Letter to Comissioner Gendron Regarding New Graduation Legislation

December 9, 2008

Dear Commissioner Gendron and Diploma Stakeholders Committee Members:

Yesterday, I received a draft copy of the Diploma Stakeholder Recommendation Report to the Commissioner of Education from our Curriculum Coordinator, and I want to commend the work that was done by this group. If I understand what is recommended correctly, there are many provisions that have addressed concerns I have had when reviewing the initial recommendations of the commissioner a year ago. High school principals have been craving a final decision from the state that clearly articulates the targets towards which we direct staff. Though I think the stakeholders could take away some of the layers of complexity and still achieve the same end, I applaud those elements that have been added that address flexibility and differentiation allowed by the pathways model, and address those areas that should be modified later in this letter.

I will describe my interpretation of how a student can be credentialed with an MLR high school diploma and would ask that you correct any misperceptions on my part. From my close reading of the text, the following steps are those that a student must take to achieve an MLR diploma.
1. Each student will experience each of the 8 content areas in high school, and will meet proficiency in ELA, Math, Science, and Social Studies, as well as one specialization area from the other 3 MLR areas, a choice that will be defined as a “pathway.” I call this student choice a “passion” or “major,” but the “pathway” designation certainly addresses the need for high school students to find that niche that truly represents their direction. Every student will be exposed to and meet the embedded standards in Career and Education Development in every one of the 7 content areas.
2. Students who choose CTE as their “pathway” for the 5th proficiency area beyond the core 4, may choose an industry based certification received at a CTE or through a pre-apprenticeship opportunity. This industry standard certificate will demonstrate and replace proficiency in one of the remaining three areas beyond the core.
3. Students will experience the remaining 2 areas, but will only be expected to partially meet the standards in those other areas.
4. Interventions will be provided for those students who have deficits in standards that should have been acquired prior to entry into high school so they can attain the proficiencies addressed in the core standards.
5. Every student will develop a PLP beginning in Middle School and extend that PLP with yearly updates through high school. The state will provide templates for the PLP.
6. All students will (may?) sit for the SAT, but the Accuplacer could be used in lieu of the SAT score to determine whether the student makes AYP and whether the student is proficient.
7. All students will have a common curriculum in the core utilizing common syllabi that address common standards of the MLR’s.

I am most pleased that flexibility and multiple pathways to success seem an integral part of this document. I can also stand behind a plan that allows young adults to explore their interests through exposure to credit expectations in multiple areas so that they may discover an arena in which they want to specialize. We have many students who would love to “major” in art or science, but for whom exposure to breadth over depth in having to become proficient in all 8 areas of the Maine Learning Results has not honored their voice and choice. I also applaud a PLP for all students starting at the Middle School level since I firmly believe that public education has to reinforce goal setting, adjustment, and flexibility with students over time since many students do not have that kind of guidance at home.


However, some of the recommendations muddy the waters, and create a complexity that demands too much in terms of local and state resources, unnecessarily. I guess the fear of abandoning the years of work on the LAS had to be justified by bringing back some of the failed ideas of that process. Creating standardized syllabi for the core areas, including foreign language, only makes sense. Why should there be unique syllabi in each school when most high school educators, and certainly their leaders would welcome the common learning targets of the MLR”s for the core in a common syllabus format. After all, isn’t Algebra 1 – Algebra 1, no matter where it is taught? The same can be said for the skills of ELA, (no matter the texts chosen), Geometry and Algebra 2, American History, Geography and World Cultures, and Government/Civics/ Problems of Democracy, as well as the discreet sciences.

