s/o: DRA thread

[BabyBre]

Dd's (3rd grade) teacher told me today that our principal has instructed the staff NOT to test grades 1-3 any higher than an end-of-3rd-grade level. In other words dd, who has read above a 3rd grade level since kindergarten, won't be tested in reading any higher than her current grade level. She meets standard and that's that. The principal has further instructor the staff to send any parents who push for higher testing directly to him!

Does anyone know something I don't know about the DRA program? Why on earth (besides my indoctrination conspiracy theories, of course ;) ) would a school administrator forbid accurate placement testing? I would think they would want the higher reading scores on record.

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

My theory: They don't care about the students. They just want to show that they are performing the the level they've set for themselves. (School administrators, not necessarily teachers) I don't know. I don't understand why it's so difficult to teach to the actual level of the students. Kids are so bright and eager to learn. What a shame that we waste their time with ridiculous fluff.

[Momling]

My guess is that the purpose of the testing is to screen for kids who need extra help with their reading. If your daughter clearly is a great reader and doesn't need any reading instruction, does it really matter what 'grade level' she reads at? And anyway... isn't the idea of a 'grade level' for reading pretty artificial to begin with?

[Shay]

That is interesting, BreAnn. I can only think of a couple reasons (and they may be "far" out there). Perhaps it is for time constraints? Perhaps he thinks the staff has been registering the kids at too high of a level? (And their DIBEL scores aren't that great)? So, there is a discrepancy? I dunno.

It seems strange that the principal seemed to anticipate parents questioning this. That makes me think you have either very involved parents or some dissatisfied ones. I'm always interested in the strange ps/DRA happenings. Maybe you can go ask and let us know. :bigear:

[Pippen]

Dd's (3rd grade) teacher told me today that our principal has instructed the staff NOT to test grades 1-3 any higher than an end-of-3rd-grade level. In other words dd, who has read above a 3rd grade level since kindergarten, won't be tested in reading any higher than her current grade level. She meets standard and that's that. The principal has further instructor the staff to send any parents who push for higher testing directly to him!

? I would think they would want the higher reading scores on record.

I bet it all boils down to money. Legally they are responsible for educating students to the level of "meets expectations" and no further. Our elementary school made a lot of noise about individualizing instruction in reading but what that really meant is that the lower performing students received a lot of individualized instruction while the higher level students were in a literature group that read two novels at their level, and beyond that it was just lip service.

I noticed 3 years ago that the tide had changed at a parent teacher conference when the teacher was speaking about my normally A level student. She pointed to the B in one of his classes and said "He's doing really well. He's meeting expectations."

[lgm]

>>Why on earth (besides my indoctrination conspiracy theories, of course ;) ) would a school administrator forbid accurate placement testing? I would think they would want the higher reading scores on record.

DRA is not the record that counts here...the score that counts is the one on the state grade level LA exam. When state testing first came in, the majority of students in the small, above grade level reading groups did not test at the mastery level on their state exams. One really would have expected that if they truly were above grade level readers, given the ease of the exam. The decision was made to put them all in one reading group and change the instruction so that they would master the grade level goals. So..no point in getting a DRA level - it's not needed.


DRA is not a secure test. A child that is coached to give answers in the preferred format can score much higher than one that isn't, even though the uncoached may be a better reader overall. Also, I found with my child, in the days when children were tested to their instructional level, a child would become familiar with the passages and inform the teacher that they had done that test last year and the year before and start spillin' the answers before the questions came.

[Shay]

I think lgm "hit the nail on the head" with all points raised.

Yes, a child who has already had the tests and are familiar with them can start spitting out answers. I've tutored side-by-side two struggling kids. They both scored "2" on the DRA. One child did not yet know letter sounds, and the other was reading CVC and some blend words quite well. The child who *was* reading has a language disorder (expressive, I believe), therefore he had trouble expressing the retell, etc. But clearly, these two were *not* on the same level as they tested out.

