Articles tagged with remediation

Lessons on college remediation everyone can learn from

I just completed a package of stories with my colleague on the renewed push for better, more rigorous science, technology, engineering, and math instruction in schools (look for it in our October edition). And right there, from the start was an issue I made sure to cover in one of my pieces: what happens to the majority of students for whom just grasping the basic concepts of math is challenging enough.

Because the majority of reports issued lately have all cried for more advanced and diverse classroom material  in the race to stay competitive with the rest of the world. Little is devoted to the fact that most people struggle with math, as kids and as adults.

I don’t want to give away the whole story (you really should check out our October issue), but I ended up talking to a guy named Mark Koester, who believes that true mastery of a subject, in this case math, started (and could be no more) than just a solid grounding in the basic concepts. 

Last year, Koester, a math teacher and instructional leader in suburban Denver, proposed and then led a new class that brought students who had either failed or struggled in ninth-grade math up to speed, while teaching them the new material they needed to know in 10th-grade. He accomplished this Herculean feat in part by having the students for 100 minutes every school day.  But he also did it by recognizing that not every student was the same. 

This principle was reinforced by a recent editorial in the Chronicle of Higher Education. The writer, UCLA Professor Mike Rose, argued that college remediation courses needed remeditation themselves. These programs, he said, should be as varied and offer as many contexts for relearning the material as the people who signed up to take them.
(more…)

Naomi Dillon|August 10th, 2009|Categories: Leading Source, Student Achievement|Tags: |

Failed test, failed system. Minnesota ponders ditching exit exam

I’ve never really agreed with the practice among some states and districts to hinge a student’s diploma on one graduation test. Not all students are able to demonstrate their mastery of a subject through written tests. Some need a variety of methods to show what they’ve learned.

So it was with some  acceptance that I read about a proposal currently wending its way through Minnesota legislature that would allow juniors who failed the state’s graduation test to move on and receive their diploma any way.

I said “some” acceptance.

Because while the proposed bill prevents exactly what I dislike most about one-size-fits-all assessments, it doesn’t seem to offer another valid and acceptable alternative to gauge student learning.  

Sure, the bill has some provisions: students have to retake the failed test at least twice, take remediation classes, and meet other graduation requirements, but the bill’s author makes me question the authenticity of these measures.

“Frankly, until we get things right in our K-12 system, I’d rather move kids forward … than kick them to the streets without a diploma,” Rep. Carlos Mariani, D-St. Paul, told the Pioneer Press. I imagine, Mariani pitched the bill, because last year only 35 percent of students passed the math portion of the test.

So, it’s move ‘em up or move ‘em out?

That should never be a choice educators have to make—though I’m sure there are many who will say that is the reality of public schools today. Still, a sound educational foundation is what every student should leave school with. And diplomas should only be granted when that is true.

“Is it fair to give students a diploma when we know they don’t have the preparation they need?” asked Jim Bartholomew, education policy director at the Minnesota Business Partnership.

Clearly, the answer is no, it’s not fair. The real question is, who is it most unfair to?

Naomi Dillon, Senior Editor

Naomi Dillon|March 16th, 2009|Categories: Assessment, Governance, Leading Source|Tags: , , , , |
Page 1 of 11