Addressing Learning Loss

Our Advocacy Work in 2021

Learning loss is a serious problem nationwide and a threat to the futures of a generation of students:

Success in school is linked to multiple positive outcomes, including higher earnings, better health, reduced incarceration rates, and greater political participation.

The younger years are critical for learning to read, and can determine a student’s trajectory in school from a young age. Arlington has not bucked this concerning trend. See September Letter, September Analyses, September Board Comments.
State data shows worse outcomes for lower income students and a wider achievement gap across APS elementary schools, including here.
A McKinsey analysis concluded that as of summer 2021, students were on average five months behind in math and four months behind in reading. Existing opportunity and achievement gaps were also widened: “Students in majority Black schools ended the year with six months of unfinished learning, students in low-income schools with seven. High-schoolers have become more likely to drop out of school, and high school seniors, especially those from low-income families, are less likely to go on to postsecondary education.”

We advocated for various ways to increase instructional time:

We sent examples of detailed plans that focus on increased instructional time (intensified tutoring, double-dose instruction, extended school day, extended school year, before and after school instructional time), such as FCPS’s 46 page presentation, Prince William County’s 41-page plan, and Huntsville, Alabama’s 64-page plan.
We emphasized the importance of funding more student-facing positions, rather than more admin or 'coaching' positions (For example, in the FCPS plan, they note tactics that involve more time for learning: “evidence-based interventions, summer learning or summer enrichment, extended day, afterschool programs, or extended school year programs,” and define “evidence-based interventions” as “extended learning time interventions,” “week-long acceleration academies staffed with highly effective teachers,” “double-dose math structures,” “high-dosage tutoring.”)
We asked APS to use federal funding to address learning loss for all students who need it. Though APS met the federal minimum of 20% spent on learning loss, we should be exceeding the bare minimum.

APS’s response was flatly inadequate:

APS allocated funds for math and reading coaches, rather than teachers. Coaches help teachers to more effectively implement interventions or curriculum and are important, but they are an indirect benefit to students and do nothing to increase instructional time.
APS provided only a single web page describing its “accelerated learning” plan.
APS spent 58% of its allocated federal relief money on only 3% of APS students with its virtual learning program (VLP).
APS announced it would implement “accelerated” instruction focused on “power standards,” an acknowledgment that some things will be skipped, but released little information about how that will be carried out.
APS updated parents on the Beginning of Year assessments and said interventions will include more Dreambox and increased assignments of Lexia, which are iPad apps, and targeted small group instruction. None of this is a plan for more instruction (indeed, small group instruction and targeted intervention are a routine part of teaching), and more screen time is definitely not the answer.
Ms. Diaz-Torres asked for a concrete plan for learning loss for the 620 students in the VLP program, yet not for the estimated 6900 students--35% of the K-8 student body--who experienced significant learning loss in math.

APS students have suffered a significant decline, with score declines five times greater than anything APS has seen in the past. This requires more than business as usual to recover that lost instruction. DIBELS data reflects that 61% of SWDs and 77% of EL 1-2 students are below grade level. Approximately one-third of all elementary students are behind grade level.

In 2022, APE is working to:

Get APS to publish DIBELS data and explain how DIBELS compares to prior years,
Push APS to hire more student-facing teacher positions with state and federal funds.
Have APS create and publish a comprehensive plan to get kids back to grade level, and track and commit to reporting its progress over time.

Class Sizes

Research shows that smaller class sizes are one of the few reforms proven through rigorous evidence to increase student achievement and to improve equity outcomes.

Class sizes have been deemed so important to student achievement, they are one of the few factors in education where many states have passed legislation (as examples, California, Florida, Georgia).
The Washington Area Boards of Education 2021 Guide states Arlington’s average elementary class size of 22.6 is the largest in the region, and fully two students per class more than the average class size for the region of 20.6.

Virginia has legislated higher maximums, but Arlington can and should do better.

In 2021, APE urged smaller class sizes:

Advocated APS to reverse its increase to the maximum allowed elementary class sizes (“planning factors”). [need link]
Asked APS to use its unusually high carryover funds to reduce class sizes by 3 students per class in elementary and 1 student per class in secondary.

APS decision-making shows troubling trends:

APS data show increasing class sizes over recent years. At the middle school level, size of classes that administer SOLs have been steadily increasing from 2018 through 2021, from approximately 19, to just under 21, to almost 24.
This year, APS increased class sizes, despite lower enrollment and a large budget carryover:
- In May 2021, the School Board approved an increase in “planning factors,” resulting in at least a 2 student per class increase. APS’ planning factors in Kindergarten (25), and in 4th (26) and 5th (26) grades exceed the Virginia requirements for average class sizes in those class years; second and third grade are set at the Virginia state levels.
- APS and the School Board defended average class sizes (ranging from 20.7 in 2nd grade to 22.54 in fifth grade) for the 2021-22 school year, but this is higher than the Virginia and local averages by at least two students per class, and represents at least a one-student-per class increase over 2020-2021 class year averages.
- The main reason average class sizes did not increase more is that APS was planning on 28,500 students, rather than the 27,000 students who actually enrolled, leaving APS with more teachers per student than the planning factors would otherwise have dictated.

APS should reverse these decisions and lead the region on class size, not trail it.