Here is a synopsis of the English 10 situation at West HS.
Currently — having failed to receive any reply from BOE Performance and Achievement Committee Chair Shwaw Vang to our request that he investigate this matter and provide an opportunity for public discussion — we are trying to get BOE President Carol Carstensen to put a discussion of the English 10 proposal (and the apparent lack of data supporting its implementation) on the agenda for a BOE meeting.  Aside from the fact that there is serious doubt that the course, as proposed, will meet the educational needs of the high and low end students, it is clear we are witnessing yet another example of school officials making radical curricular changes without empirical evidence that they will work and without open, honest and respectful dialogue with the community.
As the bumper sticker says, “If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention!”

Chronology with emails follows below:

11/7/2005: West PTSO meeting, where the plans for English 10 were first introduced. A video of the English 10 portion of the meeting (along with additional background information) may be found here:

11/9/2005: After hearing from two independent sources who attended the 11/8 West faculty meeting that West Principal Ed Holmes represented the parents who attended the previous night’s PTSO meeting as very supportive of the English 10 proposal, I write Mr. Holmes a forceful, clarifying letter.

Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 08:15:05 -0600
To: eholmes@madison.k12.wi.us
From: “Laurie A. Frost”
Subject: English at West HS
Cc: pnash@madison.k12.wi.us,arainwater@madison.k12.wi.us,wkeys@madison.k12.wi.us,lkobza@boardmanlawfirm.com,robarts@execpc.com,ccarstensen@madison.k12.wi.us,jlopez@madison.k12.wi.us,svang7@madison.k12.wi.us,jwinstonjr@madison.k12.wi.us
Dear Ed,
I have it on very good authority that you misrepresented Monday night’s PTSO meeting at your full faculty meeting yesterday. It is not clear if this was a matter of positive spin, selective inattention, or willful calculation. Yes, parents were calm, well-behaved and non-combative, and they tried to compliment the good they saw in the proposed curriculum. There are some great books on the list (though someone has since pointed out that most are by male authors), plus we appreciate the goal of integrating the writing assignments with the literature being read. As I see it, though, our good behavior speaks to our respectfulness and willingness to collaborate, not to our support of the plan as presented.
More specifically, I would estimate that approximately 80%, possibly more, of the parent comments Monday night were not positive and accepting of the plans for English 10 as they currently stand. Almost every parent who spoke expressed concern about how the plan does not meet the needs of the students of high ability and enthusiasm in language arts. There was also concern that the curriculum is not a good match for students who struggle with reading. Parents were very critical of the details of the proposed honors designation and pessimistic about its effectiveness and success. You were asked several times to consider creating an honors section of English 10 in each SLC. (Same for English 9 and Accelerated Biology.) Why? Because, as parents pointed out, most any literary work can be taught at a wide range of levels, depending on the teacher and the students. Put another way, a student’s experience of rigor, high expectation and intellectual stimulation in a class depends on the level, quality, depth and pace of the conversation in the room; and that, in turn, depends on who is in the room. There are very real limits on the number of grade levels across which even a masterful teacher can teach. It is also unfair to ask students who simply want to have their educational needs met to give up two lunch periods per week, along with the opportunity to participate in school clubs and other activities. That would not be necessary if the appropriate level of rigor were provided in their classroom experience.
Please stop the plans to implement the English 10 core as it was presented on Monday night until there has been a thoroughgoing, community-wide discussion about it and until you provide hard data — from West and from the research literature — that support it. (Note: this includes the recent report written by the SLC evaluator, Bruce King.) Otherwise, you risk alienating a large segment of the West community and hastening the “bright flight” that has already begun in our attendance area. (Did you know that almost one-third of the approximately 70 parents who attended the meeting were parents of elementary and middle school students in the West attendance area who are watching these developments very closely?)
Laurie Frost
Here is a link to a more complete report on what transpired at the West PTSO meeting on 11/7:
https://www.schoolinfosystem.org/archives/2005/11/report_from_wes.php
A videotape of the portion of the meeting dealing with the English 10 proposal will posted on schoolinfosystem asap.

