high school graduation requirements
To CORE 24 or not to CORE 24?
Posted on 11. Mar, 2010 by Mike.
Mark Mansell has been superintendent of La Center School District for four years.
Mark Mansell, superintendent of La Center School District, is the author of the following guest blog post on the new CORE 24 high school graduation requirements. He is also a member of the State Board of Education’s CORE 24 Implementation Task Force. The next Task Force meeting is scheduled for Monday, March 15th (agenda).
Guest Blog: To CORE 24 or not to CORE 24? That is the question.
By Mark Mansell, Superintendent of La Center School District
La Center School District is a small (1,550 students) mostly rural district in southwest Washington. When the state legislature required a change in math requirements in order to receive a diploma, our school board and community began a process to change our high school graduation requirements. During this process, the State Board of Education (SBE) began to move toward increasing graduation requirements in other areas as well as math. The result is now known as CORE 24; twenty-four credits in total (previously only 19 credits was required). Because CORE 24 is only going to be instituted when and if state funding is provided, initially we didn’t include much about it in our thinking as school staff and administrators. It was simply hard for us to imagine how the state would ever pay for the additional credits. But soon that thinking would change and in a big way.
During this work to explore various proposals on possible new La Center graduation requirements that included the additional math credit, our school board and community stakeholders involved in the process kept comparing our proposals to what the SBE was proposing. They kept asking, “How does this proposal match up with CORE 24?” As superintendent, my answer to this question was probably very typical. I would state, “CORE 24 has not been funded by the state and we are all very aware that the state doesn’t even fund what they expect us to do now.” We would then return to the work of focusing on simply adding the additional math credit and making other adjustments to address what our students needed to achieve. But the questions about CORE 24 kept occurring in one form or another. Each time I would provide a different variation of the same answer revolving around funding or the need for additional organizational capacities, that well, involves additional funding. Round and round we went for I don’t know how many meetings.
What makes this community discussion about CORE 24 more interesting is that I was at the time of this work (and still am) a member of the Implementation Task Force (ITF) working to develop recommendations for the SBE regarding implementing CORE 24. I was in the middle of all this effort on CORE 24 at the state level with more than twenty other practitioners from across the state, all working to ultimately develop recommendations on how to move these proposed new state graduation requirements from concept to reality. Yet all I could come up with in my own community was to provide some answer about lack of funding or the needed additional system capacities. Please don’t get me wrong. Funding is absolutely essential to successfully providing the types of learning experiences students need to prepare them for the world they are expected to live, work and most importantly learn in throughout their lives. So before you go to the place where you decide I must be some kind of Kool-aid drinking ideologue that believes schools can be operated on bake sales and you are wasting your time reading this, please hang with me.
Our high school operates on a six-period schedule and our old graduation requirements were set at 23 credits. With 24 credits possible (6 credits per year for four years), each student had, for lack of a better description one “Do Over Credit”. Even with this one extra credit, we believed we were already asking our students to work at their capacity. Honestly, we felt there wasn’t much more we could ask of them without additional funding to provide more teacher contact time. Even then, how many students would want to go to school longer? But then everything changed for us was when we stumbled onto a question that we simply could not answer. As they say in sports, it was a game changer. The question was, “What do our students actually achieve in terms of credits and courses right now when they graduate and how does that align with CORE 24?” I was stumped! I had no answer and could not find a logical way to link it back to funding. I had never thought of that before as I had always considered CORE 24 relative to our graduation requirements and not what students were actually doing/achieving. Looking back on it now I think, “Well that is a no-brainer”. But it simply never dawned on me to think about this issue from this new perspective. To get at an answer to this question, we completed a transcript study of our most recent graduating class. Our goal was to determine exactly what our students were accomplishing compared to the minimum graduation requirements we expected. What we found changed our thinking about what was possible.
What we learned was that 100% of our graduates met CORE 24 in English and Social Studies. 73% of our students achieved the credits necessary in Math and 53% met CORE 24 standards in science. Furthermore, 60% of our graduates earned 24 or more credits, even though we only required 23. In fact, without ever changing a thing to our graduation requirements, 45% of these students actually met all the requirements of CORE 24 without even knowing they did so. It became instantly clear to us that we were limiting ourselves by using funding as the barrier for seeing how we could align our graduation requirements with CORE 24. But you might be thinking, “Hey, what about the other half who didn’t meet CORE 24?” This is the part that really knocked me for a loop. We then looked deeper at the transcripts of these students and found many examples where students had either a short senior year schedule, had TA (teacher assistants) credits on their transcript or simply needed only a few course changes (credit substitutions) in order to meet CORE 24 requirements. In short, there were numerous examples where it appeared as though students “coasted” through their senior year given that they didn’t need to use their “Do Over Credit”.
