Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Washington State Scores Released

I have no time to read and analyze these results but I put them up for your own viewing.  According to this article in the Times, Washington State students are doing better on the math and science exams.

Math scores in grades 3-8 increased in every grade except eighth.

But


What hasn't improved is the number of schools failing to make adequate yearly progress, as required by the federal No Child Left Behind law. Preliminary figures show 1,388 Washington schools were on that list in 2011, an increase of about 200 schools from 2010.

A total of 223 school districts — out of 295 in the state — failed to make adequate yearly progress in 2011.

Here's the link to the scores at OSPI.

I checked but there is no announcement yet from Seattle Schools about the scores for our district.

68 comments:

dan dempsey said...

Here is an apples to apples comparison from SPS District scores vs. State scores for grades 3 through 5.

It again indicates the district remains clueless about elementary school math.

First the Reading scores for Low Income and all students note from 2010 to 2011 an increase for 6 out of 6 categories. Low Income and All students scores increased vs. state at all three grade levels. Hooray.
==========

Low Incomes scores for grades 3, 4, & 5:

3rd Grade Reading
Year ....District ....State .. diff
06 WASL : 50.20% : 53.70% : -3.50%
07 WASL : 52.40% : 56.50% : -4.10%
08 WASL : 53.60% : 56.50% : -2.90%
09 WASL : 54.90% : 58.60% : -3.70%
10 MSP : 54.80% : 59.50% : -4.70%
11 MSP : 63.20% : 61.90% : 1.30%
2011 diff from "2010 +6.00%

4th Grade Reading
Year ....District ....State .. diff
06 WASL 67.00% 70.90% -3.90%
07 WASL 66.60% 64.80% 1.80%
08 WASL 58.50% 59.30% -0.80%
09 WASL 57.60% 61.60% -4.00%
10 MSP 47.60% 53.60% -6.00%
11 MSP 50.90% 53.90% -3.00%
2011 diff from "2010 +3.00%

5th Grade Reading
Year ....District ....State .. diff
06 WASL 60.30% 63.30% -3.00%
07 WASL 60.40% 57.50% 2.90%
08 WASL 61.60% 62.50% -0.90%
09 WASL 57.70% 61.10% -3.40%
10 MSP 51.90% 56.40% -4.50%
11 MSP 51.00% 54.10% -3.10%
2011 diff from "2010 +1.40%

---
Here are reading scores for all students:

3rd Grade Reading
Year ....District ....State .. diff
06 WASL 70.00% 68.30% 1.70%
07 WASL 72.30% 70.90% 1.40%
08 WASL 73.20% 70.70% 2.50%
09 WASL 74.30% 71.40% 2.90%
10 MSP 74.50% 72.10% 2.40%
11 MSP 78.60% 73.10% 5.50%
2011 diff from "2010 +3.10%

4th Grade Reading
Year ....District ....State .. diff
06 WASL 80.30% 81.20% -0.90%
07 WASL 80.40% 76.60% 3.80%
08 WASL 75.60% 72.60% 3.00%
09 WASL 75.70% 73.60% 2.10%
10 MSP 68.80% 67.20% 1.60%
11 MSP 71.90% 67.30% 4.60%
2011 diff from "2010 +3.00%

5th Grade Reading
Year ....District ....State .. diff
06 WASL : 76.30% : 76.30% : 0.00%
07 WASL : 76.70% : 71.90% : 4.80%
08 WASL : 77.80% : 75.60% : 2.20%
09 WASL : 75.30% : 4.00% : 1.30%
10 MSP : 70.60% : 69.60% : 1.00%
11 MSP : 70.90% : 67.60% : 3.30%
2011 diff from "2010 .. +2.30%

Next comes Math for grades 3, 4, and 5

RosieReader said...

Well I just downloaded the info on Seattle's traditional high schools. Hopefully, those who are good at dissecting numbers can clue us in on what all this really means.

dan dempsey said...

So here comes Math...

How will Board President Sundquist and former CAO now Supt. Enfield .... attempt to spin there way out of these facts.

Check out this math data:

Low income students Math Scores for grades 3, 4, 5:

3rd Grade Math
Year.. District.. State.. diff
06 WASL : 49.00% 48.80% 0.20%
07 WASL : 54.30% 55.70% -1.40%
08 WASL : 56.00% 54.80% 1.20%
09 WASL : 51.10% 51.90% -0.80%
10 MSP : 48.10% 48.40% -0.30%
11 MSP : 44.30% 47.80% -3.50%
2011 diff from "2010 -3.20%

4th Grade Math
District State diff
06 WASL : 39.30% 42.50% -3.20%
07 WASL : 40.00% 40.70% -0.70%
08 WASL : 33.70% 36.90% -3.20%
09 WASL : 36.20% 36.10% 0.10%
10 MSP : 39.90% 38.80% 1.10%
11 MSP : 40.70% 44.90% -4.20%
2011 diff from "2010 -5.30%

5th Grade Math
District State diff
06 WASL : 33.50% 38.10% -4.60%
07 WASL : 40.70% 42.00% -1.30%
08 WASL : 45.70% 44.50% 1.20%
09 WASL : 45.60% 45.90% -0.30%
10 MSP : 38.90% 39.10% -0.20%
11 MSP : 44.80% 47.20% -2.40%
2011 diff from "2010 -2.20%
----
ALL students Math Scores for grades 3, 4, 5:

3rd Grade Math
District State diff
06 WASL : 67.30% 64.20% 3.10%
07 WASL : 72.30% 69.60% 2.70%
08 WASL : 73.60% 68.60% 5.00%
09 WASL : 71.40% 66.30% 5.10%
10 MSP : 68.70% 61.80% 6.90%
11 MSP : 67.10% 61.50% 5.60%
2011 diff from "2010 -1.30%

4th Grade Math
District State diff
06 WASL : 59.50% 58.90% 0.60%
07 WASL : 61.90% 58.10% 3.80%
08 WASL : 56.40% 53.60% 2.80%
09 WASL : 59.90% 52.30% 7.60%
10 MSP : 62.00% 53.70% 8.30%
11 MSP : 64.50% 59.30% 5.20%
2011 diff from "2010 -3.10%

5th Grade Math
District State diff
06 WASL : 57.00% 55.80% 1.20%
07 WASL : 63.20% 59.50% 3.70%
08 WASL : 66.40% 61.20% 5.20%
09 WASL : 67.70% 61.90% 5.80%
10 MSP : 59.90% 53.60% 6.30%
11 MSP : 65.20% 61.20% 4.00%
2011 diff from "2010 -2.30%

=========
Still waiting for some data driven decision making.... that intelligently applies the relevant data!!!