11/9/2005: I request a copy of the report written by SLC Evaluator Bruce King that someone mentioned at the 11/7 PTSO meeting. I am told by West Principal Ed Holmes that the report is a “confidential” and a “draft.”

Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 09:49:28 -0600
To: eholmes@madison.k12.wi.us,hlott@madison.k12.wi.us
From: TAG Parents
Subject: SLC report request
Cc: arainwater@madison.k12.wi.us,pnash@madison.k12.wi.us,csherrod@madison.k12.wi.us
This is a formal request for a copy (electronic, if possible, perhaps as an attachment) of SLC evaluator Bruce King’s recent report on the progress of the SLC initiative at West HS.
Please send this report as soon as possible, as time is of the essence. If it is easier for you, I would be happy to pick up a hard copy in the West HS office. Just let me know by email or phone call (238-6375) and I will drop by.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Laurie Frost
_____________________________________________
Madison TAG Parents
Email: tagparents@yahoogroups.com
###
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.2
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 13:42:52 -0600
From: “Ed Holmes”
To: “Heather Lott” ,
Cc: “Art Rainwater” ,
“Clarence Sherrod” ,
“Pam Nash” Subject: Re: SLC report request
X-Spam-Flag: Unchecked
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.41
X-RCPT-TO:
Dear TAG Parents,
The document you have requested is a confidential draft that was sent
to me by our Smaller Learning Communities Grant Evaluator, Bruce King.
Clearly the front cover of the document says DRAFT and CONFIDENTIAL. I
want to be clear that it is Bruce King who has requested that this
information be kept confidential and that I will be honoring his
request.
Bruce King is currently working on an Executive Summary that will
outline his findings regarding establishment of the 10th Grade English
course at West. That document will be distributed to anyone interested
in reviewing his evaluative statement regarding the merits of the
process and the plans for implementation of the course.
As soon as I recieve the aforementioned document I will be happy to
pass it on to you.
Thank you for your ongoing interest in this important curriculum review
process.
Ed Holmes, Principal
West High School
_____________________________________________
Madison TAG Parents
Email: tagparents@yahoogroups.com

11/14/2005: After several days of investigation and writing to the proper District authorities, I obtain a copy of the SLC report from MMSD Attorney Clarence Sherrod. https://www.schoolinfosystem.org/archives/2005/11/evaluation_of_t.php
11/14/2005: I re-send to West Principal Ed Holmes the list of questions that several of us submitted to him and West English Department Chair Keesia Hyzer before the 11/7 PTSO meeting because most of the questions were not answered at the meeting. (Note: I have yet to receive a reply and we have yet to receive answers, studies or data.)