Without question, we had an estimated 10-15% of our students who probably would have been between a rock and hard place to meet CORE 24 for various reasons given the current structure. But given four years (the class of 2008 didn’t know they were aiming to meet CORE 24 standards) and a clear awareness that the “bar” is raised, we decided it was entirely possible to align our new graduation requirements with CORE 24 beginning with the class of 2013 (incoming freshmen in 2009). We have now begun learning how to provide the necessary supports for those potentially struggling students. For us, thinking about ways to support the 10% to 15% of our students who need to be supported differently is a much more doable endeavor than operating from the perspective that 100% of our students need to be supported differently. Quite frankly, aligning to CORE 24 standards was simply a way for us to catch up to what most of our students were already achieving.
So you might be thinking about now, “I am glad that it is working for you guys in La Center, but our district is different.” I have served in several districts around the state over my career, so I am not naïve to the fact that every district, school and community is different. What has worked for us in La Center may not work for your district. However, I believe that funding may not be the issue we are all making it out to be relative to CORE 24 implementation. As stated above, I firmly believe that the state of Washington needs to fulfill its constitutional requirements to amply fund public education. But on the other hand it is our opportunity to use the funding we have garnered to provide what students need as best we can. Let’s face it, raising expectations both for our students and for ourselves is a good thing not only because we are absolutely capable of it but also because it’s what is needed. To tackle this challenge, we must not limit our thinking nor overlook data that can truly define the barriers before us.
In La Center, completing a transcript study allowed us to think differently and to see more clearly the possibilities before us. I would encourage every district in the state to consider doing the same and then decide from there what they can and can’t do without more funding. To quote Albert Einstein, “The ultimate form of insanity is to do the same things over and over again and expect different results.” This not only applies to our actions, but also needs to apply to our thinking. I wish you the best as your district works through (and hopefully thinks differently about) this important and essential endeavor.
Continue Reading
Parent activists in Olympia and on TV
Posted on 27. Jan, 2010 by Mike.
On day two of “Education Reform Week,” Kelly Munn, LEV’s state field director, helped organize a group of parent activists to testify in Olympia on behalf of kids and schools. In the morning, they testified in support of House Bill 2776, which would begin implementation of the education reform bill passed in 2009.
LEV's legislative director, George Scarola, and Rep. Marcie Maxwell (center) thank parents and education advocates for coming to Olympia.
They also weighed in against House Bill 2915, which would implement Sup. of Public Instruction Randy Dorn’s proposal to delay high school math and science graduation requirements. KOMO news followed parent activist and Issaquah School Board member Chad Magendanz as he met with legislators.
Continue Reading
LEV on Fox News Channel
Posted on 04. Jan, 2010 by Mike.
The recent proposal by Superintendent Randy Dorn to further delay Washington’s math and science high school graduation requirements made national headlines on the Fox News Channel.
Lisa Macfarlane, LEV’s co-founder, said, “When you expect less, you give less, and you get lower achievement, and then you just close the doors of opportunity.”
Click here to view the video clip.
The proposed changes will be discussed during the 2010 legislative session that begins Jan. 11.
Continue Reading
Wrong move, wrong time
Posted on 20. Nov, 2009 by Lisa.
Yesterday, Superintendent of Public Instruction Randy Dorn proposed yet another delay in math and science high school graduation requirements until 2015 and 2017 respectively. The proposal received tepid support at the state school director’s conference where our state’s school chief delivered a major policy speech.
The League of Education Voters strongly opposes another delay in math and science graduation requirements. It is the wrong proposal at the wrong time.
Send an e-mail to Superintendent Dorn and tell him that we have had enough delay with math and science.
We are not going to boost the educational attainment levels for our young people by sidestepping our math and science achievement problem. Delay is not a plan. We have tried the delay strategy before and it did not work for kids. Three years ago, we delayed math graduation requirements and look what happened-math achievement is down.
