Collateral Damage in the Middle of Transformation: School Board Politics in Lieu of a Student’s Academic Needs

The New Principal

After 13 years as a classroom teacher, Ms. Wilkins entered administration as an assistant principal of Brownside elementary school serving pre-kindergarten through fifth grade. She continued to observe teachers’ instruction here, especially those with high-risk students and students with disabilities. She attended initial and annual individualized education program (IEP) meetings during the school year. After 1 year and 4 months, she was promoted to the position of principal of Evergreen Elementary, located in the same school district, which had a student population of 304 students, 12.5% of which was participants in the Exceptional Children’s Program. Upon accepting the role as principal, Ms. Wilkins met with teachers to discuss their needs and concerns of Evergreen Elementary. She used the conferences as a way to get to learn the teachers as well as share her vision, mission, expectations, and routines. Ms. Wilkins informed the teachers during the conference about learning walkthroughs, visits to classrooms, and that she would barely be in her office because she wants to know what is going on in the building during the day.

Jamie, the First Grader

As Principal Wilkins conducted her daily walkthroughs of the hallways and classrooms in the school, a certain first-grade student would always catch her attention. She suspected he was not in the correct grade, and so one day, she asked him about his teacher. Jamie, which Ms. Wilkins later learned was his name, responded with a smile and gave her the name of a first-grade teacher. Ms. Wilkins began to visit Jamie’s classroom, and he made quite an impression on her, in and out of the classroom. Jamie was a very well-mannered young child who always stood quietly when standing in line in the hallway. In class, he was always on task and worked without redirection. For many reasons, Jamie just stuck out to Ms. Wilkins.

Ms. Wilkins soon received an invitation from the school’s special education teacher, Ms. Stallings, to attend a placement meeting for Jamie during the spring of the school year. In addition to Ms. Wilkins as the local educational agency representative, in attendance were Jamie’s mother, a case worker from the behavior health services agency, and the teacher from the Exceptional Children’s Program. Based on his placement test results, Jamie identified as learning-disabled in reading and writing. However, his teacher stated that he was performing at a third-grade level in mathematics based on his data from Study Island. ¹ The IEP team decided Jamie needed to continue receiving third-grade math tasks, and mandated the school should arrange for him to spend time with a third-grade class during the math block. Jamie’s mother informed the team that her son was supposed to be in the third grade. This revelation led to a discussion about Jamie’s age and retention, and to Ms. Wilkins finally understanding why he was so much taller than his peers.

Jamie’s mother explained why her son was in the first grade for the third time. He had enrolled at another school in the district, Rollins Road Elementary, prior to attending Evergreen Elementary. At that time, he had difficulty with reading. Jamie’s mother recalled that she was notified in late March of the school year that her son would be retained in the first grade. In response to this, for the next school year, she took him out of public school and tried homeschooling. However, she had trouble with her son academically and behaviorally even demonstrating erratic behaviors that she worried posed a risk to himself and others. Thus, after a year of homeschooling, she decided to reenroll Jamie in public school, choosing Evergreen Elementary, and once more placed him in first grade. The caseworker from behavioral health services shared that Jamie was exiting the program this year. The mother also shared how Jamie occasionally talked about the fact that he should be in third grade. He struggled with the reality that he was 8 years old and in the first grade, while his little brother was in kindergarten. As the meeting was ending, Ms. Wilkins said to Jamie’s mother, “I am going to investigate to see if we can put your son in his age-appropriate grade.” Jamie’s mother was happy to hear that from her son’s principal, and further expressed with gratitude that she had never received so much assistance with her son’s education.

Exceptional Children’s Program

Immediately following the meeting, Ms. Wilkins called the director of the Exceptional Children’s Program to inquire about how to go about placing Jamie in his age-appropriate grade. She explained her proposed placement for Jamie and asked, “If the student is now going to receive services to help him with his reading, and he is on grade level with math, can he be assigned to his age-appropriate grade?” The director answered, “Yes.”

The school year continued, but Ms. Wilkins did not hear from Jamie’s mother. Ms. Wilkins became so overwhelmed with end-of-year activities that she did not follow up with Jamie’s mother. Ms. Wilkins also never called to tell Jamie’s mother about the conversation she had with the director of the Exceptional Children’s Program.

