Yesterday at the State Board of Education meeting, Dr. Lesley Klenk of the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction presented a report on the results of the 2006-07 school year Collections of Evidence (COE). A collection of evidence is an "alternative option" to meeting proficiency on the state standards and earning a Certificate of Academic Achievement. It is a classroom-centered collection of student work that features examples of assignments that align with the state standards.
With approximately 28,000 students in the Class of 2008 that did not pass at least one part of the WASL, the numbers that submitted COE's and met standard were surprisingly low.
There was a potential of over 27,000 students who could have submitted a COE because they had not met the math standard. However, there were 727 COE's received by OSPI and of those only 332 met standard (46%). In other words, less than 3% of the potential math COE's were submitted to OSPI.
In writing just over 9100 seniors could have submitted a COE and only 31 were sent to OSPI. That is less than 1/3 of 1% of those that need to demonstrate there writing skills in order to graduate next spring. Of the 31 produced in the entire state, 7 met standard (23%).
Even fewer were submitted in reading, 18, and of those 15 met standard (83%). Again there were 9100 students who could have participated in the reading COE.
It will be interesting to see if the COE and the other alternatives become more used this year by students or whether only another 776 collection of evidences will be submitted statewide. With graduation on the line for many students, you would think the use of the COE would increase significantly this year.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This was feedback that I received from one of my staff members who has been TRYING to work with the Collection of Evidence since last year...I think there are a few things that have made this first round COE unsuccessful. I would like to
temper my following statements by saying that the COE is a great option for a large number of our
students who struggle with the WASL. That being said, here are my thoughts.
1. Let's face it, the state really messed this whole "kick off" up a whole lot. They introduced this
option to everyone and didn't (and still don't) have a firm picture of what this option looks like. When
specifically asked what a "proficient" Collection looks like, I heard responses like "We aren't really
sure. We'll have to wait until this first round comes in". Needless to say, we were overwhelmed with
confidence that OSPI had any idea of what was going on.
2. The state has been scrambling on this and it is apparent to everyone. I have heard stories of
people submitting Math COE samples to OSPI for review before they are used. Many times the
feedback on the samples have been negative (i.e., these samples wouldn't meet the sufficiency
criteria). But, a few months later - when the COE Options folks started getting further and further
under the gun - those same items have been resubmitted in frustration. Usually, the response has
been positive (i.e., these are great samples, could we use these on the web site). Huh? What changed?
3. The time crunch at the beginning of the kick off was a killer, particularly with the Principals
Association telling administrators to hold off until OSPI had a better idea of what they were doing. Do
they even now have a better idea of what they are doing?
4. The COE isn't a viable option for students from SPED or ELL programs. I wish the state would look
at how many of those 28,000 students are good matches for a COE. Were there any Level 1's in that
number?
5. The logistical nightmare that a COE brings to a district. I would venture a guess that a lot of those
COE's came from districts like Puyallup which has been working with OSPI from the beginning of the
COE option. Most of the math samples have come from Puyallup. Additionally, larger schools are
going to be better suited to handle the logistics behind putting something like this into effect. There
was no consideration (or sympathy I might add) as to how smaller districts were going to make this
work.
With all of these things considered. I don't think that the state should be too surprised with the
rather lackluster response during this first round of Collections of Evidence. I do believe that this
next round should have a better response as districts begin to lay the groundwork that is necessary
to make this option work.
Post a Comment