Open Thread Friday
Got your ballot? Don't forget to vote. (But I did learn an interesting figure about voting in Seattle, at least so far for mail-in. It seems that about 18% of people mail in their ballots in the final week. Maybe not so unusual or bad but it sure might be worth campaigning until the end.)
I see by the Board calendar that there's just one director community meeting tomorrow:
Michael DeBell - Caffe Appasionato, 4001 21st Avenue W. from 9-11 a.m.
Then, Peter Maier is having another one on Tuesday the 19th from 10-11:30 am at the Lake City Public Library, 12501 28th Ave NE.
I see by the Board calendar that there's just one director community meeting tomorrow:
Michael DeBell - Caffe Appasionato, 4001 21st Avenue W. from 9-11 a.m.
Then, Peter Maier is having another one on Tuesday the 19th from 10-11:30 am at the Lake City Public Library, 12501 28th Ave NE.
Comments
My kids at Montlake don't know what it is.
Our custodian raises the flag, no ceremony that I know of (but it is raised and lowered every day-maybe that's required?). I vaguely remember one year when a teacher tried to institute a flag ceremony with the kids (maybe that same 2nd grade teacher?), but it didn't stick.
I thought about it and decided that each school must get to decide how to cover their 'electives' (actually to cover planning time for the classroom teachers-I think it's called PCP time or something?). Our school has PE for every K-5 kid everyday. The PE teachers are paid for with District money. We also have one period of art per week and singing in K-2 (then optional choir for 3-5), but all of that is paid for by parent fundraising.
So for us,
District paid:
PE every day
Art none
Music none
What about at your school?
Regarding high school credit for middle school classes, I got a letter from the Board's admin that it has been referred to Susan Enfield. No word since then. I'm not sure about the source of the delay.
3 memos have been posted online, one on middle school and one on high school issues, plus a combo FAQ sheet.
http://www.seattleschools.org/area/instructserv/
secondarygrading.xml
The short answer- The policy is effective Sept. 2010 with NO classes retroactive for earning MS credits for HS. This even applies to the 2-yr world language classes, so this year's 8th graders are out of luck- they will be offered only 0.5 credit which is worthless in the college application's eyes.
Check out the HS memo also- it clearly states that the new weighted grading policy (1.0 extra GPA credit for AP/IB classes and 0.5 extra GPA for honors classes) will ONLY be used to determine class rank only and will not affect a student's official GPA. This is different than what was announced when the policy was being proposed- one of the selling points was that the bump up would help encourage kids to take a more difficult class, knowing that their GPA would not suffer as much.
Seattle Parent?, or whoever it was at the Tuesday Audit meeting. I am sorry I didn't get a chance to say hi. Mel was my ride and she needed to leave. I wanted to ask your opinion about the meeting, something in particular. If you are willing, please drop me an email, my address is on my blogger profile.
I hope that is not the next barrier they are putting in the students pathway!
United States flag — Procurement, display, exercises — National anthem.
The board of directors of every school district shall cause a United States flag being in good condition to be displayed during school hours upon or near every public school plant, except during inclement weather. They shall cause appropriate flag exercises to be held in each classroom at the beginning of the school day, and in every school at the opening of all school assemblies, at which exercises those pupils so desiring shall recite the following salute to the flag: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all". Students not reciting the pledge shall maintain a respectful silence. The salute to the flag or the national anthem shall be rendered immediately preceding interschool events when feasible.
Just another violation for the State Auditor to report.
Seems pretty clear to me:
"in each classroom at the beginning of the school day"
Then again so does RCW 28A 645.020:
Within twenty days of service of the notice of appeal, the school board, at its expense, or the school official, at such official's expense, shall file the complete transcript of the evidence and the papers and exhibits relating to the decision for which a complaint has been filed. Such filings shall be certified to be correct.
The School Board was not held to accountability by three Superior Court judges to provide a certified correct record of evidence relating to Appealed Board decisions. Anyone care to try for accountability on "Pledge of Allegiance"?
I suggest starting with the school principal for a school wide change.
Hale High School news:
1. The World Affairs Council of Seattle announced that Erin Lynch, Hale HS teacher, is the recipient of its 2010 World Educator Award.
As to the students being tutored in science, I think that is probably the exception, not the rule.
Not sure they all put their hands over their hearts though.
McClure family
The responses look pretty generic and formulaic,and I don't know if they actually respond to direct questions or not. I have not attended any of these sessions.
-yumpears
My kids say it, and say it proudly. It's the idea of America and the Constitution we swear to that allows us to speak out against our government and petition it for redress (sue) under the rule of law when we don't like what it's doing. Sure, there is much to complain about, and I won't say "love it or leave it," but like the army doctors who took in the woman in Afghanistan who's brutal Taliban husband had just cut off her nose and ears (and her own uncle had refused to help her) most people in this country are good people trying to do the right thing. Money and power corrupt, lack enough of either to threaten or oppress. Look how proud Canadians, Mexicans and the British are of their flags.
Granted, I'm not a fan of compulsory salutes and pledges of allegiance, but I think the kids should know it and be able to recite it, just not everyday by compulsion.
"Most people" lack enough power or money to oppress.
Grrrr.
During the recent Hamilton open house, the principal presented a chart with numbers showing off the great improvement in test scores last year (over the previous year). But of course there was no mention of the fact that 200+ APP kids moved into the building last year!
This would be an easy thing to just ignore, because the details of the scores really shouldn't be that important. But I wanted to point out to others who, like myself, predicted that distribution of APP kids test scores would be used to tout false advances in achievement, looks like we were right.
To be fair, it wasn't a huge part of his presentation, but it was brought up and touted. Keep an eye out for this kind of stuff as the administration continues to attempt to justify their capricious moves.
Here's a reference.
In short, a school that fails to make AYP for two years in a row falls into Step 1 of School Improvement under NCLB. If the school fails to make AYP the following year, the school would advance to Step 2. As the school continues to fail to make AYP they can go on to Steps 3, 4, and 5. Each year that the school makes AYP, they go down one Step, from 2 to 1 to out. There are specific sanctions at each step. Step 5 is the last step for schools that persistently fail to make AYP.
For the feds, step 1 is better than step 5 but it would be better not to be in any step at all.