After the school year ended, Ms. Wilkins was responsible for creating class rosters for the upcoming school year. When she received the recommended class lists for second grade, she saw Jamie’s name. This reminded her about the plan to move him to an age-appropriate grade, but she still did not know the district’s protocol for placing students in age-appropriate grades. She understood that she had the right as the principal to assign students to a grade, but she wanted to make sure she followed the correct procedure to comply with district policy.

She retrieved Jamie’s cumulative folder to see if there was anything present to help her make the final decision. In it, there were only two letters, both written by Jamie’s mother. One letter asked for permission to move her children from Rollins Roads Elementary School to Evergreen Elementary School. In the other, more recent correspondence, she stated that she wanted her son to repeat the first grade. There also was a letter in the file from the superintendent granting permission for Jamie’s transfer from Rollins Road Elementary to Evergreen Elementary. However, there were no official school documents, such as transcripts, report cards, or testing information, to show that Jamie attended any other school, nor was there any official documentation showing he had ever been homeschooled.

Ms. Wilkins believed her hands were tied, but she did not want to go back on her word or see this child lose the chance to get an appropriate education. She called the director of Elementary Education to inquire about possible next steps, but he was out of the office and unavailable. While driving home that evening, Ms. Wilkins decided to call Ms. Stallings, the chair of Evergreen Elementary Exceptional Children’s Program, to discuss Jamie’s profile and his placement for the next school year. During their discussion, Ms. Stallings shared that Jamie had an IQ of 89 and was currently performing at a third-grade level in mathematics. She discussed his testing performance, noting that he had been rated a Level J (second-grade equivalent) by the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) at end-of-year testing, and that he had scored at a proficient level on the text reading and comprehension (TRC) assessment. Ms. Stallings also noted that he would be 9 years old on his next birthday. After speaking to Ms. Stallings, Ms. Wilkins was certain that moving Jamie to third grade was the right decision. She asked Ms. Stallings to email her a record of the matters they had discussed.

The next day, the director of Elementary Education returned Ms. Wilkins’s call. Ms. Wilkins told her about Jamie’s situation as she explained her decision to advance him to third grade. She shared background information, such as Jamie’s classification as specific learning disabled in the Exceptional Children’s Program to receive services in reading and writing. She reported that Jamie was performing at a third-grade level in math, and that his performance at the end of first grade was a Level J on the DIBELS assessment. She provided his age and date of birth. The director said she would investigate the case and follow up with Ms. Wilkins.

The next day, the director of Elementary Education telephoned and granted Ms. Wilkins permission to move forward with placing Jamie in the third grade. Ms. Wilkins was unsure of the appropriate documentation, and wanted to be sure to follow district protocol for changing grade placement. She asked the director about written documentation, and the director told her to send her and the superintendent a memo explaining the decision. The two then outlined what should be included in the memo with an understanding to send a draft before finalizing anything.

Unexpected Turn of Events

Later that day, the assistant superintendent of human resources stopped by Ms. Wilkins’s school to do a random check-in. When the assistant superintendent asked how things were going, Ms. Wilkins included the latest dilemma with regard to Jamie. Ms. Wilkins paused as she spoke, and the assistant superintendent of human resources interjected, “You need to call [Superintendent] Dr. Thomas!” Ms. Wilkins was a little bewildered as to why she needed to call the superintendent as she had just spent the last 2 days talking with the director of Elementary Education. She replied, “I spoke to the Director of Elementary Education about this, and she did not say anything about sharing this with the Superintendent except via email.” The assistant superintendent repeated, “You need to call Dr. Thomas.”

Ms. Wilkins called the office of the superintendent, but Dr. Thomas was not in her office. The assistant took Ms. Wilkins’s message, “Please have Dr. Thomas call me back. I have a decision to make with regard to a first grader whom I would like to move to his age-appropriate grade.” Dr. Thomas called her back with the assistant superintendent of curriculum and instruction in her office. The superintendent was not happy. She explained how this would present a problem for the district. Dr. Thomas let Ms. Wilkins know that if one child is reassigned, then other parents are going to request their child to be reassigned. The board of education did not want to deal with upset parents about children moving to age-appropriate grades. She asked how many other parents were requesting to be moved. Ms. Wilkins let Dr. Thomas know that she was advocating on behalf of the student due to the new placement in the Exceptional Children’s Program. Dr. Thomas then spewed out what seemed to be a dissertation that included comments on the school district’s policy on retention and promotion, skipping grades, social promotion based on age and size, and “opening a can of worms.” However, during the conversation the superintendent stated, “It is at the discretion of the principal to retain and promote.”