Say who is the current district program manager of Math and Science?

Curious said...

I'm looking at Dan's math numbers. I have a couple of questions.

Looking at the 4th and 5th grade math scores for all students.

10 MSP : 62.00% 53.70% 8.30%
11 MSP : 64.50% 59.30% 5.20%

Didn't a higher % of Seattle kids pass the MSP?

State wide there were even greater improvements than in Seattle. That is why the difference between Seattle and the state went down. But isn't it true that you can move up from a lower base more quickly than from a higher base?

In fact, isn't the 4th grade math was the highest MSP pass rate for Seattle since 2006?

If your goal is to increase % of kids passing the WASL or the MSP, isn't Seattle doing better v. itself?

And if that is the case, wouldn't you be worried that they would use this data to support their contention that they are on the right path?

Curious.

dan dempsey said...

Dear Rosie,

I will give you a report on individual high schools soon.
Currently one can make a quick comparison of grade 10 scores for the District with state testing in years past.

Keep the following in mind:
#1 WASL was not a test of math content taught
#2 HSPE was just a one year patch job to fill space for the benefit of NCLB AYP yada yada.

#3 Eoc #1 is a pretty good test of Algebra skills (calculator is allowed so it gives no idea if kids know arithmetic)

#4 EoC #2 is a weak test of Geometry skills as it covers a very reduced number of Geometry standards.

#5 Seattle required students to have Sophomore credit standing to take the grade 10 test (effective Spring 2006) whereas most of the high schools in the state let any student enrolled in HS for two years take the grade 10 test.
----------------

All SPS students for grade 10 OSPI testing

10th Grade Math ALL
Year .... District .. State .. diff
07 WASL : 50.20% : 50.40% : -0.20%
08 WASL : 50.40% : 49.60% : 0.80%
09 WASL : 48.90% : 45.40% : 3.50%
10 HSPE : 45.30% : 41.70% : 3.60%

10th Grade Math Low Income
Year .... District .. State .. diff
07 WASL : 26.70% : 30.50% : -3.80%
08 WASL : 27.60% : 29.70% : -2.10%
09 WASL : 25.80% : 27.30% : -1.50%
10 HSPE : 22.80% : 24.50% : -1.70%

==========
Now for the results (Pass rate) for testing Algebra 1 course content... EoC #1 (ALL Students)

10th Grade EOC Math 1
Year ... District ..State .. diff
11 EOC M1 61.40% 60.80% +0.60%

Now for the results for testing some Geometry course content... EoC #2

10th Grade EOC Math 2
Year ... District ..State .. diff
11 EOC M2 60.50% 66.30% -5.80%

LOW INCOME STUDENTS results

LOW Income
10th Grade EOC Math 1
Year ... District ..State .. diff
11 EOC M1 36.00% 41.10% -5.10%

10th Grade EOC Math 2
Year ... District ..State .. diff
11 EOC M2 51.90% 55.80% -3.90%

dan dempsey said...

Dear Curious,

The WASL has huge variations from year to year in some areas tested. That is why I put a lot more faith in a direct comparison with the state scores. I think of the WASL or now OSPI's MSP as very subject to grade inflation.

The largest example of this came in the reading scores from the period 2000 to 2005...

During that time period the WASL reading was given at grades 4, 7, 10 and showed extremely large gains... during that same time the IOWA tests were given at grades 3, 6, and 9. IOWA tests showed a very small gain at grade 3 and no gain at grades 6 and 9.

The 7th grade WASL statewide reading scores were:

7th Grade Reading
Year State
1997-98 WASL 38.40%
1998-99 WASL 40.80%
1999-00 WASL 41.50%
2000-01 WASL 39.80%
2001-02 WASL 44.50%
2002-03 WASL 47.90%
2003-04 WASL 60.40%
2004-05 WASL 69.00%

So from 2000 to 2005 there was an improvement of

69/41.5 = 1.663

66.3% in 7th grade reading scores while IOWA testing showed reading at grades 6 and 9 flat.

The OSPI testing has largely been a political tool in the past... with little bearing on reality (but it is the only tool we have had).

My hope is that EoC testing may be different ... I look for either the test or the cut scores to be manipulated judging from OSPI's past practice.

Soon we will enter the Common Core Standards massively expensive testing era.

Trust me.... if you want to actually get something at least partially relevant .. stick with looking at the Seattle differential with the state scores.

That is as close to an APPLES TO APPLES comparison as we will get in attempting to evaluate improvement.

=========
Side note: if you wish to know how well the economy is doing.... forget the Blah Blah Blah and just track Diesel fuel sales. The "whatever recovery" ended 9 months ago. Trucks run and deliver goods and Diesel fuel sales rise. They have not risen in 9 months.

RosieReader said...

Dan, where do you find the low income info? Is that from the new UW website, or from the OSPI info?

Anonymous said...

From SPS. I don't have the attached report but I'm curious to see what it says.

A friend of Seattle.




Dear Seattle Public Schools staff:

Today we received some very exciting news from the state – Seattle Public Schools is outperforming the state in test scores for Grades 3-8.

While we still have much to accomplish, I am so proud of the work you do every day to create opportunities for success for our students.

Attached is a report on the test scores, including vignettes of school success stories, and charts.

I look forward to celebrating with you at our back-to-school event today from 4-6 p.m. at Seattle Center’s Fisher Pavilion! Here’s to a terrific 2011-12 school year.

