Thurgood Marshall graduation 2012
Badin vs. Versailles
Law Enforcement Memorial Day
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2008 > January > 30 > Entry
A science high school for the Dayton area
In Monday’s paper I wrote about an effort locally to open a specialty high school focused on science, technology, engineering and math that would open on the campus of Wright State University in 2009 if the proposal gets funding from the state.
The conventional wisdom is that Dayton has a strong plan and a very strong science and math organizational structure thanks to EDvention, a collaborative of universities, school districts and private industry trying to improve math and science instruction. It’s school proposal seems likely to earn funding.
It’s interesting that only a few school districts have signed on to be full partners in this effort. The downside for districts is they lose students — and the state aid that follows them — when kids choose the science high school. Some districts may fear losing money and top students.
But those kids can leave anyway. Under state law, the school can enroll any students from Montgomery, Greene or Clark counties, regardless of whether their home districts agree, and the state money goes with them — much like a charter school. And under state rules the districts have to provide transportation and allow students to participate in sports and activities in their “home” districts. And the science high school will enroll a maximum of 600 students in grades 6 to 12 from three counties, which doesn’t seem like enough to hurt any one district too badly.
The plans for the school are very ambitious. Developers hope that college faculty will join classroom teachers to instruct the students and build curriculum that can be spread to interested school districts. They hope the school’s students will study and work (thourgh internships) at science-based companies in the area, in Wright State’s science labs and at the highly regarded Wright-Patterson Air Force Base research labs.
West Carrollton Superintendent Rusty Clifford says in the story that he is thrilled his kids could get this opportunity and enthusiastically signed up as a partner. But other districts — notably big suburbans like Centerville, Kettering, Northmont, Oakwood, Beavercreek and Bellbrook — are missing from the partner list.
So is Dayton, which is developing a science-oriented career technical school in partnership with Sinclair Community College. Superintendent Percy Mack told me the district hopes to forge partnerships between that school and the proposed school at Wright State. But Dayton’s school will have more of a techinical training focus and the district has been asked — and so far declined — to join as a full partner with the school at Wright State.
Developers of the science high school hope more districts will come along if the school gets state funding and moves closer to launching.
What do you think of this idea of a specialty science high school for the Dayton area? Would you consider sending your children to such a school?
(Image credit: PBS.org)
Permalink | Comments (22) | Categories: Teaching and Learning
Comments
By Mary
February 2, 2008 10:49 PM | Link to this
I got some solicited feedback about Anne Wheelock from others who work in the education field regarding our discussion on ability grouping. One commented her research was early 90s and has been corrected or superseded by other work. One example given is her quotes from Slavin who chose to exempt gifted students and gifted programs from his research. It was recommended that educators/parents go to Tom Loveless or Karen Roger’s research to understand the various issues better. Another’s take is that Anne Wheelock is opposed to ability grouping based on genralizations and accepted current practices, rather than research. Thanks to Concerned Mom of 3. I enjoyed reading your concepts of “well rounded”. I think “successful” is even harder to tackle (excuse the sports analogy).By Concerned Mom of 3
February 2, 2008 10:07 PM | Link to this
Mary: Not sure I could come up with an official definiion of a “well-rounded” education… (I don’t have the time to look for one either.) So, I guess I will try to articulate a non-research based opinion on how I define “well-rounded” education. (Not sure that is what you want to hear, but I’ll put it out there anyway.) To me, a “well-rounded” education means that the “whole child” is taken into consideration. In other words, a child’s social, emotional, physical and cognitive abilities are considered when planning curriculum and daily lessons. The lessons are presented in a variey of ways where a student sometimes has very little choice about how to accomplish a task- and sometimes they have a lot of choices. (Closed tasks vs. open ended tasks.) Children need to have many opportunities to learn how solve problems in a systematic manner. Children need to learn to express themselves in appropriate ways. They need to learn how to be responsible citizens in their families, their communities, their cities, their state, their country, and the world. A “well rounded” education exposes the children to a wide variety of subjects and lessons- and the children have the opportunity to seek out information in order to solve problems. Children need to learn how to show respect to themselves, others and their environment. They need to learn to get along with a variety of different people- even if they don’t like them. They need to learn about safety. Children need to be exposed to various ways to express themselves, create work they are proud of, and interperet the world around them. I don’t want to split hairs about who is responsible to teach what… I too believe that parents have to step up to the plate and do