PAUSD is reviewing progress on some of its strategic goals on Tuesday Sept 24.
Look toward the end of this board packet for the presentation: Web Link
You can search for "strategic plan", or just skip to page 56.
The thing to notice is that each of the three strategic goals being reviewed is focused on the low scorers (10-15% of our young kids), even though it is not presented that way.
Here are the details.
The first strategic goal is clearly focused on low scorers: 95% of students will be proficient or advanced. The only way to move that metric up is to focus on the 10-15% of kids who are scoring below proficient today.
And the third goal is also clearly focused on low scorers: Reduce the percentage of students not yet proficient by 50%. Couldn't get much clearer than that, focusing on the same set of kids. I don't in fact understand why we have both those metrics.
But the interesting thing is that the second goal is also focused on the same set of kids, even though it doesn't seem it on the surface. The goal is: 85% of kids show a year's progress (or more). Naively you would think this would focus on all levels. Advanced kids need to stay advanced.
But it doesn't. The metric you might think we are measuring, that kids stay at level or move up, is already at or above 85%, for each level. Instead, the metric is defined so that kids who are at the three lowest levels (Basic or below) must move *up* a level, not stay where they are. So low scorers *must* increase their score, while it's okay for the higher scorers to stay as-is. With this version of the metric, only 53% of kids at Basic or below are making a year's progress. So that, of course, is where the focus must be to increase this metric. The kids at the other levels are doing fine by this metric.
At this point, you might think, okay, so we're focusing on the low scorers for this first review. Maybe we'll cover the "high" scorers (85-90% of the district's kids) later? Well, if you look at the Strategic Plan, it's not clear we track any meaningful metrics for all the other kids.
Look at the plan: Web Link
Page 17, which is slide 15 has the metrics.
You can see two of the metrics listed above are covered in the general "differentiated learning" section, even though they are low-scorer metrics. So what's left? Survey metrics addressed at older kids?
If I am reading this properly, we do not have a single objective metric for the vast majority (85-90%) of elementary and middle-school kids who are doing reasonably well in school (Proficient or Advanced). With the majority of kids in fact scoring Advanced, how can this be? Do we feel we are so great at educating these kids, we don't even need to measure it? Or maybe we think they don't really need a great education?
I am very concerned that our district is equating low-scoring with under-performing, and high-scoring with over-performing. That is a grievous mistake. We need to focus on all under-performing kids, equally, regardless of their native ability. All kids have a right to be challenged, and pushed to excel.
More fundamentally, we need to care enough about kids at all levels to set decent metrics and measure how they are doing. Right now, it doesn't look like PAUSD knows, or cares.
If you care, show up at the board meeting on 9/24, or send email to email@example.com
This story contains 633 words.
If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.
If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.