Susan

Susan Enfield, Ed.D.
Interim Superintendent
Seattle Public Schools

Christina said...

How shocking to see the math scores so low for third grade.

I think I'll start a math tutoring business this school year. The math tutors serving students in my child's grade/school don't seem to have much competition.

dan dempsey, why is the district clueless about elementary school math? Do any current elementary teachers believe their classes would have better scores if a different math curriculum were used? Does cluefulness disrupt some institutional/administration privilege? What is the benefit of delivering a mathematics test designed at a level where a slim margin of children pass or fail? Who benefits?

Did any other parent's children have MSP scores that fluctuated by 25 percentile points each testing period? Should I take a kilogram of NaCl with these MSP scores, or write them off as inconsequential numbers used at whim by state-level and city-level education administration?

Curious said...

I am just trying to understand how SPS would look at the numbers. I seen an improvement in comparison with prior years when comparing the district to itself.

Now, you can argue that that is grade inflation or a change in the test, that is fine. I'm just trying to wrap my hands around the idea that looking at only a comparison with prior years is not an improvement. Here are the 4th grade math numbers you cite:

09 WASL : 59.90% 52.30% 7.60%
10 MSP : 62.00% 53.70% 8.30%
11 MSP : 64.50% 59.30% 5.20

In 2010 there were 62% of kids passing in Seattle. In 2011 that number had improved to 64.5%. That's the highest pass rate in Seattle since 2006.

I don't know why the state average is behind Seattle's. I suspect that there are too many variables to really suss that out here.

++

On the Diesel fuel sales indicator. I like the argument. However, there are, again, many variables. I would also look at freight traffic and (because we are in a more global economy) bulk shipping rates. The trucking companies are having trouble finding enough drivers for their trucks. (hmmm, maybe we could offer some CDL training or options for high school kids).

Anyway, I just want to know how to explain the year over year improvement when comparing Seattle v. Seattle.

Anonymous said...

I received the report from SPS which shows how they are interpreting the data. Who can I email it to?

A friend of Seattle

Anonymous said...

Here is the press release from SPS which shows how they are intepreting the data.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B9CNKmbf_4FIYzExYWM0NzYtZDkzNS00NzAyLTgxYTEtZDViNTMxNzI2NjQ4&hl=en_US

A friend of Seattle

Anonymous said...

Hi Rosie, to see Low Income or other test categories first get your school or district on the page by finding it in EOC or doing a search. Then click a grade level link (or "all grades") that you want scores for, to go to a new page. Use the drop-down menu there to "Select a Category of Students" one of which is "Low Income."

-Math mom

Anonymous said...

Well, I guess I don't know how to use google doc for the link isn't working.

A friend of Seattle.

Dorothy Neville said...

worked for me, friend. Good job.

Anonymous said...

Good to hear. In looking at the way SPS lays out the data, it looks like they are making a lot of progress based on the score tragectory over last several years as well as when compared to State Average. I'm not an educator, but as a public citizen, these charts makes me feel like things are going in the right away. Perhaps all the work that was done in the last 2 or 3 years are starting to pay off. Please, no rock throwing my way! ;)

A Friend of Seattle.

Charlie Mas said...

What change, if any, have we seen in elementary math pass rates?

3rd Grade math - trending down
2005-06 67.3%
2006-07 72.3%
2007-08 73.6%
2008-09 71.4%
2009-10 68.7%
2010-11 67.1%

4th Grade math - trending up
2005-06 59.5%
2006-07 61.9%
2007-08 56.4%
2008-09 59.9%
2009-10 62.0%
2010-11 64.5%

5th Grade math - trending down
2005-06 76.3%
2006-07 76.7%
2007-08 77.8%
2008-09 75.3%
2009-10 70.6%
2010-11 70.9%

Cohorts - mixed
06-08: 67.3%, 61.9%, 76.3%
07-09: 72.3%, 56.4%, 77.8%
08-10: 73.6%, 59.9%, 70.6%
09-11: 71.4%, 62.0%, 70.9%

Does this indicate that Everyday Math is a success? I don't think so.

Anonymous said...

@Charlie. I agree with your numbers. However, why not build on and celebrate the successes? I hear there is a pep rally at Seattle Center today! It seems there are plenty of reasons to celebrate and the "while we still have much to accomplish" isn't getting lost in the message. I do appreciate the tenacity of keeping the administrators and Boards on their toes by bringing issues to light.

A friend of Seattle

Anonymous said...

In comparison to State Average, are there other large urban school districts who matches or exceeds state average scores? I see a lot of green on the second chart! ;)

A friend of Seattle

Anonymous said...

Interesting about the schools making or failing AYP. A while ago, somebody from SouthShore said they were offered a transfer by the district to Concord under NCLB. But Concord didn't make AYP. That should not have been offered. So why is it on the approved list? Also, Lowell didn't make AYP. If you're going with schools who are simply failing and not in the "needs improvement ladder", then Lowell is as good as Concord. Concord is in fact, a failing Title 1 school. Also interesting to note - Mercer Middle School now seems to be getting Title 1 funds. Oh the mystery. Some get it, some get it not. Most middle schools still failing, but a few improve to make AYP.

-somebody else

Charlie Mas said...

Wow! What a huge difference between the 10th grade HSPE pass rates and the End of Course pass rates for low income students!

We jumped from only 22.8% of 10th grade low income students passing the HSPE in 2010 to 36.0% of low income 10th grade students passing the Math 1 EOC. Pass rates for the Math 2 EOC are even higher.

These results, however, start to breakdown when you look at the details.

Among 10th grade low income students taking the EOC for algebra, only 24.8% passed on the first try. The rest of those who passed were re-taking the test.

238 were taking it for the first time 543 were re-taking the test.

Anonymous said...

Charlie,

I'm not completely sure I am looking at the same numbers you are. However, the make-up year 1 EOC was not a second try at the test. It was the test administered to all kids who were beyond geometry but still need EOC exams to graduate. My child in pre-calc took the EOC year 1 (algebra) make-up exam. Also to kids who missed the other test date.