By the way, schools in step 5 are supposed to be closed, or transformed. However there is no definition of transformed and there is no enforcement. You may be surprised to know that Aki Kurose has been transformed.
The District has its own way of assessing school quality that is based exclusively on test scores. The student peformance on tests can be rated as low, medium, or high. The District will also rate the student test score growth as low, medium, or high. See the graph on slide 29 of this presentation. Schools with low performance and low growth are ranked as Level 1. Schools with low or medium performance with low or medium growth will be ranked in Level 2. The scale continues up to schools with high performance that get ranked into Level 5.
So, for the District, every school is in some level and the higher the number the better.
Schools in level 1 and 2 get more money to fix their problems but the District decides how that money will be spent. Schools in level 4 and 5 get less money but the school gets to decide how they will spend the money.
The Level 1 ranking for ORCA is from the District, not from the state or federal government and it has nothing to do with NCLB.
I found this on a website that explains NCLB.
"Consequences of not meeting AYP
For Schools Receiving Title I Fund
Level 1 Alert
School shall notify parents, prepare and implement a school plan and consult with district and department regarding reasons for not meeting AYP and to receive technical assistance."
All I saw was Level 2 and up mentioned in the contract. Maybe I was not looking in the right places. It is a dense document.
a world without borders, flags or anthems
I dont want him saying a pledge of allegiance at this age... he doesnt know what he's promising... its brainwashing...
This is a discussion we've had before: How does the district (and the feds, for that matter) measure "improvement" (or lack thereof) in entire schools when it can't (or doesn't) account for the variables, the flux?
This is just another example of the flawed policy of looking at entire schools as "good" or "failing" when, in fact, it's the individual students therein that we should be paying attention to.
Look at what happened at Thurgood Marshall: Bring in APP (and no disrespect to those parents: They were vocal about the problem) and lo and behold the school isn't "Title One" anymore, it's magic! So while many of the students there still had struggles, the school was now "successful" (or it was assumed that it would BE successful) because a larger proportion of the students were not free/reduced lunch.
It's crazy. It's what drives me crazy about the "failing school" claims. What if people look at Hamilton as so "successful" now, because of mere test scores, while some of the same students who struggled there before still struggle there? Or not even the same students, but a new batch who have struggles but hey, Hamilton is "successful" so we can just move on to some other school that is "unsuccessful" and serve THOSE students because Hamilton is fine, thank you!
There are struggling students all over the district, but you'd never know it by the "failing school" rhetoric.
Helen Schinske
The one I think is pretty ridiculous is "My Country 'Tis of Thee".
Not sure if we were at the same Hamilton events or not. At curriculum night last week, the principal showed test numbers, however, he did comment that last years numbers included APP. He also said the scores still show significant improvement when they took the APP out of the mix. Granted, he didn't show that set of data, but sounds like they are looking at this stuff and not attempting to make false claims.
Intended Impact of School Performance Framework:
For students, families and the community – Greater transparency around goals and outcomes/performance;
Clear areas of focus for every school with targeted supports from the district
•
For district staff – Clear performance expectations;
Targeted supports to help meet those expectations; Prescribed set of actions based on performance and need
•
For the community – Transparency and accountability around performance goals
•
For partners – Alignment of efforts toward common student achievement goals
Who are the "partners" that the School Performance Framework will have an "impact on"?
Broad? Alliance? TFA? Gates? Our Schools?
hmmm...
I also like how they throw a short notice about the superintendent's eval in, tucked into "Upcoming work." Evidently, the superintendent's evaluation is part of the performance framework:
"Upcoming Work:
􀂾
Release of District Scorecard, School Reports, segmentation & survey results
􀂾
Superintendent’s evaluation
􀂾
2011-12 district priority setting
Word verifier thinks that might be a woend
•
Superintendent’s State of the District Address (Nov. 9th, p.m. SPS plans: ~100+ parents and community leaders to outline the current state of the district, the road ahead, and School Reports.
•
School Board Presentation on District Scorecard & School Reports (Nov. 17th)
•
School Report regional community meetings (mid-Nov through mid-Dec)
•
5 regional community meetings co-sponsored by PTSA and CAO/ED/Principals to build understanding of School Reports, MAP and improvement strategies.
They don't have 2009 posted yet, but keep an eye out they should be posted soon.
Here is the link
http://www.seattleschools.org
/area/siso/test/schoolpages
/105.xml
I think the "under God" thing throws a lot of people off but I don't know who decides when it gets said in SPS.
They start every Board meeting with the pledge. It used to be funny because a SE end leader, Don Alexander, used to (loudly) echo "and justice for all!"
SPS observer
This page is a good starting point for NCLB
http://www.seattleschools.org/area/schoolimprove/index.dxml
I don't know what to think about this show: It seemed to be about the physical plant, and it was great to see this MS in Compton, Enterprise, get a fixed up. But the science classroom became the "Microsoft Science and Technology Lab, the sports field the..."Starting Line Sports Field" or some such (Starting Line is a sports clothing maker) and....and...one room became the "People Magazine Reading Room."
Eeek!
The show seems to be about getting the community in to fix up schools, but why are schools needing the community to fix them up?
An interesting segment was when the main Team guy found a room full of supplies at the school. Teachers had been asking principal for supplies, and I guess they hadn't been getting them. So Team Leader guy asks Principal, aren't these bought with taxpayer money? Why aren't they in the classroom? Principal waffles. It made me think of SPS: Teachers are asking for resources, good buildings, asking downtown, where's the money for these things? Downtown, sitting on a roomful of money, shrugs...
So Team Leader gets an interview with The Ahnold, Gov. Schwartzeneger (sp?) and asks the Ahnold, what's up? Why are schools bad? Ahnold says, well, we know some schools are failing and some are doing very well...helLO! He asked why schools are bad, meaning physical plant, and you go off on "failing schools"? So teh failing schools are due to physical plant? No, he goes on, there are a lot of issues....teacher quality....labor...But Ahnold loves that the community is coming to the rescue! He even comes to the grand re-opening and gives a couple of his movie lines and congratulates the volunteerism.
So why are NBC, Gates (there was a prominent Bing commercial), Obama (he had and education ad on it, too) People, Starting Line all putting on this show?
I think it's to show that the community shouldn't expect anything from government, they should welcome companies in ("Microsoft" was painted above the door...inside...of the classroom...) and, with Ahnold's comment, don't count on Labor.