Note: These questions were first sent on 11/3 — several days before the PTSO meeting — and again on 11/14. “Kathy” is West PTSO President Kathy Riddiough.
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 09:38:15 -0600
To: eholmes@madison.k12.wi.us,ricciridd@tds.net
From: “Laurie A. Frost”
Subject: Questions for 11/7 PTSO meeting
Cc: pnash@madison.k12.wi.us
Hello, Kathy and Ed. Below are the questions a group of us submitted before last week’s PTSO meeting. It seems to us that Questions 5, 8, 13 and 15 were answered, Question 10 was addressed by parents only (and constituted the bulk of the Q and A), but the rest were not addressed at all. Many of the parents who were present at the meeting would appreciate having the answers to the remaining questions asap.
We are especially interested in seeing West HS data that indicate the need for the structural/curricular change being proposed and West HS data and empirical studies from the education literature that indicate the likely success of the proposed change in addressing the problem. Please include, in particular, the studies you believe best indicate the effectiveness of heterogeneous grouping for educating well the full range of high school students.
We would also like to know what will be happening — and when (there is some urgency, after all) — to continue the dialogue that has only barely begun by the West administration and the parents of the children who will be affected by this change.
Thanks for your timely attention to this matter.
Respectfully,
Laurie Frost
I. Questions about 10th grade English
1) What are the West HS data that indicate there is a problem with the current system for 10th grade English?
2) What are the data that suggest the solution being proposed (i.e., a standardized, homogeneous curriculum delivered in completely heterogeneous classes) will fix the problem? (Are there empirical studies you can tell us about?)
3) What are the data that indicate all students’ educational needs will be well served by the proposed solution? (Again, are there empirical studies you can tell us about?)
4) What are the data that indicate no students will be harmed or poorly served by the proposed solution? (And again — empirical studies?)
5) If the 10th grade English core is implemented, will some English electives be dropped from the course offerings? If so, which ones?
6) Will advanced students be allowed to “test out” or be “teacher-recommended out” of the 10th grade English core? If so, when would this happen? When they register for their 10th grade classes? At the end of 9th grade? At the beginning of 10th grade? In between semesters in 10th grade? Some or all of these times?
7) Will you extend this option to advanced 9th graders and allow them to “test out” or be “teacher-recommended out” of 9th grade English? (It is our understanding that this used to be allowed.)
8) Would you consider keeping the current system in place and adding the new curriculum as an additional elective for those students for whom it is a good educational match?
9) Will the grant be jeopardized or lost if you do not implement a homogeneous 10th grade English core? (If you are not sure, would you be willing to check into it and get back to us?)
10) We fear that the plan to offer an honors designation in 10th grade English that requires two lunchtime meetings per week is likely doomed to failure for the following reasons: a) it seems highly unlikely that students who have just endured a year of required “freshman resource time” during their lunch hour will be willing to give up two-fifths of their hard-earned midday freedom as sophomores; b) the plan puts having an honors distinction (which is really not the point — having an appropriately challenging curriculum and the opportunity to learn with similar-ability peers is the point) in direct competition with participation in clubs and other activities that meet during lunchtime; c) the plan forces students to choose between more academics and social time or “down” time. Because so many reasons for students not to choose the honors option are being built into the plan, we feel the plan is likely to fail and that you will then use that as justification for discontinuing the option due to “lack of interest.” Would you please comment on our concerns? What are your thoughts about the potential success or failure of the proposed honors designation, as it is currently defined?
11) Who conceived of the proposal to restructure sophomore English by eliminating electives and implementing a standardized curriculum to be delivered in heterogeneous classrooms (i.e., what are their names, please)?
12) Were District TAG staff included or consulted in the development of this proposal?
13) Who is developing the 10th grade English core curriculum (again, what are their names, please)?
14) Were District TAG staff included or consulted in the development of the new curriculum?
15) What is the process the group is using to develop the English 10 core curriculum?
II. General — but nevertheless relevant — questions
16) Would you please explain to us the difference between “tracking” and “flexible ability grouping”?
17) Would you please share with us your understanding of the research on ability grouping?
III. SLC questions
18) What were the West HS data that were used to justify the need for a change this drastic at West?
19) What were the data and studies that were used to justify the selection of this particular smaller high schools model for West?
20) Whose idea was the SLC initiative originally? That is, what is the name of the person who conceived of the idea in the very beginning?
21) What are the specific outcome measures that are being used to assess the impact of the SLC initiative?
_____________________________________________
Madison TAG Parents
Email: tagparents@yahoogroups.com

11/18/2005: Several West HS attendance area parents meet with Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools Pam Nash. We discuss many important issues pertaining to the English 10 plan and request data and empirical studies that support what is being done at West.
11/20/2005: I send Pam Nash a follow-up email of thanks, reinforcing our request for West and MMSD data — as well as empirical studies — that support the implementation of English 10 and the move towards heterogeneous classes in our middle and high schools. I include the list of talking points that our group generated before our meeting with her because we did not get to all of them in our meeting. (Note: I have yet to receive a reply and we have yet to receive answers, studies or data.)

Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 23:10:50 -0600
To: pnash@madison.k12.wi.us
From: “Laurie A. Frost”
Subject: thanks, and more …
Dear Pam,
Thanks so much for taking the time to meet with us on Friday to discuss the matter of English 10 and related issues at West HS. We greatly appreciated your time, your honesty, your patience and your perspective. We would very much like to continue the dialogue with you as things unfold at West in the coming weeks and months. I am happy to continue as your contact or “point person” for the group.
As a follow-up to our meeting, I cannot overstate parents’ interest in seeing both West HS data and empirical studies from the education literature that support the District’s increasing use of a homogeneous curriculum delivered in completely heterogeneous classrooms at both the middle and high school level. We want to know more about the research base that the Administration is using as the empirical foundation for this reform, as well as about the evidence from within the MMSD that attests to its effectiveness for all students.
We came on Friday with several talking points, but didn’t get to all of them. I’ve pasted in the entire list below. If you have thoughts to share about any of the ones that didn’t come up in our meeting, please feel free to respond.
Again, thanks so much for taking the time to start a dialogue with us.
Sincerely,
Laurie
Talking points for 11/18 meeting with Pam Nash
1. The SLC report makes it clear that English 9 – a standardized curriculum delivered in completely heterogeneous classes – hasn’t had the desired effect on the achievement gap at West, on the English 9 failure rates for certain groups of West students, or on the participation rates in the more challenging English electives of those same students. It thus makes no sense to us to expand the approach into 10th grade English. The first order of business should be to understand why English 9 is not working as hoped, and fix it.
2. The English 10 course – as currently planned – is a set up for failure for struggling and low achieving students for whom the reading and writing demands will likely be too great. It is also not fair to expect high performing and highly motivated students to get their need for challenge met during the lunch hour and through extra independent work. Students in honors classes report that the single most important feature of those classes for them is the high level of discussion, a result of who is in the class. Thus, students at the upper and lower most ends of the performance distribution will not be well served by this plan.
3. One way to modify the plan would be to have one honors section and one skills and enrichment section in each of the four SLC’s. Students would self-select into these special sections of English 10 and – in the honors sections – would have to maintain adequate performance in order to remain in the section. The special sections would be less exclusive than, for example, the single section of Accelerated Biology at West because four sections would provide significantly more access for a wider variety of interested students. According to the SLC report, having special sections like this in each SLC is not inconsistent with the SLC model.
4. Such a modified plan would also bring West in line with Madison’s other high schools. East HS, for example, has TAG, AcaMo and regular classes in English, science, and social studies, as well as several different levels of math.
5. Increasing the number of AP classes at West would address another important disparity between our high schools, one that affects the educational opportunities for West’s high performing students. (We hope the AP grant that the MMSD has just received, along with several other Wisconsin school districts, will be used to do this.)
6. In general, the significant differences across our four high schools with regard to how and how well the learning needs of the high performing students are met is of great concern to us. We are concerned about the “bright flight” that is occurring, from one attendance area to another and to neighboring districts.
7. Middleton HS was just named a Blue Ribbon School for its academic excellence by the U.S. Department of Education, one of only two in the state. Middleton HS offers a diversified curriculum in each content area and thus appropriate educational opportunities for students with widely varying interests, abilities, and career aspirations. It seems to us that Middleton understands that “equal” and “equitable” are not the same thing; that equal educational opportunity and heterogeneous grouping are not synonymous.
8. What are the major empirical studies upon which the District’s move towards completely heterogeneous classrooms at both the middle and high school levels is based?
9. Are you aware of the District’s dropout data for the second half of the 1990’s? The data indicate that 27% of the dropouts for that period had a history of high academic achievement and that over half of this high achieving group of dropouts were poor and over 40% of them were minority students. Of the four high schools, West had the largest percentage of formerly high achieving dropouts. How do you understand those data? (I will bring hard copies.)
10. Can you provide us with an update on the plans for Accelerated Biology at West next year?
11. Is there any update since the 11/7 PTSO meeting we should know about?
12. A point about the process — the lack of partnership — the stonewalling — which has become part of the problem. In contrast to the way things have unfolded at West, East had a community-wide meeting last week, at the beginning of their process, and has set up a task force to review high end curriculum.
13. Would we ever keep a talented 9th grade basketball player off of the varsity team? No. We’d celebrate his ability and be excited about having him play varsity for four years. And we wouldn’t worry about hurting the feelings or self-esteem of any less capable or motivated students. Why is this attitude so acceptable in sports, but not in academics?
14. We would like to see honors/accelerated/more rigorous classes throughout the curriculum — e.g., English 9, Accelerated Biology, social studies, etc. Why not one honors section per SLC?
15. What do the data show regarding how (matched samples of) students from Wright, Hamilton and Cherokee do at West? We think much could be learned by taking a look and seeing if there are differences.
Laurie A. Frost, Ph.D.
Isthmus Psychotherapy & Psychiatry
222 South Bedford Street
Madison, WI 53703
(608) 256-6570

