School Reports

The Annual School Reports and the District Scorecard have been released.

Discussion follows.

The District Scorecard reports that the District is on pace to reach ZERO (0) of the 23 Goals. That is how bad they suck. Not only are they missing, they are missing badly. The District is within ten percentage points of the target in only four of the twenty-three categories. I cannot imagine a worse report.

Superintendent Banda, on the other hand, says things look great:
“The State of the District is strong,” Banda said. “We have work to do to make sure all of our students are succeeding, but I am pleased to see our schools improving and growth occurring both in test scores and enrollment.”

That's from the District Press Release.

Here's the PowerPoint that came with the State of the District.


Charlie Mas said…
Lowell's school report shows both campuses combined. There is no mention of APP anywhere in the narrative portion of the report about the school's goals or how they plan to achieve those goals.

This is weird: there are statistics for student responses to the climate survey, but the report also says that 0% of students responded to it. So where did the statistics come from?
Steve said…
As has been discussed previously, the results for "Lowell Elementary" are the aggregate for both "Lowell @ Lincoln" (the APP program that was moved out of Lowell on Capitol Hill last year) and Lowell Elementary proper. It gives a skewed account of what was going on at both locations because the District still considered (considers?) them one school for administrative purposes. Pretty meaningless for both schools since it doesn't appear possible to separate the data.
Anonymous said…
Am I reading that Black students have the same level of reading proficiency as Special Ed?

Benjamin Leis said…
Someone at the State level should reject the district's attempt to maintain unified reporting viz a viz Lowell.

It sets a terrible precedent for any kind of data quality.

Anonymous said…
See! See! See why we need Charters?

Could it possibly be that the heretofore pro Ed Reform board members and administrators don't see this as such a bad thing? Doesn't it create just the "crisis" they desire to justify application of "desperate measures?"

I detect the Shock Doctrine at work here, with lots of complicity from those in power. WSDWG
Charlie Mas said…
Hey! Take a look at Clevelend STEM's school report. It's pretty good with some really strong math numbers.

Let's remember that this data comes from last year when the STEM part was in grades 9-11 and the 11th graders joined the program in grade 10.

You'll also note that the school's demographics have not changed dramatically since the switch to STEM. It is still 41% Black, 73% FRL, and 13% SpEd.

You'll see some real strength in the 9th graders earning sufficient credit categories.

Good job, Cleveland STEM!
Charlie Mas said…
The report for Pinehurst is missing a lot of data, probably because there were too few students to qualify for a reported result.

I don't know to what extent a great report would have changed things.
Eric B said…
On the District Scorecard, one of the items under "High Performing Staff" is "Percent of school leaders returning to their schools." When you go back to the fine print, you see that this means that the principal/assistant principal is staying on another year, to provide consistency in leadership. The goal for this year is 75%-85% retention.

So here's a few snarky questions: Doesn't the principal have to be a high performing staff for the retention rate to be important? If the principal isn't an effective instructional leader, wouldn't change be a good thing? Wouldn't retention of highly-rated staff be a better measure?
Charlie Mas said…
The report from Rainier Beach High School is discouraging.

First, 365 students, 30 teachers, 15 other staff. That's a staff person for every eight students. The average class size is reported as 17. The average daily attendance is only 84%. Student mobility is 36%.

The year-to-year growth numbers are not only under 50%, they are well under 50%: 33% for reading and 41% for math. You would expect better growth with those class sizes.

Students graduating in four years or fewer: 53%. Again, given those class sizes and that student:staff ratio, this should be MUCH better.

This was the worst of it: SpEd students passing the state math tests: 0%. Not one.

No, wait, this is the worst of it: The report says: "School Goals -66.7% of 9th and 10th grade students taking the end of course assessments for the first time in Algrebra or Geometry will pass the assessment . This reflects an increase from 35.7% in 2011/12."

Not only did they misspell Algebra, but they got the number wrong. The pass rate in 2011/12 was 24% as shown on the first page of the report.

These results are bad, yet somehow RBHS qualified for segmentation level 2 instead of level 1.

Only 31% of staff responded to the survey.
pro school reform said…
It is not uncommon to see slow growth in large data sets; particularly when the data set includes many variables which the responsible parties do not control. When you look at the annual reports from other districts you do not see drastically different results.

