Kingston Montessori Report by SUNY Albany Professor

Kingston City School District
George Washington Elementary School Review Final Report
Sean A. Walmsley, Ed.D

Emeritus Professor Department of Reading University at Albany
August 7th, 2012 (Revised August 15th, 2012)
Purpose of the Review..
he purpose of this review was to assess the current status of the learning needs of students in the George Washington Montessori Elementary School, and to determine how successfully the school is meeting those needs. The review addresses issues in teaching (including instructional philosophy, curriculum, teaching strategies, meeting needs of all children), assessment (including classroom assessment, reporting to parents, keeping track of children's progress across the grades), and organization (including grouping practices, retention policies, organization and delivery of support services related to teaching and learning across the curriculum).
How the Review was conducted..

In order to study these issues, I proposed the following action steps: 1. Gather information before, during and after the site visits. I gathered three kinds of information before, during, and after the site visits. Demographics of the student population: the numbers of students receiving free/reduced lunches, and the demographic characteristics of the students. State and District test results: test results from the last five years (including all relevant state tests administered to students in the school, plus results of other standardized tests administered district-wide.) Other information. I asked for, and received other information related to programs not covered above (e.g., surveys, analyses of test performance, referrals to Special Education, etc., conducted by GW faculty members, as well as by the District). 2. Site Visits. In order to fully understand how the school is meeting the learning needs of students, I spent four full days in GW (May 1st, May 9th, May 15th, and May 23rd, 2012). There were several elements to the site visits: Spending time in classrooms. I spent the first day in Childrens House, observing classrooms and talking with teachers, teaching assistants and students. At the end of the day, I met with teachers as a group. The second visit was to observe Elementary I classrooms, and I had similar conversations with teachers, teaching assistants and students. Again, I met with teachers in Elem I and II as a group at the end of the day. The third day, I visited Elementary II classrooms. On the fourth day, I visited classrooms whose teachers were absent on previous days, and visited almost all Special Education, Resource, and Reading classrooms. I also had extended conversations with key personnel in the building. The purpose of these visits was to get a feel for the kinds of teaching going on, as well as to understand GW educators views and concerns. My goal here was not to evaluate but to learn. These four days gave me insights into the daily practices in both regular and remedial classrooms, as well as an understanding of the school climate, and how Montessori principles translate into practice across the school. Examining curriculum and testing materials. During the site visits, I learned about how GW articulates its curriculum, including assessments of student progress, as well as organizational aspects (e.g., division of time amongst subject areas, referrals to remediation services, content of remedial instruction, classroom layout, etc). In particular, I learned how GW integrates Montessori practices with both District and State curricula, as well as how it uses both formal and informal testing to inform instruction. Talking with teachers, specialists, and administrators in the school. During the four days, I had ample opportunity to meet with individual teachers, specialists, and school administrators to learn how the curriculum is carried out in classrooms, hear comments on strengths and concerns, and raise issues that they feel need to be addressed in the review. The faculty and staff took full use of the opportunities I afforded them.
2 George Washington Montessori Review
Talking with District Administrators, and other members of the educational community. I spent several hours over a number of days with key district administrators, as well as key personnel across the district to learn about their views on the GW's curriculum, both specifically as well as in relation to the other elementary schools in the district. Also, I talked with supervisors and heads of departments whose responsibilities included or related to GW's philosophy or programs. Parental Input. I did speak with several parents during the site visits to GW, but the main source of parental views came from surveys (both hard copy and web-based, see below). I also offered a web-based survey of parents in all the elementary schools, as well as in Bailey Middle School, where GW students attend after graduating from GW. Confidentiality. One thing that I need to say here is that all of these conversations with teachers, specialists, administrators and other members of the school community were confidential, and I assured participants of this confidentiality prior to talking with them, or soliciting their views in surveys. While the report discusses instructional philosophies, teaching practices and issues relating to GW's programs, no individuals are named in the report. 3. Surveys. I prepared the following surveys to solicit views on GW's Montessori philosophy and practices, with an emphasis on how successfully they met students' needs. One web-based survey was distributed to all GW educators, to follow up on the classroom visits and conversations with staff. Another (both hard-copy and web-based) was distributed to GW parents, to learn about their children's experiences in GW. Three other web-based surveys were distributed: to educators in each of the other elementary schools; to educators in Bailey Middle School (where all GW students go after 5th grade); and to parents in all elementary schools (except GW), as well as Bailey Middle School. These web-based surveys were made available on a website that only I have access to. Participation was entirely voluntary, and confidentiality was assured.
Since the surveys do not constitute a random sample of respondents, I used the surveys to learn about the content and range of views expressed, but did not tally percentages of responses. 4. Report. I was asked to provide the district with an unbiased review of GW's Montessori program. So perhaps I need to say something about how I strived to accomplish that. First, I bring to this task evaluations of programs that span nearly thirty years. Second, while I have never taught or been trained in the Montessori Method, I do know about its principles and practices and have taught graduate classes and workshops that examine a range of approaches to early childhood and literacy development, including Montessori. I have a great deal of respect for a variety of both traditional and progressive approaches to elementary, middle, and high school. And I have a good understanding of both federal and New York State policies, mandates and philosophy for student outcomes and curriculum, as well as working with suburban, rural and inner-city schools. In undertaking this review, I have sought out as many educators' and administrators' views as the scope and budget permitted, and have carefully considered all views. My goal was to make sense of these views, understand where they are coming from, and relate them to issues germane to this evaluation. I did not spent time in elementary or middle school classrooms other than GW; comparing GW's instructional practices with the other elementary schools wasn't the purpose of the review. But that also means I do not make assumptions about what the other elementary schools do. However, I did compare GW's student outcomes to other elementary schools in the district, where that was appropriate to do so. My conclusions and recommendations for going forward are based on a thorough analysis of the documents and materials Ive studied, the site visits, conversations with teachers, specialists, administrators, and others, along with the survey responses. They also draw on the professional literature in the field, as well as an analysis of the demands made in New York State Education Departments Common Core Standards.
George Washington Montessori Review
How this report is organized..
he report is presented in four sections: the first describes how the district came to have a Montessori elementary school, how it transitioned into Montessori, how much it cost(s), and what it looks like today. The second section addresses the question of how successfully GW meets the needs of its students. You'll see that 'success' is a term that gets to be defined according to different (and sometimes overlapping) criteria, whether one is looking at it from the perspective of New York State and/or the Federal Government, Montessori, Kingston educators or parents. And in each of these perspectives, there are often quite conflicting definitions of what 'success' means. The third section deals with issues that arise out of the first two sections. Here, I explain what they are and try to unpack them. In the fourth section, I draw some conclusions from my review, summarizing the ways in which GW has met its student needs, where it's falling short in that mission, what it's doing about shortcomings, and what challenges it faces going forward. This section also makes some suggestions for both GW and the District as GW enters its fourth year as a Montessori school.
Section 1. A brief history of Montessori at GW