11/21/2005: I pen a request to BOE Performance and Achievement Committee Chair Shwaw Vang (copying several other District officials), asking that he obtain the data that forms the basis for a couple of important points in Bruce King’s SLC report, points regarding the apparent failure of English 9 to impact the achievement gap. Several others sign the request. We ask that the data be made public and that the P& A Committee hold a public discussion of the data. Knowing that Mr. Vang doesn’t “do” email, I hand-deliver a copy of my request to him, along with a hard copy of the SLC report. (Note: I have yet to receive a reply from Mr. Vang.)

Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 20:02:40 -0600
To: svang7@madison.k12.wi.us
From: “Laurie A. Frost”
Subject: West HS SLC report — request for examination and public discussion of 9th grade English data
Cc: robarts@execpc.com,wkeys@madison.k12.wi.us,jwinstonjr@madison.k12.wi.us,ccarstensen@madison.k12.wi.us,jlopez@madison.k12.wi.us,lkobza@boardmanlawfirm.com,arainwater@madison.k12.wi.us,pnash@madison.k12.wi.us,talkingoutofschool@isthmus.com,edit@isthmus.com
Dear Shwaw,
We are writing to you in your capacity as Chair of the BOE Performance and Achievement Committee to ask that you address a critical situation currently unfolding at West High School.
Enclosed you will find a copy of a report entitled “Evaluation of the SLC Project at West High School,” written by SLC Evaluator Bruce King and dated November 2, 2005. The report focuses on the West administration’s plans to overhaul 10th grade English.
For many years West sophomores — like West juniors and seniors — have chosen their English courses from an impressive list of electives that range in content and difficulty level. According to the report, the overarching reason for changing the existing system for 10th grade English is the concern that the elective structure contributes to unequal educational opportunities across different student groups. Specifically, there is concern that some groups of students do not sign up for the more rigorous, higher level electives. There is also concern that some West students complete their English credits without taking any literature courses. In essence, the proposal makes 10th grade English a lot like English 9 — a standardized curriculum delivered in heterogeneous classes. The thing is, English 9 has not had the desired effect on these indicators of student achievement.
When you read the report, you will discover that English 9 — which has been in place at West for several years — has not done much to close the gap in achievement in English among West students. Thus the report recommends that “ongoing critical reflection and analysis of both the 9th and 10th grade English courses [is] needed [in order to] address … concerns [such as] the failure rate for 9th grade English and which students are failing [because] it is not clear if a common 9th grade course has helped close the achievement gap” (emphasis added).
The report also states that “in addition, an action research group might be formed to evaluate the 9th grade course, including levels of expectations and differentiation, failure rates by student groups, and the extent to which it has helped or hindered students to take challenging English courses in subsequent years. Apparently, it hasn’t helped some groups of students that much (emphasis added). Why? What needs to be changed so it does, and so the 10th grade course does, as well?”
In a word, we find it unconscionable to think that the West administration would expand a program into the 10th grade that has so clearly failed to achieve its objectives in the 9th grade. We can’t help but suspect that a look at the hard data would convince any reasonable person that the appropriate and responsible course of action, at this juncture, would be to figure out why English 9 hasn’t worked and fix it before making any changes to the 10th grade curriculum.
As Chair of the Performance and Achievement Committee, would you please take responsibility for obtaining from the MMSD Research and Evaluation Department the 9th grade data that goes along with the above statements from the report? Would you also please make these data public and schedule a public discussion of them at a Performance and Achievement Committee meeting?
We must stress to you the time urgency of this matter. At the November 7 West PTSO meeting — when the West administration and English Department first introduced the proposal for English 10 — it was mentioned that the West course catalogue is due at the printer in December. This leaves very little time for the public discussion that should have been an essential element of this curriculum change process. Consequently, we ask that you please obtain the data and hold a public discussion of them immediately.
Many thanks for your prompt attention to this urgent matter.
Respectfully,
Laurie Frost, Jeff Henriques, Larry Winkler, Jim Zellmer, Joan Knoebel, Michael Cullenward, Ed Blume, Kathy Riddiough, Jane Doughty, Janet Mertz, Stephanie Stetson, Nancy Zellmer, Jan Edwards, and Don Severson