[LandMmom]

I agree with Pippen - it all boils down to NCLB. The schools have to meet minimum requirements, which (IMO) means that the advanced kids get left out. It's not "necessary" to teach these kids...
Seems to me that excellence is being ignored and neglected. :cursing:

[Shay]

I have no problem with students who are struggling getting individualized attention when they are behind. I sometimes think NCLB has gotten a bad rap, when instead it is how the educational system has "reacted" to it. At the present time, I have sort of a love/hate relationship with NCLB. I understand that the underpinnings and intentions of NCLB were to create a situation of providing educational justice. But did that happen?

Children were (and are) being taught with educational fads when there were (and are) proven programs that were (and still are) virtually ignored. Children were (and still are) therefore pushed off in to special education. NCLB required schools to use scientifically research-based practices. Problem is, most people in charge of choosing and implementing instruction don't know all that much about instructional design and effectiveness (based on real research) and then go for stuff that doesn't work all that well. And, any program can say "research-based" (including the DRA). Being "research-based has come to mean nothing. The teachers then get the blame, the kids who aren't learning (and their parents) get the blame. The kids who are gifted get ignored.....

My children are gifted and in the public schools, and I do know where LandMmom is coming from. There does need to be balance. But, I've also been in the trenches trying to help these kids who are struggling and I hoped NCLB would cause schools to use proven programs. Since they still want to subscribe to constructivist practices, they don't get the results they want. They then get desperate and "teach to the test" rather than a proven program starting in kindergarten. Teachers and everyone are stressed.

As far as the school wanting to "meet minimum requirements," I will say that schools where I am look closely at each other's scores and definitely want better than those around. They don't really just want to reach the minimum, but want as many kids as possible to meet and exceed proficiency. Problem is, "how to make that happen?" This is where it breaks down, IMHO.

I also agree that it seems that the kids on both ends of the spectrum....the gifted on one and the kids with learning problems on the other....are getting the short end of the stick. But, I don't think that was the intention of NCLB, but rather how the educational world has reacted to the requirements that has created the mess.

[lgm]

I can't agree that my district is totally ignoring the needs of advanced readers. Since state testing came in, the advanced group has gone from 2 or 3 40 min periods of instruction per week to everyday 40 min period of instruction. About 5% are showing mastery (compared to 15% statewide), which means they are either privately tutored, or truly above grade level. The rest simply haven't mastered all the skills for the grade level - I suspect that the restriction of using whole class everyday instruction means that a large minority are getting practice in skills they've already mastered, while skills they need are going unaddressed. My district is now attempting to do comprehensive LA assessments via a McGraw Hill product, hoping it will help them more quickly figure out who needs what skills. Large public schools are a long way away from figuring out who needs what as they are prodded away from the babysit & social promote scheme. The day I see a classroom teacher actually help an unclassified child on the spot instead of wait until they are far behind in order to refer the child to RtI is the day I will look again to see if progress has been made. In the meantime, afterschooling it is!

[BabyBre]

That is interesting, BreAnn. I can only think of a couple reasons (and they may be "far" out there). Perhaps it is for time constraints? Perhaps he thinks the staff has been registering the kids at too high of a level? (And their DIBEL scores aren't that great)? So, there is a discrepancy? I dunno.

It seems strange that the principal seemed to anticipate parents questioning this. That makes me think you have either very involved parents or some dissatisfied ones. I'm always interested in the strange ps/DRA happenings. Maybe you can go ask and let us know. :bigear:


There have been some developments in my DRA saga. I've discovered that it's not our principal who's forbidding higher level reading testing, but the school district. This is much worse! One man I may have been able to deal with, but this implies there's an entire school board that's signed on to this policy. However, I wouldn't expect much more from this board. Every school board meeting I attend sends me home a little more shocked and anxious about what they're doing in our schools.

Anyway, our principal surprised me by allowing my dc's teachers to use the old assessment program (QRI) to test my kids, but only because I requested it. He's such a rules man, I wouldn't think he'd agree to that, so for that I'm thankful.

The reason he's given for the district's policy is that, for example, if dd(3rd gr) were to take the 4th grade test (or however high she goes) and not pass it, then that level test is skewed for her next year. Sounds like a flawed program to me.

Dd's teacher (whom I love and adore more and more every day!) said she was happy to see the QRI program go, but DRA isn't much better. She's very frustrated over the whole thing because she has other students she'd like to test as well, but principal says only if the parents request it.