I think this is explained on the ospi page for SPS composite scores, see asterisk for EOC make-up.

That may account for the higher pass rate.

Also kids only took the exam for the course they were in this year. Most 10th graders should have been in geometry. So any 10th grader who took the algebra 1 exam was 1 year behind in math this year. This may be a good measure of our support for kids who are behind.

If you want to puzzle something out look at special ed. Of the 184 kids who took the makeup EOC, presumably beyond geometry?, only 23 of them passed it. That makes no sense to me.

But to be cheered look at the eckstein low income pass rate for Algebra 1 EOC - 90.9percent.

-wading through the numbers

dan dempsey said...

Dear Rosie,

You can use the drop-down menus to select the demographic group. Here are the results for low income EoC at Garfield {All grade levels}:
http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/EocTrend.aspx?groupLevel=District&schoolId=1061&reportLevel=School&orgLinkId=1061&gradeLevelId=99&waslCategory=18&chartType=1

Here are the results for low income Garfield students in grade 10:

http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/EocTrend.aspx?groupLevel=District&schoolId=1061&reportLevel=School&orgLinkId=1061&gradeLevelId=10&waslCategory=18&chartType=1


For those dying for excel sheets .. Look Here:
http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/DataDownload.aspx

Anonymous said...

The SchoolDigger link on Seattle Times shows the following ranking for math scores in the state (3rd, 4th, 5th grade combined, with previous year's rank in parentheses):

#5 Wedgwood (1)
#10 View Ridge (5)
#18 Laurelhurst (13)
#19 Bryant (3)
#20 Whittier (21)
#21 Lowell (7)

That doesn't look like improvement to me...

parent

dan dempsey said...

So here is Supt. Enfield's view:

Today we received some very exciting news from the state – Seattle Public Schools is outperforming the state in test scores for Grades 3-8.

A closer look at grades 3, 4, 5 low income students compared with the State's low income students shows quite the opposite:

3rd grade reading = 1.30% greater than State's low income
4th grade reading = 3.00% below
5th grade reading = 3.10% below

3rd grade math = 3.50% below state low income score
4th grade Math = 4.20% below
5th grade Math = 2.40% below

=========
For low income students the differentials from State scores in reading from 2010 MSP testing to 2011 MSP testing showed improvement at grades 3, 4, & 5.

For Low Income students the corresponding Math score differentials from 2010 to 2011 were all worse.

Anonymous said...

"Seattle Schools: We're getting worse, but we're still better than average!"

cynic

dan dempsey said...

Here is a reality check for anyone that actually believes the SPS is on the right track in the way the SPS uses Everyday Math.

The Clover Park School district has extremely high poverty ... 62.2% compared with Seattle at 43.3%

CPSD had been plagued for years with low math scores as they were among the first districts to adopt TERC/Investigations for elementary schools and Connected Math Project for middle schools.

CPSD switched to state recommended texts and used them the last two years. Math Connections (top rated by OSPI for the new standards) for elementary school grades 1 through 5

Here are the low income Students passing scores for OSPI Math testing in CPSD:

3rd Grade Math
year District State diff
06 43.10% 48.80% -5.70%
07 49.50% 55.70% -6.20%
08 46.80% 54.80% -8.00%
09 46.10% 51.90% -5.80%
10 53.00% 48.40% 4.60%
11 51.10% 47.80% 3.30%
"2011 diff from "2010 -1.30%

4th Grade Math
Year District State diff
06 33.00% 42.50% -9.50%
07 36.80% 40.70% -3.90%
08 25.80% 36.90% -11.10%
09 30.10% 36.10% -6.00%
10 39.80% 38.80% 1.00%
11 52.30% 44.90% 7.40%
"2011 diff from "2010 6.40%

5th Grade Math
Year District State diff
06 31.80% 38.10% -6.30%
07 36.30% 42.00% -5.70%
08 34.70% 44.50% -9.80%
09 46.60% 45.90% 0.70%
10 35.80% 39.10% -3.30%
11 51.10% 47.20% 3.90%
"2011 diff from "2010 7.20%

Note unlike Seattle... Clover Park's low income students math pass rates consistently scored above the state averages for low income students.

3rd grade = 3.30% above State
4th grade = 7.40% above state
5th grade = 3.90% above state

=============
So why is Seattle continuing with Everyday math?

dan dempsey said...

Dear Cynic,

You said:
""Seattle Schools: We're getting worse, but we're still better than average!"

Not true for low income students in elementary school Math MSP testing in 2011... SPS is worse than average of state's low income students (and in comparison with state is getting worse).

Charlie Mas said...

wading through the numbers, thanks for the correction and explanation.

Anonymous said...

The amazing thing about Seattle teachers is that they have managed,
in spite of the high numbers of private school students and highly dysfunctional central administration, to outperform state averages in most test categories FOR YEARS.

AGAIN, THIS HAS BEEN HAPPENING FOR YEARS! NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN, EVEN THOUGH SUSAN ENFIELD IS TRYING TO SPIN IT AS NEW!
It is so self-serving of Susan Enfield to act like this is new.
She subtly tries to attribute it to her time as CAO in the press release--BUT WE ARE NOT FOOLED.

SEATTLE TEACHERS ROCK! In spite of getting basically spat upon by the MAP, and the MGJ and Enfield's casual and real disregard of their talents, this fact remains.

Susan Enfield's lame attempt to credit the teachers publicly after
paying no attention to their needs or input is par for her self-serving course.

--you teachers, however, can be proud

Anonymous said...

Let's also give some credit to involved parents, tutors, Kumon...

parent

dan dempsey said...

The Bethel school district adopted Everyday Math the same year as the SPS. First used in 2007-2008. Bethel also adopted Discovering for high school that same year. BSD has the same math materials at each grade level as the SPS. Bethel SD poverty is 32.8%.

Here are Bethel pass rates for low income students in math. The Bethel School District adjoins Clover Park.
CPSD has about double the Bethel poverty rate.