11/28/2005: I write a follow-up email to Mr. Vang and his committee members (Ruth Robarts and Bill Keys), asking about the status of our request and stressing the time urgency of the situation. (Note: I have yet to receive a reply from Mr. Vang.)

Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:23:18 -0600
To: svang7@madison.k12.wi.us,wkeys@madison.k12.wi.us,robarts@execpc.com
From: “Laurie A. Frost”
Subject: West HS English 9 data request
Dear Shwaw, Bill and Ruth —
We are wondering about the status of our 11/21 request that the Performance and Achievement Committee obtain the West HS English 9 data that goes along with the comments in the text of Bruce King’s report regarding the course’s failure to impact the student achievement gap at West; make the data public; and hold a Performance and Achievement Committee meeting to discuss it?
The update from our end is that we have not heard from Pam Nash since our 11/18 meeting with her; we still have not heard from Ed Holmes about the answers to those questions we posed to him before the 11/7 PTSO meeting, but that were not answered at the meeting; SLC Evaluator Bruce King held two parent focus groups tonight; there is a 20-minute English Department meeting on Wednesday to discuss which English electives will be discontinued; and we understand English Department Chair Keesia Hyzer is working on an English 10 course catalog description.
Please, time is of the essence. Please get back to us. Please get those data. And please slow down the process that is unfolding at West, even as I write this email.
Laurie
P.S. I heard about yet another West family looking to move further west today.

11/28/2005: I write a follow-up email to Pam Nash, urgently requesting an update on the situation at West. (Note: I have yet to receive a reply from Ms. Nash.)

Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:33:42 -0600
To: pnash@madison.k12.wi.us
From: “Laurie A. Frost”
Subject: update?
Pam,
Is there anything to report on the English 10 situation at West? Any data? Any articles? Any news about follow-up from the West administration or with you?
Parents are getting increasingly agitated again. Although there were two one-hour focus groups held this evening, it’s not clear they were anything more than an opportunity for parents to say their piece — i.e., they felt much like the 11/7 PTSO meeting, in terms of not having any real impact on the process.
That’s in part because we understand that the English Department is having a 20-minute meeting on Wednesday to discuss which electives will be discontinued, and that Keesia Hyzer (English Department chair) is working up an English 10 course catalog description. It appears that everything is proceeding as planned, as if parents had never said a word, as if the SLC report told a glowing success story about English 9.
What’s going on?
Please get back to us asap.
Thanks,
Laurie

11/29/2005: I leave a message on Mr. Vang’s answering machine asking for a status report on our request. (Note: I have yet to receive a reply from Mr. Vang.)
11/30/2005: I receive an email from Bill Keys, essentially a forward of a brief message from Art Rainwater.