Next Friday they go to Baton Rouge.
Story here.
The conclusion of the study, apparently, is that kids from highly impoverished schools, when given the chance to go to more affluent schools - wait for it -
Do better.
Wow, what a shock.
I wonder if it was a different event. Some of us in the audience were quietly snickering about it, so I don't think we missed any drill-down. Or maybe he brought up details later in his presentation or in a discussion afterward?
Maybe someone talked with him about it in the interim. In any case, that's good news that at least one event it was being discussed more forthrightly.
Laurie Amster-Burton
so the scores will have to be entered BY HAND. Are you friggin' kidding me? Who bought this?
Oh. Right.
Another obvious reason, as if another was required, why the MAP test is a ridiculous and expensive p-o-s.
Aunty has a little movie of 2 little bears talking about the CRAP, er, I mean MAP test here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTJiXu_5NZs
This was in answer to the question of if the MAP scores would be on the Source. That this wasn't found out before we bought MAP is puzzling. (It's also BS because we get "sold" that this is a great test, will help teachers and parents and yet, here's where we're at.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/10/16/910716/-This-teacher-reacts-to-seeing-Waiting-for-Superman
Orca, is a lackluster, "step 3" failing school. Given the very few number of students who pass the WASL there, nobody should expect great shakes from it. It's right up there with West Seattle Elementary in terms of performance. But, since they're all about "valuing diversity" instead of education, nobody seems to care. The curious thing is how we never hear anything about Orca, and its poor performance.
This is intervention needed for Step 3.
Did not make AYP after being in Step 2. In addition to offering public school choice and supplemental services, the school must take corrective action.
However- there are 13 schools in Step 5.
No listed intervention for Step 5- but this is the intervention for Step 4.
Did not make AYP after being in Step 3. In addition to offering public school choice and supplemental services and taking corrective action, the school must plan for alternative governance.
I found it interesting that a historically underenrolled school like Rainier Beach is only in Step 2- whereas some of our most overenrolled schools are in Step 5.
From the OSPI web site- schools in Step 5.
Washington middle school
West seattle high school
Madrona k-8
Madison middle school
Ingraham high school
Hawthorne elementary
Hamilton international
Garfield high school
Franklin high school
Cleveland high school
Chief stealth high school
AS#1 K-8 school
Aki Kurose middle school
Don't forget that if just ONE CELL of maybe 20-25 doesn't make AYP, the entire school is considered to not be making AYP, and could eventually be restructured.
So, if one group of students doesn't progress, the entire school is dysfunctional?
Huh?
'tis true. Garfield is in Step Five.
"Failing schools" my...foot.
Close Garfield! Restructure it! Get rid of the principal! Oh, wait, that only happens if it's a Title One school, a poor school...Restructure the poor schools! Even is there is a lot of success, one or more "groups" (?!) is failing! Replace the staff! Don't look at the individual failures and successes, privatize the whole lot! It's the teachers' fault! Make the district pay for private Tutors for EVERYBODY (Kumon will appreciate it)!
bah. dang reformers.
Garfield is in step 5 but only for black, and low income students.
You can see what step/s a school is in and in what categories here:
http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us
Once on this page:
click Seattle schools in the drop down menu. Then click go.
click Garfield in the drop down menu. Then click go.
Then click AYP (which is a tab no the drop down menu)
However if you look at the OSPI website that I listed in the last post, you will see that under proficiency, 6 categories were evaluated, and RBHS met proficiency in only one of those categories, low income. That means that a large percent of kids at RBHS are not meeting proficiency goals for the school.
They did much better in the participation categories.
http://district.seattleschools.org/modules/cms/pages.phtml?pageid=198857&sessionid=7c78943fab30c073698be8128f2a03f8&t
The fact that one category can drag a whole school down is actually a good part of NCLB. It means districts can't just hide behind students who would have done well anyway. They've got to actually try to address their problems. And that is an improvement.
SPS Observer
According to the letter, the State reimbursement for an APP student is approximately $3,500 vs. $350 for non-APP students.
Here's the part that confused me: "If your student does not normally ride, it is like writing a check to the District for $3,500 to support your classrooms just by riding during this week. Please do your part to help return more money back into the classroom by maximizing how many APP students ride the bus."
Doesn't this particular reimbursement from the State go to offset Transportation costs, not classroom costs? And doesn't the money go into a general transportion fund to support ALL ridership, not just APP ridership?
It states that only these 4 courses will count towards the 2 year science requirement; Physical science, Biology, Chemistry, Physics and IB or AP science courses. There is an opportunity for a school to apply for "validation" if the course aligns with one of the above 4, which seems like a way to help the marine science program at Garfield. However this validation process has a lengthy list of what the school must provide and nothing about how it will be evaluated. Frankly if your course is multidisciplinary how can you fit it into one box? This means that all other classes will not count for science credit. They will be electives. I suggest that if anyone is concerned about how this will impact programs you go to the board meeting and get on the list for public testimony. I know I plan to.
Helen Schinske
Plus, I don't understand why it actually matters. There is a set cost for each bus, whether it picks up all 48 kids on its route or only 24 of them. It still has to make the stops and drive hither and yon.
This was in answer to the question of if the MAP scores would be on the Source. That this wasn't found out before we bought MAP is puzzling. (It's also BS because we get "sold" that this is a great test, will help teachers and parents and yet, here's where we're at."
The real reason the scores are not on the Source is that staff have not been trained in how to explain the scores to parents, let alone use them in any meaningful way in the classroom. Another new thing thrown out there before staff is trained......but trust us, it will be really meaningful at some point, really......
Also, the MAP software can spit out results in a tab-delimited file; can the Source really not import such a common format?
Helen Schinske
Sorry, got OT, but I wonder about the value of principals having unions. While I believe teachers need the bargaining power, do principals need it as well?
When you have 150 students per day as many secondary teachers do, that's a lot of data entry on top of what they need to do daily. Why should they have to make up for the district's mistake in buying a test that wouldn't fit our system?
My point was not really to say that the teachers should have any further burden, but to illustrate what a small amount of data we're really talking about here, adding a further level of ridiculousness to the district's claim of not being able to get it onto the Source.
Helen Schinske
This is what I've been told; I'm not a teacher at SPS so I don't know whether it's true or not.
