Photo of the Day: November 27, 2009
Car Pushed Into Anacostia River By Train
Obamas At Smith Center For G.W. Basketball Game
Devendra Banhart @ 9:30 Club
Saturday Thanks Don't End At Thanksgiving Photo: November 28, 2009
The first results from the District Of Columbia Comprehensive Assessment System (DC-CAS) tests are out, and the results are encouraging. Bill Turque summarizes the gains in the Post:
Nearly half the District's public elementary students (49 percent) scored at proficiency levels in reading and math. Reading scores last year were 46 percent; math scores rose from 40 percent proficiency. In 2007, fewer than a third of elementary students were proficient in either category. Gains at the middle and high school levels were more modest. Reading proficiency grew from 39 percent to 41 percent; math proficiency rose from 36 percent to 40 percent.
Also of particular note - minority students in middle and high school reduced the math achievement gap between themselves and white students, from 70 to 50 percent.
The DC-CAS is taken by students in grades 3-8 and high school sophomores. Scores are also used to evaluate the District's progress under the federal No Child Left Behind law. The city's charter schools, which enroll about a third of D.C. students, also posted slightly improved scores. Complete results for individual schools will be released in about two weeks.
Our quick take - any growth is good, and the reduction in the achievement gap for math is especially promising. D.C.'s teachers, students, and parents should be proud of their efforts and results.
But. When 49 percent of D.C. kids are on grade level in reading, that means that the rest of them aren't. D.C. schools are still failing the majority of students.
It's often acknowledged within education circles that it takes at least three years for reforms to have meaningful impact, but critics and supporters alike will still look to these scores as a measure of schools chancellor Michelle Rhee's performance over the past two years. Rhee, for her part, was quick to credit teachers for the improvement.
“We are proud of our students and encouraged by their continued growth," she said in a statement. "Once again DCPS educators made the difference, and we are extremely grateful for their tireless work.”
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Does this mean we can now abolish the WTU and enact meaningful reforms and fire all the dud teachers?
Pretty please with sugar on top!
Oh man, I can't wait to see what the WTU diehards are going to come up with excuses this time. They have been swearing the scores for this year were going to be horrible and everyone would see the "truth" about Rhee.
Somehow I dont think this was the "truth" they were talking about.
they were probably hoping that the scores would be horrible so that they could get rid of rhee and enjoy their incompetence in peace.
any improvement in this deplorable school system is good news... i always had confidence in Rhea and Fenty on the school front.
This is good news indeed. Hopefully the schools will keep up with steady incremental improvements that will be long term. As the parent of a DCPS student, I have the utmost confidence in Michelle Rhee and have since she came on board in 2007.
Oh please. These changes aren't anything significant. They wouldn't make safe harbor, according to No Child Left Behind. What's troubling about the article - if you take the time to read the WaPo link, is that numbers are pretty much unchanged at the high school level, which indicates any gains, however modest, being made at the elementary school are being lost in middle and high school. Plus, the rate of improvement is down between 07-08 and 08-09.
I can't wait for the school-by-school breakdown.
The tests are administered to grades 3-8 and 10. So, as far as HS goes, only one grade in four is sampled.
I agree that it's likely gains are disproportionately being made in the lower grades but, because of this sampling, there's little or no evidence which indicates these gains aren't being carried up to higher grades. That's actually what is happening at my childrens' public school.
Well, let's forget about 10th grade. Say that a 10 point gain was made in grade 4 last year and a 6 point gain this year, to make math easy. That means the difference between 07-08 and 08-09 is -4.
If the difference between middle school gains from 07-08 and 08-09 is less than -4, then those gains are being lost. I don't have the exact figures, but I'm guessing that's what's happening.
For me to be happy with modest gains, they have to be equal across the board. When I look at a gain of 9 points in math on the elementary level and a gain of only 2 at the high school level, I wonder why there's a difference of 7. And I wonder if that's closer or farther away than last year. And I wonder if this year's third graders are going to fall 7 points behind by the time they get to 8th or 10th grade.
The flip side, of course, is to say that the little ones have a higher capacity for absorbing information and are less resistant to school. Well, cool, but why are the gains made this year less than those made last year?
I'm rushed at the moment, but and having trouble getting past this:
"Say that a 10 point gain was made in grade 4 last year and a 6 point gain this year, to make math easy. That means the difference between 07-08 and 08-09 is -4."
In my mind, the gain is +6 from '08-'09, and +16 from '07-09. Keeping in mind that kids (one hopes) advance a grade every year. Also keeping in mind that the advances are strongest at the lower grades and the cumulative effect will take some time to reach the higher ones.