Ms. Wilkins once again shared that she was basing Jamie’s placement in third grade on the fact that he was newly placed in special education, had been in first grade twice in public school, was performing at third-grade level in mathematics, and displayed age-appropriate psychosocial development. Dr. Thomas questioned whether the student could read and how he was going to pass the state exam in third grade, to which Ms. Wilkins responded, “Since he will receive services for being SLD in reading and writing, he will fall under the good clause exemption.” By this time, Ms. Wilkins was wondering what was taking Ms. Stallings, chair of the Exceptional Children’s Program at Evergreen, so long in sending the requested email, as she had already sent her a draft. She concluded that this would be an appropriate time to share the points from the chair of the Exceptional Children’s Program.

Both the superintendent and assistant superintendent questioned how Ms. Wilkins knew the child had been in first grade twice already, and asked who placed the child in first grade when he enrolled at Evergreen Elementary. Ms. Wilkins told her about the letter written by Jamie’s mother stating she wanted her son placed in the first grade. They also discussed the letter in the file from the superintendent. As it documented Jamie’s transfer from Rollins Road Elementary to Evergreen Elementary, the question arose of whether there was documentation from Rollins Road Elementary somewhere. Ms. Wilkins put the phone on hold to retrieve the cumulative folder and check it again. She flipped through every page in the folder, but there was not any paperwork from the previous school. The letter from the superintendent, then, was the only evidence they had that he had attended school and received instruction. While on talking on the phone, the assistant superintendent pulled up mClass to retrieve Jamie’s TRC results as a first-grade student. The assistant superintendent made the claim that first-grade TRC results were not strong enough for the student to be moved to third grade. Dr. Thomas said she would call Ms. Wilkins back, and the call ended.

Jamie just qualified for specific learning disability (SLD) reading. He needed special education services in reading but not math. Jamie was on grade level for third-grade math. After getting off the phone, Ms. Wilkins decided to review the board policy on social promotion. She identified the Elimination of Social Promotion section of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2012 as matching the reasoning she had shared with the superintendent and assistant superintendent. It provided support for Jamie being advanced to third grade in stating,

(b) Students may be exempt from mandatory retention in third grade for good cause, but shall continue to be eligible to participate in reading camps, receive instructional supports and services and reading interventions appropriate for their age and reading level. Good cause exemptions shall be limited to the following:

 (1) Limited English Proficient students with less than two school years of instruction in an English as a Second Language program.

 (2) Students with disabilities, as defined in G.S. 115C-106.3(1), and whose individualized education program indicates:

  (i) the use of the NCEXTEND1 alternate assessment,

  (ii) at least a two-school-year delay in educational performance, or

  (iii) receipt of intensive reading interventions for at least two school years.

(3) Students who demonstrate reading proficiency appropriate for third grade students on an alternative assessment approved by the State Board of Education. (4) Students who demonstrate, through a student reading portfolio, reading proficiency appropriate for third grade students. Student reading portfolio and review processes used by local school administrative units shall be approved by the State Board of Education.

(5) Students who have:

 (i) received reading intervention, and

 (ii) previously been retained more than once in Kindergarten, first, second, or third grades.

Based on the limited information in Jamie’s cumulative folder, Ms. Wilkins’s next step was to ask her administrative assistant why there were no records from the previous school. The response was as follows:

The records were requested. I do not know, but out of all the counselors in the district, that counselor will not send records through the courier nor send the information. You have to pick it up if you want it.

Ms. Wilkins felt flustered. She felt that she did not effectively express her point of view to Dr. Thomas, but knew something had to be done to help Jamie, who had been in the first grade for 3 years at three different schools: first grade at Rollins Road Elementary, first grade in homeschool, and first grade at Evergreen Elementary. More importantly, with the help of his teacher, Jamie had shown growth during the school year. Jamie demonstrated proficiency by scoring at Level J on DIBELS, which equates to reading mastery at the beginning second-grade level.