Yep, the MAP test last year showed our kids in general were getting stupider. As far as I know, all schools, all grades. Yes, some kids had improving scores, but that was not the general trend, at least at the school my kids go to, according to the test administrator.
Or, as an alternate explanation, it's a really poor instrument for measuring student progress.
Especially when students aren't graded for their performance, so have no incentive for performing. And it's boring, especially when you take it for the 3rd time. And it's given right after lunch, and you have to poop, and you can't go to the bathroom until you finish. And maybe you're in kindergarten, and have never used a computer before, and it's hella confusing. And the kid next to you is crying. Or picking the answers that give the funniest sounds on the computer. Or you're in high school and your entire class has a secret pledge to screw up the results, just cuz it's stickin' it to the man without consequences.
Unbelievable that the Supe wanted to use the MAP to directly evaluate teachers. Just unbelievable, and unforgivable.
And how would you know this Aunty, if the district wide MAP scores are not published publicly?
http://tinyurl.com/23dwodz
He can pledge allegiance to which ever country he chooses, but he should certainly not object to the Pledge of Allegiance to The United States of America being recited in the United States.
Think of the scenario reversed. If you moved to Germany, would you expect a German classroom to stop reciting the German national anthem or pledge because you were there? That would be absurd wouldn't it?
The scores include 5 or 6 scores under each assessment. So for instance my first graders' algebraic score was lower than all his other math scores.
My HS students reports were sent home. Same printout.
FYI, the younger child's scores went up. The elder child's scores went down. Fortunately, the time spent on the test was included. At the beginning of the year, the elder child spent almost an hour on the test. He scored 4 points lower in Spring, but took less than 10 minutes to complete the test.
I don't mind the testing, but I do think there are disadvantages to taking it three times in one year.
Helen Schinske
The point is that somebody downtown missed that our system was incompatible with the MAPS system before bringing a $4 million no-bid contract to the board. AND they want voters to approve a levy that pours more money into this test.
To turn the conversation to the teachers distracts from the real issue here. And also unwittingly fuels the "blame the teacher" reformist argument.
And my point is that their claim that that is so is probably rubbish. Moreover, if the Source really is so badly put together that it can't import a plain old tab-delimited file, I'm not surprised that people downtown never expected such a ridiculous state of affairs.
Helen Schinske
as I wrote:
"Yes, some kids had improving scores (on the MAP test), but that was not the general trend, at least at the school my kids go to, according to the test administrator."
So I found this out, as I said, by talking to someone who was in charge of administering the test at my kids' school. That person has first hand knowledge of their school, and second hand knowledge of other schools.
That, ma'am, is a reasonable source. Sorry.
For example, the report I got for my first grader last year says:
Math:
Fall 2009: district average RIT=164
Spring 2010: district average RIT=182
Reading:
Fall 2009: district average RIT=162
Spring 2010: district average RIT=177
So, for first graders, average RIT score increased, and if you look at "typical growth" based on the national norms, the average growth for these students was greater than typical growth (reported as only 7 for Math and 5 for Reading).
@ Josh... there is a report I used to post a lot that compared the various testing products on the market, and MAP was adjudged to be useless in giving teachers useful data on individual students, so that they could differentiate instruction.... I think this is it:
Which One is “Just Right”? What Every Educator Should Know About Formative Assessment Systems
and remember - Brad Bernatek acknowledged MAP was never designed to be used to evaluate teachers... so remind me - why did the District buy this boondoggle? Could it be that the ONLY reason was because MGJ sat on the board of NWEA - the sellers of MAP?
From Merriam-Webster:
Definition of BOONDOGGLE
1: a braided cord worn by Boy Scouts as a neckerchief slide, hatband, or ornament
2: a wasteful or impractical project or activity often involving graft
— boondoggle intransitive verb
— boon·dog·gler\-g(É™-)lÉ™r\ noun
Examples of BOONDOGGLE
1. Critics say the dam is a complete boondoggle—over budget, behind schedule, and unnecessary.
Origin of BOONDOGGLE
coined by Robert H. Link †1957 American scoutmaster
First Known Use: 1929
"that one category can drag a whole school down is actually a good part of NCLB. It means districts can't just hide behind students who would have done well anyway. They've got to actually try to address their problems. And that is an improvement."
Hmmm...so if the district DOESN'T fix the problems that maybe just one group of twenty in the school is having, one cell, then the whole school should be restructured by the feds? So SPS could stand back and say, well, we can't fix it, or just NOT fix the problem, and then the feds can come in and sell it off to an education management company, fire the staff, and this is good for the successful students in that building how?
And it's pretty meaningless to children. They can't even keep allegiances to their favorite superhero.....
Here's part of it:
Frances Bellamy (author of pledge) "came up with a statement of what he later called “intelligent patriotism,” designed to counteract some of the nation’s most divisive and reactionary impulses.
His original salute to the flag was just 23 words: “I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands — one nation indivisible — with liberty and justice for all.” Even so, it contained a subtle political message. Amid the heightened class conflict of the Gilded Age, the phrase “liberty and justice for all” was an idealist’s demand as well as a patriotic affirmation. So, too, was the idea of “one nation indivisible.” Just a generation removed from the Civil War, divided over the new immigrants pouring in from Eastern and Southern Europe, Americans of the era could not take their country’s stability for granted. Bellamy hoped his pledge would bind them together in a celebration of the nation’s traditions "
So Aunty you found this out from talking to "someone" (no name), with second hand knowledge of "other" (unnamed) schools.
Do they have "second hand" knowledge of every child's MAP test scores in every school in the district? Because your sweeping statement indicated they did: "Yep, the MAP test last year showed our kids in general were getting stupider. As far as I know, all schools, all grades. "
Until you come up with some official data that is publicly available , or identify or source, it ain't reliable ma'am. Sorry.
Good question.
And, of course, someone was just dumb enough to break that phrase up. It makes no more sense than taking "great big country" and editing it to "great, under God, big country."
Helen Schinske
Research, Evaluation and Assessment (REA)
Understanding Value Added Data in Seattle
Value Added data measures educator effectiveness in growing students. There is no penalty for the educator (individually or in a team ) on students' previous academic achievement. Therefore, value added looks at the growth that student groups make from the end of one year to the end of the subsequent year. The data has been standardized to a baseline achievement level established in 1999. Essentially, every year thereafter the growth of a cohort is measured in respect to this initial 1999 baseline. The 'status quo' growth is identified as maintaining the cohort's position relative to the baseline group. A longitudinal report shows a total school's progress over time. Schools have also been provided a report which is appropriate to use for diagnostic purposes. This report shows growth of students broken down into four quartiles in each discipline measured.
