Let's Replace Transcripts With Portfolios

By Starr Sackstein on January 24, 2016 6:48 AM

The transcript has been a tool long used by schools and colleges to assess students' ability to be successful in life.Seeing as it is a record of how they performed in every course, it seems like a good way to do it, right?

Wrong.

There are so many things wrong with grades, as I'm sure you know I've suggested that one document that puts them all in one place is a colossal waste of time.

Testing and transcripts further perpetuate the very wrongness of playing school and hurt those students who would likely flourish most in the university environment. Their past poor choices end up damning them twice. (First when they don't pass in school and have to repeat learning and then later when they don't have the grades to get into a school that offers the kinds of programs they may be successful in).

A better way may be to allow students to create an electronic portfolio that will allow them to show their growth with reflection. This too will ensure that colleges will see what the level of work is over time rather than just an average without seeing the work that contributed to a bunch of scores.

Give a listen to this short video:

The benefits to portfolios would be amazing.

Check out some possibilities:

• Student selected work shows what they are capable of now and since students would be selecting work they are proud of and attaching a detailed, standards-based reflection, the admissions officer would have an understanding of where the child is now in his/her learning.
• Rather than having numbers on a transcript with scores, the school can see the level of work the students are expected to complete, again giving a more precise idea of the ability to be successful at college level work.
• Although it would be a little more time consuming to select candidates for school, the understanding of each child would be a better indicator of success once he/she got to the college.
• Students would already be more metacognitive and would understand better how to represent themselves as learners rather than rely on their transcripts and test scores which largely doesn't paint an accurate picture. 
• Students can't cram and forget the work they display since they will have been working on it for a while and would have the entire process to share their progress.
• Students would be more prepared for interviews where they can discuss their portfolios in a meaningful way and connect it with what they'd like to do at the school of their choosing.
• A portfolio would allow for a more diverse look at a student's learning as he or she would have to choose from a variety of classes and if he/she didn't select from a class, that would be a space for talking or explaining.

As education begins to change and we reconsider how we assess students, we can't continue to do what is easiest for institutions at the expense of what is best for students. Testing and transcripts have never been very helpful to many students. They end up being accurate for only a very small percentage of kids. Using portfolios would be a far more beneficial way to show what kids know.

These changes won't happen unless more schools make a concerted effort to change the process and then a few colleges start taking a chance with something better. Could your school be the first?

In what ways can we start implementing portfolio assessment at the end of school years rather than testing? What are your current practices? Are they successful? Please share

Block Scheduling: A Solution or a Problem?

by Sharon Cromwell:  Education World

The merits of block scheduling are a subject of great debate. Is it a flexible scheduling alternative that benefits students -- or is it a fad that's sure to pass?
Schools throughout the United States are adopting block scheduling in dramatically increasing numbers. The move to block scheduling, however, has sparked controversy.
Hailed by proponents as a vehicle for greater depth and flexibility in education, block scheduling has turned off some educators and parents, who criticize it as a faddish approach that fails to enhance academic performance.

WHAT IS BLOCK SCHEDULING?
In an article titled "All Around the Block: The Benefits and Challenges of a Non-Traditional School Schedule," Michael D. Rettig and Robert Lynn Canady estimate that "more than 50 percent of high schools in the United States are either using or considering a form of block scheduling."
In contrast with the traditional daily, six-, seven-, or eight-period schedule, a block schedule consists of three or four daily longer periods. Widely used forms of block scheduling are the alternate-day schedule, the 4/4 semester plan, and the trimester plan.

In the alternate-day schedule students and teachers meet every-other-day for extended time periods rather than meeting every day for shorter periods.

In the 4/4 semester plan students complete four "yearlong" courses that meet for about 90 minutes every day during a 90-day semester.

Students take two or three courses every 60 days in a trimester plan to earn six to nine credits per year.

Many schools work with schedules that are variations or combinations of these plans. For example, a school in Broward County, Florida, has adapted the trimester plan by adding three year-long classes to six trimester courses in order to accommodate musical performing groups and Advance Placement subjects, which need or prefer to go year round. Other school districts combine long terms and short terms to provide time for remediation and enrichment for students, as needed.

THE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND THE TREND
Rettig and Canady maintain that a handful of factors are motivating middle and high schools across the United States to adopt block scheduling:

• When students attend as many as eight relatively short classes in different subjects every day, instruction can become fragmented; longer class periods give students more time to think and engage in active learning.
• A schedule with one relatively short period after another can create a hectic, assembly-line environment;
• A schedule that releases hundreds or thousands of adolescents into hallways six, seven, or eight times each school day for four or five minutes of noise and chaotic movement can exacerbate discipline problems.
• Teachers benefit from more useable instructional time each day because less time is lost with beginning and ending classes.