When you look at the growth from the baseline, many of the categories show a lot of promise- double digit growth in 5 years! Additionally the district out performs the state in nearly every category, a fact from which one could infer there is plenty of "good happening". There is work yet to be done, sure, but this report only shows SPS as "sucking" if you look at it in a narrow, biased context.
Charlie Mas said…
Mercer Middle School continues to look like a rock star.

Level 5 in segmentation and well deserved.

Look first at the year-over-year growth numbers, they are slightly smaller than last year, but they are still amazingly big: 65% in reading and 72% in math. That's crushing it.

Look at the pass rates on the state tests, compare them to the district averages (they are all higher, some much higher), and then take a look at the demographics of the school: FRL 72%.

There is no demographic category for which Mercer does not beat the district average - including advanced learners, special ed, and ELL.

And, the cherry on top, with 93% of the staff responding to the survey, 90% have a postive perception of Instructional Practice and 82% have a positive perception of Leadership and Culture.

This is what public schools can do when they choose to do it and they are allowed to do it.
Anonymous said…
I'm not able to access any of the reports. Is anyone else having this problem?
Charlie Mas said…
@pro school reform, so the District's goals don't matter? Or they were unrealistic? Or what?

There is good happening, but it is happening in spots. There is no systemic improvement. That means that the good which is happening comes independent of the District-level influence. Can we say the same for places where good things are not happening?

What has made Mercer successful - not the District's intervention.

Where has the District intervened? At Cleveland, Aki Kurose, and Rainier Beach High School, the three targets of the Southeast Education Initiative.

Cleveland - looking good!
Rainier Beach - not happening
Aki Kurose - flat to slightly rising - a muddled mix

Charlie Mas said…
Here is the report for Aki Kurose.

There are some encouraging elements. Pass rates on the math tests are rising. All of the year-over-year growth rates are over 55%. 6th graders passing all courses has risen to 90% as have the portion of 8th graders ready for high school math.

But there are some real signs of weakness as well. The 8th grade pass rate on the math test is still under 50% (which makes me wonder how 90% of them can be ready for high school math). The staff isn't crazy about the leadership, only 56% positive. The school's numbers lag the district's numbers in every demographic except ELL.

I don't know what to think about the school's goals:
"Reading‐6th grade will make a 20% gain from 43%% to 63%, 7th grade will make a 10% gain from 59% to 69% and 8th grade will make a 10% gain from 51% to 61% on being proficient on th state reading test.
Math ‐6th grade will make a 20% gain from 43% to 63%, 7th grade will make a 10% gain from 57% to 67% and 8th grade will make a 10% gain from 46% to 56% on being proficient on the state math test.

It's not just the typo's and poor grammar, I can overlook those, but the numbers are wrong.

It says that the 6th grade reading pass rate will rise from 43% to 63%, but the 6th grade reading pass rate is 59%.

It says that the 7th grade math pass rate will rise from 57% to 67%, but the 7th grade math pass rate is 46%.

It's hard to have confidence in these goals.
RosieReader said…
If anyone has a moment and can explain in general terms what the "Segmentation level" is all about, I'd appreciate it. I gather, generally, that schools at "5" are performing well, but I suspect that's a pretty simplistic view of things.
Anonymous said…
Why does the report call out frl and ell, but not sped, per grade level? How strange is that.

Charlie Mas said…
Here are Aki Kurose's goals from last year:

• 6th grade will make a 10% gain from 51% to 61%.
• 7th grade will make a 10% gain from 52% to 62%.
• 8th grade will make a 20% gain from 34% to 54% on being proficient on the state reading test.
• 6th grade will make a 10% gain from 41% to 51%.
• 7th grade will make a 10% gain from 44% to 54%.
• 8th grade will make a 20% gain from 26% to 46%.

Needless to say, they didn't hit those targets. Perhaps it also goes without saying that the numbers are wrong. The 7th grade pass rate on the math test was not 44% but 29%.