Value Added data is derived from the scale scores of the standardized achievement tests previously administered within the district. There is no additional testing necessary in order to determine value added information. The traditional test data is received within the district, the files must then be merged, program descriptors must be identified, and finally the files are sent to Dr. Bill Sanders of SAS in Cary, NC. Dr. Sanders developed the value added model that we use and does the actual 'number crunching'. Once that process is complete the data is returned to the Value Added Team of Seattle Public Schools for reports to be printed. These reports are then disseminated to each of the local schools and provided on the website. Both a color version and a black and white version of all reports have been posted on the Seattle Public Schools? website so that interested parties can choose the format which best suits their needs.
The Value Added Team is always eager to help individuals better understand this data and how it can be used to improve learning opportunities for students. Currently a series of data courses are being offered and training sessions can be scheduled for groups of educators within the district. To find out more about these opportunities, please contact Laura Hopkins at 206-252-0142.
If you are interested in learning more about the Value Added Model click below.
The Tennessee Value Added Assessment System (TVAAS) (outside link)
Value Added Training [link]
The only data is a chart showing Percent of Students Meeting Typical Growth, in Slide 11
SPS parent
It's here -- Map Data for 2010
Average scores went up in all grades fall to spring.
SPS observer
Of course, the AVERAGE growth could have gone up if some students had huge leaps upward and some students declined...so it's hard to tell exactly what went on, but on average we apparently saw expected growth.
Of course, the cynic in me looks for possible negatives - how do even know the data is real?
But anyway, FROM the charts, average growth rose. I was suprised to less of an "achievement gap" when measured by MAP compared to when measured by WASL...interesting... Lots of interesting data there.
Believe as you like, it's all the same to me.
"Yes, if a school is to be restructured, it should be because it was unable to meet a group of student's needs. Schools absolutely should be obligated to work for all their students."
Wny? Why not find out why that group, or, better, those individuals aren't doing well and fix THAT? For instance, if ninety percent of a building is doing just fine, why on earth would we destroy that in order to address the needs of the ten percent who were struggling?! That is not to say that we shouldn't change ANYTHING, but the way I'm reading your comment, you would have us destroy everything and start afresh, because SOME students weren't successful.
That's absurd. Fix the problems, don't reconfigure the whole thing. This is the problem with "reform": It destroys the village in order to save it. It takes the failure of the few (teachers, students....) and uses that to paint the whole building as "failing" when of course no such thing is happening. Then it proposes replacing the whole school program, replacing all teachers, in order to effect change for those that are struggling.
That's just absurd. It's throwing the baby out with the bath water.
a) of the anecdotal reports I received
b) my general mistrust, based on recent experience, that anyone working for the Superintendent can count anything. (See the state audit)
c) My own kids' scores going down over the year.
d) Many students' personal reports of not taking the test even remotely seriously.
e) and why would they, if they're not accountable for their scores?
I do promise to recheck with my source and get his take on this report.
Be careful, people. I am surprised how eager you are to accept the very limited "data" presented in that link provided by Bird. (Not to blame Bird -- it was presented by Bernatek) . I have rarely seen such a simplistic presentation of data. Even if you accept the data as legit, the issue is not RIT scores rising but "expected growth." Anyway, I am suspect of any test that shows its results in comparison to ITSELF rather than an outside comparison, particularly a test run for profit (even if NWEA is "non-profit -- the CEO gets a nice salary). If I were the CEO of a test-making company like NWEA, you bet I would create a test that shows kids' positive progress. Everyone likes a success story and this means more business for my testing company.
I have seen this in action in reading tests inside the school -- an expensive program comes in and shows that, after using that program, kids made astounding progress as tested by that company! Surprise, surprise! And the contract with the company and test is renewed because it must be working, right?
Sorry to be a cynic, but I think it is only intelligent and our responsibility to be so -- remember Weapons of Mass Destruction? Remember the "data" presented in spiffy graphs and pictures of weapons factories to prove a thesis? When data is presented by people with an ulterior motive, it can be used to prove anything.
Please, please be your usual intelligent, skeptical selves. Don't believe the hype, particulary when presented on an overly simplistic powerpoint slide using metrics provided by the test company itself. If you indeed care about a one-hour multiple choice test that kids take three times a year as a measure of anything (which I don't, by the way) at least demand independently confirmed data.
"a) of the anecdotal reports I received
b) my general mistrust, based on recent experience, that anyone working for the Superintendent can count anything. (See the state audit)
c) My own kids' scores going down over the year.
d) Many students' personal reports of not taking the test even remotely seriously.
e) and why would they, if they're not accountable for their scores?"
This is a bunch of nothing Aunty. Just hot air. YOUR thoughts. YOUR mistrust. YOUR opinions. YOUR own kids test scores dropping.
No data. No reports. Nothing factual. At all.
Supplemented by "anecdotal reports" (IE unfounded, and unproven)
Aunty please. Make all the statements that you want to but qualify them by saying that they are just your opinion. It's irresponsible to make sweeping statements like "MAP scores dropped district wide", and "kids got stupider this year", and " it happened in all schools and all grades" and state them as fact with absolutely zero information or data to back them up. Just say it is merely your opinion, and then we can take it for what it's worth.
No not at all. But if you are going to challenge something then you should have some data or information to back up your position.
Aunty is offering qaulitiative data - her comments, her observations, her perspective. You are free not to believe it, just as anyone is free not to believe the NWEA data presented by Bernatek. You seem awfully eager to accept NWEA at face vvalue yet dismiss Aunty's qualitative data. What sort of validation do you have for the NWEA data? None.
All of this information, Aunty's, NWEA's, Bernatek's pretty graphs made from NWEA's...all is "data" with some "proofiness (see another thread) that might lend credence...
Me? I worry that the NWEA data is not qualitative enough, it doesn't have any sort of narrative, it is broad-stroke and, so far, isn't showing us the raw data. I want to see the actual student-by-student rise/fall (sans names, of course) for every student. I want more of Aunty's observations to help me understand perceptions.