The next day Ms. Wilkins did not hear back from the superintendent. However, she received the email from the Exceptional Children’s Program Chair. Ms. S. (personal communication, June 12, 2015) wrote the following:

I’m sorry it took so long for me to get back to you. I’d just gotten back into town and was headed out of town again to take my son to basketball camp. Here is the information you requested about J.H. In April 2015, J’s evaluation results indicated that he had deficits in reading and written language and was eligible to receive services as an SLD student with speech as a related service. He was retained twice from what I was told by his mother and had behavior issues that his mother was having difficulty managing on a daily basis. Upon meeting the mother to discuss placement for services in the EC program, it was discussed that maybe J would benefit from receiving Math instruction from a grade level that was more suited to his functioning needs. After careful thought and consideration of possibly placing J in third grade, the following thoughts came to mind: 1) Third grade is a very stress-filled grade level with all the academic requirements, and J would not have the transition time to adjust to the many changes as it relates to testing, which would include: MAP, DIBELS, EOG, and RTA. The second grade does allow transitional opportunities to assist the student in handling a heavier classroom workload as well as numerous formative and summative assessments. 2) In the past, J has not responded well to drastic changes and may experience high levels of stress due to numerous changes taking place simultaneously since he suffers from ADHD as well. 3) J has become accustomed to his current circle of friends, and completely removing him from familiar faces may prove overwhelming. 4) Although J. performed two or more book levels above a first-grade reading level and did well in math, he is still not performing anywhere near expected grade level being that he is a nine-year-old going to the second grade. Whether due to behavior, intellectual functioning, or poor instructional delivery, I am unsure as to why J is currently experiencing such a delay in his academic experience. These are just a few scenarios that may warrant a closer look. If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to give me a call.

The following day, the assistant superintendent of curriculum and instruction called Ms. Wilkins on behalf of Superintendent Dr. Thomas to inform her that Dr. Thomas would not support the decision to place Jamie in the third grade merely based on the fact that he was overaged for the second grade.

No Child Left Behind/Every Student Succeeds Act

In 2002, the No Child Left Behind Act was passed to close the achievement gap. The policy provided “guidelines for public schools to improve education through the following changes: heightened accountability, enhanced flexibility and local control of funds, enhanced parental choice and increased use of research-based instructional methods” (Vannest, Mahadevan, Mason, & Temple-Harvey, 2009, p. 148). Consequently, this legislation created larger gaps in other key areas such as parent–teacher–school communication, instruction, and student learning. More importantly, the Every Student Succeeds Act ensures vital information is provided to educators, families, students, and communities through annual statewide assessments that measure students’ progress toward high standards, while supporting evidence-based and place-based intervention developed by local leaders and educators (U.S. Department of Education, 2015).

Common Core Curriculum

While federal, state, and local agencies try to determine the best way for students to learn, the overall achievement gaps continue to increase between student groups. This growing achievement gap is in part due to the increased focus on standardized assessments as a way of “assessing the quality of students, teachers, and schools” (Hursh, 2007, p. 500). Teachers are unsure which standards to teach or how to prepare students appropriately for standardized assessments. Meanwhile, state-level and national-level organizations and firms are “engaged in developing materials and preparing educators to revamp instruction and supervision around common core standards” (Rothman, 2014, p. 19). McPartland and Schneider (1996) addressed the pitfalls of implementing a common curriculum of demanding content that requires other accommodations, such as creating new instructional materials and revising teaching plans, to avoid high student failure rates.

Early Grade Retention

Retention does not yield positive effects for students or the school. Meisels and Liaw (1993) investigated whether students in Grades K-8 can catch up if retained, concluding that “research has demonstrated that retention does not, on average, afford retained students a lasting academic or social advantage, nor does it appear to be an effective remediation strategy” (p. 70). In a sample of 16,623 students, among whom the largest proportion of retentions occurred in the first 4 years of school, retention rates were as follows: kindergarten (11.6%), first grade (27.4%), second grade (15.2%), and third grade (13.0%). They also compared students who had never repeated a grade with those who had been retained and found that students who had been retained had notably lower grades and test scores and were more likely to have “learning, emotional, and behavioral problems, and special education placement” (Meisels & Liaw, 1993, p. 74). Looking at retention in the first grade, Murray, Woodruff, and Vaughn (2010) marked grade-level retention as a widespread and controversial issue. They note that an estimated 15% of elementary students in the United States are retained, despite the many negative outcomes that have been linked to it, such as increased school dropout rates, greater academic failure, lower self-conception, fewer employment opportunities, a greater number of arrests, and elevated substance abuse.