A 1995 study by Carl Glickman, a University of Georgia professor, of 820 high schools and 11,000 students reported that schools in which active learning methods were predominant had significantly higher achievement as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Teachers at schools with block scheduling may use longer instructional periods to engage students in experiments, writing, and other forms of active learning, as opposed to merely lecturing students.
In addition, the alternate-day schedule reduces the time teachers spend in record keeping because records need be kept only every other day instead of every day.
In the 4/4 format, in any one semester teachers prepare for fewer courses and work with fewer students. Grades and records need be kept for fewer students per semester. In addition, some students graduate in three years or earn a year of college credit while still in high school because eight credits can be earned each school year.

THE COPERNICAN PLAN
Like block scheduling, the Copernican Plan, developed by Joseph M. Carroll, also challenges the traditional organization of secondary schools. According to Carroll, a former superintendent who is now an education consultant and author, nothing is wrong with the traditional schedule "except that it prevents teachers from teaching well and students from learning well." Carroll also says that under a traditional secondary schedule, "teachers cannot deal meaningfully with every student every day..."

"Four hundred years ago, the renaissance scholar Copernicus demonstrated the unsystematic movements of the planets could be systematically explained if one begins with the assumption that the sun, not the earth, is the center of the universe (as was then thought)," Carroll explains. "Similarly, our Copernican Plan [challenges] tradition, the traditional organization of our secondary schools and particularly our high schools. Like Copernicus, the plan deals with facts and research that has been known for a long time, but which never seemed to make sense in the real world of schools."

"The Copernican Plan is not about 'block scheduling.' It is about the relationship between time and learning," Carroll adds. It involves change based on research and change that is systemic. It has a built-in method of continuing evaluation.
Carroll emphasizes that the Copernican Plan is not an end; it is a means to an end.

POTENTIAL PROBLEMS
Even though more and more schools are switching to block scheduling, the approach has drawn fire from some educators and parents. Critics of block scheduling assert that the new scheduling format creates or exacerbates certain educational problems.
What will students do for 90-minute periods? critics ask. Proponents of block scheduling cite active learning as the key to keeping students engaged and learning during longer periods. But, even with a block-scheduling format, critics say, many teachers continue simply to lecture students rather than engaging them in active learning. Block scheduling in itself is no guarantee of active learning. And if active learning doesn't take place during, for example, a 90-minute class period, students may have trouble paying attention for the entire class.
Opponents of block scheduling, like the group Parents for Academic Excellence based in Lansdale, Pennsylvania, point out that student absences create problems under block scheduling. Making up missed work is always difficult. But when a student misses one day of classes under block scheduling, the student misses the equivalent of two days of instruction under the traditional system. A weeklong absence means the student misses two weeks of material. Such an absence may cause a student to fall behind to the extent that making up the work is difficult.
Teacher absences may lead to other problems, according to doubters. Under block scheduling, will a substitute teacher be qualified to teach 90-minute periods of, for example, physics?
Courses like languages or mathematics are sequential. Some critics of block scheduling point out that a student may take French I in the fall, not take French at all in the spring, go through the summer, and then take French II the following fall. At issue is how much French the student will recall after a break of several months. Advocates of block scheduling say most forgetting happens in the first few weeks after a course is taken. Yet critics point to studies that indicate greater memory loss over longer periods of time.
A practical hurdle also stands in the way of block scheduling in some school districts. A state arbitration panel in Connecticut recently ruled that Region 13, covering the towns of Durham and Middlefield, would have to pay teachers more under a proposed block schedule plan because teachers would be required to teach six different courses a year instead of five courses. The panel ruled that teachers should be compensated for added preparation time involved in an extra course, even if the teachers would teach for the same length of time. The school district still adopted block schedule after the ruling, but it reconfigured its scheduling to ensure that each teacher is responsible for only five courses.

WHAT ABOUT COMPROMISE?
Once advocates and opponents of block scheduling become entrenched, compromise between the groups can be difficult. In districts that have experienced a smooth transition to block scheduling, the administration has generally dealt with internal opposition that might exist among the staff and brought teachers on board before.
Here are Joseph M. Carroll's recommendations for handling the change process:

• "Process is not product." Don't let the process of change itself dominate for too long.
• "Successful change must be research-based and systemic." Center the process of change on developing a system based on sound instructional research and research-based evaluations of programs that led to improved student performance.
• "Leadership is critical." Leaders must be crystal clear about what they want.
• "Change the whole school at once." School-within-a-school or pilot programs threaten people without establishing a program.
• "Evaluate, evaluate, evaluate." Make evaluation an integral part of the program.
• "A caveat: Beware of the gifted opposition." Teachers and parents connected with honors courses are succeeding under the current system; often they view change as a threat to their position.
• "Determine how much change a school community can absorb." Limit the number of changes and sequence them carefully.