For instance, in the CAO Report of April (see earlier comment, Bernatek and de Barros report that:
"[in]Sharing Results With Families
Successes
• Teachers learned about MAP quickly and most shared information
with families
• Teachers and principals have been trained on how to talk to families
about MAP results
• Teachers report an increase in feeling prepared to talk to families about MAP (from 44% in fall to 55% in winter)
From what I'VE heard, these three claims are wildly exaggerated. They are numbers, they are "data," but I fear that they are wildly optimistic. Can I prove it? No. But from what I've heard...
You can chose not to believe me, you can believe the "data" above, but...believe me, it's wrong.
Skepticism is definitely the order of the day when dealing with "reform" data: It's almost always skewed.
"I've heard" is fine, and definitely has a place in the conversation. But please qualify it as what it is, here say. And state that it is your opinion.
I don't have to provide counterdata to dispute NWEA's in order not to fully believe it. I don't have to believe it until it is proven that I shouldn't.
I'm not quite sure how you want to interpret or analyze data, but I choose to use my own intelligence, my own "knowledge" (understanding that it could be wrong, or biased, or incomplete...)
We can only make decisions based on what we see. What I see is that MGJ was a graduate of the Broad Foundation. I see that they want to massively reform the entire educational system. I see that they rely on "data" to sell their product. I see that MGJ was on the board of NWEA, who wants to sell THEIR product to SPS and others, and it is in her interest and NWEA's to have their product show "success."
Until they show me "data" that I can believe is useful, I just have an enormous amount of skepticism. Frankly, I believe Aunty's first-hand and second-hand reports more than I believe NWEA, the superintendent's data manager (Broadie Brad Bernatek) or the Broad Foundation. At least Aunty's reporters are reporting on real children, instead of abstract data points that might or might not be valid.
Why is the percent meeting typical growth not shown for K2? Why is the graph for Fall-Winter so different from Fall-Spring? Why are the breakouts by ethnic group on average RIT Score and not on any sort of growth? Which average RIT score, why doesn't the graph say which of the three? Why did first graders do so much better than national norms? What's this about the 2008 correlation? How many students took MAP in Spring 2008?
Are you illiterate? Who said anything about "destroying everything".? Not me. A school which fails a large subgroup (small subgroups don't count, remember?) should be listed as "failing". Poof simple.
Nobody's saying anything about the consequence. In fact, the only consequences mandated by NCLB are totally, and completely reasonble. If and only if the school receives Titl1 funds: School choice to leave that school (is that horrible? isn't that what you've advocated for all along anyway?) And/or tutoring if you are FRL (who could argue with that either?) As to "school restructuring"... doesn't that just mean "get a new principal"? Aren't practically all the schools getting a new principal every year anyway? What could be so horrible about that "oh so drastic consequence" as getting another new principal? Whoopdee do.
SC. Get a clue. Better yet, get some reading instruction from a highly qualified instructor.
SPS observer.
I also have it from a solid source that district-wide, MAP test scores went down in the winter. This was attributed to the post-holiday slump that also occurs when kids return to school after summer break.
I also have numerous direct and secondhand reports about the faults and flaws and frustrations of the MAP test. So, Anonymous or Anonymom (I've lost track who said what), I think Aunty and others' experiences and input are a valid part of the bigger picture that we should consider.
I have also learned directly from the district's MAP test administrators, Bernatek and DeBarros, what some of the shortcomings of the MAP test are, so this is not hearsay or anyone's 'imagination.'
Why are you defending the MAP test by the way? Do you think that it's worth the $4.3 million plus the district is spending on it? Wouldn't you rather see that money spent in the classrooms? I know I would.
--sue p.
Only if you don't teach your kids what it is, what it means, and why its said. I think kids should know it and understand it, and my kids say it because they are both in Scouts, where we, as parents, teach the kids what it means. Nobody is brainwashing anybody. Give me a break.
My kids also see people burning the US flag, sometimes here in the US, as a protest. Do as you wish with your kid, but I think its worthwhile to teach your kids why people do the things they do, and how it began. Understanding the origins and how people see things differently is part of learning how to navigate the world, isn't it.
I don't think every Christian who prays is as pious as a saint, nor do I think everyone who says the POA is hyper-patriotic or brainwashed.
The president pledges to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Shouldn't our kids know what that means?
I have never defended the MAP test. Go back and read everything that I wrote. I challenged Aunty's statement that kids were "getting stupider", and that "this year scores went down for all kids in all schools."
I've asked Aunty for some evidence to back that up. Is that unreasonable?
Unnamed sources, unnamed administrators, and a little birdie telling her so, don't count as evidence.
This is shaky ground particularly since Brad Bernatek himself said that the MAP was not designed to be used to evaluate teachers.
And before you ask Anonymom, he said it in a meeting that I was in with three other parents.
If everyone wants the data, contact Brad Bernatek and ask him for it.
We do have a right to the information. Better yet, request a meeting with him and DeBarros like we did.
Get your answers from the "expert" who has been paid an abundant amount of money to be responsible for the MAP and its' implementation.
Sit right across the table from him as we did and ask your questions.
And I have submitted requests for NWEA's "reliability and validity data," which I have heard referenced but have not been able to find, thru several routes.
And thanks to Lassen for the reality-check. In many cases (New York, Texas, Chicago?) test score gains turn out to be due to....the test.
http://www.seattleschools.org
/area/board/09-10agendas/060210
agenda/mappresentation.pdf
(Thanks to Bird for providing the report)
Mr. Bernatek's report shows that average scores went up from fall 2009 to Spring 2010 in both math and reading in SPS. So Aunty's claim that "across most of our student population, SCORES WENT DOWN" and "The MAP test last year showed our kids in general were getting stupider. As far as I know, all schools, all grades." does not appear to be true.
Parent of Stupider Kid
I will just quietly point out that Charlie and I have tried to keep our integrity and the integrity of this blog by seeking out and finding data. But we have both said, many times, that while you are only as good as your data, it is ALSO true that you are only as good as the data you get from the district.
That the district will
- stall
- not give complete data
- or give old data
is something that has happened to me many times. It is frustrating because you don't know what to think and you don't want to go off half cocked and yet you have waited and waited for the info you requested.
I would agree with Anonymom that second-hand sources (no matter how great) are as good as hard data but a Powerpoint from a staff member is no hard data.