GW currently has about 450 students, the largest enrollment of all the elementary schools (the others range from around 160 in Zena, to around 425 in Edson). Its ethnic make-up (as of February, 2012) is 63% non-white or Hispanic, making it the most diverse student body among the elementary schools. It ranks second (to JFK) in terms of the most impoverished student population in KCS, having 80% of its students currently qualifying for free or reduced lunch (JFK has 82%). In terms of free and reduced lunch, GW's average for the four years (2008-9 through 2011-12) is 74%, while JFK's is 79%. Clearly, JFK and GW share similar student demographics. 1
he transition of George Washington Elementary School (GW) into a Montessori program began in the summer of 2008. It was the brainchild of the previous Superintendent and the then principal of Robert Graves Elementary. The principal was trained in Montessori and had previous experience working in a Montessori private school, and had introduced some Montessori principles and practices at Graves. In 2007, she worked with the Supt on a proposal to start a Montessori program in Kingston. It wasn't possible to seek funds for a magnet school (as Albany City Schools did, for example), and in the end, the district decided to seek a State Legislature 'member' item grant, but to use GW as the site, rather than Graves, because it was felt the need was greater (GW was a Title 1 school-Graves wasn't), and GW's attendance zone was one of the most impoverished in the district. The original proposal submitted to Senator Larkin was for a three-year start-up, costing $300,000 for each of the three years, for a total of $900,000. $300,000 was awarded for the first year. But when Democrats gained control of the Senate, KCS lost the second and third year of funding. However, $100,000 was secured from the Assembly, and with federal and local monies, GW was able to continue with transitioning to a Montessori school.
Make-up of the GW Students
Unlike a private Montessori school, which could simply hire fully-trained Montessori staff, GW decided to implement Montessori principles and practices in stages, starting with Children's House (3-4-5 yr olds) in 2008-9, Elementary I (1st-2nd-3rd graders) in 2009-10, and finally Elementary II (4th-5th graders) in 2010-11. 1 Throughout this report, percentages are rounded off to the nearest whole figure.
Make-up of the GW Educators
To accomplish this, it was decided to make a 'whole staff' change at GW, so there could be a 'shared Montessori vision.' GW posted faculty positions, allowing any existing staff (at GW as well as at any other KCS elementary school) to apply. Only three teachers stayed on who had previously taught at GW, as well as four teaching assistants. The other thirteen teachers and teaching assistants who stayed comprised 5 special area teachers/assistants (e.g., Music, PE, Library), and 9 support service providers (e.g., Reading, AIS, social workers). All other staff were recruited from other elementary schools (19 from Graves, 5 each from JFK and JWB, three each from Chambers, Sophie Finn, and Edson, and 1 from Meagher). Since then, there have been both staff departures (just under 20, including both voluntary and involuntary transfers) and replacements (just over 20), as well as--most recently--11 staff 'excessed' due to KCS budget cuts. Core teachers and teaching assistants hired for the Children's House were trained in the summer of 2008, by the Center for Guided Montessori, and then started teaching in the Fall. Their training continued in the following summer. Children's House trainees also received a total of 4 site visits from Center staff during the school year. Training in the summer comprised intensive face-to-face interactions with the Center training staff for 2-3 weeks. In 2009-10, the core Elem I teachers and TA's were trained. Training comprised an 18-hour online introduction to Montessori philosophy and an overview of Montessori curricular areas appropriate for grades 1-3, followed by three (as opposed to two) summers of 2-3 weeks' full-time practica. Additionally, there were two site visits each year by staff from the Center (six in total). Support service providers were offered the 18-week overview. In 2010-11, the core Elem II teachers and TA's were trained. Their training followed the same pattern as Elem I staff, except the focus was on methods and materials for upper elementary students. However, the Elem II training did not start until more than half-way through the 2010-11 school year, so the Elem II staff began their first year of Montessori before their training got started. Thus, GW started as partially a Montessori school and partially a traditional elementary. As each level (Children's House, Elem I, Elem II) of the school has been transitioned to Montessori, the first year for each
level was Montessori-transitional, and the second fullMontessori--at least, that was the way it was planned. However, with the late start of training of Elem II staff as well as staff turnovers, not all levels have been consistently staffed with fully-trained Montessori core teachers according to the original schedule proposed by the district. To illustrate this, I present tables (pages 6-7) that show, by level, the number of classroom teachers, teaching assistants, special area teachers, support service providers and special education teachers that are currently Montessori trained (2011-12), along with those who are being trained, and those who haven't been trained at all. These tables also project similar statistics for the upcoming year (2012-13). These projections are tentative, given the district's consideration of redistricting (which might move 5th grade from GW), as well as teacher re-assignments across the district. Thus, from an instructional point of view, GW is still working toward full implementation of Montessori principles and practices. Until 2010-11, grade levels in which core teachers and teaching assistants either hadn't started training, or are in the midst of training, offered traditional individual classroom experiences. As training commenced, classrooms became multiage, and Montessori replaced traditional methods. From the tables on pages 6-7, however, one can see that even after a level has been converted to Montessori, core teacher attrition result in classrooms that are taught by staff at different stages in their own Montessori training. It seems that Children's House and Elementary I core teachers are currently more fully trained in 2011-12 than Elementary II, but it looks like the upcoming year (2012-13) doesn't bring any level up to full Montessori staffing (this may change if the 5th grade moves out of GW next year, and if the 4th grade is taught in self-contained non-Montessori classrooms). It is also noticeable that Children's House has far more fully trained TA's than any other level, which gives it a critical mass of Montessori trained staff, along with a number of Montessori trained support service providers. The other thing to bear in mind is that while one support service provider has been fully trained, and three have taken the 18-hour overview, special area teachers have done neither as of this year. However, four out of five Special educators are currently fully trained, and one is in training.
Note: Trained means that a staff member has completed an introductory 18-hour course on Montessori philosophy, and then either two summers (Children's House) or three summers (Elem I, II) of 2-3 weeks of full-time practica. In Training means that a staff member is currently being trained (18-hour introduction, plus the summer practica). It does not imply that the training will necessarily be completed ( a teacher might be reassigned, excessed, or choose not to complete the training) Not trained means that a staff member either has elected not to participate in the training, or has not yet decided to do so. 18-week Overview means that a staff member has completed the 18-week overview (all staff members designated as trained have necessarily taken the 18-hour overview.)
Since GW phased in its Montessori program over three years, the only students to have experienced full exposure to Montessori are those who entered as three year-olds in the Fall of 2008. Other students will either have experienced no Montessori curriculum (they moved to Bailey Middle School before their grade level was transitioned), or have been exposed to partial Montessori and partial traditional. However, this only applies to some aspects of Montessori--namely, the academic component. All students have been exposed to the social and emotional components of Montessori philosophy and practice. Both of these elements are important to consider in the next section, as we turn to the question of how successful students are in a Montessori program. Trying to figure out the extent of students' exposure to Montessori turns out to be harder than simply calculating the dates by which classrooms were transitioned to Montessori. At what point does one determine that a teacher is fully implementing Montessori methods? Immediately upon being assigned to a Montessori classroom without the teacher having completed the training? Or after the training has been completed? And what about situations where a teacher in a fully-established Montessori classroom is replaced by another who is at the beginning of his or her training? These issues generally don't come up in traditional elementary schools where the training has taken place prior to being hired, and the curriculum isn't so specialized. And they wouldn't come up in a private Montessori school, where presumably one could insist on a priori training.
Students' Exposure to Montessori
Even in the social/emotional aspects of Montessori methods, that apply to all students regardless of whether their classrooms were transitioned to Montessori, there are things to bear in mind. First, changing the school climate and behavioral philosophy did not take place overnight. In fact, there is general agreement that the first year (2008-9) was extremely painful in terms of shifting the school climate towards Montessori-based approaches. Even now, while the school climate does generally exemplify Montessori's social and emotional principles, not everyone in GW is fully aligned with it, either philosophically or in practice. Nor, unlike a private Montessori school, can these principles be required of employees. These caveats notwithstanding, GW has provided a chart (page 9) that shows the extent to which students have been exposed to Montessori methods. It does so by isolating individual grade levels (each bar representing--from left to right--3 year-olds, 4 yearolds (Pre-K), Kindergarten, then 1st through 5th grade), even though classrooms are multi-age. It also separates non-Montessori from Transitional Montessori and Full Montessori (in the color version, these are cream, purple, and red bars). Transitional is defined as the first year of implementation of Montessori. What this chart shows is that full implementation of Montessori for students doesn't occur until 2016-17. But it also makes some assumptions about students and teachers. First, that students have entered at the youngest age (currently 3 -yr-olds) and stayed through 5th grade. And secondly, that GW has fully trained Montessori teachers throughout the students' stay in GW.
Section 2. How Successful are GW students?
he district established a Montessori elementary school in 2008. In doing so, it must have been persuaded that Montessori offered a philosophy and practice that would provide success for the students it served. At the same time, both the U.S. Department of Education and New York State Education Department were increasingly focusing their efforts on holding schools accountable for student achievement--especially in literacy and numeracy, but also in science and social studies1--and for closing the gap between disparate achievement levels amongst different ethnic groups and between different levels of socio-economic status. So GW faces a dual challenge in defining what counts as "success." It has been established as a Montessori school to adhere to Montessori principles and to define outcomes for its students in Montessori terms, but it is still a public school that necessarily must define outcomes as determined by the district, the State and the Federal Government. First, let me quote from the original 2007 proposal for establishing GW as a Montessori school. Its mission reads as follows: "The KCSD Montessori School mission is to encourage all children to be confident, considerate, inquisitive, imaginative, capable individuals. We believe that the goal of education is to develop great human beings who are valuable contributors to society. By creating an environment that encourages cooperation, competence, responsibility, courage, conscience, and freedom we can assist the development of a "quiet confidence" in the construction to adulthood. Academic achievement is a natural outcome of the Montessori Method within an environment in which all children can become successful learners and achieve to their highest potential. In order to accomplish this educational task, the KSCD Montessori School places emphasis on the education of the young child beginning in the pre-school years. Such a solid, early foundation recognizes the importance of the preschool child, who on the threshold of life, is mastering the basic disposition of learning. if we can begin to instill the love of learning at an early age we open the door to endless possibilities." The proposal goes on to spell out core goals of 1 NYS assessment of Social Studies in elementary school has been suspended, apparently for fiscal reasons.