their part… I believe educating children encompasses educating the whole child. Eliminating Art, Music, PE, Intramurals, Vocal Music, Social Studies, Science, etc. means eliminating opportunities for learning. Everyone learns in different ways. There needs to be a wealth of opportunity for learning lessons in a variety of ways. (Sports included.) Schools can’t just present lessons in Math and Reading and put the rest on the parents. Again, this is only my humble opinion. I think there are appropriate times for ability grouping, and I think there is value in learning to work with a diverse group of people. (Recess doesn’t cut it.) My definition of a “well-rounded” education stems from my personal experiences with education… and my life experiences. I want my children to value education, to be exposed to diverse curriculum, and I want them to learn how to solve problems in appropriate ways. That is what I am referring to when I use the words “well-rounded” education.By mil_mom
February 2, 2008 7:02 PM | Link to this
J, I’m not exactly new to this blog. I’ve been reading for the past 2 years and responding occasionally. Yes, I know what Mary brings up in most conversations. Some of her points I agree with, some I don’t. However, our society seems to say it is OK to be athletically gifted but not academically gifted. Often it is called elitism. I’m just curious how other people feel about this.By J
February 2, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this
Mil_mom: you must be new here… All Mary ever does is criticize sports in schools. TO weight in: I believe that grouping kids in ability levels greatly helps all, whether in sports or in the academic classroom. During my own school-aged life, I was gifted in music. Because of this “label”, I was given every opportunity to pursue and excel in anything musical that came my way. I was allowed to audition for and take part in many musical activities that took me outside of the classroom on a regular basis. Ultimately I got my BS in Music Ed and taught in the Dayton area for four years. Not a long time, I know, but long enough to see that kids who don’t have the parental involvement or the innate skills associated with a given activity felt left out and frustrated when grouped in with kids that do. During my planning periods, I helped in other classrooms, assisting teachers with break-out groups for math and reading. When the kids were broken into smaller groups, focusing on their ability levels, ALL kids left feeling much better about themselves. I do not feel that these break out sessions were detrimental to anyone - quite the opposite. Even the lowest performing children felt they had accomplished something when proven that there were others just like them. How awful for a lower-level reading child to have to read in front of an entire classroom instead of a small group of kids struggling just like them? Bring on the STEM school. I hope it lives up to the expectations and I hope the children enrolled there take full advantage of every opportunity coming with it.By Mary
February 2, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this
Concerned mom of 3, just curious what your definitions of “well rounded” and “successful” are. They come across as ill defined, overused mantras to me, especially when it comes to taxpayer funded public education and supposedly tight budgets. Now, the buzz word with some colleges is they want “angular”, not “well rounded” students. Seems to me that concept embraces diversity and individuality more. “Well rounded” is a technical term that makes an object sound dull and uniform. Who is most “succesful” - Tom Brady, Britney Spears, or the man who invented the computer mouse we use everyday?By Happy Homeschooler
February 2, 2008 12:57 PM | Link to this
It seems that those that benefit the most from mixed ability classes are the average to below average children, and honestly, I have a problem with that. I have a gifted son and chose to homeschool him because I didn’t want him held back at all. I was always so bored in school because I had to wait for the other students to catch up. Sometimes a teacher would give me extra worksheets (busy work), but never anything that challenged me a bit more. I wanted more for my children. When I was in college (Elementary Ed.), doing my student teaching, I thought about how much more effective a teacher could be if he/she had students with similar abilities. Most schools don’t even recognize TAG kids until 3rd or 4th grade, and then they usually only get an hour or two of ‘enrichment’ a week (if they get anything at all). Why is it okay for gifted kids to be held back, just to make sure other kids have good self-esteem? The focus on making kids feel good about themselves is overdone. It seems that nobody is allowed to be exceptional anymore. It’s frowned upon because it might hurt someone else’s feelings. Let the kids go to schools/classes that are grouped by abilities/interests (such as specializing in math and science). Invest as much in our gifted kids as we do in sports/special education/etc…. (And no, I am not against special ed. My gifted child also has aspergers and would benefit from special ed if he were in school, but I would want his giftedness to be taken care of as much as his special needs).By mil_mom
February 2, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this
