal.”