Here are the strategies they were going to use last year:
• Students who scored in Level 1 or 2 on their most recent MSP and some level 3 students will have an additional math class
focused on building the foundational math skills (Numbers and Operations).
• Students who scored in Level 1 or 2 and some level 3 on their most recent MSP will enroll in Math Camp to strengthen their
foundational skills (numbers and operations).
• Students will have the opportunity to receive additional math instruction. We will provide instruction based on state standards
and inform our instructional practices by using students' progress monitoring data.
• All students have 90 minutes of reading and writing instruction daily using the Teachers College Reading and Writing model.
• All Literacy teachers collaboratively developed a school curricular calendar that is vertically aligned and anchored with the state
and common core standards.
• Students in the Level 1 or 2 and some 3 on the MSP will receive reading intervention support. Explicit non-fiction reading
instruction will take place in LA blocks, social studies and science classes.

Those are essentially the same strategies they are going to use this year.

It almost seems completely pointless to mention this, but Aki Kurose is in Step 5 for No Child Left Behind and it takes Title I money. That means that, according to Federal Law, the school is supposed to be closed, re-invented, and re-opened. Of course no such thing has happened. Instead, the District claims that the school is undergoing a "transformation" or "restructuring. That hasn't happened either.

Aki Kurose's CSIP clearly states:

"Throughout the academic year, we will be working with our Educational Director and the School Improvement department to refine and implement a major
restructuring plan in accordance with No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requirements.

Yeah. Right. They don't have a restructuring plan to implement and they aren't implementing anything.

Some might say that this is classic example of how public schools are exempt from any kind of accountability. The law requires the school to close, but it has not been closed. This, they say, is a big argument for charters.

I, however, see it exactly the opposite. I say "See? Even when the law requires schools to close they are kept open. The law is not enough to close these schools and it is not enough to close charter schools either. Charter schools will evade legal closure mandates just as easily as public schools do."
Charlie Mas said…
RosieReader, here is an explanation of the District Segmentation Levels:

The district has four levels from 1 to 4 which consider both the outcomes and the growth for each school. Schools with low outcomes and low growth are in Level 1. Schools with low outcomes and moderate growth or moderate outcomes and low growth are in Level 2. Schools with high outcomes and moderate growth or moderate outcomes and high growth are in Level 3. Schools with high outcomes and high growth are in Level 4. Level 4 schools which do not show an academic achievement gap are in Level 5.

RosieReader said…
Thanks Charlie.
I would suggest that readers look at their own school's report card and let us know what you see from your viewpoint. Check the student, families and staff survey levels and see if that makes sense to you.

Anonymous said…
Bryant's positive ratings from staff have doubled from last year's sad 30 something percent. Still below district average but glad to see morale improved.

Bryant K
Charlie Mas said…
Seattle Public Schools has a weird relationship with the goals it sets for itself. I don't know how or when this quirk in the District's culture got started, but it is weird and it is seriously dysfunctional.

The District celebrates goals when they set them, not when they meet them. In fact, the District is so pleased with itself when they set a goal that they usually don't even bother to remember the goal after that. They're done thinking about it after they set it.

Within that context, the goals that the District set are, of course, obsolete and meaningless. They became obsolute and meaningless on the day they were done congratulating themselves for setting them - and that was years ago - so they are really, really obsolete and meaningless now.

This is exactly the same attitude that the District has towards promises. They count the promises as over and done with when they make them, which is why they feel no need to actually fulfill them.
Jan said…
Sort of like being pleased with yourself when you have made a to do list of everything you need to accomplish today -- even if you then set it down and go to Starbucks and read for the rest of the day (and no, that wasn't on the list). Don't ask me how I know this.
Eric B said…
I'd slightly disagree with why the goals are obsolete. IMHO, they're obsolete because they were set two superintendents ago, and were clearly not based in reality even then. They're stuck with the goals, but I'd be awfully surprised if anyone believed that they were achievable. To me, the individual school-based goals from the CSIP are far more important. Those are set year by year by school leadership. If they're not meeting those goals, it might be time for a big shakeup.
Charlie Mas said…
Eric B, the school goals written into the CSIPs are particularly thoughtless. They are all to increase pass rates on the state tests by 10%. Unless they are really low, then the goal is to increase them by 20%.

Those goals are completely thoughtless and the numbers are pulled right out of the ether.

If failure to meet those goals signal the need for a shake-up, then there are a lot of schools in desperate need of a shake-up.