Laura, I agree that you can find research that is against grouping. If you look at it closer, as I have, you will find that most often the curriculum was not modified at all to meet the groups’ needs. If that happens, that negates the benefits. Tracking, as opposed to flexible grouping, is the understanding that once a child is in a certain group, they are not allowed to move between the groups. In the worst case scenarios, students were assigned by their reading level for all subjects and remained at that level through 12th grade. That is unacceptable. I’m glad you group in your own classroom. However, when a child is highly gifted, they may be the only one in your class. They may be able to find an understanding friend in another classroom. Research shows that they need to be with other gifted students as much as possible during the day. Otherwise, they feel like an “outsider”, “weird”, etc. I speak from personal experience on this. Also, they are in danger of developing underachievement. Since moving to Ohio 3 years ago, my child has become quite the underachiever. The district before had full-time, self-contained gifted classrooms. You say, “I’m not sure the negative effects on some students is worth it.” What about the positive effects it has on the gifted students and high-performers? These are Ohio’s future leaders, doctors, lawyers, scientists, engineers, etc. If Ohio continues to ignore them, they will continue to leave the state. My family is moving back to the state we were in 3 years ago, and I cannot wait. There, the schools/administrators/teachers embrace the differences in gifted students and recognize their unique needs. Something that I have failed to see in Ohio. The STEP schools are a good start. “Concerned”, I agree with you wholeheartedly. A child should be well-rounded. However, I don’t think it’s necessarily the school’s job. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t have my head in the sand. I understand, in this day, that the school is having to take this role in students’ lives. I, too, deal with 2 children at opposite ends of the spectrum. My highly gifted child has always understood the life lessons. I, personally, would like to be responsible for that part of her life. I would rather schools concentrate on the academics. As I mentioned before, she was in a full-time, self-contained gifted classroom with a teacher that totally understood these unique students. As a parent, I make sure that she belongs to groups outside of school, as well as volunteer at St. Vincent’s and the animal shelter. We discuss quite often the differences between all people. If you read more about your highly gifted child, you will find that one characteristic is that they are very sensitive to the world around them. My child came home from school the other day crying, because they watched a movie on the Holocaust. She couldn’t understand how that could happen, and I let her ask me all the questions she needed to. As I said, I understand that in many cases the school does have to take over the life lessons. I wish parents could take over this role, so teachers could get back to teaching.By mil_mom
February 2, 2008 8:50 AM | Link to this
Before I go into a longer response, I would still like to know what the answer is to Mary’s question. We ability group athletes, why can we not do it academically? Laura, I know tracking and ability grouping are considered the same thing. However, a new term that has come out is flexible grouping. That is what I was talking about. I know you say there is no conclusive evidence, but when I searched a few weeks ago, I had a hard time finding research against flexible grouping. Please check out Kulik and Kulik as well as Karen Rogers. Finally, what about the quote from Thomas Jefferson. “Nothing is more unequal than equal treatment of unequal people.”By Concerned Mom of 3
February 1, 2008 8:33 PM | Link to this
Mil_Mom: I think your perspective on grouping students is somewhat narrow minded. I have a set of twins. Each one is on the extreme opposite end of the spectrum as the other. “Baby A” is exceptionally gifted in almost anything he does- and “Baby B” is more than two standard deviations below the norm in every category of development. I have had the opportunity to look at this issue through the eyes of my children- and it has helped me to see the benefits and the pitfalls of each perspective. In the bigger picture of life, the well-rounded education will take a person much farther in life than any academic class ever will… Think about that for a minute. The Principal’s comment about recess is laughable. Trust me, if your kid was on the receiving end of “recess is good enough,” you wouldn’t be happy about it. I think there are appropriate times to group students based on their abilities in order for the students to achieve their full potential. I also think there is much to be gained by accepting and appreciating differences in others. I challenge you and all the GOTB readers to think outside your standards based box- and remember that education isn’t just about reading and math. To be successful in today’s world, people need to learn the life lessons too.By Laura
February 1, 2008 6:19 PM | Link to this
Mil-mom: I think if you would type in either of the terms you would be directed to most of the same sites. In most cases, the terms are used interchangably, even though there are some differences. I have taught for nearly 30 years and in my experience, the terms are used interchangably. As to the research, there is simply no conclusive answer. For every study you have that is pro-grouping- I can find one that is against. There are probably advantages and disadvantages. I have had classrooms that were purposely divided by ability. And I have been involved in teaching both levels. It is better for the higher students, they can move at a faster pace. The problem is, the students know which group they are in. The students in the higher group look down on the students in the lower group. The students in the lower group think they don’t need to perform because they are the “dummies”. The worst part to me is the student who is a higher performer in the lower group. They want to know why they are there. Although there are advantages in the teaching of ability groups, I’m not sure the negative effects on some students is worth it. Although I think there can be advantages to ability grouping within a class, I don’t think grouping by entire grade levels is in the best interest of any group of students.By mil_mom