REFERENCES
Block Scheduling: A Catalyst for Change in High Schools, by Robert L. Canady and Michael D. Rettig, Eye On Education, Princeton, N.J.
The Copernican Plan Evaluated: The Evolution of a Revolution and The Copernican Plan: Restructuring the American High School, by Joseph M. Carroll, Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement of the Northeast and Islands, 300 Brickstone Square, Suite 900, Andover, Mass. 01983.
Think About Block Scheduling, by Robin J. Fogarty, IRI Skylight Training and Publishing, Palatine, Ill.
Retooling the Instructional Day, by Gerald E. Kosanovic, National Association of Secondary School Principals, Reston, VA, (703) 860-7227
"Debunking the Semesterizing Myth," by Dennis Raphael, M.W. Walstrom, and L.D. McLean, Canadian Journal of Education, Winter 1986
"Science Achievement in Semester and All-Year Courses," by David J. Bateson, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, March 1990

***************************************************************************
WHAT'S BEEN YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH BLOCK SCHEDULING?
  

The effect of De-tracking on AP and non-AP students

by Jim Buxton (Ed Prof Salve Regina U; Poly Sci. Prof. URI)

It seems to me that more and more schools are opting for heterogeneous, as opposed to homogeneous, classes.  In homogeneous classes, you would have students with fairly even academic levels.  This process is called "tracking."  In heterogeneous classes, you’d have a full spectrum of abilities. 

An example of this would be if a school reduced the amount of US History levels from 3 to 2.  So, let’s say that a high school were to have 3 levels of US History.  The top level, Honors USH, might have 20% of the USH students.  The “lowest” level might have 20% of USH students in USH - B, and lastly the Masses (60%) would be in USH-A.  Then, driven by support for heterogeneity, or to de-track the USH classes, the school might combine USH-A and USH-B into one level.

The logic for this move is convincing.  The former USH-B students, in a homogeneous (tracked) system, generally had students that were more alienated, more problematic in regard to behavior, less likely to do homework and more likely to have learning disabilities. By lumping them altogether in one class, you make it more difficult for any of them to succeed.  There are few role models in regard to homework, more distractions in the classroom and a slower pace in regard to the teaching and learning.  Critics of a tracked system which lumps the very talented in one room, and the educationally challenged in another room, argue that this policy can also be racist because of the disproportionate amount of “children of color” in the lowest level US History class.  Hence, as a result of the above, many schools are opting to lump the middle and lower levels together, arguing that in doing so, they are more “democratic.”

Defenders of this policy move say that the resultant heterogeneous grouping is good for both the former USH-As and USH-Bs.  The USH-Bs benefit from a more well behaved classroom, a classroom culture that may more likely do homework, etc.  Supporters of the move away from tracking contend that the USH-As benefit from their likely role in tutoring some of the USH-Bs, and from other leadership experiences they might more likely have.

I would hypothesize that the grades that USH-As get are better in the “mixed classroom.”  Hence, USH-A parents, who measure success by grades, may feel that their kids are actually doing better in the “mixed classroom” and therefore may support the policy.

Grades for some of the former USH-Bs may increase due to some of the factors previously mentioned.  Some former USH-Bs may see a drop in grades if the teacher holds to the old USH-A standards   If the teacher does accommodate the USH-Bs, then the grades of former USH-As may indeed go up.

Here are my bottom line questions: 
1) If heterogeneity is such a positive, democratic move which would theoretically  benefit all students, then why not follow that line of thinking across the board?  Why not mix USH-Honors (or AP) with the USH-A and USH-B?   I think I know why!!??

2) How was your experience with homogeneous and heterogeneous classes?  What were the relative benefits of each?

3) Defenders of heterogeneous grouping say that the key to success is differentiated instruction.  They say the teacher can teach various levels within the same class.  Therefore, within a class, you might have

different groups working on different forms of the same content, which might lead to varied products and   assessments. Did you have any teachers that did this well?