the school: 1. Self-worth. The KCSD Montessori School will help students develop capabilities, talents, self-understanding, and a feeling of self-worth and acknowledge students for effort and achievement. 2. Information and thinking skills. The KCSD Montessori School will help students develop the skills necessary to locate and manage information, solve problems, and make decisions, including the processes of analysis, synthesis, creativity, and evaluation. 3. Learning independently and collaboratively. The KCSD Montessori School will encourage students to become independent life-long learners and to collaborate with others in developing knowledge, skills, and new ideas. 4. Adaptability to change. The KCSD Montessori School will prepare students to grow and develop in a world in which change is normal and constant. 5. Ethical judgment. The KCSD Montessori School will teach students the importance of making ethical judgments for the common good. 6. Honesty, responsibility and tolerance. The KCSD Montessori School will convey to students the need for honesty, integrity, individual responsibility, and tolerance. It isn't hard to see contrasts between Montessori and mainstream goals for education. And clear differences exist in instructional methods and organizational practices. The bulk of mainstream education at the elementary level is focused on academic subjects, taught in individual grade classrooms. On the other hand, Montessori sees academic achievement as an outcome of Montessori methods, rather than its primary purpose. Mainstream education pays hugely less attention to self-worth, learning independently and collaboratively, as well as to individual responsibility, than Montessori does. It isn't that mainstream educators don't encourage these attributes--they do--it's that they don't make them core goals, and establish an environment and daily experiences that
continually reinforce them. For example, Montessori classrooms engage students even at the earliest ages in independent work to an extent that one would almost never see in a mainstream classroom. For many in the district, the only definition of 'success' is how well GW students are performing on standardized State and district achievement tests. For others, GW's Montessori program should be judged according to Montessori goals for its students. And some think that both ought to be weighed. So first, let me address the question of how successfully GW is in meeting Montessori goals. After all, KCS established it as a pilot for a Montessori school, so it's important to know if it is accomplishing what it set out to do.
How successfully is GW meeting student needs as defined in terms of Montessori goals?
One aspect of how successfully GW is meeting its Montessori goals is the extent to which it has implemented Montessori methods and organization, since student outcomes depend on this implementation. From the site visits, interviews with GW staff, and the surveys, the result is mixed. Clearly Children's House and Elementary I have provided better implementation than Elementary II, but as the tables on pages 6-7 as well as on page 9 show, while implementation of the Montessori curriculum has progressed steadily, it's not been without hiccups due to teacher training, and especially teacher reassignments. I think the district was expecting that implementation of the Montessori curriculum would be firmly established within the three-year pilot, so that it could be evaluated as a fullyfledged program. That even under ideal circumstances, implementation might not be accomplished until Fall 2016 probably might come as a surprise. Another aspect of implementation has to do with the pressure exerted on GW in the past year or so to align itself more closely with the State's Common Core Curriculum, and to improve test results. The amount of work that went into these alignments and subsequent integration of Common Core Curriculum with the existing Montessori curriculum has been enormous. For teachers grappling with learning Montessori curriculum, in a multi-age classroom, while at the same time integrating it with district mandates, one can readily understand difficulties with both. This said, the four days I spent in GW, along with the interviews, group meetings, and surveys left me with little doubt that GW is substantially meeting the needs of its students with respect to most of the core goals it set out in the proposal in 2007. These include
helping students develop capabilities, talents, self-understanding, and a feeling of self-worth and acknowledge students for effort and achievement (self-worth); encouraging students to become independent life-long learners and to collaborate with others in developing knowledge, skills, and new ideas; teaching students how to learn independently and collaboratively); inculcating the importance of making ethical judgments for the common good (ethical judgment); and conveying to students the need for honesty, integrity, individual responsibility, and tolerance. Although there are no objective measures to back these up, there is sufficient evidence from being in GW, hearing from parents, and comments from across the district that support these accomplishments. With respect to the other core goals (information and thinking skills, adaptability to change), there is plenty of evidence for information and thinking skills in the classroom, and some evidence from Bailey Middle School about adaptability, but test scores up until this year didn't support this quite so well, if state assessments tap into these skills in the same way as Montessori teaches them. (I will return to this issue later in the report). However, it is impossible to spend time in GW and not be aware of how courteous students are, how well-behaved they (especially in situations like large meetings in the auditorium), how respectfully they interact with each other and adults, how engaged they in independent work, and how well they work cooperatively with other students. Of course there are exceptions to these behaviors--these kids are after all, kids. And I witnessed several of these lapses, which gave me opportunities to see how GW staff handled behavioral situations that followed Montessori practice, emphasizing peaceful resolutions but also insisting on students taking personal responsibility for their actions. My observations mirrored those of GW parents (who were particularly pleased with these aspects of Montessori practices), as well as both GW staff and a number of educators from across the district who had spent time in GW or had encountered GW students. Perhaps the most persuasive evidence comes from Bailey Middle School educators, both in interviews and surveys. Many who responded were especially pleased with GW students' behavior, their ability to mediate interpersonal disagreements peacefully, their independent learning, and their adaptability to a middle school environment. This was in marked contrast to many elementary school respondents who claimed that GW students were
11
poorly equipped to adjust to a more traditional curriculum in middle school. When I asked what concerns Bailey staff had with GW students, they did mention academic issues (especially math, but also reading), and in this regard, the elementary teachers who'd received GW students were almost unanimous in their concerns about weak academic achievement. Perhaps one Bailey educator gave GW the best back-handed compliment: "Having gone through the Montessori program, it takes them (the students) a few months to transition to a traditional education/classroom format. By 7th grade, you don't know who's who anymore." This is all the more remarkable since the 5th graders going into Bailey haven't been fully exposed to a Montessori curriculum. Most of the criticism I heard about students' success in terms of Montessori goals seemed to stem more from a fundamental disagreement with Montessori philosophy. For example, if one believes that students need to learn and respect teacher authority, or not be allowed to make decisions about which activities to participate and when and where the learning must take place, then the Montessori practice of sharing responsibility, and of giving students choices (as part of a philosophical commitment to learning mutual respect and independence) is likely to be seen as 'unsuccessful.' And disagreements with Montessori core goals exist even inside GW, although they are far and few between. There are other praiseworthy accomplishments. One is the way in which GW has transformed itself into a caring community, both within the school and out into the surrounding neighborhood. There is no longer any need for a security guard in the building, and children appear happy and eager to come to school (in marked contrast to many of the inner city schools I have visited in other parts of NY state). Another is the reduction of the number of students referred to IST (from 50 in 2008-9 to 23 in 2011-12). I was also particularly impressed by the climate and instructional methods in most of the Special Education
classrooms I visited. In fact, sometimes I wasn't aware I was indeed in a special education classroom. This speaks volumes about both the philosophy and practice (and district supervision) of GW's approach toward the education of children with special needs. I am persuaded that despite there being no 'hard data' to demonstrate how successfully GW is meeting its students' needs in core Montessori goals, there is sufficient evidence from interviews with teachers, administrators, parents of GW students, the surveys, and my own observations that GW does indeed meet them in substantial ways, and it hasn't yet fully transitioned to a full Montessori program. It's interesting that Bailey Middle School is already noticing Montessori traits in its students coming from GW. They fully expect even better results as Montessori permeates into GW's upper elementary grades. But bear in mind, they are still concerned about academic achievement in math and reading. My take on the academic skills of GW students (judging only by classroom observations, and interviews with GW staff and those familiar with GW's curriculum, without looking at test scores) is that while students are engaged in very systematic, hands-on learning experiences in core subject areas, there are issues with the match between the way that Montessori teaches and tests academics and the way that traditional elementary classrooms teach and test them. It is also complicated by the lack of full Montessori implementation, as well as the changes being made to address test preparation. So the jury is out on how successfully GW succeeds with its own academic curriculum, especially when the only assessment appears to be standardized tests, and Montessori sees academic achievement as a 'natural outcome' of the Montessori methods. However, I did note that GW is making strides to document academic progress with many of its classrooms. But it hasn't reached a point where this data is readily available across the whole school, and therefore accessible for this review. (I will return to this issue later in the report).
How successfully is GW meeting student needs as defined in terms of district and state assessments?
This section is necessarily longer than the previous one, partly because there is so much more data available on the district and state assessments (and almost nothing but observation and anecdotes for assessing Montessori goals), and partly because test data has become the metric by which students, teachers, classrooms, schools, districts, States, and the nation are judged "successful." Maria Montessori railed against testing to compare students (careful observation and recording progress to inform instruction was her goal for assessing children). Typically, Montessori schools have no grades, since grades compare students. But GW is not a private Montessori school, and so it has no choice but to assess students using the metrics of NYSED assessments starting in 3rd grade, as well as district-mandated assessments starting in Kindergarten.
The chart immediately below presents results for the entire district (including GW) in ELA at grades 3, 4, and 5 for 2005-2012. The chart (bottom) presents the results just for GW for the same period. As far as ELA results are concerned, the district as a whole was doing relatively well until the cut-off scores were raised, causing the scores to drop sharply. Grades 4 and 5 have recovered moderately from the drop, but 3rd grade performance has been uneven-recovering quite well from the drop, but slipping backwards in 2011-12. GW's 3rd grade seems to reflect
English Language Arts
NY State Assessments
Let's start with State Assessments. Using data from NYSED's School Report Cards, I tracked English Language Arts (ELA), Math and Science scores at GW from 2005-6 through 2010-12. Since I had conflicting reports about how GW had scored prior to becoming a Montessori school (some said Montessori rescued GW from terrible scores, others said the scores dropped after it transitioned to Montessori), I thought I'd better set the record straight. I present the ELA, Math and Science scores and then comment on them afterwards. First, though, a warning. Not only have the state tests changed (and will continue to do so in upcoming years), the scoring has also changed, so the precipitous drop in 2009-10 is entirely (or substantially) due to NYSED changing the cut-off scores in that year.
Note: The charts for ELA, Math and Science are provided in larger versions at the end of this report (see pp. 29-31).
13