Bethel SD Low Income pass rates
3rd Grade Math
year ... District ... State .. diff
06 WASL 47.80% 48.80% -1.00%
07 WASL 57.70% 55.70% 2.00%
08 WASL 57.80% 54.80% 3.00%
09 WASL 48.40% 51.90% -3.50%
10 MSP 48.10% 48.40% -0.30%
11 MSP 57.40% 47.80% 9.60%
"2011 diff from "2010 9.90%

4th Grade Math
year ... District ... State .. diff
06 WASL 38.10% 42.50% -4.40%
07 WASL 37.50% 40.70% -3.20%
08 WASL 35.30% 36.90% -1.60%
09 WASL 38.00% 36.10% 1.90%
10 MSP 37.80% 38.80% -1.00%
11 MSP 46.80% 44.90% 1.90%
"2011 diff from "2010 2.90%

5th Grade Math
year ... District ... State .. diff
06 WASL 41.00% 38.10% 2.90%
07 WASL 40.70% 42.00% -1.30%
08 WASL 44.30% 44.50% -0.20%
09 WASL 43.10% 45.90% -2.80%
10 MSP 34.60% 39.10% -4.50%
11 MSP 46.10% 47.20% -1.10%
"2011 diff from "2010 3.40%

To summarize using Everyday math Bethel SD low income Math scores v. State low income in 2011

3rd grade = 9.60% above state
4th grade = 1.90% above state
5th grade = 1.10% below state

Seattle with Everyday
3rd grade math = 3.50% below state low income score
4th grade Math = 4.20% below
5th grade Math = 2.40% below

Clover Park with Math Connections
3rd grade = 3.30% above State
4th grade = 7.40% above state
5th grade = 3.90% above state

dan dempsey said...

About High School Math EoCs.....

The students who took these tests I believe all took an Algebra course at some time (to take EoC 1) and took a Geometry course to take EoC #2.

I have no idea of the participation rates at each high school. The Geometry EoC is far less comprehensive than the Algebra EoC.

Percents passing EOCs
Seattle High Schools testing of low income students (total of all grade levels)
EOC #1: EOC #2
47.2 : 57.0 :.. Ballard
34.1 : 47.4 :.. C. Sealth
50.2 : 50.6 :... Cleveland
56.3 : 67.6 :... Franklin
28.1 : 43.9 :... Garfield
33.3 : 40.7 :... Ingraham
37.8 : 67.2 :... N. Hale
18.0 : 47.4 :... Rainer Beach
60.3 : 62.9 :.. Roosevelt
37.7 : 51.9 :... West Seattle

42.8 : 54.0 :... District
47.2 : 59.5 :... State

===========

And the Big winners are Cleveland, Franklin, & Roosevelt.

Cleveland is a big winner ... because CHS decided that every student would have a double dip math program with twice as much math time for students.... and it really improved student scores.

Congrats to all at Cleveland ... remember Kinsey is moving from CHS to become Sealth principal.

Franklin again shows that they have a real clue about how to git 'er done ... despite the SPS confused direction. Franklin has been improving for several years. Note: UW has been giving help to Garfield and RBHS and Cleveland for several years.....

The Big OUCH award goes to AP magnet school Garfield. Garfield ranked #9 in Algebra out of 10 schools.

Roosevelt also is a big winner.....
Roosevelt has been ignoring the SPS Central directives about high school math materials and instruction for years.... while preferring to teach math.... Check out those results for Roosevelt and Garfield.

Note that when only 60% of Students can pass a test on the contents for a course taken ... it is hard to get really enthusiastic .... but it sure beats 35% or Garfield's 28.1%.

NOTE that Superintendent Enfield failed to mention that the SPS is scoring worse than the State when it comes to Low Income students' pass rates on the EoCs.

Ingraham did not have a good showing.

So what will the SPS do about any of this?

It is a little late to fix math in high school ... after the SPS screws it up completely in the early grades.

dan dempsey said...

Low Income Students
Percents passing for 10th graders only

EOC #1 EOC #2
42.1 : 61.0 :... Ballard
36.5 : 42.9 :... C. Sealth
41.0 : 52.0 :... Cleveland
59.8 : 69.4 :... Franklin
30.6 : 39.5 :... Garfield
29.9 : 38.8 :... Ingraham
42.9 : 59.4 :... N. Hale
21.2 : 44.8 :... Rainer Beach
61.3 : 66.7 :... Roosevelt
47.5 : 38.6 :... West Seattle

36.0 : 51.9 :... District
41.1 : 55.8 :... State

=========
Garfield and Ingraham look like twins.

Franklin is #1 in Geometry for Low income 10th graders and a close second to Roosevelt in Algebra .... WOW!!!

SP said...

I posted this earlier, but keep in mind that the WA State Board of Ed voted on Aug. 9th to actually LOWER the passing score for some tests---

From the SBE minutes:
The Board reviewed and approved the Superintendent of Public Instruction’s recommended cut scores for the End of Course mathematics exams (algebra 1/Integrated 1 and geometry/Integrated 2) and the Measurements of Student Progress in 5th and 8th grade science.
*****************

This means that any claims of improvement from last year's scores are potentially false claims (ie Seattle's 8th grade science up from 60.4% to 69.7%). There must have been a noticable drop in statewide passing scores to trigger this last minute manipulation of the scores. The question is, how much was the passing score lowered by for these tests?

Anonymous said...

Wow. High school results for black students is pretty much on par with students in special education. Anybody who thinks low income, and not race, is a performance factor... isn't looking at the "data". We often hear "it's really just low income" not racism. Racially based performance is alive and going strong in SPS.

-another parent

dan dempsey said...

So the 9th graders taking Geometry are the sharp kids.
Here are pass rates on the EOCs for ninth graders and participation numbers... remember we are talking low income students for both pass rates and numbers tested.

