Slashdot Mirror
LeBron James' STEM-Based School Is Showing Promise (goodnewsnetwork.org)
Last year, NBA superstar LeBron James opened an experimental school that focuses on teaching a STEM curriculum to students who have a higher probability of failing academically or dropping out of school. The New York Times is now reporting that "the inaugural classes of third and fourth graders at [the I PROMISE School] posted extraordinary results in their first set of district assessments. Ninety percent met or exceeded individual growth goals in reading and math (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source), outpacing their peers across the district." From the report: The students' scores reflect their performance on the Measures of Academic Progress assessment, a nationally recognized test administered by NWEA, an evaluation association. In reading, where both classes had scored in the lowest, or first, percentile, third graders moved to the ninth percentile, and fourth graders to the 16th. In math, third graders jumped from the lowest percentile to the 18th, while fourth graders moved from the second percentile to the 30th.
The 90 percent of I Promise students who met their goals exceeded the 70 percent of students districtwide, and scored in the 99th growth percentile of the evaluation association's school norms, which the district said showed that students' test scores increased at a higher rate than 99 out of 100 schools nationally. The students have a long way to go to even join the middle of the pack. And time will tell whether the gains are sustainable and how they stack up against rigorous state standardized tests at the end of the year. To some extent, the excitement surrounding the students' progress illustrates a somber reality in urban education, where big hopes hinge on small victories.
The 90 percent of I Promise students who met their goals exceeded the 70 percent of students districtwide, and scored in the 99th growth percentile of the evaluation association's school norms, which the district said showed that students' test scores increased at a higher rate than 99 out of 100 schools nationally. The students have a long way to go to even join the middle of the pack. And time will tell whether the gains are sustainable and how they stack up against rigorous state standardized tests at the end of the year. To some extent, the excitement surrounding the students' progress illustrates a somber reality in urban education, where big hopes hinge on small victories.
There are many examples of schools that succeed with low-income students. The problem is they are neither scalable nor sustainable. They are not scalable because they require talented teachers and principals. There are not enough of them to go around.
They not sustainable because the teachers burn out.
The late teacher's union leader, Al Shanker said it best: "programs that are doomed to succeed and be forgotten."
The numbers aren't staggering, but often the exponential growth from last to bottom tenth, sixth, or third is a more important improvement threshold than the move from 70 t0 80, or, 80 t0 90 percentile.
It is indeed considerably more important. According to the site that tracks these things, the fourth graders who managed to climb to the 30th percentile can now be considered functionally literate. They were illiterate before. That's a major qualitative difference. Fourth grade is pretty late for learning how to read, but better late than never.
Calling it a "STEM-based school" is a joke in poor taste though. This is remedial instruction of the most fundamental kind, and a damning indictment of the previous three to five years of schooling. A school that can't teach a child to read is not a school—it is a kid warehouse. And these kids can learn to read, as they have now demonstrated.
If LeBron James lending his name is what it takes to break through, more power to him. Unfortunately, as InterGuru points out below, that's not scalable or sustainable. There's only one LeBron James, and once his name is lent out too much, it's diluted and doesn't mean anything anymore. And it ages fast. How many of GenZ even knows Michael Jordan's name?
Is that a passive-aggressive way to communicate that you don't like the parent's post but can't find anything in it to actually argue with??