the overall KCS 3rd grade results, too. GW's results were improving even after GW became a Montessori school (although the 3rd, 4th and 5th grades hadn't been transitioned yet), and suffered badly in 2009-10 when the cut-off scores were raised. In 201011, 3rd grade recovered some ground, but 4th grade tanked, and 5th grade scores dropped by about the same percentage points as the 3rd grade recovered. The 2011-12 results show marked improvement for 4th grade, a loss in gains from 2010-11 for 3rd grade, and a further decline from previous years for 5th grade. The chart (top right) presents the results for State assessments in math for 2005-6 through 2011-12 for the entire KCS 3rd, 4th and 5th grades. The district as a whole was doing very well until the cut-off scores were raised. Grades 3 and 5 had the largest drop, with grade 5 recovering slightly, then dropping in 2011-12. Grade 3 has stayed steady since the drop in 200910. Grade 4 held steady after the drop, but has improved slightly in 2011-12. The raise in cut-off scores didn't affect Math quite as much as ELA, but this might be a case of comparing apples and oranges. The chart (lower right) presents GW scores in Math for the same period. It shows much more volatility prior to GW transitioning to Montessori but much sharper declines in scores in 2009-10. Grade 3 and Grade 5 held onto their scores for 2010-11, but Grade 4 slid further into decline, ending up just three percentage points lower than Grade 3. 201112 results are encouraging for 4th grade (given very weak performance in 2010-11); 3rd grade shows some improvement, but 5th grade has dropped 10 percentage points from 2010-11. Again, GW's results appear to reflect a trend across the district, only showing a much worse drop in 5th grade.
Math
Finally, the chart (right) presents the results of the State assessments for Science at 4th grade. The results for KCS as a whole are in the foreground, while GW's 4th grade in the background. Up until 2008-9, GW's science scores were exactly on a par with the average of the district's, and while the district average took a slight hit in 2009-10, GW's dropped dramatically. But this time, the drop couldn't be blamed on the State raising the cut-off scores, since they didn't do that to Science. However, unofficial preliminary results for the 2011-12 Science tests are available. I wasn't able to obtain the entire district's results, but was able to calculate GW's, and if my calculations are correct, and if the official results confirm them, they show substantial improvement (from 50% to 72%). If these Science results are confirmed (and we still need KCS data), they provide proof of encouraging GW results in Science for 2011-12.
Science
15
District Assessments
There are two KCS assessments given each year--the Developmental Reading Assessments (DRA), which measure reading levels and strategies, and Scantron (an online assessment system for Reading, Language Arts, Math and Life Science). KCS uses just the Reading and Math Scantron tests.
The table (right) shows the comparison between GW's Kindergarten, 1st and 2nd Grade DRA scores, from June 2011 to June 2012--they represent the number of students at each grade level that meet or exceed the district's target scores. What the kindergarten scores show is that while the KCS percentage has risen modestly, GW's kindergartners have improved substantially. Scores of the first graders have made the most progress, but it needs to be borne in mind that the target for Grade 1 was lowered from 18 to 16 for 2012. 2nd graders have improved slightly, but KCS as a whole has improved 10 percentage points. Overall, GW has improved its DRA scores from 47% to 64%, while the district as whole has improved from 68% to 74%. However, when one averages the scores of comparison schools (Edson, Meagher, SF, JFK, Chambers), while GW improved from 47% to 64%, the comparison schools improved from 66% to 72%. GW gained more percentage points, but they started further behind. Although both GW and the District have broken down these results into a number of student categoties, my concern is the numbers in some categories are simply too small to make any generalizations, so I do not present these here. What can be said, however, is that while GW students' showing in June 2011 were disappointing (especially at 1st grade), and 2nd graders--while improved, are still well below KCS overall in June 2012--and below comparison schools in the district--the trend is in the right direction. I would assume that the improvement is a direct consequence of paying a great deal more attention to strategies for reading connected text in both regular classrooms, and remedial reading classes, as well as
DRA Results
analyzing running records of students reading leveled texts. KCS previously used Northwest Evaluation Assessment (NWEA) for its local assessment in the Title 1 buildings only. KCS switched to Scantron Performance series three years ago to have progressive, sequential, diagnostic assessment data in both reading and math which is linked directly to instructional resources. Teachers and administrators can obtain three year progress graphs for children, comparisons to local means and national scores, lexile levels in reading, suggestions for grouping children for instruction, suggested instructional objectives, and teacher-resources. According to the district, some teachers and principals use the data and resources more than others. For those that do use them, they are accessed and presented in team meetings such as ISTs, or CSE meetings, or 504 meetings, or annual reviews, etc. In addition, scores and student progress are discussed with students and parents in conferences. In addition, educators use the scores as an additional measure (beyond state assessment and course grades) for determining the placement of students in accelerated and honors courses. I had limited access to the Scantron data, and so my analyses might represent only a small window into what is available. Scantron doesn't yield scores that can be directly
Scantron Results
compared to DRAs--rather, it produces what are called 'standard scores' that range from 1300-3700, which then can be converted into percentile scores. Percentile scores look like the scores presented earlier for DRA's, but they aren't the same. DRA scores represent the percentage of students achieving a benchmark. Scantron scores represent the number of students whose standard scores are (at or) below other students (typically in a national sample). Since the standard scores (e.g., 2488, 2094) are hard to interpret, my tables use national percentile rankings. Scantron Reading assessments are administered twice a year to all students in grades 3-5, and to grade 2 students who have reached their mid-year DRA target (the assumption being that
they aren't reading well enough to be able to give accurate scores on the Scantron assessments). Tables for GW and KCS Scantron Reading scores for Fall 2011 and June 2012 are presented here (left). In one sense, the 2nd grade scores on the Scantron reading assessments mirror the results for the DRAs, since the poorest readers on the DRA are excluded from taking the Scantron Reading. In the case of GW, more 2nd graders didn't meet their mid-year targets on the DRA than other elementary schools, so the Scantron scores of the GW 2nd graders look better than the DRAs. The Math Scantron scores are presented on below. Again, GW Grade 2 results appear to be on a par with the other elementary schools, but that might be a consequence of how many were eligible to take the Scantron Math. Otherwise, GW's third, fourth and fifth graders still are falling short of expectations.
17
Stepping back from all the formal measures (State ELA, Math, Science; District DRAs and Scantrons), what do these tell us about students' accomplishments in GW? Regardless of why it happened, GW's state assessments experienced a marked decline in ELA and Math since it became a Montessori school, and mixed results in the 2011-12 year. While KCS as a whole suffered from the state raising the cut-off scores in 2009-10, GW suffered more, and recovered less in 2010-11 (3rd grade ELA recovered more, but 4th grade ELA took a nosedive, and 5th grade dropped, too. Math scores took a similar path, with a precipitous drop for 4th grade, but 3rd and 5th held steady--but still low). This year's results show gains in both ELA and Math for the 4th grade, but continuing declines in ELA and Math for 5th grade. 3rd grade showed slight improvement in Math, but lost the gains they made in 2010-11. The local assessments are harder to interpret (the DRAs are criterion-referenced and only test K-2, while the Scantrons are norm-referenced, and only test Grade 2-5). Also, we don't have DRA and Scantron data stretching back to before GW transitioned to Montessori. So, in a sense, we only can see progress in these local assessments over a short period. What I glean from these data is that GW has made good progress in reading connected text in K and Grade 1 between June 2011 and June 2012. 2nd grade scores have remained steady. One caveat: Grade 1 benchmarks were relaxed a little in 2012 (I assume because KCS determined it had been set too high in 2011; Level 16 is indeed a more appropriate end-of-year benchmark for 1st graders). The Scantron data appear to show poorer results in 2012 than 2011, but then remember that both GW and KCS as a whole are being compared to national norms. The real issue with the Scantron scores is whether they correlate to State assessments in Reading and Math. Since students are tested by the State starting in 3rd grade, the only benefit I see in the Scantrons are at 2nd grade (but only if they yield useful information about 3rd grade performance on state assessments). But even then, for reading skills, the DRAs at 2nd grade seem much more useful,
Reflections on the formal assessments
since they measure the application of reading skills to connected text. District administrators tell me that the Scantrons can be used for placement and progress as well as for instructional purposes, but I wasn't able to examine this in any detail (and there was very little discussion of these during my site visits), so clearly my take on the Scantrons is limited to what I had access to. I have focused thus far on how well GW students are doing on formal assessments in comparison to KCS as a whole. I have done so primarily because New York State doesn't have lowered expectations for any of its students, regardless of ethnicity or socio-economic status. But the question does arise, how well are GW students doing when compared to Chambers, Meagher, JFK, Sophie Finn, and Edson? Numerous comparisons have been made available to me by both the district and GW, as well as explanations for the results of the comparisons (far too many to present in detail in this report, but also problematic when I examined data that had too few students represented to be confident of reliable and valid results). However, after examining what has been presented to me for the period 2009-2011, it is clear that GW's scores, with some exceptions, generally rank lower than comparison schools in the district. Now that the 2011-12 state
test assessments have been published (as preliminary results), the picture is pretty much the same as before. I created a table (p. 18)) that shows GW's performance on ELA and Math across Grades 3-5 for 2011-12. Although there are some very high scores (Meagher's 4th grade ELA and Math; SF's 5th grade Math), and some low scores (JFK's 3rd and 4th grade ELAs and their 4th grade Math; SF's 3rd grade Math--especially in comparison to their 5th grade Math), GW scores continue to be lower than comparison elementary schools--with only two exceptions. It also needs to be borne in mind that although the other elementary schools have been transitioning from a purely basal approach to English language Arts (to a Guided Reading approach), none have been going through a transition from one philosophy to another, and with considerable turmoil. I would expect KCS elementary schools that have similar student characteristics as GW's to show better results--after all,
they have philosophies and instructional practices that are much more closely aligned with test performance, and have been pursuing these uninterrupted from before 2005. GW's state test scores were considerably better in the period 2005 to 2008 than they have been up until this year. While many in the district use this as ammunition against GW's transition to Montessori, I see it as a predictable outcome of an abrupt transition to a progressive educational philosophy that challenges traditional education, and especially ones that are dominated by test preparation. That GW hasn't performed as well as comparison schools since 2008 is not in doubt (and the assertion that GW was performing worse prior to 2008 needs to be laid to rest). This year's results tend to confirm previous comparisons, even though GW has shown improvement in 4th grade ELA and Math, while 3rd grade has shown some improvement in Math.
Section 3. Issues
number of issues arose during my review that warrant an extended discussion.
GWs abrupt Conversion to Montessori, Lack of Funding & its Consequences
The conversion of GW from traditional to Montessori was undertaken abruptly. GW closed as a traditional school in June 2008 and opened as a 3-year pilot Montessori school that Fall. In hindsight--especially given how chaotic the first year was--not nearly enough thought went into planning the transition. But at least those who did plan it took the precaution of converting GWs traditional program to Montessori in stages, introducing Childrens House (for 3, 4, and 5 year-olds) in 2008-9, then Elementary 1(1st, 2nd, 3rd grade) in 2009-10, and finally Elementary II (4th, 5th grade) in 2010-11. The idea was that while Childrens House was being transitioned to Montessori, the rest of the grades would remain traditional. This would allow some breathing space to effect the huge changes needed to fully implement Montessori. I can understand why the district agreed to let GW start afresh with a new staff, recruited from across the district. Montessori requires there to be a wholeschool commitment to its philosophy, and having all
