Two of the ideas that struck me were:
1. If students can get 60% on the English 10 provincial exam while they are in their grade 10 year, they statistically are almost a lock to graduate from high school.
2. If students can score 60% or better on the English 12 provincial exam, they are considered to be a "literate" person to international OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) standards.
Now I may need to double check these two things, but if they are indeed correct it answers some questions that I have been pondering over the past few years.
To get the best bang for your buck in terms of improving student achievement, where do you start? English 10. If the data holds true, this course is the straw that stirs the drink. We tested this at Lake Cowichan three years ago (without having this data, just playing a hunch) by having a small English 10 class for students we were concerned about with a strong teacher. Indeed the grad rate went up two years later.
Once we have more students graduating, the creeping worry enters - are we lowering standards in our efforts to have more kids be successful? The English 12 exam target allows us to answer that question and plan for success. This is important. I have heard loud and clear from the Cowichan First Nations leadership that they are pleased a higher percentage of Aboriginal kids are graduating, but they do not want that to be with a watered down course load.
What does this mean at the middle school level? Should we have a small English 9 course that acts like a pre-English 10? Should we be starting English 10 early for our kids that we feel may need more time? We crossed this bridge with Math many years ago by having supported classes at different levels with differentiated instruction and adapted curriculum at early levels. Have we resisted doing the same with English because of its artistic nature?
A thought to ponder... for as said by the American poet Ralph Waldo Emerson "the ancestor of every action is a thought".