February 1, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this
Laura, I would like to know what your answer is to Mary’s question. We ability group athletic teams. What is wrong with doing it academically? “Concerned”, I recently attended a conference where a school district talked about their decision to ability group. Their test scores improved significantly in just one year. When I asked what to say to people who think that diversity is needed to make a well-rounded child. The principal responded that the playground works well for that purpose. One final comment, research shows that when mixing abilities, the low-performing students do not admire or aspire to be like the high-performing students as people think. Rather, sometimes it hurts their self-esteem, because they feel they can never be as good. Conversely, when they are in a group of their own ability, they may sometimes be at the top of the class. Anne Wheelock talks a lot about equality in education. Thomas Jefferson once said, “Nothing is more unequal than equal treatment of unequal people.”By mil_mom
February 1, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this
Laura, The research that you discuss is against tracking. Ability grouping is an entire different entity where students change groups when their abilities improve or if they need additional help. Furthermore, it is done by study unit. In other words, a student who is good at fractions but not so good at multiplication may be in two different groups depending on how they score on each pretest. Please take a look at the research by Kulik and Kulik. You will find that ability grouping helps all students - low-performing as well as high-performing.By This is badly needed
February 1, 2008 12:59 AM | Link to this
This is PRECISELY the thing that is needed to improve math and science education in the region and perhaps even return Dayton to a leading role in engineering. Depending on how strong the curriculum really is (afterall, just calling something a Science High School doesn’t make it one) I would gladly seek to get my oldest admitted.By Concerned Mom of 3
January 31, 2008 10:56 PM | Link to this
I fully support grouping students with varying ability levels. I would also like to point out that there are some really sigificant advantages of having a diverse student population… Students have the opportunity to learn about different cultures- and they learn that anyone can make a significant contribution to a class. (Not all of the contributions have to be centered around academic development.) Students can learn to be good citizens when someone in the class needs a helping hand. Personally, I think diverse groupings provide a wonderful opportunity for students to learn how to be good followers- and to learn how to be good leaders. (Even though it is more work for a teacher to prepare appopriate lessons for all of the students.) The good teachers already accomodate for individual differences. About the “Science School…” I would like to see Dayton Public Schools pick a few specialized magnet schools, and then strive to sustain them. It seems like Dayton starts the magnet programs with good intentions, but then they don’t do what it takes to sustain and maintain the programs. (Just like they didn’t do what it took to maintain the school buildings.) An appropriate amount of maintainence is really important. It isn’t best practice to let things slide a little from year to year. Eventually the programs end up in ruins. The students of Dayton need consistently strong programs. As far as a “Science School” goes… Well, if they start it, they should be committed to maintaining it… It sounds like a great opportunity for the students. I just worry about the district’s commitment to maintaining yet another magnet program. (The Arts program at Stivers is very successful… The district is killing that program- with all the cuts that have been made to the elementary art and music departments. The students auditioning for Stivers in five years won’t be of the same caliber as they are now because they won’t have had elementary art and/or music.) Why can’t the people in charge of programming figure this out before the Arts progarm falls apart before their very eyes? By the way- I also agree with a previous comment about the better Dayton students taking the money and running to the Science School… I agree that Dayton will likey loose the students who can actually pass the proficiency tests. (Just like when DECA had to break away from DPS in order to maintain the program.) The district will sink that much farther into the bottom of the barrel. It is a no win situation for Dayton. The Science School would be a great opportunity for the students, but it could create an even more devistating situation for Dayton Public Schools.By Laura
January 31, 2008 7:57 PM | Link to this