At the time that the District Five-year goals were set we were told that they were set with a lot of care and thought about what could actually be achieved. When Dr. Enfield took over as interim superintendent no one said that the change in administration would cause any difference in the district's ability to achieve these goals. And Mr. Banda was not superintendent when the students took the tests that are reflected here.
Charlie Mas said…
By the way, that was an old trick of Mr. Olchefshe's. When he totally failed to achieve a goal he had set, he would say that it wasn't a real goal that he ever expected to achieve but that it was an "aspirational goal". Of course, he never said that they were aspirational goals when he set them. He didn't tell anyone that until after he failed to meet them.
Anonymous said…
Great that Cleveland STEM is looking good. Are there any stats out there (either from these results or from another source) on how K5 STEM at Boren is doing so far? Did they take the Fall MAP? I know it's new, but I'm really curious to see number-wise how it measures up so far.

Patrick said…
"They suck"? What, are we in middle school?

I never saw these goals as being based in reality. As far as I can see, the only way to achieve goals like this is to spend huge amounts of money per student on wraparound services. (Well, okay, you can go for large-scale cheating on the standardized tests and also report rising test scores.) High-aiming goals with no realistic way to accomplish them sound good but the superintendent who proposed them hoped and expected to have moved on to another job before the goals were supposed to have been accomplished. And so she has.
Anonymous said…
Excuse the results as aspirational goals? No, these were REAL GOALS. The superintendent (Goodbye-Johnson) was supposed to be graded and paid on them.

Does no one remember how proud Sundquist and Maier and DeBell and Martin-Morris and Carr were of this new Performance Matrix? Does no one remember who pushed this? (Alliance 4 Education and its Business PowerPoint = Education! Set.) The Alliance's big Claim to Fame just a year or two ago were these report cards and how they would dovetail into Measurable Goals.

There is no spinning this into oh, these are "aspirational" goals or as Pro School Reform says above "celebrate the movement even if we aren't making goals".

What this is is a failure. Plain and simple.

Goodbye-Johnson largely owns it. Enfield wasn't in place in authority long enough to make a difference. Banda is stuck with it. And I imagine Alliance 4 Education will be little to no help in resolving it, since their prescriptiveness over the past 4 years has been more hinderance than help.

Anonymous said…
And to knock another knuckle on the table, the answer isn't solely in making easier goals, though not chasing after 50 shiny objects (again staring at Alliance 4 Education and also The Gates and LEVs Favorite Newest New New Initiatives) would be a help.

The answer is doing better what we already know we should be doing. Hiring and training strong teachers and principals. Continuing to get rid of the dead wood downtown. Unbelievably, stupidity still seems rampant there. M-O-N-E-Y to pay for the intensive learning opportunities our students need. And leadership that includes, not excludes the community. And by community, I don't mean solely Business and Burgess and Gates/LEV/Stand.

Good luck Banda. Good luck Board. You need it. And Big Ed Reform doesn't want you to succeed. It wants you to fail so that we can have Goodbye-Johnson Type II arrive back in town. Which would be the biggest failure yet.


mirmac1 said…
On the subject of outsider obtrusiveness:

Chatty Korsmo
Jan said…
DistrictWatcher --

AAAGGGGHHH. I had forgotten about all that ballyhoo over the Performance Matrix, the "accountability" for MGJ. {Sounds of tearing hair out.} I can't stand it.

And -- you are also correct that MGJ (and the "malarkey" board that enabled her for so long) largely own it.
Eric B said…
On aspirational vs. achievable goals: Yeah, everyone said these were real and achievable goals. I doubt that anyone in staff really believed it, from MGJ on down. For MGJ, this was always a short stop on the way to greatness somewhere else (why else would she rent rather than buy?). Any discrepancies between the goal and the reality would be explained away as "we haven't had enough time for unicorns to make all our students great!" until she could get on the next job. Or they'd blame budget cuts.

Maybe I'm too cynical. Maybe they did believe the goals at inception. By Year 2, anyone who really believed they were achievable was a fool.

