We have picked our battle, not only for our children, but for every child in this district.  This quote is exactly why we won’t stop our efforts until behaviors matter at least as much as proficiency!

"Many things we need can wait. The child cannot. Now is the time his bones are formed, his mind developed. To him we cannot say tomorrow, his name is today."
— Gabriela Mistral

A Picture Worth 10,000 Words

Preparing for a Lifetime of Underachievement

My Deep Concerns about Hillsboro’s Implementation of the Proficiency-Based Teaching & Learning Model

By Tami Miller, High School French Teacher, Hillsboro Education Association

Published in Today’s OEA Magazine, Feb. 2012, Vol. 86, Number 3

The implementation of the Proficiency-Based Teaching and Learning (PBTL) model, which eliminates behaviors and focuses solely on the demonstration of proficiency, is the current trend among school districts and state education departments. The model is intended to “close the achievement gap” and reduce the number of high school dropouts, based on the assumption that students are capable of achieving proficiency in the absence of consequences.

What child would automatically produce these behaviors in the absence of direct consequences?  Would yours?  Would you?

The education system is a microcosm of society in that it reflects the values of its people. It grooms our children to become citizens who disseminate these values. There was a time when the American dream embodied the quintessential hard-working individual who never quit, who continued to work against all odds. The sense of accomplishment was all the greater for the level of work that was required to attain it. We bragged about the difficulty, and the volume of work required to surpass the target. Doing more than what was believed to be necessary was a habit, and produced greater than imagined outcomes.

As a result of proficiency-based teaching and learning, students in the Hillsboro school district will be robbed of this part of the American dream. Even if they assiduously apply themselves, yet miss the mark, they will receive no compensation (i.e. grade) for their work. It’s presumptuous to assume that a child will automatically produce a Herculean or even consistent effort in the absence of any immediate and measurable reward. The Olympic spirit of great effort, dedicated to perfecting a skill over an extended period of time, to be tested in a singular moment with no opportunity for retakes has no place in the Proficiency model.

In contrast, proficiency reflects the values of the generation raised on American Idol and the lottery. The idea of earning one’s grade has been replaced by instantaneous gratification.  Proficiency grading and the No Zero Policy for assignments never attempted, fit nicely with the value of “something for nothing.” Why earn it, when it can be given, free of work, responsibility, and the effort that reflects learning? Proficiency fits nicely with the belief that the easiest path composed of the least effort is the one of choice.

What value have we conveyed to our children by telling them that their only task throughout the course of their formal education is to “meet the standard?” 

The Oregon Governor’s 40-40-20 plan reflects the ongoing concern of eliminating the dropout rate and guaranteeing a diploma of some kind to all Oregonians because of its association with economic success and employment. The Proficiency model adopted by our district panders to this proposal by bestowing more diplomas through the elimination of the kinds of dropouts derived from daily accountability. 

Those who believe in the efficacy of this model forget that those who drop out, do so for the same reasons that will make it difficult to remain employed. We have only exacerbated their potential for post-high school failure by giving up on the hope that we can instill the behaviors that make for a good employee in their K-12 education.

Proficiency as a single element in the learning process is useful, but should not be the scaffolding from which all else is derived. The scaffolding should be built on the values that form the whole child, and that produce the strategies used to accomplish a task or to learn a skill.  If we reward these behaviors, they will be reproduced until they’ve become habits.  Once inculcated, these behaviors and habits will produce outcomes that are not limited by a standard, but will surpass it, given the growth orientation that is being instilled. 

We have an opportunity to question the efficacy of this model in light of what we believe a school district’s responsibility is to the children and families who reside therein.  We have an opportunity to be integral in creating the kind of citizen that will one day run this country.  Meeting the prevailing standard is not worth the cost of instilling the values required by every university and employer, and on which this nation was built.  Where we stand in this process will impact the future of our students.

The Real Issues

Here are the most important issues:

All of our children have been affected by this policy, and if they have not yet, they will be.   Our children's GPAs are being affected and they are not acquiring the academic skills needed to learn, to be successful, and to persevere. 

One of the issues with Policy IK is how balanced grading is calculated and the variability of the grading scale.  The process of determining a grade is not uniform throughout the district, including the use of grading scales by teachers.  This is causing confusion among teachers, students and parents.   Teachers are literally having to convert their grades to fit into the new grading system, which is causing calculation errors, and grades are being lost in translation.  The teachers were not provided training on balanced grading, and Hillsboro School District currently has no software to help support teachers in this type of grading.  Teachers are having to manually convert all of their assessments turned in by a student.  In other words, the reporting of our students grades are not accurate, valid and reliable.   If you read IK-AR, zeros were to be eliminated from being averaged into the final grade.  There is confusion throughout the district on the use of zeros and I's. In some cases, students are being given partial credit for work that was never turned in, completed, or that would have ordinarily received a failing grade, which also gives the parent and the student the belief that they have mastered a skill set when they have not. 

