Why would the Voice focus its headline on a group of 58 students out of roughly 1,000 11th graders for the high schools? By definition English Learners (likely still actively enrolled in the English Learners program) would have difficulty meeting an 11th grade standard on tests given in English. Not an excuse, and I'm sure the high schools want to improve, but focusing the story on this group is strange.

Buried lower is the high schools' improvement amongst Latino students (increase from 40% to 55% passing) and low income families (increase from 35% to 51% passing), which was sizeable. Those are much larger demographic groups, and the ones more typically used in "Achievement Gap" analysis.

I'm struck by the comment that the English learner population is the most volatile and there is little information on who they are and where they come from. This implies that reporting that their scores "fell" is an error. The tests from one year to the next are likely two different populations. The reporting suggests that somehow things have worsened. Nothing got worse; it just was different from one year to the next. And last year is probably not the right reference point for this year.

I'd suggest that we revisit our model of when and how education actually happens. We keep pouring resources into the classroom, as if education was something teachers "did to" students during the school day. Education today is more complex, and more diffused. The role of family, peers, and community are substantial. The role of technology has shifted the whole definition of the 'teacher'; any student has more information accessible from their phone than any teacher could possibly master...if they have a phone, and if they know how to use it.

I'm also dismayed that we continue to think of education solely as mastery of content. If we were to measure commitment to learning, curiosity about learning new topics, or mastery of how to learn, we might discover that we're been putting our focus in the wrong place. And where is it written that every kid should be proficient by the 11th grade? Would it be such a crime if they learned at their best rate, in their best style? I'm not surprised that students "may not be taking the testing seriously". It's rigid and punitive. And that's no way to be treating our kids.

The headline was definitely sensationalizing and it took until the 7th paragraph before the "only reasonable explanation" that the English learners with low scores comprise only 58 students of unknown background or longevity in the system. That's a huge explanation, and completely negated the whole first half of the story for me!

So, maybe RTI works in Castro, but what happened at Huff, Landels, Stevenson and Theuerkauf? Thought those schools were on the rise? If those schools were strong before RTI, is what happened last year a reflection of teaching or programming issues? Yikes. This year they now have RTI, but how do they track that to test gains? I'm confused.

In fact, when "English learners" learn enough English, they are moved out of that category. So it is ridiculous to point to low English scores in this constantly shifting group as evidence of a problem. The fact that there are so few kids in the category despite all the international students in Mountain View should be held up as evidence that the schools are doing a great job.

What happened to RTI? Good question. Castro was only one of 4 elementary schools that I voted to spend $$ on trying RTI "pilot programs" (in the past definition of pilot as not all students and not all schools :). The MVWSD is lax, as usual, in performing statistical tests on it's academic pilot programs, There is no Student's T Test statistic on if RTI made a statistically significant difference in the FOUR SCHOOLS. You really should not cherry pick 'good outcomes' for public policy discussions/decisions (Sorry Dr. Rudolph - it is not apparent that you have research PhD experience from this episode of your leadership).

Last year there was not RTI at H, L, S (was at TH). It is now a $1 1/2 million per year program at all schools - but is is definitely 'all students' and not Targeted at the LCFF "Target" students that are the GAP students that MVWSD is now nationally infamous for underserving. A Mind is a Terrible Thing to waste. I'm mad at Ellen Wheeler, longest serving Trustee - for not realizing that this is not Fake News / Fake Academic Data. The GAP is real, huge, and that's the unfortunate TRUTH in the data (year after year).

SN is a retired Trustee of the MVWSD

(Oct 19th MVWSD report on English Language Learners) I'm sure Voice will report on this in their next edition. I was pleasantly impressed with the step-up in data munching. It was also interesting to see current ELL and Reclassification tied to 'possible' new K-3 programs and NUMERICAL comparisons made to those programs /at local districts / in schools with comparable demographics. There is also some mindset change - data in % achievement for comparisons - but actual # of students for Focus On The TARGET Students. In particular, those at the center of the TARGET, Long Term (more than 6 years) who haven't yet been Reclassified as academically fluent in English.

It makes a compelling story of data driven/hardheaded comparison Benchmarking/ curriculum policy change that I'm sure Kevin will make into a good read.

I hope there is an achievement GAP between rich kids who speak English and poor kids who don't. Don't close the gap. Raise them all up. Easier said than done.

there will always be an achievement gap. Like there will always be a variations in height. The goal is to strive to provide every child with the resources and environment to achieve the level they are capable of.