And yes, I do believe that if the school has gone through two to three years of not meeting CSIP goals, then there is a problem. Maybe it's with the goals, and maybe with the principal. Either way, something needs fixing.
Eric B said…
I should amend that to not meeting or nearly meeting most CSIP goals. Some stuff happens, but there should always be progress.
SPSLeaks said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
seattle citizen said…
Here is the Seattle Times article on the subject.
seattle citizen said…
Wow, mirmac1, your link to "Chatty Korsmo" just blew me away. I didn't even get to the chatty Korsmo part - I was reading up from the bottom and came across this blatant evidence of evil collusion:

So there’s an email from Sara Morris, of the Alliance, regarding the CAS MOU dated February 20th of this year.
It is sent to: Tim Burgess – Seattle Council; Mary Jean Ryan – CCED Results; Holly Miller – City of Seattle; Chris Korsmo – League Of Ed Voters; Shannon Campion – Stand For Children; Liz Anne Lyons – lead bargainer on SPS/Union CBA ; Suzannah Malarkey – Technology Alliance; Jane Broom – Microsoft; Karen Waters – Strategies 360 (PR company)

The email in short: CAS MOU was approved, love to hear your thoughts…

What?! Why are these people in bed together deciding how to run OUR schools?

Really? A4E, LEV, S4C, the city, and Strategies 360? Really?
mirmac1 said…
oh my! look at the last page!
Anonymous said…
I tried to look at the report card for GreenLake but it says the following -- 'delayed due to incomplete OSPI data'. Does anybody know what this means and why GreenLake was the only school with this designation?


Josh Hayes said…
I went to the shindig today, and it was pretty useless except that, what with name tags, I was able to put faces on the names I've read (like, "Oh, so THAT'S Bree Dusseault").

Basically, we all got to see the powerpoint, and a few principals got up and said how great their schools (Cleveland, Broadview-Thompson, and Bailey-Gatzert) are.

I find it interesting that they do surveys, and it goes on the school report, how families feel about their school - but there's no equivalent survey of how people feel about downtown management. I think a lot of people like their school pretty well, and are unsatisfied with SPS management at JSCEE. It's kind of like how people think Congress is in league with the devil, but THEIR representative is okay.

There are some interesting trends in the data, of course -- but there was no word about math materials, for instance. And an item about how they're going to work on Spec Ed was about that detailed: We're going to work on it. We're even doing a search for a director of SpecEd! Look at us go!

On the plus side, it seemed as though everyone was unified in their opposition to 1240. I'm sure some in the room are fans, but they kept it to themselves.
Anonymous said…
I share DistrictWatcher's perspective and especially the shiny object analogy. Have we forgotten those shiny brochures about Excellence For All? It doesn't surprise me that many have probably deliberately forgotten that nightmare.

But let's give Banda a real chance, shall we? He at least seems to have one foot on the ground, in the real world, and maybe two. We'll see. But many Peter Pans have moved on. Good riddance.

Meanwhile, lets replicate Mercer throughout the district ASAP. WSDWG
mirmac1 said…
Josh, I heard from SPS REA that only 19% of families completed those surveys.

I'll say that I do not do them because I don't want anything I put down to be used against or for something I can't control. The questions are open ended. If I say I don't think much of my school, it may be a reflection on the teachers, or it may be a reflection on the administration.
seattle citizen said…
So here's a telling comment from Korsmo from mirmac's link, plus a couple other items detailing the cozy relationship between Burgess, Morris, and Korsmo as they plot in the shadows. Let's remember, people, that the "school reports" themselves are a Gates product, created as part of the Strategic Plan, funded by Gates through the Alliance, which, with LEV, also maintains the anti-union OSC astroturfers, and all the players are in regular communication. They are running things behind the scenes, buying large-scale systemic changes in public education. This report, and its timing, DOES speak to an attempt to get charters in: ALL their behind the scenes afforts are torwards "reforms" such as charters and this is no exception.

Here's Korsmo, and others. They should all be run out of town on a rail.

Korsmo: The CAS MOU could be used by “highly dysfunctioning [schools] in a kumbaya, we all love our mediocrity sort of way…” Wow! Really? Korsmo thinks a group of staff members will band together for a CAS MOU in order to continue mediocrity?! And she claims to believe in schools?

Ooh, ooh, and there’s one where Sara Morris (Alliance) says that they just got the Our Schools Coalition blog up and running, and she wanted to highlight its comment policy (paraphrasing the polic: “be nice”) Tim Burgess replies, “Nice. Good luck enforcing.” So Burgess values open debate. NOT. He believes commenters are all loudmouthed pests.