the staff at least willing to be brought on board would make the transition a great deal easier. But the downside was the disruption of an entire building, and a lot of resentment from educators displaced from their school. This resentment still festers today. There were other challenges. Although the NY Senate grant that allowed the Montessori program to exist in the first place was $300,000 each year for three years, the funding only came through for the first year. The district did secure $100,000 from the New York Assembly. Because GW opened as a Montessori school without the funding that was felt to be necessary, the district has ended up footing more of the cost (through other federal funds as well as local monies) than it anticipated, nor that it could reasonably afford in a downturned economy. True, start-up costs for materials, furniture and initial training were substantial. But materials and furniture are not recurring costs (other than repair), and training costs recur only for new faculty. But the district has also provided additional teaching assistants (since classes are multi-age, class sizes are frequently large enough that the district provides TAs as they would other elementary schools), as well as additional specialists to remediate students doing poorly on state tests. A frequent complaint
19
about GW from other elementary teachers was that the cost of transitioning to Montessori was excessive (as is the cost of maintaining it), and that GW not only was given additional staff but also their buildings were denied funds that went to GW.
the constraints that apply to public as opposed to private schools (e.g., union contracts, district curriculum and assessments), although even some of these were tweaked,' as many have pointed out (some approvingly, many not). GWs State test scores continued to be good through 2008-9 (even improving from 20078), but then nose-dived when NYSED raised the cut-off scores in 2009-10 and dropped even further (except in Montessori vs Mainstream Philosophy, 3rd grade, where they steadied or improved, but were and its Consequences still unacceptably low) in 2010-11, and continue to be If Kingston sought to create an alternative to its so in ELA and Math in 2011-12. While there are other traditional elementary schools, it certainly succeeded. plausible reasons for the drop in scores (for example, Montessori isnt just an alternative method or program akin to switching from one basal reading system new teachers at Grades 4 & 5, transitioning into multiage, and training going on mid-year while teaching), to another. Its a philosophy that rests on a set of core one has to be that GW came late to the realization that beliefs about child development across social and emotional, language, thinking, individual and commu- it had to serve federal and state philosophies as well as Montessori principles. GW's 4th grade has certainly renal responsibility domains. In a Montessori approach, covered somewhat from these very disappointing test curriculum, instruction, classroom organization and scores in 2011-12, but it is hard to imagine this recovthe entire school climate is planned in great detail to ery isn't the result of a determined effort to prepare align itself to these core beliefs, so that nothing is left students for the state assessments. to chance in moving children forward. However, the This raises a serious question about how pure a manner in which they move forward is very different Montessori program can be within a public school, or than traditional education. Instead of assuming that even how pure it should be. GW has faced some dauntdevelopment takes place according to the calendar, ing challenges in its quest to transition to Montessori. children are taught in multi-age classrooms where Initially, there were funds to support training for core they progress within their own internal developteachers, which was provided by the Center for Guided mental schedule, largely through independent work Montessori Studies (CGMS) in Florida, using both onguided by both the spiraling curriculum but also by site and online instruction. Reactions to the training expert teachers. from current GW staff The problem arises has been mixed. From The problem arises when a Montessori when a Montessori school their responses, it looks school is placed in a public school district is placed in a public school district that is increasingly that is increasingly forced by the federal and like it took a while for CGMS to adapt their forced by the federal and state government to abide by a quite difMontessori training state government to abide ferent philosophy, one that insists on every to a public school, but by a quite different philosoonce they did, it went student being at a particular point in their phy, one that insists on every much better. Training academic development (and it is typically student being at a particular for Elem I and II has not point in their academic deONLY academic development) by a particubeen as well received velopment (and it is typically lar point in time. as for Childrens House ONLY academic developstaff (it was, according ment) by a particular point to some, disorganized in time. Under these rules, and poorly presented something has to give, even in traditional education. until a trainer who had public school experience came Montessori isnt as well equipped to handle these on board). Almost all teachers who had received the rules, at least not in the short-term, so it has to comfull training said that it was intense, but well worth the promise some of its core beliefs about development to produce good test results. Worse than that, Montes- time and effort, and many reported that it was lifechanging. (Maria Montessori would have been proud sori is adamantly opposed to both short-term results, of that--for her, preparing teachers is as much about as well as achievement tests. personal change as it is about learning the methods I think it is fair to say that GW initially set out to creand procedures of a Montessori classroom). But several ate as pure a Montessori approach as possible, given
complained that CGMS trainers Montessori programs versus didnt have enough experience Clearly, GW has taken very seriously the traditional elementary is with poverty, learning chalalmost impossible. Nor can need to adapt Montessori to test perfor- one compare self-selected lenges, behavioral challenges, mance (just like all the other elementary students in Montessori prior public schools. Clearly this has been a learning experience schools), but I think deep down, it clings vate schools with traditional for both trainers and trainees. elementary students. onto the belief that once Montessori is GW faced other challenges, There is one study that fully implemented, good test scores will too. The chaotic atmosphere has scientific merit that most of the first year (and I call it that flow naturally from consistent Montesclosely matches Kingstons sori practices. because thats how almost evsituation, conducted in an eryone who was there describes inner city public school. It it) resulted in a number of staff came to this conclusion: departures and reassignments. Clearly the first year could not be described as pure Montessori, but it set "On several dimensions, children at a public inner city in motion staff changes that have persisted until this Montessori school had superior outcomes relative to day that continually interrupt the steady progression a sample of Montessori applicants who, because of a toward full implementation. I believe it is the case random lottery, attended other schools. By the end of that at no time in GWs transition to Montessori there kindergarten, the Montessori children performed better has been a full complement of fully-trained core staff. on standardized tests of reading and math, engaged Staff attrition is the major cause, but unlike private in more positive interaction on the playground, and Montessori schools, GW has not been able to insist showed more advanced social cognition and executive on Montessori training unless it takes place during control. They also showed more concern for fairness the school day. And there are a few staff in GW who and justice. At the end of elementary school, Montessori adamantly oppose Montessori philosophy. I think the children wrote more creative essays with more complex exception to this is that Montessoris overall approach sentence structures, selected more positive responses to to developing a community, interpersonal respect, social dilemmas, and reported feeling more of a sense of social problem-solving has permeated the school to a community at their school. (p. 1894). 1 very large degree, although in fairness, there are some GW staff that complain bitterly about it (and many The difference between GW and the school featured across the district that do, too.) in this article is that the school had been in operation While I think the original intent was to get as close for 9 years! The lack of empirical studies notwithstandto a pure Montessori approach as possible, the poor ing, Angeline Lillard, in her 2005 book Montessori: The showing on state test scores has effectively changed Science Behind the Genius, has examined the research that, and what GW has become is a hybrid model. literature that supports (which it mostly does) the maEvidence for this is not hard to come by--the addijority of the theoretical underpinnings of Montessoris tion of reading teachers trained in Reading Recovery, philosophy and practices. It is compelling reading, alignment of Montessori curriculum with the Core although she does tend to paint traditional methods Curriculum (not simply a paper exercise, I noted), in harsher colors than they probably deserve. I think serious work on implementing RTI, and analyzing test those who dismiss Montessori as simply laissez-faire data to inform and modify instruction. Clearly, GW has might be surprised to discover the solid ground upon taken very seriously the need to adapt Montessori to which the philosophy and practice rests. And critics of test performance (just like all the other elementary GW who judge its implementation of Montessori from schools), but I think deep down, it clings onto the having observed or experienced it in its first year of belief that once Montessori is fully implemented, operation (and I heard from many of them), might be good test scores will flow naturally from consistent surprised to find GW today very much better repreMontessori practices. It is a pity that GW cant simply senting Montessori methods. turn to the research literature to demonstrate that As I look at GWs poor showing on 2010-11 state public school Montessori programs have a track reassessments, I think there are some systemic issues cord of success with standardized achievement tests. They may well do so, but its extremely difficult to set 1 Lillard, A., & Else-Quest, N. Evaluating Montessori Educaup scientific studies--assigning students randomly to tion. Science, 2006, 313, 1893-1894.
21
that have contributed to the situation that may take additional time to solve. First, GW made wholesale changes to the school in Fall, 2008. I understand why it did this, and it sensibly left classrooms self-contained and traditional (Elem I until 2009-10), and Elem II (until 2010-11). However, when the time came to transition, teachers in these self-contained classrooms had to figure out not just how to adjust to Montessori methods and materials , but also to multi-age. Even as Elem I and Elem II teachers were being trained in Montessori methods, they were juggling both a traditional curriculum as well as Montessori. Under these circumstances, how comparable in terms of test preparation were Elem I and Elem II at GW, compared to all the other elementary schools in the district? True, once poor test results started showing up, GW and the district scrambled to remedy it, but a plausible explanation for poor test results may lie not so much in transitioning to Montessori as it did in Elem I and Elem II teachers being caught between traditional and Montessori, with neither one being fully implemented for a while. I also worry that GW gives the impression of taking only responsibility for the Montessori aspects of the school. It has been both a Montessori school and a traditional school for three years, and that means it has responsibility for all students under its roof. Arguments that poor test performance is partly because GW has special education students, or students with Limited English Proficiency, or students who have recently come to GW, or students that come from impoverished homes, are hard to justify on the grounds that Montessori hasnt fully affected them. The nonMontessori parts of the school still have to live up to district and state expectations, even if eventually a fully-transitioned school does indeed live up to them.
see in those classes I attended, disparity between the way students were taught and managed. This was also true in Special Education classes, where marked differences could be seen between Montessori-trained special educators and those who werent. To be fair, one would see marked differences in any traditional elementary school, too. Its just more noticeable in a Montessori school, where a single philosophy is intended to permeate across all classrooms and across the entire school. In a private Montessori school, no compromises are necessary. In a public Montessori school, they are.
Parental choice in attendance at GW
Montessori Training