Policy IK has demotivated students to do their homework or "formative" assessments. Students do not see the value of doing their homework when it has so little value (10%) towards their final grade. Because of this, students are not doing their homework, and therefore not passing summative assessments, which ultimately means that students are not meeting the standards. Since formative assessments are not being completed, there is no feedback to help teachers assess where a student is at. Students are not provided an opportunity to be retaught the subject matter. Furthermore, students are not taking the opportunity to retake summative assessments, and are choosing to keep the failing grade. As the teachers and parents have stated, this policy has removed all "leverage." If this policy moves to 100% summative, this issue will only be exacerbated.  Please note that this policy does not require that teachers allow a student to retake any "formative" or "summative" assessment.

Students are losing "life skills" or "student skills" with this policy. They will not be prepared for post-secondary education or the workforce. There are professors of colleges and universities that will not accept a late assignment (assessment), may mark down late assignments (assessment), require participation as part of a grade, or simply provide tests focused primarily on the lecture given in class and not just what is provided in the text of a book. The students of this district will not be equipped to succeed at any post-secondary education or have the work ethic to succeed in the workforce. 

This policy has no criteria for measuring non-academic behaviors or for providing consequences to students for behaviors, such as turning in a formative or summative assessment late. There currently is no criteria for measuring or reporting a student's behavior throughout the district.   The district does not even have the software to report and assess non-academic behaviors. 

There are issues with the number and variety of summative assessments being provided to students, and what constitutes a summative assessment. There is not consistency among teachers, subjects and grade levels on the implementation of this policy.   

This district requires that all teachers use high quality research based curriculum, yet their research on this policy does not meet these standards.  They failed to train their teachers on this policy.  They have failed at informing parents.  They are failing every child in this district. 

This policy (and its AR) need to be repealed now; yesterday was too late.  When a ship is sinking, you pull it into harbor (repeal it) to fix it -- you don't keep plugging holes while our kids are on board.  Let's set sail on the one we know works.  Anything less than repeal will not be acceptable.  

Kesa Andrews

We're growing -- let's keep up the momentum!

Thank you to all who have joined our group.  Our numbers are growing daily!  Please continue to pass the word to your friends and family so that we continue to grow.  The district feels the pressure to repeal this every time we have another person join the effort.  Your comments and support really do make a difference!

A Little History

In March of 2010, Policy IK was revised to the new and current grading system, which essentially states as follows:

    Student's performance is to be reported in two ways, separately:

    1.    Individual academic achievement based on a variety of assessment methods and are summative in nature;

    2.    Evaluation of student behaviors and other nonacademic facts that may influence academic achievement. 

 

In June of 2011, IK-AR (Administrative Rule) was revised and is the tool to implement the new grading policy.   

    

    2010-2011:     Implement balanced grading

    2011-2012:    Academic Practice (ie: formative=homework) grades may count for a maximum of 10% of the grade. Academic Practice is a fancier way of saying homework, but is referenced by the district also as a "formative" assessment.

Academic Achievement (ie:  summative =tests, projects, term papers, etc.) must count for a minimum of 90% of the grade.  Academic Achievement is also known as "summative" assessments.

"Nonacademic behaviors" (ie: late work) that could affect grade are not to exceed 10% of the grade

    2012-2013:    Academic Achievement (ie: summative=tests, projects, etc.) must count for 100% of the grade

Welcome!

This page is for parents concerned about the Hillsboro School District’s adoption and implementation of “Policy IK” which addresses grading practices at the secondary level (middle and high school).  Pieces of this policy include “balanced grading” and class grades being 90% “summative” (tests, quizzes, projects) and only 10% “formative” (homework, assignments). Next year the district plans to make grades 100% summative based. 

The policy has been confusing, inconsistently applied, and poorly communicated.  It is not in the best interest of students.  Our group is asking the district to repeal Policy IK.

There is a very narrow window of time to express to the district our concerns and frustrations with the policy and its implementation.  The district will finalize its “Plan of Action” on this policy and present it at the March 20th, 2012 Board Meeting.   

We need your support in order to get this repealed.  Please join us today.