Goos, Van Damme, Onghena, Petry, and de Blide (2013) identified similar concerns with first-grade retention in their study of the Flemish educational context. Results of their study showed that first-grade retention was not helpful and often led to students transitioning to special education where they performed at lower levels in reading and math. The authors argued that promoting a student to the next grade level would serve them better by exposing them to “more stimulating and challenging higher-level content” (Goos et al., 2013, p. 23).

North Carolina Read to Achieve

In North Carolina, third graders receive extra attention because of a legislative initiative called Read to Achieve that was enacted in 2012 as part of the Excellent Public Schools Act. The purpose of the state law is to provide third-grade students who are not reading at grade level by the end of the school year with special help, including summer reading camp and other interventions, to make sure they can read well enough to do fourth-grade work (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction [NCDPI], 2012).

There are seven components to Read to Achieve: elimination of social promotion, early grade reading proficiency, establishment of processes for developmental screening and kindergarten entry assessment (KEA), comprehensive plan for reading achievement, successful reading development for retained students, notification requirements to parents and guardians, and accountability measures (NCDPI, 2012). At the beginning of the third grade year, students are administered the beginning-of-grade (BOG) assessment to determine if they are reading on grade level. Based on their results, students work on reading passages throughout the school year and are assessed with an interim testing tool called Reading 3D. Students work to meet the requirements for third-grade reading, which are to read at grade level on BOG, 80% or higher on reading passages, and meeting grade-level targets on local assessments. If all else fail, the student must pass an end-of-grade assessment. If a student does not pass any of the alternative assessments, she or he must attend a summer reading camp, at the end of which they are required to take another reading assessment to show proficiency on a third-grade level. At this point, if a student does not show proficiency on the third-grade reading assessment, they receive a retained reading level in their cumulative folder.

School Environment

Evergreen Elementary sits behind a church in the northwest corner of a rural district in the eastern part of the United States that has 11 schools: one primary school serving grades pre-kindergarten through third grade, six elementary schools, two middle schools, and two high schools. Enrollment peaked at more than 13,000 students 10 years ago; however, enrollment has now plummeted to fewer than 3,000 students. Students who migrated out of this district now attend charter schools or private schools, or their families have moved out of the district altogether. Evergreen Elementary is located in a small community, a pre-kindergarten through fifth-grade school with a student population of about 300 students. The staff boasts that a majority of the school’s teachers are veterans. Many of the teachers and teacher assistants in the building have more than 25 years of service. Out of the 15 teachers on staff, only three teachers have fewer than 3 years of teaching experience.

Student Population

Most of the students at Evergreen Elementary are Black (76%). The next largest racial/ethnic group is White students (14%), followed by Hispanic (3%), and American Indian students (1%). Table 1 demonstrates that there is little diversity in the school with respect to the special needs categories. Academic performance was a casualty as the school experienced many transitions during the 2014-2015 school year, including a midyear change in administration. The student support team (SST), a collaboration of teachers who meet at least twice a month in a roundtable format to discuss instructional and behavioral strategies for at-risk students who have not qualified for exceptional children’s services, did not meet consistently during this period. Relatedly, more and more students identified as part of the SLD category as the year progressed. Students identified with SLD have a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in mathematical processing, or understanding and/or using language, spoken or written. The disorder may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). Further underscoring the issue, when the district coordinator for the academically intellectually gifted (AIG) assessed students midyear for placement in an AIG program, the number of students added to the program was very limited.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Exceptional Children Student Population at Evergreen Elementary (2014-2015).

Special population groups	Number of students	Percentage of student population
Limited English proficient	8	3
Students with disability	38	13
Academically intellectually gifted	7	2