THEN, Korsmo introduces, via email, a new data wonk at Microsoft to Tim Burgess and Sara Morris. Tim replies, let’s do coffee! Must be nice to have such easy access…

I'm amazed at the depth of connection and influence these non-educators have. They aren't elected or even hardly known, yet they are manipulating everything to do with procedural aspects of our schools. Wow.
mirmac1 said…
Plus from the last email, sounds like the union of the Alliance and SEA is a loveless marriage...

View Ridge Parent said…
Unless I'm missing something, View Ridge seems to be missing from the school reports while Sand Point is listed twice.
Anonymous said…
Betsy -

Re: the missing results for Green Lake. I'm a parent there, and we were told in September that the MSP test booklets for writing were lost at some point in process. They got out of the school and on to the district, that's for sure. I forget where in the process they were lost, but it was either between the district and the state, or between the state and the scoring people. The state/district are supposed to be trying to track them down. In the meantime, there are no writing scores to report, hence no valid progress scores to report in that particular area, hence they are not apparently reporting anything at this time. Yeah. I wish they'd just adjust the report to put out what they can, rather than not put anything out at all.

Dragon Parent
Charlie Mas said…
Look on page 38 of the Chatty Korsmo document. See the guy named Charles Wright who is introduced to Holly Miller and Tim Burgess by Chris Korsmo on February 24, 2012?

Ms Korsmo writes:
"Meet Charles Wright. Charles is new-ish to Seattle having moved here from Denver. He is a (schools) systems guy and loves his data. I think you all will hit it off rather nicely. Charles is looking to get better engaged with his new community and I recommend he connect with you two as one means of getting engaged."

Well, he's engaged now. Mr. Wright, new-ish to Seattle, was added to the Alliance for Education Board of Directors on September 19, 2012.

From new-ish to Seattle in February to a seat on the A4E Board in September. I guess it helps to have Chris Korsmo introduce you to Holly Miller and Tim Burgess.
Unknown said…
We'll have to write a thread on all this coziness. It was QUITE apparent at yesterday's event and very troubling.

As parents, we are going to lose control of our schools and our district to a very small group of people if we don't watch out (and we will not have the support of teachers or the PTA to help us).
Anonymous said…
Is there any website where we could see the results of the principal surveys for different schools?
Anonymous said…
@ Melissa and Charlie: Keep Burgess out of the mayor's office and that will help break up the downtown clique.

Start now. Cocktail hours are already taking place with regularity. Holly Miller. Chris Korsmo. The politically grasping Dean of Ed at UW - Stritikus. Sarah Morris. It's one big fundraising cluster. You might lose charters but you might win by keeping Burgess - who loves charters just like Morris and Korsmo and Stritikus - from office. You've got a year.

Aware in the 46th
suep. said…
These "school report cards" smell a lot like former SPS data guy, "Broad Resident" Brad Bernatek's "17 percent graduation rate" fabrication. (See: Seattle Schools data guy has resigned – a casualty of 17 Percent-Gate? Btw, the true graduation rate turned out to be even higher still -- closer to 65 percent. Not great, but a far cry from 17 percent.)

The timing is convenient for the charter-pushers and all those who want to dump public education entirely for a franchise (KIPP, Inc., Green Dot Inc.,) business model approach to teaching kids. (Anyone notice that the word "portfolio" slipped into Initiative 1240 in reference to multiple charter schools under the control of one authorizer?)

But schools are not businesses; they are communities, they are a public service and a public trust. Whereas, the corporate model, with its profit uber alles mindset, is what has driven our national economy into the sinkhole of the Great Recession.
Josh Hayes said…
@Aware: I think the term you're looking for is "clusterfund".

Bryant parent said…
As a Bryant Elementary parent I was not surprised to see a low-ish 63% rating on Staff Perceptions on School Leadership.

I was curious about the 85% for "4th graders proficient on the state  math test" compared to the average of 3rd/4th/5th graders of 89%. Seems like we start high (low to mid 90s?) and by 4th grade not doing as well. This is a sad sad statement given what the principal has to work with -- if anyone is set up for success with kids who are motivated and ready to learn, it's a Bryant Principal. Likewise the progress in math (compared to average) is dropping from 4th to 5th grade. When I interpret that data and combine it with what I observe, it seems to me that new leadership is in order. Teachers there are (for the most part) fantastic, but not exactly allowed to flourish and do their best work. Would love to hear others opinions.
mirmac1 said…

Too bad we can't have more "clusterfunds" go toward our public schools... : )

WV: 731 hodshot
dan dempsey said…
Charlie raised the question as to how 90% of the students at Aki Kurose can be ready for high school math .... when far more than 10% perform poorly of 8th grade MSP math ...