Your process mandates that we are to go through a multi-staged process of developing and piloting common syllabi, creating state developed rubrics, balancing and weighing assessment types, etc. The question is “WHY?” This is where the draft recommendations lost my support, and I think will lose the support of many other high school principals and educators who have already dutifully done the LAS work with their staffs, and even those who did not. To use a cliché, “That ship has sailed.” Choose a template, or adopt a syllabus that is already field-tested. We put our faith in the DOE around years of very time-consuming work only to encounter delay, after delay, after delay, in enactment from the DOE that finally reneged on the convoluted plan that it had attempted to create. In a time of economic downturn, and flagging state support of education, the steps you outline imply a whole new level of costly professional development, costly state mandated workshops, and costly time away from teaching and learning that may make you feel better about the waste of some of the work done on the LAS, but certainly seems more directed at “saving face” than saving education. I believe that you have made assessment of proficiency much too variable and much too complex.

Educators already use multiple means of assessing. What we want and need is for the state to provide end of course assessments of proficiency in ELA, in Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2, in Integrated Science, Biology, Chemistry and Physics, in World Geography, American History and Government/Civics/Problems of Democracy, and in the major languages. NWEA has many of these available, but other avenues exist to disseminate these kinds of tests. WHY reinvent the wheel and create layers that will most certainly doom a much clearer and more acceptable plan to failure?

Next, admit that the SAT should not be the test to determine AYP or proficiency. We have no problem if all students have to sit for the SAT. But what makes as much sense as this is to allow students for whom the pathway is Community College, the 2+2 program for the University of Maine system, or apprentice and training opportunities to use the Accuplacer as their Proficiency exam, and principals and school districts to use either SAT or Accuplacer for the determination of proficiency beyond the end-of-course exams. Community Colleges already set the Accuplacer as a proficiency expectation for entry into their institutions, so why do we not value their standard for those students for whom the SAT has no relevance. This would complete the flexibility of the pathways approach, eliminate new and unnecessary staff development, and avoid costs that we all know the state can ill afford. Taking this approach would allow the DOE to take a breath and truly focus on professional development that works on areas such as integration of MLR’s with the curriculum of the Career and Technical Centers, integration of computer technology in the classroom, differentiation, PLP creation, PLC’s, and 21st century cross cutting skills for career and education development. Doesn’t this approach make more sense?

And finally, I would be remiss if I did not speak to the plight of Life Skills teachers across the state. I will use the words of Wiscasset High School Life Skills teacher, Darcey Stevenson. “I am very concerned, however, that section 127 gives a crushing blow to life skills students who will not receive a diploma. Employers have come to have certain expectations around a HS diploma. My program is the most appropriate placement for these students. It is appropriate that they have a modified curriculum. For me to take out the HS level MLRs and work on teaching these skills to my students will simply be an exercise in futility with a lot of failing grades and frustrated students. I have heard nothing of the possibility of an IEP exception for students who will not be able to meet the standards based on a significant disability. What are these students to do after graduation? Pushing carts at Wal-Mart can be good exercise, but many of my students have more to offer to their community than that. What am I to tell these students when they ask me why they aren't getting a diploma? They know the difference. What am I supposed to tell them when they say that they might as well drop out because they aren't going to get a diploma anyway? What am I supposed to tell them when they refuse to do their work because their grades don't mean anything anyway? What am I supposed to tell myself when I plan important Life Skills lessons that won't lead to my students getting a diploma that they need for opportunities after High School?” I would wholeheartedly echo Darcey’s sentiments, as would many others who work daily with these valuable assets to our school community.

Please consider the simplifications suggested and the dilemma of the life skills students in order to insure that we will have action in this legislative session. I am appealing to all high school principals around the state to support the Stakeholder Recommendations with these simplifications. Do not delay enactment of 127. Reconsider the 2016 deadline that is so far away from what we have been led to expect that all relevance is lost to educators currently in the field. Rather, simplify it with these suggestions and allow us to move forward. Give our leadership the targets towards which to lead. Otherwise, we pay the price of losing the buy-in of the teachers and dedicated administrators who have been frustrated by flawed plans, financially unsupported mandates, and conflicting DOE direction. Do not make any legislative deals that delay or muddy the good intentions of the stakeholder committee.

Sincerely,


Susan Poppish