A third issue is about the extent and depth of the Montessori training. In classrooms where teachers and teaching assistants have been trained, Montessori methods are clearly being implemented, confidently and successfully. But in classrooms where teachers are in training, or who have only taken the 18-hour introduction, or who have received no training, the difference is noticeable. Two things come into play here. One is that while the district has designated GW as a Montessori school, no teacher can be required to participate in Montessori training, except during school hours. The other is the expense of training, which is considerable. None of the special area teachers are trained (Art, Music, PE, Library), and one can readily
A very difficult issue to grapple with is whether parents have a choice when it comes to attending GW. GW has its attendance zone, and the expectation is that all students in that zone will come to GW. The district has, I understand, a policy that if a parent wants his or her child to attend a different school in the district, then permission has to be sought and if approved, the parent is then responsible for the child's transportation. In a suburban district this might not cause any concerns, but GW's attendance zone is amongst the poorest in Kingston, which means that some parents who might prefer to have their children in a different school could be stuck without an affordable means of transporting them. A similar situation exists for parents whose children they want to transfer to GW. Many KCS educators were very concerned about this, either because they felt that children from impoverished backgrounds needed much stricter discipline and structure than Montessori provided (in other words, Montessori was better suited to children of more affluent parents), or because they felt that one size doesn't fit all, and so having one school with a single philosophy and instructional method wasn't fair to either parents or children. The notion that Montessori is only suitable for children from more privileged backgrounds needs to be challenged, even though such children do perform better than ones from disadvantaged backgrounds. Maria Montessori started her approach with the poorest and most disabled children. Clearly the current policy for attendance does assume that Montessori is appropriate for educating children from impoverished backgrounds, but it clearly favors more affluent parents who wish to remove their children from GW, or move them to it from other elementary schools. But I did hear from parents who literally moved into GW's attendance zone in order to
have their children in a Montessori school.
Misconceptions
As I interviewed teachers and administrators across the district, and read the surveys, I was persuaded by many of the views expressed that were confirmed not just with others but also with my own observations. However, there were some that I think are misconceptions about GW that need to be challenged. First, there is a widespread view from outside GW that students are free to participate or not in any or all school activities, and can wander around the building without any supervision. I have no doubt these impressions originated from the first year that GW transitioned to Montessori, but I don't think this is a fair representation of GW today. In a Montessori school, the curriculum is much more controlled and much more consistent than in a typical elementary school. Once teachers have mastered how and what students will experience, the actual classroom activities consist largely of students engaging independently in the activities related to language, math, science, and social studies in an integrated fashion, while teachers teach individuals and small groups (occasionally whole class) to introduce concepts, and assist students during independent work. Students aren't given choices about whether to engage in an area, they are given choices during the day or week about the order in which they can engage in them. They also are given choices about where they sit (at a table, on a rug, etc.), and with whom they interact. They are also able, during project work especially, to extend the time given to them to complete research or to extend their inquiries into a topic. In many ways, Montessori classrooms have much more in common with universities than mainstream elementary or secondary schools. But to interpret these practices as children choosing to do or
not do anything they want is a serious misunderstanding of Montessori instructional practices. One can legitimately criticize Montessori methods (and many KCS educators do), but Montessori is highly structured from a curriculum and instructional practices perspective, yet very flexible within strict parameters from a student perspective. The other thing I noticed were how many educators criticized GW for the apparent failings of individual students who had transferred to another elementary school. I didn't doubt that these students weren't deficient in reading or math, but it's not fair to castigate a whole school for failing one or two students. As I look at the test scores of all elementary schools, it wouldn't be hard to select some of the lowest achieving students (and they exist in all elementary schools), transfer them to GW, and then claim that the school they came from is failing to educate anyone properly. And it needs to be noted here that as many students have transferred from GW as have transferred to GW from other elementary schools. So to claim that GW is failing because so many students have been transferred has to also account for why an equal number have been transferred to GW--does this mean the other elementary schools are failing, too? And, by the way, it's a tortoise, not a turtle. (And yes, I mistook it, too, and was set straight by a four-yearold in Children's House). And one other thing. It isn't quite accurate that GW teachers are called by their first name. They are called by the appropriate title (Ms., Miss, Mr., etc.) and the first name. And this is not mandatory, either. In a Montessori environment, this does not strike me as inappropriate. In a traditional elementary school, it is. But I also notice that in universities, students calling professors by their first name is now a common--but by no means universal practice!
23
Section 4. Going Forward
revious sections have addressed the question of how successfully GW is meeting the needs of its students. In this final section, I want to suggest some ways in which GW can move forward from this point onwards.
Restore collegiality between GW and the District
GW has in many respects become isolated from the larger KCS community. Perhaps this was inevitable given the way it was brought into being. Perhaps KCS wasnt ready for a progressive educational experiment within its midst, and still isn't. Certainly the growing pains of the first year of the transition have taken a toll on GWs reputation, and poor test scores on State assessments have etched in many peoples minds that GW is a failed experiment. I wasnt present in GW for the past three years, but my interviews and surveys attest to the struggles that GW has been going through-many of which were self-inflicted. The protection afforded by the previous superintendent had both salutary and deleterious effects--it allowed GW to keep its growing pains out of the public eye, but it also prevented thoughtful and district-wide conversations about how to resolve thorny issues. Much of the resentment from staff who left GW voluntarily or were reassigned stems from what they feel was arbitrary and unfair treatment, especially if they raised questions or challenged Montessori ways of doing things. There is no doubt that the collegial atmosphere that exists in GW today is a far cry from what it has been, but that may also be a result of more fully implementing Montessori throughout the building. On the other side, I have been struck by how little is known about Montessori methods and practices, even amongst members of the central administration. I am sure that much of the tension between GW and the district stems from this. Again, it looks as though only two people in the district (the previous superintendent and the current GW principal) fully participated in the plan to transition GW into a Montessori school. Others were largely left out of the loop. If this is correct, then it isnt surprising that when things didnt go right, GW didnt reach out to the KCS community for help. This of course changed once the district found that tests scores were dropping, but by then, those outside GW--who largely had little direct understanding of Montessori, had less than positive
reports about it (typically from teachers who had left GW, or teachers in other buildings who complained about GW students being transferred to them with little or no skills). If this teaches us anything about going forward, surely it is that (1) no radical shift should have been undertaken at GW without careful planning, without funds that are actually in the bank, and a full understanding of both Montessori philosophy and practices, and (2) there needs to be a collegial relationship between GW, central administration, and the broader academic community. GW has created a strong sense of community within the school, and in its surrounding neighborhood. It hasnt always practiced what it preached about respect for differences, or for solving disputes peacefully, but enormous progress has been made, and it shows. Now GW and the district need to form a community--GW can no longer afford to be an island all unto itself. Can I suggest something to make a start on this? Earlier, I have expressed surprise about how little even some with direct policy-making or supervision responsibilities over GWs program know about Montessori principles and practices. I would start by creating a study group to read one or two books on Montessori. Recommended titles include: The Montessori Way (Seldin & Epstein, 2003); The Secret of Childhood (Montessori, 1982); The Montessori Method (Montessori, 2011); Montessori Madness (Eissler, 2009); Montessori Today (Paula Lillard, 1996). I have already referred to Montessori: The Science behind the Genius (Angeline Lillard, 2007), which would make good reading to learn about the research support for Montessori principles. Then, allow GW to select three classrooms (at each of the levels, including Special Education) that represent best-practice Montessori instruction, and observe them in action. I think the best way to accomplish this is to choose one of the books, read them independently, and then meet as a group to share thoughts, and to raise questions. And do the same after visiting classrooms. The point of this exercise is NOT to like or dislike Montessori, but to better understand it, and to talk collegially among GW and KCS educators about issues that arise from both the books and the classroom encounters.
Getting the Balance Right
It must be clear from this report thus far that GW hasn't yet found the sweet spot between implement-
ing Montessori philosophy and practice, and achieving state and local test scores that at least match other comparable schools in the district. How to reach this sweet spot requires more than adding test preparation and remediation to Montessori instruction. It requires a thoughtful reconsideration of both Montessori methods, as well as the other elementary schools' test preparation techniques, and remedial strategies as well. Simply adding both of these to Montessori will not likely yield the best results. One reason is that the underlying philosophies and practice of Montessori conflict with traditional philosophy and practice. A good illustration of this can be seen in the approach taken by Reading Recovery. Marie Clay (the founder of Reading Recovery) challenges Montessoris notion of development by asserting that childrens developmental stages arent fixed in the sense that they are what they are; rather, they can be accelerated and indeed need to be when children fall so far behind schedule that their likelihood of catching up grows dimmer as they move through school. Other researchers such as Donna Scanlon at the University at Albany have shown that immersing very young children in very specific and targeted interventions as early as Kindergarten can prove to be highly effective in preventing reading failure later on. (For an excellent book that describes these interventions, see Early Intervention for Reading Difficulties: The Interactive Strategies Approach (Scanlon, Anderson & Sweeney, 2010). It isnt that Montessori ignores early language and literacy development--far from it. In fact, the methods and materials are multi-sensory and very structured. Its hard to believe that any child would ever fail to develop language or literacy skills. But what Montessori doesnt do is to accelerate to produce what it would call an artificial test result. GW now has Montessori working alongside a number of other approaches that derive from different instructional philosophies. Marie Clay's Reading Recovery assumed that children would have what might loosely be called Whole Language experiences in the classroom, so there'd be a coordinated and balanced approach. I don't yet see this happening in GW--it seems to be a patchwork of different intervention techniques that aren't as well coordinated, and definitely not seamless, even though GW is clearly committed to making Montessori work together with them. Ideally, GW needs to have Montessori methods prevail in the classroom but work seamlessly with