Of interest at Aki is the report (unverified) that Saxon Math gets the most use in grade 6 and less in grade 7 and even less in grade 8.

Here are the percent of students scoring at level 1 (well below standard at Aki) in 2012
6th grade 24.7%
7th grade 38.5%
8th grade 51.6% ... It looks like at least 50% are definitely not ready for high school math.

Analysis of the High School math results:

At Chief Sealth for example and the District:
the report is ...

9th and 10th graders proficient on the state math tests (first time test takers)
Chief Sealth then -:- District pass rate
2011 - 50% -:- 59%
2012 - 55% -:- 65%
change +5% -:- +6%

It must be noted that while +5 and +6 look good ... the state supposedly lowered the cut score for proficient on the Algebra EoC in 2012 (effectively making it easier to be proficient .. but who really knows.)

Here are the actual results from EoC Algebra and EoC Geometry for first time test takers

ALGEBRA - Chief S - Seattle - State
9th 2011 :: 33.5% :: 48.8% :: 53.7%
10th 2011 :: 24.0% :: 28.6% :: 32.1%

9th 2012 :: 49.5% :: 59.8% :: 55.9%
10th 2012 :: 25.0% :: 29.9% :: 28.5%

9th :: +16.0 :: +11.0% :: +2.2%
10th ::.. +1% :: +1.3% ..:: -3.6%
Seattle Definitely out performs state on changes from 2011 to 2012

Geometry - Chief S - Seattle - State
9th 2011 :: 82.1% :: 84.5% :: 91.0%
10th 2011 :: 49.6% :: 61.6% :: 67.5%

9th 2012 :: 87.5% :: 90.9% :: 91.3%
10th 2012 :: 42.4% :: 59.2% :: 59.4%

9th .........:: +5.4% :: +6.4% :: +0.3%
10th .......:: -7.2% :: -2.4% :: -8.1%

Seattle looks to have done better than state change in every segment above.

Also of interest is the situation with percent of students scoring at level 1 Well below standard.

ALGEBRA - Chief S - Seattle - State
9th 2011 :: 39.0% :: 29.8% :: 23.2%
10th 2011 :: 51.7% :: 47.1% :: 39.6%

9th 2012 :: 27.3% :: 21.2% :: 21.5%
10th 2012 :: 18.2% :: 45.6% :: 41.5%

9th :: -11.7% :: -8.6% :: -1.7%
10th :: -33.5% :: -1.5% :: +1.9%

Geometry - Chief S - Seattle - State
9th 2011 :: 4.5% :: 5.5% :: 2.3%
10th 2011 :: 18.3% :: 12.6% :: 9.3%

9th 2012 :: 4.5% :: 3.2% :: 2.3%
10th 2012 :: 27.5% :: 15.1% :: 15.0%

9th ......... :: 0.0% :: -2.3% :: 0.0%
10th ....... :: +9.2% :: +2.5% :: +5.7%

HELP -- what is up with in 2012 47.3% of 9th grade Algebra students scoring at level 1 .... guess these kids were NOT ready for high school math. So why were they scheduled into Algebra?
dan dempsey said…
My mistake about Saxon .. and AKI ...

The unverified Saxon Report was about Mercer Middle School....

here are Mercer results for level 1.

Well below standard at Mercer in 2012
6th grade 10.4%
7th grade 8.4%
8th grade 13.6%

AND for District
6th grade 14.9%
7th grade 18.9%
8th grade 20.4%

AND for the State
6th grade 18.8%
7th grade 21.0%
8th grade 23.8%
In 2012 when
Seattle had 47.3% of 9th grade Algebra students at Level 1 Well Below Standard
the State had only 21.5%

-- GET a clue : Seattle High Schools need a math class below Algebra I for many incoming 9th graders because neither 100% nor 90% are ready for high school math.
Allen jeley said…
I read this article and its tell me how to publish kids final exam report and how give us award to first grade student and how to meet with kids parents and discuss about his kid thanks for share it obesity essay introduction .

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Seattle Public Schools and Their Principals

COVID Issues Heating up for Seattle Public Schools