We can all agree that we have a very serious problem with math and science achievement and that we need to be fair to kids.
Superintendent Dorn thinks that having students, who are graduating from high school less than four years from now, demonstrate proficiency in math and science is “punishing” them. We think that if there’s a crime here, it is continuing the practice of sending high school graduates out into the world of work or college unprepared.
We want our high school graduates to be college and career ready.
We want our kids to be qualified for the great jobs that our knowledge- and technology driven-economy is creating.
Retreating from the expectation that, by 2013, high school graduates have demonstrated proficiency in math and science is unacceptable.
- Today, more than half our students entering community college need to take remedial math courses-classes for which they receive no college credit.
- Math and science literacy are 21st century skills that everyone needs whether they are going into an apprenticeship or certificate program, a community college, or a four-year university.
- At the very time when we are trying to Race to the Top to win federal education dollars, Dorn’s proposal would sink us to the bottom. It is time for our state education leaders to make a serious plan to boost math and science achievement. We should be doing exactly that with our Race to the Top application.
Delay is not a credible strategy. Our children’s success and our state’s competitiveness depend on our ability to increase math and science achievement levels now.
Superintendent Dorn’s math and science proposal is just that-a proposal for this next legislative session.
It’s time to roll up our sleeves and do the right thing for our children.
We’re not the only ones to disagree. Read what others are saying and then add your own voice to the comments below.
Dorn’s plan is exactly the wrong approach for tough economic times.
Settling for less from Washington’s students means settling for a lesser future for the state. Our collective well-being depends on high school graduates whose diplomas mean something, on students who are ready to compete in the world. Math and science are increasingly important factors in that equation.
Low-income and minority students are most harmed by Dorn’s preference for the easy road. These students don’t need low expectations, they need the equalizing effects of a sound, rigorous education.
We understand that the teachers’ union is frustrated over a lack of adequate funding, including recent cuts forced by the recession. Earnest leaders are working on the funding puzzle, but it isn’t going to be solved this year or next. That cannot become an excuse for letting our kids fall behind.
On the contrary, students deserve a renewed commitment on the part of all adults involved. The rest of the world will move ahead, with or without them.
Continue Reading
Washington State Board of Education reacts to Dorn proposal
Posted on 19. Nov, 2009 by Mike.
The Washington State Board of Education just sent out this response to Superintendent Randy Dorn’s proposal to delay math and science graduation requirements until 2015 and 2017.
We have tremendous math and science based industries in Washington - yet our K-12 math and science education isn’t reaching this same standard of excellence. Pushing back graduation requirements or lowering standards is shortchanging the opportunities for our children to participate in the very career fields that helped to define our great state.
And, the chair of the Washington State Board of Education, Mary Jean Ryan, issued this statement:
This call for delay is not the right direction for our state. State leaders must commit- once and for all- to doing the hard work needed to help kids master math and science. Delays just create distractions. If history is a guide more delay will only serve to distract. Three years ago the State punted on math and since then achievement levels have dropped. Delay is not a winning game plan. There is much work to do but this is not the way to begin.
Continue Reading
Superintendent Randy Dorn proposes another delay
Posted on 19. Nov, 2009 by Mike.
Superintendent Randy Dorn is proposing another delay in math and science requirements until 2015 and 2017. In a press release, here’s one reason he gave for the delay:
“It doesn’t take a mathematician to see that we have a big problem in our state. Less than 50 percent of our 10th graders are passing the math and science exams,” said Dorn, who noted 10th graders’ passing rate on the reading and writing exams is more than 80 percent. “We need to be fair to our students and give them time to learn the new standards. It’s simply a matter of doing what’s right.”
In addition, he submitted this op-ed to the Seattle Times outlining his proposal for pushing back the math requirement until 2015 and science until 2017.
Continue Reading
What’s Randy Dorn going to say?
Posted on 18. Nov, 2009 by Mike.
The education community is anticipating a major policy speech by Superintendent of Public Instruction Randy Dorn tomorrow at 12:45 p.m. before the Washington State School Directors’ Association annual conference.
Last week, the Seattle PostGlobe reported that Superintendent Dorn would call for yet another delay in science and math requirements for high school graduation. Since the report came out, many education stakeholders have reached out to Superintendent Dorn and his office to advocate against another delay. LEV’s co-founder Lisa Macfarlane expressed grave disappointment about any further delays. ”It’s the wrong move, at the wrong time.”