Low Income Students

Percents passing for 9th graders only
....................................... Number tested
EOC #1 EOC #2 EOC #1 EOC #2 (#1/#2 ratio)
48.3 : 78.6 : Ballard.... 57 14 (24.6%)
25.9 : 61.9 : C. Sealth. 107 42 (39.3%)
50.4 : 75.0 : Cleveland 122 28 (23.0%)
56.1 : 79.1 : Franklin.. 196 67 (34.2%)
25.6 : 58.2 : Garfield.. 138 79 (57.2%)
23.7 : 69.2 : Ingraham.. 68 13 (19.1%)
34.0 : 89.5 : N. Hale..... 48 19 (39.6%)
7.5 : 60.0 :.. Rainer B.... 53 15 (28.3%)
62.5 : 70.0 : Roosevelt 53 10 (18.9%)
29.9 : 66.7 : West Sea... 67 33 (49.3%)

36.2 : 69.3 : District 979 332 (33.9%)
44.0 : 82.1 : State 17,890 5,073 (28.4%)

Looking at those Garfield scores and the ratio of 9th graders taking Geometry ... I wonder if some of those placements into Geometry are justified. With a Geometry pass rate of 58% for 9th Graders in Geometry ... should the ration of Geometry takers to Algebra takers be 57% ... note the 9th grade Algebra pass rate at garfield is only 25.6% for these low income kids.

I sure would not be beating down the door to get my kid into Garfield for Math. Check out Franklin's scores above for 9th graders.

Does the District know what Franklin is doing?
Does the District even care?

dan dempsey said...

Sorry about the screw up above... that ratio is
number of students taking EoC #2 / Number taking EoC #1

Geometry takers / Algebra takers.

numbers said...

This may not come as a surprise, but 100% of SPS middle school students that took the EOC#2 met standard:

School - number of students

Eckstein - 33
Hamilton - 62
Madison - 31
Washington - 58

dan dempsey said...

Dear Numbers,

How about middle schoolers taking EOC #1?

What do those numbers and pass rates look like?

Remember that EoC #2 is less comprehensive in complete coverage of Geometry Standards than EOC #1 is of Algebra standards.

Anonymous said...

Dan, what do the sped #s look like?


Curious

numbers said...

From the Times comments, posted on 8/30/11 at 8:22pm:

...to pass the Algebra 1 test, a student only needs to earn 37.5% of the points. They only need 57.5% of the points to be rated "advanced." For geometry it is 45% to pass and 65% to be rated "advanced."

I did ask someone about how the pass rates are determined and found out that the number of points earned is supposedly irrelevant. I was told that there are a certain number of "proficient" level questions and a certain number of "advanced" level questions. A student has to get almost all of the proficient questions correct to pass the test and a lot of the advanced level questions correct to be labeled "advanced."


The comments include the following link for cut scores:
Math EOC and science MSP cut scores

The EOC#1 and EOC#2 results for middle schools can be found by clicking the detailed OSPI reports for each school.

Washington State Report Card

Anonymous said...

Sped Numbers for EOC?

EOC 1, All grades, All times given? 22.4% pass. (146 passing)

EOC 2, 45.2% pass (76 passing)

Seems a lot better than HSPE, but with a lot of room for improvement.

--sped parent

Anonymous said...

Wow 22.4% pass for our students with disabilities. That is totally disgraceful, given that the majority of the students are cognitively capable.

The culture of low expectations for students with disabilities is alive and well in our Seattle Public Schools. Why do teachers and principals get a free ride on this?

Angry parent

Anonymous said...

Dan - SPS High School Math ...

In order to find out what is working and what isn't working, we'd need completely anonymous surveys to the math teachers.

Fear of Fuzzy Head Hunters from downtown looking to insure fidelity to garbage curriculum is founded upon the reality of fuzzy downtown head hunters forcing their philosophical garbage down the throats of our kids in math classrooms.

For Period 1

Question #1.
Which class did you teach?
A. Algebra 1, B. Geometry, C. Algebra 2, D. none of the above.

Question #1.
In a "typical" week, for how many days was the "Discovering..." text used for more than 1/2 the time for more than 1/2 the days.
A. 0, B. 1, C. 2, D. 3, E. 4, F. 5

and on for all 6 periods.

Kids who've been subjected to fuzzy high level confusion for too many years of math "education" aren't doing well on the state test, or any test.

Ideally, without an atmosphere of fear from retribution from the fuzzies, you'd be able to ask those questions openly, and then map the answers to data about the kids in each class.

However, since the point of data driven decision making is to make teachers look bad, and not help us, it is next to impossible to easily get our kids data -

PSAT & WASL & HSPE & EOC & Course Grades & MAP & ... ordered by exam or by time or by ...

OH well, due to data people in charge like the de barros & benratek crowd, this kind of data is scattered among various electronic systems, and is only available for those with time to manually cut and paste from 1 electronic system to the next.

(see high school data coaches!)

DreamOnDan

dan dempsey said...

Dear Numbers,

Thanks for the EoC link above ... slide 22 is quite revealing.

math #1 40 points on Test and
Dorn's recommendations for cut scores were
Advanced / Proficient = 23 points
Proficient / Basic = 15 points
Basic / Below Basic = 11 points

23/40 = 57.5% (Advanced) cutoff
15/40 = 37.5% (Proficient) cutoff
11/ 40 = 27.5% (Basic) cutoff

Have I got this right?
These were Dorn's recommendations .... Am I missing something?

emeraldkity said...

Wow. High school results for black students is pretty much on par with students in special education. Anybody who thinks low income, and not race, is a performance factor... isn't looking at the "data". We often hear "it's really just low income" not racism. Racially based performance is alive and going strong in SPS.

A few years ago- Garfield had testing for math placement not automatic assignment & my daughter ( who has a math related disability & graduated in '08) was placed in a class to help her get caught up ( she was almost two years behind).
She was the only caucasian in her class but that class ( combined with one summer school class) enabled her to be at grade level by junior year so that she could take Chemistry ( along with other kids from the math class she also took physics senior year)
However- this class was something Garfield was doing, not the district and the program was cut the next year.

Don't know if Garfield has been able to introduce anything similar since.

SP said...