intervention approaches that keep literacy and numeracy development more on a standards-based schedule than on a strictly developmental one. I agree that this is highly problematic for pure Montessorians, but if the alternative is continued poor test results (or having to devote enormous efforts to maintain good results), thats even more problematic. I am impressed by the steps that have been taken to remedy the poor test results, and at least the 4th grade results in 2011-12 are evidence of the hard work that has gone into test preparation. But I worry about a belief thats quite prevalent in GW that the real reason why the test scores have been poor is because Montessori hasnt reached full implementation yet. That can be challenged on two grounds--one is that GW may never reach full implementation in the sense of having a stable, trained, and experienced faculty (and a student body that stays with the program for its entirety), and the other is that test preparation is a major goal of the other elementary schools, while a 'pure' Montessori approach has it only as a by-product. What this implies is that GWs Montessori program necessarily needs to become a hybrid venture on a permanent basis, so that both Montessori goals and test preparation goals are met. The groundwork for this has already been laid in the last year, but how best to integrate the two, and then make this an essential component of the training for new teachers still lies ahead. In fact, I am optimistic that a hybrid model that succeeds in both goals would indeed become a jewel in the KCS community, and urge continued work toward that end.
Address thorny issues going forward
As GWs three-year Montessori pilot comes to an end and it begins its fourth year, it faces a future with a number of difficult challenges.
As the district faces severe budget shortfalls, and with no external grant monies to support Montessori training, it looks like GW faces diminished resources for ensuring well-trained core teachers at each of its levels. In the short-term, if 5th grade moves elsewhere, and if 4th grade becomes self-contained (and traditional), the issue may be resolved for the time being. But already, GW has lost 11 positions for the upcoming year, and theres no guarantee--although much hope--for restoring at least some positions. As much
Resources
25
as one would wish to restore the classes for 3-yr-olds, that will only happen if grant money can support it and the district approves it (I have a separate recommendation on that issue, see p. 27). What this implies is that GW will almost certainly need to plan for re-sizing its faculty, and trimming its resources to a level that ultimately results in comparability with the other Title I elementary schools in the district. The argument that Montessori requires additional staffing and resources (which it does for a pure Montessori model) becomes harder to justify in difficult economic times. I am impressed with the discussions already going on within GW to prepare for these actual and possible reductions. However, GWs assertion to the Board of Education in February, 2012 that training costs are finished, because new GW hires will either have Montessori training or will know that they are responsible for the own training costs, is, I believe, wishful thinking. First it assumes that going forward, GW will be free to choose applicants from outside the district (as opposed to from within). Has it been determined that GW would be free of contractual agreements to require external candidates to pay for their own Montessori training if they dont already have it, and the district is unwilling to? If selecting candidates from within, would GW be able, under contractual agreements, to require internal candidates to pay for their own training? These are issues that need to be resolved prior to asserting that training costs are finished. On the other hand, I think the arguments GW is making about class size and the provision of TAs is more persuasive, given that the district does supply TAs for class sizes above a certain number (to all elementary schools) and GW has multi-age classrooms that typically accommodate more students. If its any consolation, colleagues in other elementary schools will look favorably on GWs concessions in this regard--it is one of most cited criticisms in the responses to my surveys and interviews. But I also understand GWs worries, that the district created a Montessori school, knowing it was expensive, so why are they withdrawing staff and resources before the program is fully implemented?
Most of the Montessori core goals are not assessed, except anecdotally. And increasingly, anecdotes dont constitute evidence. Only objective tests do. So most of what GW is very good at, goes largely unnoticed (except by those who experience it up close, or, in the case of Bailey Middle School, who
Measuring Core Montessori Goals
receive students from GW), while the objective tests define GWs success (or lack of it). The other problem is that things like independence, respect,' 'solving interpersonal conflicts peacefully are considered too hard to measure objectively. I have argued elsewhere (Walmsley, 2008)2 that not only is it critical to provide evidence of students meeting core goals (whatever they are), but that just because something is difficult to measure doesnt mean it shouldnt or cant be measured. All assessments are only approximations of a childs understanding or habits of mind or behaviors, including all the state tests. Its just that the state tests are standardized, which gives them the appearance of valid judgments about achievement or understanding. This is not an argument against standardized testing, but rather an assertion that state tests define and measure particular forms of understanding, and not others, and if a school has other core goals, those tests wont measure them. Conversely, its not a given that alternative core goals will necessarily lead to successful performance on state tests. So while GW rightly has embarked on adjusting its core curriculum and remediation efforts to ensure that students meet state test requirements, it also urgently needs to find or develop assessments of core goals that are not covered by state tests. For example, one core goal is to teach children social problem-solving skills. There are tests for that (e.g., K .H. Rubins Social Problem Solving Test, 1988; K. H. Rubins Play Observation Scale)--while these are research measures, they might have applicability to assessing core Montessori objectives. Another core goal is developing independent work habits. Observation scales with rubrics that can reliably describe students increasing independence over multiple occasions can not only be used to inform instruction but also to provide evidence across grades of the schools success in this attribute. In GWs presentation to the Board in November, 2011, after showing slide after slide of test score data, the only slides that provided evidence of Montessori core goals was a series of bullets with anecdotes. How much more convincing would it have been to show evidence, for example, for building work ethic by displaying year-over-year graphs of observational data that show percentages of children at, say, levels 3 and 4 of working
2 Walmsley, S.A. Closing the Circle: A practical guide to implementing literacy reform, K-12. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2008
independently? But my greater concern about that presentation was that it didnt show at the outset the core Montessori goals, and provide evidence (however anecdotal) of progress toward them. I would urge GW to embark on finding ways to document and assess each of the core Montessori goals. This task will not be easy, but once engaged upon, will improve not only communicating progress toward desired ends, but also will hugely inform and improve instructional practices. By the way, the other elementary schools claim they also teach attributes like independence and character. They, too, should be working on how best to measure these traits, especially if they are central to their missions (and several of their mission statements on the Kingston website include traits such as respect, self-esteem, and so on.)
into some of these classrooms, through collaboration with Montessori-trained core teachers. So perhaps less formal collaborations between core and special area teachers will suffice. The more that consistent practices occur across the entire schools academic program, the better Montessori principles will be reinforced.
Related to assessment, I did hear criticisms of GWs report cards. One complaint was that GW has a different report card than the other elementary schools. While I understand the need for consistency across elementary schools, GW was deliberately established as an alternative elementary school, and therefore it should have report cards that give parents information related to their childrens progress in a Montessori school. Others (including some GW parents) said the report cards give far too much information, and are hard to understand. Here, aligning the Montessori goals with assessment and reporting would provide the basis for examining and perhaps modifying GW report cards. Simplifying language is important, too, as is field-testing with parents. And then, look at the content and design of report cards from the perspective of teachers in other elementary schools that might be using them in the case of a transfer. Again, what is reported on a GW report card influences how that teacher views not only the child but also GW. I think some renewed attention to report cards is warranted.
Report Cards
A major blow to GW has been the loss, for this coming year, of the three-year-old program, due to shortfalls in the KCS budget. Childrens House is wellregarded not just by GW staff, but even by educators across the district who otherwise have issues with Montessori at the upper elementary levels, and a major component is the program offered for three-year-olds. I think both GW and the District should investigate potential sources of funding--the new Non-Regulatory Guidance for the Use of Title 1 Funds (http://www2. ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/preschoolguidance2012. pdf ) might be a good start. Also, private foundations that support early childhood education should also be contacted (perhaps, start with the Early Childhood Funders Collaborative (http://www.buildinitiative.org/ content/funding-partners). Given the pressure on the district to balance its budget, I would not expect KCS to renew its funding any time soon, so reaching out to federal initiatives and private foundations and perhaps even local corporations and businesses, is probably the only way to restore the three-year-olds.
Restoring the 3-year-old program
I noticed that none of the Special Area teachers currently at GW have received Montessori training. I wasnt able to observe in all special area classrooms, but in ones I did observe, I noticed a contrast in instructional style and organization (i.e., much more traditional). Obviously, its critical to have core teachers trained first, and maybe there simply hasnt been time or funds for formal training of special area teachers, and such funding is not likely to materialize in the near future, either. To be fair, I did hear about plans to better incorporate Montessori methods and organization
Special Area Teachers
27
Conclusion
here is much to admire in GW's short history of a Montessori school. In a brief three years, it has transformed one of the largest and poorest schools into a community in which Montessori principles and practices have largely flourished. But this has not been without controversy, both in the way it was transformed, but especially in its failure to meet the State's increasing demands for academic test performance. While one can question the wisdom of establishing a school with a philosophy that challenges many of the traditional goals and practices of its other elementary schools--remember that Montessori railed against achievement testing--the fact is that GW was consciously brought into being to offer a Montessori approach, and it has done that with considerable success, despite all the obstacles. Had GW been able to progress to full implementation (to do so in three years would have been a miracle, at least 6-8 years even under ideal circumstances is more realistic), perhaps its promise that "academic achievement would naturally flow from Montessori practices" might have been realized. The problem with that promise is that there isn't solid research evidence in the professional literature to back it up, especially for Montessori schools that have been established within public school settings. I have to give credit to GW and the District for the extraordinary amount of attention they have both given to addressing poor performance of GW students on state assessments over the past year or so. Thus far, the results are mixed. 4th grade has definitely shown improvement in ELA, Math, and Science (only tested at 4th grade), and 3rd grade has slightly improved in Math, but the rest of the 2011-12 results continue to disappoint. The jury is still out on how successful these efforts will be in the long run. However, if GW is to fulfill its promise of a successful progressive alternative to traditional elementary schools, it needs to forge a balance between Montessori principles that are based on very strong foundations of developmental education, with standards-based principles that are the currency of the educational realm for public schools. If it can do this--and I hope it can--GW can offer students both the benefits of Montessori core goals as well as academic achievement that is expected of all New York schools. KCS needs to appreciate the many advantages of a progressive approach that Montessori offers, and GW needs to continue to appreciate the need for preparing its students for academic achievement as defined by New York State. On a personal note, I do appreciate the willingness of GW and KCS educators, administrators, and parents to share their views with me, and especially for the thoughtfulness and candor of their responses to my questions. That bodes well for the future of both GW as well as the district, as it moves forward under new leadership in these challenging times. Sean Walmsley Saratoga Springs, NY August 15th, 2012
29
31

