Gail Robinson writes in the HECHINGER Report about the success of the New York Performance Sttandards Consortium. The Consortium has operated for more than 20 years,flying under the radar of the test zealots.
Robinson writes:
“While most New York students must pass state exams in five subjects to graduate, the consortium’s 38 schools have a state waiver allowing their students to earn a diploma by passing just one exam: comprehensive English. (An additional nine schools have a partial waiver.) Instead, in all subjects including English, the students must demonstrate skill mastery in practical terms. They design experiments, make presentations, write reports and defend their work to outside experts.
Getting a waiver is not easy. The number the state grants is limited, and the alternative methods of assessing students can mean far more work for teachers. The schools’ funding is not affected.
“Proponents say the alternative system is worth the effort because it engages students and encourages them to think creatively. They also point to data. According to the consortium, 77 percent of its students who started high school in the fall of 2010 graduated in four years, versus 68 percent for all New York City students.
“Of consortium students who were high school freshmen in 2008, 82 percent graduated by 2014, compared with 73 percent citywide. (All but two of the consortium schools are in the city, versus elsewhere in New York state. One in Rochester brings up the consortium’s rate slightly.)
“The schools have done particularly well getting English language learners and special needs students to graduation. Last year, 71 percent of students learning English at consortium schools graduated on time, versus 37 percent of English learners citywide. The six-year graduation rate for English learners was 75 percent, versus 50 percent for New York City.”
When someone asks you if you have an alternative to our current test-and-punish regime, point to the Consortium.
To learn more about the work of the Consortium, read this and follow the links.
On time graduation is the measure that allows for comparisons among schools, otherwise the review of presentations made by students does the job of evaluation, and in the best sense of drawing forth the value of what’s they have learned, how, how well, and why.
The impulse toward stack ranking based on standardized tests is squelched by a process that really says something important to students about becoming well educated. This will not satisfy anyone who is hooked on test scores including a bunch of economists and politicians who need to proclaim that everything about education in the U.S. Is a disaster.
When Mills proposed the 5 Regents policy he said there was nothing wrong with students staying in high school for five years (or longer). Now the schools are being penalized for any student not on the “four year track”.
After reading this link, I have more questions than answers. I looked at the Consortium website, and the members were described as small schools. The member schools appeared to be both public and charter, although there was no information that classified them as such on the site. Are these schools selective like many magnet schools, or can anyone enroll? Are they getting better results due to lack or testing, or are more savvy, affluent parents enrolling their children here? Are their ELLs mostly Asian and European rather than Hispanic and Afro-Caribbean? If these schools are a successful option for New York, why haven’t they expanded the model to other parts of the state?
Retired Teacher, the schools in the Consortium have the same (or higher) percentage of ELLs and students with disability than the rest of the public schools. They are not selective, although space is limited. They do not use exam scores to filter students out. Here is a post about the Consortium schools, with links to a report on their performance. https://dianeravitch.net/2012/08/22/what-happens-when-performance-assessments-work-better-than-tests/
They are all small schools, but I don’t think they include charters.
They have not expanded because state officials don’t want more schools that avoid standardized tests.
They needed waivers to use their approach back in 1995, pre-NCLB, and the state is not handing out waivers any more.
Maybe the members of the Regents or parents should bring these findings to Ms. Elia. If these schools are working and getting better results, they should have to consider expansion over charters, especially since the record of charters is spotty at best. Graduating more students from high school is a much more valid result than a standardized test.
Interesting story, and thanks for the followup, Diane. Like “retired teacher,” I have lots of questions, too. The main thing I don’t see on the blog and in your response, though, is information about free-lunch status. Succeeding with ELL or students with disabilities is impressive, as is the info about the other student subgroups. The data point absent from the discussion, though, is income. I would be hugely impressed with the success of these schools if they were doing this with students across the income spectrum. If they were doing well but their populations were mainly drawn from middle or higher income families, the result would be less surprising, though. Supports at home, which correlate with higher income, are key, as you know.