Dan,
As I quoted from the WA state Board of Ed minutes before, the board approved Dorn's/OSPI's recommendations and lowered the passing scores previously adopted for both the Algebra & Geometry tests, as well as Science (grades 5 & 8).

The EOC math tests are new this spring, but the end result for %students passing their graduation requirement for math went up from 45% passing (2009-10 on the HSPE) to 60% (algebra EOC) and almost 70% (geometry). Its like comparing apples to oranges, and rotten oranges at that!

Similarily, the science %students passing shot way up with the artificial boost, from 5th grade 41% (2009-10)to 64% passing this year, and in 8th grade from 60% (2009-10) to almost 70% this year.

The actual passing score bar has been lowered so low that a passing rate in 8th grade science is now 57.5%. No wonder 70% of the kids in Seattle passed that test this spring! Aren't we making wonderful progress!

numbers said...

7th-9th grade EOC exam results for Seattle:

% meeting standard (number taking)

7th grade
EOC#1 - 97.8% (186)
EOC#2 - 100% (11)

8th grade
EOC#1 - 88.1% (881)
EOC#2 - 99.6% (234)

9th grade
EOC#1 - 53.2% (2158)
EOC#2 - 84.4% (1058)

The numbers include all EOC exams and exclude No Scores.

seattle citizen said...

@ another parent,
You wrote that, "Wow. High school results for black students is pretty much on par with students in special education. Anybody who thinks low income, and not race, is a performance factor... isn't looking at the "data". We often hear "it's really just low income" not racism. Racially based performance is alive and going strong in SPS."

I'm curious as to what uou think we might make of Black students being "on par" with Special Ed students(using the "data"). Is there correlation? Is it two separate issues that happen to have similar "data"?

I don't thinnk many people think low income and not race is THE factor. Low income, race, special ed designation all have "cross-over," where one "category" (if we can make such a generalization) impacts others.

What do you mean by "racially based performance"?

And then, how is it "going strong" in SPS?

This thread of discussion gets to the very heart of what is driving education policy at local and national levels. This discussion about race, income, special education and their corollaries, white priviledge, wealth, "advanced placement" (for want of a catch-all phrase that identifies those that need not the assistance "to level" of special ed but rather the "advancement" from level of APP, Spectrum, AP, IB etc etc.
The nexus of race, class, and ability is THE discussion under way, and to settle on some grand sea changes regarding these things seems to be the job put before us.

The question is, who decides the answers? Individuals...communities...districts...Data processors?

Anonymous said...

The low cut scores make the rise in scores seem so meaningless, yet there will be no shortage of people patting themselves on the back.

disgruntled parent

G said...

Private schools in Seattle cherry pick the best and the brightest kids of color away from SPS.

Anonymous said...

To G,
And why shouldn't we go if the chocie for our kids is Aki, Concord, etc.? If the kids apply, got accepted and decided to go to a private school, then kudos to them. (It doesn't have to be kids of color either, just make the FRL)

-looking for a way out

G said...

There is absolutely nothing wrong with choosing to go private. But eliminating the top performing kids of color from SPS testing skews the results of the scores. High performing kids of color with the most highly involved parents of color are largely not represented in SPS. My kids' public middle school was quite diverse, and most kids of color went private for high school. It's a fantastic option. But I think SPS test scores are more complex than they seem.

seattle citizen said...

"SPS test scores are more complex than they seem"

The "test scores" we are throwing around here are NOT complex; as usual, we have narrowed the assessment methodology down to just bare metrics and now discuss them as if they WERE complex. This is unfortunate. This supports a whole system change from nuanced assessment of individuals to blanket statements about groups.

The students being assessed ARE more complex, much more complex. The "data" (MSP/HSPE), when studied individually and correlated with other factors in a child's life, MIGHT yield valuable information. But the announcements, at local, state, and national levels, of these numbers shows no complexity at all, and that is the purpose, to simplify education and its product into graphable data. The cynics would say this data is then used to turn education into a mere production line, each input and output measurable...And, given the evidence, the cynics would be right.

The complexity we aren't priveledged to see with this data is which student is both White AND Special ed; which is Black AND Asian, which was rich yesterday and poor today, which is Black immigrant and which is Black African American, which was beaten this morning and which skipped all their classes...THIS is the valuable data, but we newspaper readers don't get an ounce of that analysis, we merely get categories.

And so goes the use of the "acheivement gap" to destroy public education by rendering it into mere graphs and charts, the students into data points and the educators into programmers.

Anonymous said...

Seattle Citizen, are you dense? You seem to mire yourself in lots of confusion on simple observations.

The observation of OSPI's published MSP/EOC results:

Special education students, as a group, identified by OSPI, across the grades, past the tests at the rates: x, y, z on the various tests. The scores are pretty low... because well, the students have disabilities. The definition of a disabilty means a struggle, usually caused by an organic difference.

Black students, as a group, identified by OSPI, across the grades, seem to pass the various tests at the same rates as students with disabilities..

Is that a difficult fact to understand? ???

I think it pretty terrible when a racial group performs academically at the same level as those with disabilities. Do you not think it a problem???? Can you really deny a huge acheivement gap??? If not, bring on the reformers.

YES! There are lots of overlaps in categories. But to hide behind that points to another problem: Overidentifaction of students of color for special education. And yes, I've seem many times on this blog that race wasn't really a factor... it's all about "low income" and the lack of opportunity that associated with that. Students don't score well, or don't qualify for advanced learning because of their poverty. But the performance, as well as other identifications seem to be more closely related to race.

--another parent

And then there's the other myth, that bolsters the claim: "the smart students of color are in private school". The reality, private schools, as a group, have disproportionately low rate of minority students, much lower than SPS.

dan dempsey said...

Finally I understand how the EOC testing was done. Students took either the Algebra EoC or the Geometry EoC but not both (unless perhaps a student was taking both Algebra and Geometry).

If a student just finished an Algebra class, they are tested with EoC #1

If a student just finished a Geometry class, they are tested with EoC #2.

