DEVELOPING EQUITABLE ELEMENTARY CLASSROOM PLACEMENT ROUTINES

Year 2022, Volume: 11 Issue: 1, 1 - 19, 30.06.2022

Kevin K. Lurz Nichole Walsh

https://doi.org/10.55020/iojpe.1076761

Cited By: 1

Abstract

The annual assignment of elementary students from one classroom to the next is a ubiquitous cycle in schools. Since student class assignment has an effect on students’ educational trajectory, understanding how placement procedures impact student equity is an important area of research with benefits for all stakeholders. In this action research project, survey data was collected to examine what student data points teachers found most meaningful as well as what elements participants considered the most effective and the least beneficial components of the previous piloted placement procedures at a central California elementary school. The findings of this research demonstrated that respondents valued intervention data, such as English Language Proficiency Assessments for California (ELPAC) levels or special education (SPED) status, English Language Arts (ELA)/Math achievement data, and behavior data. However, they also expressed hesitancy over certain narrative or subjective information. Respondents also reported that, while multi-grade level cooperation was a valuable component of the placement process, the procedures needed to be more clearly systematized. Findings suggest that by linking placement procedures to existing Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) structures, the placement process can more effectively address issues of student equity and achievement.

Keywords

Student placement procedures, equity, achievement, multi-tiered systems of support, general systems theory

References

• Bosworth, R., & Li, H. (2013). Patterns in student assignment to elementary school classrooms. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(51), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v21n51.2013
• Buffum, A. G., Mattos, M., & Malone, J. (2018). Taking action: A handbook for RTI at work. Solution Tree Press.
• Burns, R. B., & Mason, D. A. (1995). Organizational constraints on the formation of elementary school classes. American Journal of Education, 103(2), 185-212.
• Burns, R. B., & Mason, D. A. (1998). Class formation and composition in elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 35(4), 739-772. https://doi.org/10.2307/1163465
• California Department of Education (n.d.) [Redacted] Charter Summary | California School Dashboard. https://www.caschooldashboard.org/reports/[identifier redacted]
• Caws, P. (2015). General systems theory: Its past and potential. Systems Research & Behavioral Science, 32(5), 514-521. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2353
• Conzemius, A., & O’Neill, J. (2014). The handbook for SMART school teams: Revitalizing best practices for collaboration (2nd ed.). Solution Tree Press.
• Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2018). Opening or closing doors for students? Equity and data use in schools. Journal of Educational Change, 19(2), 131-152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-018-9323-6
• DePaolo, C. A., & Wilkinson, K. (2014). Get your head into the clouds: Using word clouds for analyzing qualitative assessment data. TechTrends, 58(3), 38-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-014-0750-9
• DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., Many, T. W., & Mattos, M. (Eds.). (2016). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work (3rd ed.). Solution Tree Press.
• Fincham J. E. (2008). Response rates and responsiveness for surveys, standards, and the Journal. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 72(2), 1-3 (Article 43). https://doi.org/10.5688/aj720243
• Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. B. (2017). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (6th ed.). SAGE Publications
• Kalogrides, D., Loeb, S., & Béteille, T. (2013). Systematic sorting: Teacher characteristics and class assignments. Sociology of Education, 86(2), 103-123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040712456555
• Mandinach, E. B., & Gummer, E. S. (2016). What does it mean for teachers to be data literate: Laying out the skills, knowledge, and dispositions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 366-376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.07.011
• Marsh, J. A., & Farrell, C. C. (2015). How leaders can support teachers with data-driven decision making: A framework for understanding capacity building. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(2), 269-289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214537229
• Park, V., St. John, E., Datnow, A., & Choi, B. (2017). The balancing act: Student classroom placement routines and the uses of data in elementary schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(4), 390-406. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-09-2016-0098
• Paufler, N. A., & Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2014). The random assignment of students into elementary classrooms: Implications for value-added analyses and interpretations. American Educational Research Journal, 51(2), 328-362. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831213508299
• Sauter, V. L. (2017, January 25). Systems Analysis Current Page. http://www.umsl.edu/~sauterv/analysis/intro/system.htm
• Sleenhof, J. P. W., Koopman, M., Thurlings, M. C. G., & Beijaard, D. (2019). An exploratory study into teachers’ beliefs and experiences about allocating students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 80, 94-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.01.007
• St. John, E. M. (2014). Understanding the factors that influence the grouping and assignment of students to elementary classrooms, (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Washington, United States. https://digital.lib.washington.edu:443/researchworks/handle/1773/26214
• Unified School District. (n.d.) [Redacted] Charter school / Homepage. Location redacted for confidentiality.
• Vornberg, J. A. (2013). Systems theory. In B. Irby, G. H. Brown, R. LaraAiecio, & S. A. Jackson (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Theories (pp. 805-813). Information Age Publishing, Incorporated. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csufresno/detail.action?docID=3315873