4)  As de-tracking leads to a mixing of the bottom two tiers resulting in just two levels of US History, for example, will this lead to an increase in former "mid-level" US History students to "emigrate" to the AP History course, and perhaps find themselves over their head.  Might this not lead to dropping scores on the AP exams, as discussed in the following article, by Elisabeth Harrison, RIPR

RI Lags on AP testing

More Rhode Island students are taking Advanced Placement tests, but they are not passing at the same rates as their peers around the country.

 The College Board has just released its annual report on AP testing. The study shows that nearly 2,500 members of Rhode Island’s class of 2013 took an AP exam, up from roughly 1,000 in 2003. The number represents more than a quarter of all high school graduates.

 But as the number of test takers has increased, the percentage of students passing the exams has fallen.

Just 14.6 percent of last year’s senior class earned a three or better, below the national average of 20 percent. Rhode Island ranks in the bottom 10 for school systems nationwide, on par with Alaska and just slightly better than the District of Columbia.

Elsewhere in New England, 28.8 percent of Connecticut students passed at least one AP exam, the second highest rate in the country. Massachusetts ranked in the top five, with 27.9 percent of students passing. Vermont and Maine also ranked above the national average.

The study also reveals significant disparities for black and Hispanic students taking AP exams in Rhode Island. Far fewer minority students take the tests, although participation has increased, especially among Hispanic students, and far fewer minority students earn at least a three.

In the class of 2013, just two percent of black students and 10 percent of Hispanic students earned a three or better, compared with nearly 80 percent of white students.

Nearly 70 percent of white students took an AP test, down from more than 80 percent in 2003.

Is the HS Social Studies lecture going the way of the dodo bird?

              by Jim Buxton

                Is the HS lecture going the way of the dodo bird?  Many educational reformers hope that this will be the case.   From my observations at 8 RI high schools, the lecture is still very common, however the amount of lecture time in an hour long class seems to be diminishing, and seems to be intermixed with a lot of group work.  Certainly, this depends on the school.  I asked my Talent Development students at URI, who mainly come from urban RI high schools, how many classes they had in high school which were more lecture based than any other method, and the typical student said maybe 1 or 2.   What happens when these students get to 100 level college courses at URI, for example?  According to a recent study by the National Center for Educational Statistics, around 83% of college and university faculty rely on the lecture as their primary instructional method.  My question is whether we should be throwing the baby out with the bath water in our movement away from the lecture at the high school level?

                It should be noted that colleges are starting to wean themselves off of “start to finish lecturing.”  The faculty at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore has dedicated this academic year to finding alternatives to the lecture in many subjects. Johns Hopkins, Harvard University and even the White House have hosted events in which scholars have assailed the lecture. (“Colleges looking beyond the classroom” by Daniel de Vise; Washington Post; Feb 15, 2012)

                Is it possible to teach using lecture and significant student participation?  Harvard professor, Eric Mazur has developed an interactive teaching technique called peer instruction, in which the lecture is broken into chunks. Between topics, Mazur poses questions and students work together to answer them. (de Vise)  George Washington biologist, Hartmut Doebel, likewise has developed an interactive lecture style whereby groups of 6 students at a time analyze aspects of the lecture material in short spurts.  Doebel does feel that the lecture has its place and that it will never go away completely.

                I agree with Doebel that the lecture has its place, but that it can be combined with significant interaction. What I like to do is to use a form of advance organizer, and role play in combination with my lecturing.  Hence, let’s assume that I’m teaching about the chronology of the Arab-Israeli Conflict.  I will divide the students into groups of 4, with two of the students being Jews and two being Palestinians.   I will lecture on the 1947 UN Partition Plan of Palestine for 15 minutes, for example, and after doing so, I’ll give the students 5 – 7 minutes to discuss the UN plan in character.  Eventually, when we learn the issue in greater complexity, I might have groups of 6 with Jews and Palestinians of various persuasions, discussing other controversial aspects of the chronology. 

                What I like about this format is:

• students have to stay alert, and learn the information so that they can participate in the mini-discussions with their group mates
• students are more likely to internalize the info presented to them if they are in a scenario where they have to identify with a particular point of view, as they listen to the lecture
• students can ask questions of their group member if they are unclear about something
• students can be corrected by their group mates.  For example, if a Palestinian thinks they are Jewish, it will be corrected early on, and therefore they’ll be better able to understand the next part of the chronology

                Perhaps you’d like to share your thoughts on the benefits and costs of lecturing in high school Social Studies courses.  Where do you stand in regard to whether high school teachers are obliged to prepare their HS students for college lectures, assisting them in expanding their attention spans and their note taking?

                Note:  I found the following web site interesting in that it lists many ways of making lectures more participatory:                  http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/html/icb.topic58474/TFTlectures.html