X-Apparently-To: lauriefrost@ameritech.net via 68.142.199.141; Wed, 30 Nov 2005 05:49:04 -0800
X-Originating-IP: [199.197.64.10]
Authentication-Results: mta819.mail.scd.yahoo.com
from=madison.k12.wi.us; domainkeys=neutral (no sig)
X-Originating-IP: [199.197.64.10]
X-Sender: wkeys@mail.madison.k12.wi.us
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 07:46:39 -0600
To: “Laurie A. Frost”
From: Bill Keys
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: West HS English 9 data request
Cc: Art Rainwater
X-Spam-Flag: Unchecked
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.41
Laurie,
This is what I intended to send: Art’s response, in bold and italics.
Bill
Mary G, Pam and I met with Bruce King today. Bruce was very clear with us that his report did not say that the ninth grade English class had failed. What he actually said in the report was there was no data to make any kind of judgement about the success of the course. They would need to talk to Bruce about what data he has. My understanding was that he has none.
Art

11/30/2005: I write back to Bill, copying Art Rainwater, Pam Nash, and Mary Gulbrandsen.

Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 12:57:58 -0600
To: wkeys@madison.k12.wi.us
From: “Laurie A. Frost”
Subject: West HS English 9 data request
Cc: arainwater@madison.k12.wi.us,pnash@madison.k12.wi.us,mgulbrandsen@madison.k12.wi.us
Bill —
First, thanks so much for responding and getting involved in this urgent matter.
Second, we have Bruce’s report!
In fact, the following paragraphs from my email request to Shwaw contain verbatim quotes (in bold) from Bruce’s report:
When you read the report, you will discover that English 9 — which has been in place at West for several years — has not done much to close the gap in achievement in English among West students. Thus the report recommends that “ongoing critical reflection and analysis of both the 9th and 10th grade English courses [is] needed [in order to] address … concerns [such as] the failure rate for 9th grade English and which students are failing [because] it is not clear if a common 9th grade course has helped close the achievement gap” (underline added).
The report also states that “in addition, an action research group might be formed to evaluate the 9th grade course, including levels of expectations and differentiation, failure rates by student groups, and the extent to which it has helped or hindered students to take challenging English courses in subsequent years. Apparently, it hasn’t helped some groups of students that much (underline added). Why? What needs to be changed so it does, and so the 10th grade course does, as well?”
Speaking as a well-trained social scientist with that whole other career behind me, I guess I see two ways to interpret these statements. One is that the West administration has looked at the data for English 9 and it does not show any effect on the achievement gap — i.e., there is no effect on either the failure rate of certain groups of students (presumably in English 9) or the participation rate of certain groups of students in the more rigorous English electives. The other way to interpret the statements is that it’s not clear if English 9 has had an impact on the achievement gap (i.e., those two specific indicators) because they have not yet looked at the data.
Now, Art says his understanding is that Bruce has no data. In all honesty, that possibility hadn’t occurred to me. Wow. If that’s true, I am even more appalled and outraged than I was before.
Bill (and all those I’ve copied), please try to understand, this is the kind of professionally irresponsible decision-making behavior that parents across the District are so enormously frustrated with. Think about it. A radical school-wide change is being implemented at one of our high schools — one that will affect thousands of students — despite an absence of data supportive of the change, that absence apparently due to the fact that the appropriate and necessary data have not even been collected and examined! I see that as a serious violation of the trust we parents have put in all of you, the decision-makers of our school district.
Please, I implore you once again, put a stop to this English 10 business and figure out what’s going on with English 9 first!
Laurie