I'd be most interested in seeing that the scores increase- not decrease- in successive grades from year to year as the kids move up.
Downtown Rez,
What I mean is that why is a hypothetical fourth grader from last year gaining 10 points, and this year's is only gaining 6? Doesn't that indicate a loss from one year to the next, even if its still an improvement?
Scott, I agree that retention of gains into the upper grades is very important, and I wish a higher percentage of students were making progress at the secondary level.
However, a better way to think about these results isn't one student's growth from year to year (we don't have access to individual student data) but the percentage of all students who are proficient. A four percent gain doesn't mean that all students did four percent better than the previous year, but that overall, four percent more students are on grade level.
Scott: The situation you choose as an example is best termed "a decrease in the rate of increase". An analogy: The condo you bought in 2000 for $100,000 increases in value to $110000 in 2001 (10% gain), and $116,600 in 2002 (an additional 6% gain). This one year gain would represent an increase in value- no one would argue that the asset had depreciated- albeit an increase in value at a diminished rate. Still, the cumulative increase would be 16.6%- a tad higher than the cumulative year gains (10+6=16) would suggest.
But this is all abstract, as others have pointed out. For my part, I'm going on what I see in my childrens' school, which is solid improvement on many fronts.
Put another way, Scott, the gains from last year are factored in and so the bar is set higher this year. So the 4% gain this year is over/above/on top of the gains those *other* hypothetical 4th graders made last year.
They're significant especially at the elementary school level. And yes, the high school scores, and their situation in general, are all rather dismal. Last year's bump was of course incredible and no one expected it to be so dramatic this school year. I too can't wait to see the school by school breakdown, as my principal was told by Rhee he can't be reappointed if our school doesn't make AYP.
"...49 percent of D.C. kids are on grade level in reading..."
Oh dear. Rachael, you've fallen for a dirty little secret of NCLB: "proficient" and "grade level" are not synonymous. A student can score proficient on the DC-CAS while reading up to 2-3 years below grade level.
KittyLiteral - While it's true that not all agree on what should constitute "proficiency", on the DC-CAS, the "proficient" level is the measure used to determine "adequate yearly progress" under NCLB. DC-CAS shouldn't be confused with the NAEP (or Nation's Report Card) which tests students in similar subjects and is considered to be more rigorous.
There are four levels at which students can score on the DC-CAS: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. Students who test at proficient or advanced are considered to be performing appropriately for their grade.
Does that mean a student who perhaps reads a year or two below grade level according to a different assessment might be able to score "proficient" on the DC-CAS? Sure. But for now, this is the most uniform measure for student performance across the District.
I work for DCPS; I see the scores, benchmark and CAS. A score of proficient in DC means, sadly, very little...except to the public, who needs data on which to base a home-buying decision, and to a certain politician, who needs a platform on which to seek re-election.
I'm asking that writers tasked with reporting on the subject don't confuse grade level, by any measure, with proficiency. The two are not interchangeable. Especially here in DC.
That's a good point, but a subjective one.
I'm a former DCPS teacher who has done DC-CAS benchmarking too. I agree that it can be seemingly arbitrary, but in the absence of course/grade exit exams tied to the grade-level academic standards, there simply isn't another across the board measure for "grade level" performance in DC.
Frankly, I always though the DC-CAS was far too easy (kind of like the Praxis)...
Your and Racheal's discussion is over where we are. I suspect most (including a "certain politician") would agree that is not where we want to be. Given DCPS's long and thoroughly discussed history, I think where we are is less germane than where we are heading. Maybe it's a long road, but at least finally there are indications we are on it.
These are not "gains" in the usual sense. These are differences in pass rates between last year's test-age population and this year's test-age population. So basically you're getting the difference between the outgoing 8th graders and in the incoming 3rd graders plus changes due to kids moving in/out of the system and actual gains of kids who stayed in the system.
Not only that, but you're focused on pass rates, not across-the-board improvement. So if kids make huge (or no) improvements but do not cross the proficiency threshold, they don't count. Since the chancellor set up programs specifically targeting the small minority of kids near the passing threshold, you can expect that the overall achievement gains are lower than they appear. (It's called gaming the system and it's bad for trully struggling kids and bad for high-achieving kids).
So, how on Earth can you conclude anything (good or bad) about the performance of the teachers or the chancellor from this? Answer: you can't.
oops. typo on "truly"
Obviously, if these scores are real, they are the result of great teaching -- Rhee herself says teachers are "everything" - so if that is the case, then her plan to remove a "significant share of the teacher corps" in order to improve the school system is not called for.
The students made these gains with the teachers currently in place - all those old tenured types.
Clearly, Rhee was wrong.
An apology is in order.