Met a 3rd grade teacher this weekend. A particular 3rd grade student's MAP test score revealed this child was at an 11th grade level, but in class, couldn't read 6th grade text.
Yet, if the Levy passes, the District is poised to spend millions and millions of dollars to set up computer infrastructure to correlate student test to teacher evaluation.
Complete waste of money. Vote NO on the Levy
In many cases I find it to be a pointless non-productive penalty.
See the following two high schools (very high poverty) that quickly attained AYP step 5.
Note their Math and Science scores ... if AYP required restructuring helped them or State assistance helped them in either Math or Science please tell me how.
Toppenish High
White Swan High
Toppenish had a competent principal, who had come from Castle Rock. Note scores at Castle Rock from 2001 to 2004 in grade 10 and compare with earlier scores in grade 7.
So AYP sacked the principal and he became admin ... today he is Superintendent of the School District on San Juan Island.
AYP does identify problems but unfortunately does not present effective solutions ... especially in high poverty areas.
When a district has difficulty in retaining and attracting a high quality staff, .... does it really make sense to fire half the staff and replace the principal?
==========
I see MAP as pointless expensive numbers that give little or no indication of where effective interventions would need to be provided to individual children.
The lack of thoughtful consideration to developing an effective overall plan for improvement in the SPS borders on criminal. (Auditor's report)
========
Both the NTN contract and the MAP contract were expensive and largely indicative of the misguided direction (non-leadership) coming from both MGJ and her favorite four directors.
From this graph it appears that the average first grade white MAP score is higher than the 85% threshold that the district has set for scheduling cognitve testing. This isn't true for any other group, and for some other groups the average percentile is so low, I imagine a very small number of students in those groups hitting that threshold.
I would think this would be disastrous for diversity in the advanced learning program, although, admittedly, I don't know what the effects of the old system were. Maybe these results are no worse.
At first grade, I have to wonder whether this achievement threshold makes any sense as a barrier to cognitive testing.
Achievement in first grade would, I would guess, have less to do with a kid's potential to move ahead quickly in school than how much kids have been introduced to academic matierials prior to entering school.
It is a waste of time. Ask your favorite K2 teacher what they think.
Who wants to start an organized movement to direct this wasted time to more classroom direct assessment at the K-2 level.
Miffed in Magnolia
Magnolia Resident
I think it's wise to pet schools and principals and school boards decide when and if to say the pledge, regardless of what the law says.
Based on my address an elementary age kid would be eligible for transportation to a total of 8 elementary and option schools. My MS child would be eligible for transportation to a total of 4 middle schools. Eckstein, Hamilton if they are in APP, Jane Addams, and AS1.
Can't imagine we have any savings, and I'm with parentofthree - I want to see some reports.
It's not?
I have doubts about how MAP is being used in regard to access to advanced learning programs, but I don't think I'd say it's not a test designed to identify advanced learners.
...maybe it's not a test solely to designed to identify advanced learners.
Slide 5: % of Students Meeting Typical Growth from Fall 09 to Spring 10 by Grade.
Indicates that 8 grade showed a 60% increase in students meeting typical growth from Fall to Spring. Then why when I go back to slides 3 and 4 do I see nearly flat bars for this grade? Doesn't tie out.
Slide 8- is it telling me that Whites nationally drop nearly 20 points for math from grades 1 - 8. And Native Americans are the only group that shows improvement from grades 1-8? Same with reading.
What is happening here? Test fatigue?
From the NWEA Parent toolkit:
"RIT scores range from about 150 to 300. Students typically start at the 150-190 level in the third grade and progress to the 240-300 level by high school."
SPS students look good in 3rd grade, but by highschool, they are very low (220) and not making any progression.
What does this tell SPS?
What are parent experiences in dealing with conflicts with particular teachers? Have you found the principal supportive in helping work out solutions? Or have you been made to feel you are the only one with a problem (when you know other parents are also voicing the same complaints)?
A parent
Magnolia resident.
This is why Spectrum Young Scholars didn't have an academic achievement requirement for students in primary grades, just a cognitive ability requirement. It allowed eligibility in the program for bright students who didn't have the privilege of exposure to academic work beyond grade level.
It's important to remember that this isn't a picture of what happens to a student as they move across the grades.
It's just a snapshot of how students in each grade performed going at one point of time.
The students in grade 8 and 9 are different students from the ones in grades 1 and 2.
I wonder about the Native American rise. It'd be nice to think that this is due to some great improvement for individual students in that category, but it could just be that the make-up of the category has changed over time.
The Supreme Court struck down SPS's use of a racial tie breaker in school assignments back in 2007. It may have been adventageous to students to be categorized as a minority prior to that. Identifying yourself as Native American may have helped you secure a seat in a school of your choice. Perhaps the category is more broadly representative of the general population for older kids because of this.
This is highly speculative. I don't really know if this is why the testing results show such a dramatic lift in later grades, but it illustrates just one way such an apparent trend could exist without being representive of an actual improvement for individual students.
Likewise, I would guess the MAP norming data would be skewed in later grades by dropouts. This may change the make up of the populations both in the norming group and in the Seattle data, making any supposition of trends for individual students suspect.
Also "typical growth" ranges get smaller on the MAP in higher grades. This explains the confusion over the high rate of students meeting "typical growth" vs. the apparently small gains in the later grades.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-october-5-2010/back-in-black---education-crisis
The best bit was the commentary on Tony Danza's foray into teaching (a new reality show). He decided to try "teaching" High School English after undergoing one summer of training. Given the plan for TAF, can we get "Teaching for the Stars" as well?
Laughing for my sanity in SPS
At any rate, I stand by my argument: It appears that you believe an entire schools should be labeled "failing"
(and perhaps sanctioned) because some students/teachers aren't successful. To me, this just doesn't make sense, especially when there is good stuff going on in the school that might be threatened by the principal or half the teachers being pulled out.
However, I think I understand more fully your point, that the school should receive notice that some of its students aren't successful. I agree. But I disagree with the strategy available in federal law and in the strategy available in the new contract, for example, that allows the district to identify "failing schools" and insert changes. I'm not against changes, I'm against arbitrary changes that sweep broadly and indiscriminately: While the district is looking at the "failures" in a school, is it also looking at the successes, protecting them and trying to scale them up within the building? If not, then it could at least do the least harm by identifying the "failures," working with them, and not tear into successful aspects of the school.