Here are the unchanged verbatim quotes from Bruce’s report:
from page 4 —
“Ongoing critical reflection and analysis of both the 9th and 10th grade English courses are needed. This analysis should address different but interrelated concerns:
1) The failure rate for 9th grade English, and which students are failing. It is not clear if a common 9th grade course has helped close the achievement gap.”
From page 6 —
“In addition, an action research group might be formed to evaluate the 9th grade course, including levels of expectations and differentiation, failure rates by student groups, and the extent to which it has helped or hindered students to take challenging English courses in subsequent years. Apparently it hasn’t helped some groups of students that much. Why? What needs to be changed so it does and so the 10th grade course does as well? ” p. 6
At 07:46 AM 11/30/2005, you wrote:
Laurie,
This is what I intended to send: Art’s response, in bold and italics.
Bill
Mary G, Pam and I met with Bruce King today. Bruce was very clear with us that his report did not say that the ninth grade English class had failed. What he actually said in the report was there was no data to make any kind of judgement about the success of the course. They would need to talk to Bruce about what data he has. My understanding was that he has none.
Art
At 07:24 AM 11/30/2005 -0600, you wrote:
Bill — I don’t think you sent what you intended to send. This looks like my own message only. Thanks for sending Art’s response again. –Laurie
P.S. We have Bruce’s report. Do you mean contact him for the actual data?
At 10:38 PM 11/29/2005, you wrote:
Laurie,
Here is Supt Rainwater’s response to your request for information. I encourage you to contact Bruce King for the report.
Bill
Dear Shwaw, Bill and Ruth —
>
>We are wondering about the status of our 11/21 request that the
>Performance and Achievement Committee obtain the West HS English 9 data
>that goes along with the comments in the text of Bruce King’s report
>regarding the course’s failure to impact the student achievement gap at
>West; make the data public; and hold a Performance and Achievement
>Committee meeting to discuss it?
>
>The update from our end is that we have not heard from Pam Nash since our
>11/18 meeting with her; we still have not heard from Ed Holmes about the
>answers to those questions we posed to him before the 11/7 PTSO meeting,
>but that were not answered at the meeting; SLC Evaluator Bruce King held
>two parent focus groups tonight; there is a 20-minute English Department
>meeting on Wednesday to discuss which English electives will be
>discontinued; and we understand English Department Chair Keesia Hyzer is
>working on an English 10 course catalog description.
>
>Please, time is of the essence. Please get back to us. Please get those
>data. And please slow down the process that is unfolding at West, even as
>I write this email.
>
>
>Laurie
>
>
>P.S. I heard about yet another West family looking to move further west
>today.

12/2/2005: I write an email to Madison Board of Education President Carol Carstensen that the Board discuss plans for English 10 at West HS (and the question of whether or not West’s English 9 course has been appropriately evaluated, and whether or not the results of any evaluation support the implementation of English 10) on the agenda of a BOE meeting as soon as possible.

Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 08:32:36 -0600
To: ccarstensen@madison.k12.wi.us
From: “Laurie A. Frost”
Subject: West English
Cc: wkeys@madison.k12.wi.us,lkobza@boardmanlawfirm.com,robarts@execpc.com,jwinstonjr@madison.k12.wi.us,jlopez@madison.k12.wi.us,svang7@madison.k12.wi.us,arainwater@madison.k12.wi.us,pnash@madison.k12.wi.us,mgulbrandsen@madison.k12.wi.us
Dear Carol,
I am writing to request that you put a discussion of the plans for English 10 at West HS (and the question of whether or not West’s English 9 course has been appropriately evaluated, and whether or not the results of any evaluation support the implementation of English 10) on the agenda of a BOE meeting as soon as possible.
I believe it is time for the BOE to step in and take seriously its responsibility to students by insisting that the West administration make a sound, empirically-based decision.
Many thanks,
Laurie