Kingston Montessori Report by SUNY Albany Professor

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Kingston Montessori Report by SUNY Albany Professor

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Kingston City School District

George Washington Elementary School Review Final Report

Sean A. Walmsley, Ed.D

August 7th, 2012 (Revised August 15th, 2012)

Purpose of the Review..

How the Review was conducted..

2 George Washington Montessori Review

George Washington Montessori Review

How this report is organized..

Section 1. A brief history of Montessori at GW

Make-up of the GW Students

Make-up of the GW Educators

4 George Washington Montessori Review

George Washington Montessori Review

6 George Washington Montessori Review

George Washington Montessori Review

Students' Exposure to Montessori

8 George Washington Montessori Review

George Washington Montessori Review

Section 2. How Successful are GW students?

10 George Washington Montessori Review

How successfully is GW meeting student needs as defined in terms of Montessori goals?

George Washington Montessori Review

12 George Washington Montessori Review

English Language Arts

George Washington Montessori Review

14 George Washington Montessori Review

George Washington Montessori Review

16 George Washington Montessori Review

George Washington Montessori Review

Reflections on the formal assessments

18 George Washington Montessori Review

number of issues arose during my review that warrant an extended discussion.

GWs abrupt Conversion to Montessori, Lack of Funding & its Consequences

George Washington Montessori Review

20 George Washington Montessori Review

George Washington Montessori Review

Parental choice in attendance at GW

22 George Washington Montessori Review

have their children in a Montessori school.

George Washington Montessori Review

Section 4. Going Forward

Restore collegiality between GW and the District

Getting the Balance Right

24 George Washington Montessori Review

Address thorny issues going forward

George Washington Montessori Review

Measuring Core Montessori Goals

26 George Washington Montessori Review

Restoring the 3-year-old program

Special Area Teachers

George Washington Montessori Review

28 George Washington Montessori Review

George Washington Montessori Review

30 George Washington Montessori Review

George Washington Montessori Review

S-ar putea să vă placă și