Any student who took a math class above those two classes was tested with EoC #1 {this is referred to as "Makeup Year 1"}

There were no make up Year 2 tests given this year.

Thus the only students taking the EoC #2 were those that took Geometry this year..... While everyone else wound up taking the Algebra EoC.

In the SPS there were 6,120 EoC #1 tests taken
and 2,860 EoC #2 tests taken.

seattle citizen said...

Thanks, anotherparent, for answering my question by asking if I'm dense. That's so cordial. Was it something I said?

Maybe my point wasn't clear enough for you: Students aren't just Black, Special ed, White, or whatever, and by making them merely these things with these test scores we gloss over the individual struggles.

Is that less dense?

Have a GREAT morning, another parent!

emeraldkity said...

The reality, private schools, as a group, have disproportionately low rate of minority students, much lower than SPS.

this is true- both of our kids were in private schools for at least three years although we were/are a middle to lowish blue collar family. However we had made a commitment to procuring the best education we could for our children despite sacrifices elsewhere.

We did get to know families of color in the private schools, however they were from educated middle to upper income backgrounds ( including SPS district administration)

We saw over the years other similar families making the choice to move outside of the city for better schools rather than go private.( which is how you get greater racial diversity in the eastside suburbs) However, for many families ( as it was for us) that wasn't an option we seriously considered.

SST said...

"And why shouldn't we go (to private school) if the chocie for our kids is Aki, Concord, etc.?"

This is a bit of a stretch isn't it? If it's private school you want that's fine, no argument here. But if you truly want public schools there are PLENTY of options. There are neighborhood schools all over the city that have excess space that will happily take your child. And there are "choice" schools too. If Aki and Concord are your neighborhood schools and you don't like them choose another school - you are not bound to them. You may have to drive your child to school, but you'd have to do that for private school too.

Anonymous said...

SST,
Wow, great schools with excess space. So no capacity problem. Well that would be news for folks on the wait list for those "choice" schools?

-Still on the wait list

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know when State scores get posted to the Source?

Anonymous said...

Wow SC, students aren't just one thing? Big duh!!!!

By glossing over the groups, ignoring trends, throwing our hands up and saying "oh, so sad about individual struggles", we fail to see who exactly it is that are served the least and where effort needs to be applied.

-another parent

seattle citizen said...

Another parent, you write that "By glossing over the groups, ignoring trends, throwing our hands up and saying "oh, so sad about individual struggles", we fail to see who exactly it is that are served the least and where effort needs to be applied"

Umm, who is ignoring trends or throwing their hands up in the air?

It IS sad about individual struggles. And individuals who are excelling and could use more advanced materials.

When the media merely shows these generalized numbers, the grouped "trends" and ignores the nuance and the individual struggles and successes, we DO "fail to see exactly who exactly it is that are served the least..."

Given the bare basics of "Blacks 'fail' at a rate higher than Whites," what are we to make of that, as an uninformed public? What is the "take-away" from that comparison based on categories? Are we to assume that Blacks, generally, are "not served" by schools? How? Or are we to assume that Whites are better served? How? In which schools does this happen, as we know that all schools have all sorts of kids in them?

The categories generalize and distract from the individuals. As we have seen, sweeping statements come out of these generalities: "This school is failing." Failing HOW? Is it ALL the teachers failing? All the students? Of course not.

Then, you write that the "glossing over the groups" keeps us from seeing exactly who is struggling. How does the "group" show us exactly who is struggling? It doesn't, and if we look at child who we THINK is free-reduced lunch, and make assumptions about that child based on that, we are guilty of addressing only what we THINK (or are told) about "that group" and ignoring the "exact" needs of the individual. The groups easily lead to assumptions about individuals that are inaccurate and misleading. They can lead to racist and classist actions.

UNLESS there is nuance, but the general public never gets that, they get "failing school" because there are "Blacks" in it.

What is YOUR take-away from the OSPI scores, another parent? What useful information do you gain? Yes, we can become more aware of trends: If a child identifies or is identified as Black they, on average, do less well on state tests. But what do you take away from that? What is helpful in that?

And you know, "duh" is really not that helpful. Unless you somehow have the whole thing worked out. If you do, let us know.

SST said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SST said...

Anonymous, sure the most popular schools are full, but there are plenty of very good schools that do have space, even now, after open enrollment is finished. I live in the NE, and just in my neighborhood alone I can tell you that there is still space at Jane Addams (elementary and MS), John Rogers, Olympic Hills, Northgate, AS1 (elementary and MS), BF Day, Northbeach, Ingraham, and Hale, just to name a few. Many choices out there, so don't feel "stuck" at Concord, Aki, RBHS. And this is what is available now, at the end of summer, and after open enrollment. If you apply during open enrollment you have many more choices and a far better chance of getting into popular schools.

Anonymous said...

SST,

Sounds like you are in the know. How do you switch to those schools now after open enrollment? Should we talk to the principal to the preferred school to see if there are spaces and we can switch or is it better to go through downtown?

-Want to get out to a better school

Royce Christensen said...

Regarding the percentage cut-off for passing:

Seems as though the suggestion is that 37.5% is a low passing score, and the passing score for the 8th grade MSP has been lowered, so maybe the increase in passing rates is less meaningful. I teach AP Calculus, and the percentage necessary for earning a qualifying score of 3 or above, on a scale of 1 to 5, is in the low 30% range. Some readers my feel that the level of difficulty of calculus is such that a passing score of such low percentage is warranted; however, it's all relative. The algebra 1 EOC can be every bit as challenging to a student in first year algebra as the AP Calculus exam can be to a student in AP Calculus. In both cases you are testing students on a year's worth of curriculum. When you are testing a year long course over a few hours, the 70, 80, 90 standard for grading students is not valid.

I also should laud the success of the middle schools. Unless I did not see all the scores, it appears that all the middle schools that administered the EOC Algebra or Geometry had passing rates over 90%. And one middle school in particular, Aki Kurose had 100% of it's 31 students pass the year one EOC in algebra, and it appears that a bit over 70% (22/31) of the students are identified as low income.