So what will Superintendent Dorn say? Unfortunately, TVW is not airing the speech until Friday at 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. But, stay tuned tomorrow for LEV’s reaction to the policy speech.
Sign up for our e-mail updates to get the latest education news and follow us on Twitter and Facebook.
Continue Reading
SBE to meet Sept. 17-18
Posted on 16. Sep, 2009 by Heather.
The State Board of Education is set to meet tomorrow and Friday at the Puget Sound ESD in Renton. Thursday the Board will be looking big picture education reform, CORE 24 implementation, and the Accountability Index. Friday looks to be largely about WASL scores and assessment system updates. The full agenda is available here.
Continue Reading
Growing Excellence
Posted on 02. Sep, 2009 by Maggie.
Saturday September 19th the Seattle Alliance of Black School Educators (SABSE) will be hosting a conference at the John Stanford Center for Excellence. Topics will address how to close the achievement gap, with special focus on knowing your child’s performance, your child’s changing graduation requirements, how to prepare your student for college, and how to help measure your school and student’s results.
It will feature keynote speaker Erin Jones, as well as a discussion panel with LEV staff Chris Korsmo, Kelly Munn, Maggie Wilkens and others.
To register, visit the SABSE website or email Ina Howell at ighowell@seattleschools.org.
Hope you can attend!
Continue Reading
What’s up with the WASL
Posted on 27. Jan, 2009 by admin.
The word is out on Superintendent of Public Instruction Randy Dorn’s plans to revamp the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL). But Dorn’s not the only one with WASL reform on his mind — legislators in Olympia introduced a handful of bills focused on reform, big and small. Here’s a quick breakdown of them all.
- Rebrands the assessment system; the system would be called the Washington Comprehensive Assessment Program (WCAP), the tests for 3-8 graders would be Measurements of Student Progress (MSP) and the tests of 10th graders would be High School Proficiency Exams (HSPE)
- Continues to use the reading and writing assessments as graduation requirements; postpones math and science assessments and graduation requirements
- Uses shorter, computer-based tests for math, reading and science (explore for writing), beginning in 2010
- Offers MSPs in fall and spring to measure student growth, and be given in one sitting
- Moves “accountability test” used for NCLB to later in the spring
House Bill 1646, Making adjustments pertaining to the high school Washington assessment of student learning in mathematics and science, sponsored by Reps. Sullivan, Priest, Kenney, Morrell, and Ormsby
- Suspends the graduation requirement for the Class of 2013 and beyond to pass the math and science assessments
- Directs the State Board of Education (SBE) to determine when the math and science assessments are ready to be used as graduation requirements
- Empowers the SBE to reexamine the science assessment and graduation requirement timeline
Senate Bill 5414, Implementing recommendations of the WASL legislative work group, sponsored by Sens. McAuliffe, King, Oemig, and McDermott
- Sets goal of creating a system of assessment that provides more immediate feedback, measures student growth throughout the year, and strives to be computer based
- Delegates work to SBE and OSPI – annual reports to the Legislature on the assessment system; review of EALRs in all subjects to better align with college/workforce requirements; and exploration of end-of-course assessments (EOCs) in science (instead of science WASL, and removes science WASL graduation requirement for Class of 2013)
- Directs OSPI to look at shortening WASL exams
- Beginning in 2010-11, students will take math EOCs
House Bill 1341/Senate Bill 5260, Motivating students through incentives to pursue post-secondary education by eliminating statewide assessments as a high school graduation requirement, sponsored by Reps. Santos, Haler, Hasegawa, Sells, Seaquist, Goodman, Appleton, Hunt, Chase, Kenney, Simpson, Campbell, Nelson, McCoy, Van De Wege, and Sens. McAuliffe, Fraser, Pridemore, Hargrove, Sheldon, Kauffman, Hobbs, Hatfield, Fairley, Roach
- Removes passing the WASL as a graduation requirement; students continue to take the exam
- Directs OSPI to shorten the 10th grade WASL exams, beginning in 2010
- Assigns OSPI, the Higher Education Coordinating Board and the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges to review student incentive programs used in other states; savings from removal of the WASL as a graduation requirement could be redirected toward recommended incentives