Mary, Given your focus on gifted education I am not surprised at your interpretation of the available research. As with most topics, there is never conclusive evidence. However, your statement that I need to do more research is “interesting”. So just to to appease you, I did. According to Anne Wheelock, author of “Crossing the Tracks: How Untracking Can Save America’s Schools” (New Press, 1992), research shows “it is not neutral nor benign and generally depresses student achievement.” She states that “criteria used is based on subjective perceptions and narrow views of intelligence.” Further, “tracking leads students to take on labeling- both in their minds and those of teachers.” Studies indicate student who grouped usually stay at that level for their school careers and that the gap between achievement levels become exaggerated over time. The Augusta, Arkansas school district was sued by a parent claiming that “tracking” violated the 14th Amendment. Court agreed in the case of the K-3 grades but let stand the policy in 4-6th grades because grouping was only done for Math, Reading and Language Arts. Finally, according to Secada, (1992) tracking does seem to be a distinct advantage for students in the upper levels of grouping but is detrimental to those in middle and lower groups. So, your preference for ability grouping makes sense. As a teacher, you are correct, it does make teaching easier and I do agree that grouping within a classroom or across a grade level does have it’s advantages. And even though my own son would probably benefit from a school with such a focus, I do think that it has it’s drawbacks as I stated in my previous post.By Mary
January 31, 2008 4:53 PM | Link to this
DavidSS2, if the schools can afford to drive their sports teams all over Timbuktu (no one mandates that they do), then they can afford to drive students across town for academic opportunities. If schools paid more attention to academic opportunities instead of sports, then we might not need all these other options.By DavidSS2
January 31, 2008 9:25 AM | Link to this
Another layer of education to pay for. Unfunded mandates that the schools have to provide transportation from within three counties to the speciality, miracle cure school? We had the charter schools are miracle solutions proposed. We have the JVSs to pay for. We have Sinclair wanting EVEN MORE TAX money now. Our local schools need more money to keep up with inflation and costs. Let Sinclair students pay a little more for their education; Sinclair brags about how LOW their tuitions are—give the taxpayers a break. Part of Sinclairs money is inside millage which has increased with property values and increased building. After watching a year of Human Services ads pimping their levy as ads paid for by Human Services and then their levy passing, we can’t afford to watch another 2 months of ads for Sinclair. We have our local schools to pay for. AND we don’t need another layer of schools in the Science schools, especially with the “college professors” to help develope and teach curriculum. Odd the college people have been teaching for years but haven’t been able to “help” the dumb old local school teachers? Building them a laboratory school will help their lack of ability to actually teach lower age students? Nope.By Mary
January 31, 2008 7:51 AM | Link to this
Laura, I do not know where you got your education training/ brainwashing/ propaganda, but your statement about ability grouping, indicates you need to study that issue a little more. Many education researchers point out ability grouping works better for students of all abilities and it should work better for the teacher if she or he really plans on adding any value to the education of all the students. Of course, schools do ability grouping for their varsity sports teams, because excellence in sports is more important to them than excellence in academics. Then people wonder why parents and students need choices outside public education.By Dayton View Triangle Mom
January 30, 2008 11:47 PM | Link to this
I would love to send any child of mine to a STEM school if they were interested. I like the technical training aspect of the DPS version. Perhaps both versions will have different possibilities for different types of students. We’ll have to wait and see.By laura
January 30, 2008 8:47 PM | Link to this
Given the way schools are graded on the number of students who test in each area, including accelerated, and the publicity for those schools who have high numbers of high scoring students, how can anyone blame them?? I’m not saying it is right, just that the state is putting schools in that position. Also, given that studies show that lower performing students greatly benefit from being in classes with higher performing peers rather than being grouped by ability, what happens when the “best” are removed from the class?By Dave
January 30, 2008 5:36 PM | Link to this
I have mixed feelings about a science high school. It sounds too much like an excuse to NOT teach much science in the other schools. Internships? Great! But why can they do that from a “science high school” but not from other high schools?By Mary
January 30, 2008 3:55 PM | Link to this
I would, if I still had school aged children. The Dayton Daily News needs to make sure they constantly publicize the program for the sake of the students. Many school districts will not publicize this option to their students or try to hide the availability of the program just as they have over the years with PSEO, even though schools were mandated by state law to let students and parents know. How will the schools objectively participate in the recommendations if they do not want to lose their better students or the money? How will the students take the non-science and non-math classes? Parents need to be clued in on how their child will be screwed over for participating in the program, in such areas as class rank, awards, scholarships, even selections for sports teams. That’s what schools do when you take the state money with your child. They really hate to lose the money, not the students. They will not provide better academic services for the better students, but they don’t want to lose their high scores or the money. I would encourage my child to participate anyway in hope of a better education and environment.