HOME | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10

Small Group Discussion

Measuring Student Progress

Much of the discussion among participants in the morning groups focused on the current use of assessment tools. Several groups posed the question whether tests should be the only way to measure student progress. Among these groups, there was concern that, if tests are the only focus, teachers will forget about teaching and concentrate on test performance. Participants were also concerned that assessment based upon a single test on a single day render measurement that is not effective or fair.

Another concern reflected participants' views that the NCLB and AYP standards are poorly drafted and identified a need for greater flexibility. Several groups saw the stringent requirements of NCLB as an obstacle. Furthermore, participants' felt that the focus of NCLB is unfair to upper spectrum students because, in an effort to have everyone meet the minimum standards, resources are concentrated on lower spectrum students. There was some concern that, as a result, upper spectrum students will leave the public schools to receive the services they desire.

Participants from all groups stressed the need to make sure that there is a strong correlation between any assessment tools and the Regents Learning Standards, and most felt that an aligned curriculum is missing. Participants stressed that teachers don't need daily lesson plans but they do need to know what the scope and sequence of each subject should be. One group agreed that poor tests have bad consequences for students -- for example, the Math 8 test caused emotional stress for students who were forced to drop out of other areas of their schooling. There was also concern from participants that no one is monitoring the testing industry; the tests are just accepted. Several groups stressed that the assessment tools need to reflect the students' needs, not just the state's needs, and to be truly effective, teachers and administrators need to have confidence in the assessment tools that are used.

In terms of the way testing data is used, participants felt that districts need more support in dealing with the data-coordination of RICs so that the data is useful to districts around the state. Several groups saw the need to explain to the community how and what the schools are measuring with the assessment data. There was support for more user-friendly data without comparison. One group suggested that the data be used to emphasize support and not sanctions, while another group recommended a greater need to emphasize the value of testing to each child. Several groups voiced the need for a shorter turnaround time for receiving the assessment data. Another concern about assessment tools was consistency. Many of the groups mentioned that there is a lack of consistency throughout New York and among other states.

There was also universal concern among participants about the varying needs and challenges from district to district. One group pointed out that rural districts have very different needs. There was concern that an arbitrary one percent out of level testing was unfair and unrealistic for all different types of districts.

Another great concern among all of the groups was the dilemma posed by "gray area kids." All were concerned that those students just below the group that qualifies for special education may not be able to meet standards or need a different way to get there. Participants felt that the definition for "special needs" is so narrow that many in need are excluded. There was universal agreement that some accommodation needs to be afforded for these students in the assessment process. Several groups stated there is a need for a different assessment tool for higher needs students. Other groups suggested greater flexibility in deciding who is tested. Participants also suggested that the ECB form a subcommittee to do a better job of defining and identifying gray area kids, and advocating for more upper-level special education services.

Participants also discussed the possible implementation of Value-Added Assessment to measure student progress. While the general feeling was the VAA could be positive for New York State, many felt that they did not have enough information about how VAA would work and were wary of implementation. Some saw the possibility that VAA might lead to greater parental and community involvement and support for public schools. Others feared that implementation of VAA might be too costly amid concerns that the schools are already under-funded.

Greater Communication Needed

Another concern among participants was the perceived need for greater communication throughout the educational system. All of the groups felt that there was a need for increased communication among all stakeholders --within schools and between schools, and between schools and the State Education Department. All groups also felt the need for increased communication among the schools and parents and community members to help the latter understand complex issues involving education. Several groups felt that increased partnerships were necessary to increase support for the schools and to help the community understand the role of the teacher, the curriculum, testing and preparing children to learn.

Concerns Include Recruitment, Retention

Teacher effectiveness was another important theme among conference participants. The discussion generated as many questions as it did answers: How do we assess our teachers? With regard to curriculum changes, how do teachers teach the students if they don't understand the material? How do you judge good quality professional development? How can we get more equitable distribution of teacher effectiveness throughout the schools?

There was agreement among all participants that professional development opportunities for teachers need to be improved. Many of the groups advocated for increased mentoring programs. Several groups cited the need for succession planning for teachers and administrators, suggesting there needs to be a career ladder, with adequate training and development. Furthermore, teacher development should be based on specific data related to best practices. Several groups stated that current pre-service programs are weak, and one group felt that, as with students, need-based support for teachers may be appropriate.

Another issue of great concern to all of the groups was teacher recruitment and retention, a concern that most participants felt was the result of a poor process. A major obstacle cited was the competition for recruiting and retaining teachers and administrators. Participants felt that ways need to be developed to make the teaching profession more attractive by showing opportunities and support. Participants also felt financial resources are needed to meet requirements for better teacher pay and better resources to improve retention. One group also voiced support for lengthening the time teachers are allotted to earn a Master's Degree from three to five years. There was general agreement that there needs to be a better connection among pre-service programs, SED, certification standards, and hiring practices.

There was disagreement among the groups about allocation of teachers. Most groups felt that the most effective teachers should be assigned to the neediest students. Others felt that providing better assignments for the most effective teachers would enhance retention.