Yep, I have had that experience, I think it is a principal management tactic taught in Dealing with Parents 101.
You seem to take personal offense at the terms used in the act, and not to be able to move past the terminology. Failing school. Is it going to hurt somebody's feelings? Does it cause bad things to happen to a school? Does it make you NOT want to attend a certain school? You wouldn't want your kid at Garfield, for example, because it is a "failing school"? Very few people have any idea about which schools are failing, which aren't, or what it means. It simply doesn't even register. Most people are able to understand that a label is only 1 small part of something, and have learned to consider other things as well. Also a good thing.
--SPS Observer
Anonymous is right when he says that for years nobody did anything about bad schools. Those schools - and they were schools - were left to flounder with little, if any, intervention or assistance. Kids who were failing were tracked into remedial classes, shuffled into alternative programs for failing students, and they were encouraged to drop out.
Now with NCLB at least there is some accountability. A light is being shined on low performing schools, and the district has to offer families other school options and tutors. It's not much, but it is a start and it's better than it was before NCLB.
Does anyone know how many kids are getting outside tutoring as a result of NCLB? (Craigslist is full of ads for NCLB tutors, so it seems like it must be quite a few.)
Just read, with a certain amount of digust, the Seattle Times report Garfield teams on probation until September 2012 and was surpised to see the severity of the punishment. There must be more, A LOT MORE, to this story if they're not only punishing the football team but all other Garfield sports as well.
Anyone know the truth . . . I try not get my news from the Times.
stu
SC is defensive because he is a teacher and a union man. He does not share the perspective of a parent. (...) Now with NCLB at least there is some accountability. A light is being shined on low performing schools, and the district has to offer families other school options and tutors. It's not much, but it is a start and it's better than it was before NCLB.
I'm a parent and I agree with SC 99% of the time, so to imply that teachers and parents have necessarily different values and goals is just your opinion. Btw, how do you know that SC isn't a parent too?
NCLB has been a disaster. The "light" it has shone has been a punitive interrogation "light" that depicts most all schools, teachers, principals and kids as failures. It has basically set up parameters in which most every school is deemed failing.
How convenient for the privatizers who can then say 'the entire system is broken and needs to be handed over to us!' (to profit from). For starters, that is a lie. The entire system is not broken. There are inspired, successful and popular programs and schools in our nation's public school system, and there are weak ones.
At this point, the punitive and ineffective nature of NCLB has been so discredited that I am surprised that anyone would support it.
What in the 10 years or so of its existence has NCLB actually accomplished? If it has been so successful, why then are the reformites declaring our schools are still in a state of "crisis" (as indicated by the apocalyptic tenor of "Waiting for Superman" and other reform-pushing packaging).
Of course we as a nation should care about any schools in which the kids are struggling. But to close these kids' schools completely, fire the staff, or "reconstitute" the schools has been shown not to help. In fact, it is very destructive. All it does is create a huge amount of upheaval in the lives of some of our most disadvantaged kids.
There has to be a middle ground.
Ed reformers want to take an ax to our schools when the solutions require more insightful long-term investments that aren't flashy or high tech.
Here's an idea for the ed reformers -- Let's borrow from the medical profession and live by this: "First, do no harm." Leave the schools that are thriving alone. (Sounds obvious, but "reformers" like our own Goodloe-Johnson are not doing that.) Study what positive innovations already exist organically within our public schools, and replicate them -- instead of outsourcing the district's responsibilities to a charter franchise middleman like KIPP or Green Dot (whose CEOs are coming to town, btw, compliments of LEV and Gates and the usual suspects who are itching to privatize our schools).
Ditch all the mindless testing and instead invest in what actually helps the kids -- smaller class sizes, stable environment, inspired curriculum, safe and clean school facilities. Some kids may also need wraparound social services. Those aren't inexpensive, but if this district would only stop throwing away money at questionable distractions like the $4.3 million MAP test and instead spend that money on services for the neediest kids and an inspired curriculum for all kids, I guarantee we would see all our schools strengthened and we'd see happier, more academically successful, kids.
As for "accountability" with NCLB, if you mean the culture of fear in which schools are forced to obsess over test scores and test scores only, or districts are forced to fire perfectly good principals just because NCLB mandates that somebody's head has got to roll, or schools are closed and sold off to private charter franchises -- then you and I have very different definitions of the term.
NCLB is a failure, as is Obama's continuation and variation of it (RTTT).
--sue p.
A) Public disclosure, and accountability. Schools have to disclose their test scores now. They didn't have to do that before NCLB
B) Failing, title I schools, have to offer students a transfer to a higher performing school, and tutoring.
C) Districts can no longer ignore failing schools. They must take steps to improve them. They may be weak steps, but they are steps none the less.
"But to close these kids' schools completely, fire the staff, or "reconstitute" the schools has been shown not to help."
Can you show an example of this happening in SPS? The closest I've seen is STEM placed at Cleveland (with no principal or staff change), and some principal shuffling (they get moved around but not fired) at a couple of other schools.
"Ditch all the mindless testing and instead invest in what actually helps the kids -- smaller class sizes, stable environment, inspired curriculum, safe and clean school facilities"
I don't disagree with you. All of the things you mention are great. I however think test scores do play an important role. Not the solo role, but an important role. As a parent I want some type of measure of my students academic progress, compared district wide. In fact I'd like to see my kids academic progress measured against students nationally. I want to know our district, and my kids school, is competitive.
Look, you MUST be your child's advocate because honestly, no one else is. Teachers circle the wagons, principals protect teachers (in order to protect themselves) and there's your child.
I think most teachers are willing to listen if there is a concern but the minute you ask if maybe there is something they might be willing to consider to do, that flies out the door.
Also, never go to a school meeting alone because you will rarely meet with anyone there alone. The teacher will have a counselor or principal for backup so YOU bring backup (even if it is just a friend who listens to the discussion). Do NOT let them drag your child in unless it was previously agreed to. It is very hard on a kid to get called to the office and face down a room of adults.
Document your meetings, e-mails, phone calls. You may need it later.
And when they tell you they "never" heard this before, you can be sure they have.
I appreciate teachers and principals but just as they protect their jobs, you have to protect your child.