Selection bias based on income is often a point that you raise when you critique charters and other schools such as private schools (e.g., they get their good results when they have more well-off students in their ranks). If these Consortium schools have the same student selection dynamics based on income as the charters and the privates that you criticize, I’m not sure why you are celebrating them as a huge success. If, on the other hand, they are getting these results with students in poverty and students across the income spectrum, that, indeed would be a big deal.
What is the breakdown in terms of the income status of pupils at these schools? Do you know?
Thanks for asking these questions.
The first factor that complicates these comparisons is that all high schools in NYC, even zoned ones, are opt-in. So this isn’t anything like a random assignment study. These schools have particular characteristics that likely attract a particular type of student.
Families in the midst of applying to ICE and Beacon will tell you that those schools are indeed very selective. Beacon students need to be interviewed, present a portfolio of their work, and supply 7th grade report cards and state test scores to be considered for admission.
The consortium schools are a great option and more of them should be created if there is an unmet demand.
I do not see the logical link between lack of testing and grad rates. Correlation is not causation.
Selectprep, read the link that I added. If schools can get good long-term results, isn’t that more important than test scores?
Thanks so much for picking this up and spreading the word. I visited one of their schools about 10 years ago and got to listen to two student presentations. Interesting and impressive!
Best, Gail
Just to be clear, these schools are not just substituting a different kind of test for standardized tests, they use a competency-based approach to teaching (“…in all subjects including English, the students must demonstrate skill mastery in practical terms. They design experiments, make presentations, write reports and defend their work to outside experts….) and are giving challenging “performance assessments” to measure progress.
Bill, when people use the term “competency-based instruction” these days, what they mean is computerized instruction and assessment.
Ahh…what should we call personalized, student centered, student driven, project-based…that kind of learning, independent of whether it makes particular use of technology?
These days, I would say that you mean project-based learning, experiential learning. Also ties to something known as “the maker movement.”
I had thought that project-based was one feature. But that works…as long as it’s understood to mean that students move on when they’ve achieved competency or mastery or proficiency – when they have some measure of knowledge and skill in using it (vs. seat time).
Diane it appears you need to go back and adjust your settings on the wordpress account as far as the number replies allowed because we’re really stringbeaning some resonses. I tried to find it on my account to no avail, so if someone more familiar can direct Diane to how to change the setting that would be great.
Duane/Diane,
Settings/Discussion/Other Comment Settings/Enable threaded (nested) comments
Thanks, Bill!
Thanks.
A small group of superintendents on Long Island is looking into mounting a challenge to SED to make this approach–shown to successful–open to any district that wants to use it.
This consortium amounts to a potential threat to the entire “reform agenda,” so we anticipate SED will throw all sorts of obstacles in our way.
Steven, here’s hoping you are successful. The consortium’s approach should be widely replicated. Are there “guardrails” or qualifications of some kind that establish whether a district is prepared to teach and assess in this way?
The folks at the Consortium are quite helpful in this regard. They’re ready to help any interested district follow the path they pioneered, so SED would have no basis to reject such applications. We’ll see.
Very exciting to create such a large and credible test of this approach to education…like High Tech High, maybe, but in district schools.
The requirement to pass five regents exams in NYS has been a disaster, especially in Buffalo. There are many students (disproportionally minority) who simply can’t pass all five exams even after three or more tries. Now, with an impossibly hard CC GED exam, they have no hope of attaining a high school diploma or equivalent. And as far as rigor is concerned, those students who pass their five tests don’t feel it’s necessary to take additional Regents Exams. So once they pass Living Environment, they blow off the Earth Science or Chemistry Regents. Same with math – pass the Algebra and skip Geometry. Even the smarter students bi-pass the Trig Final. Yes, the suburbs have better results, but even there some children fall through the cracks.
I’m surprised somebody hasn’t taken the state to court. This must qualify as some sort of discrimination – just look at the statistics.