| Author | Message | ||
     Fringe |
Comparing Columbia High School's October 1999 (1999-2000 school year) performance on the Grade 11 High School Proficiency Test in READING, MATHEMATICS, and WRITING with those of the 49 other districts in SO-M's socio-economic grouping (District Factor Group I) that have high schools the rankings would be: * In READING the 326 Columbia students had a MEAN score of 375.1 compared to the 11,600 DFG I student MEAN of 406.5 of 500 possible. No DFG I districts had a lower MEAN. SO-M Rank = 49 of 49 * In MATHEMATICS 326 Columbia students had a MEAN score of 406 compared to the 11,599 DFG I student MEAN of 433.5 of 500 possible. No DFG I districts had a lower MEAN. SO-M Rank = 49 of 49 * In WRITING 326 Columbia students had a MEAN score of 366.6 compared to the 11,587 DFG I student MEAN of 376.2 of 500 possible. Five DFG I districts had a lower MEAN. SO-M Rank = 44 of 49 * 259 of 331 Columbia 11th graders or 78.2% passed the Oct 1999 HSPT compared with 10,618 of 11,640 DFG I test takers ( 91.2%). No other DFG I districts had a lower percentage of passing. SO-M Rank = 49 of 49 Comparing Columbia's performance with the 36 (including SO-M) districts in DFG GH (the next lowest socio-economic grouping) with high schools, the rankings would be: * In READING the 326 Columbia students had a MEAN score of 375.1 compared to the 11,252 DFG GH student MEAN of 390.9 of 500 possible. Three DFG GH districts had a lower MEAN. SO-M Rank = 33 of 36 * In MATHEMATICS 326 Columbia students had a MEAN score of 406 compared to the 11,256 DFG GH student MEAN of 415.4 of 500 possible. Eight DFG GH districts had a lower MEAN. SO-M Rank = 28 of 36 * In WRITING 326 Columbia students had a MEAN score of 366.6 compared to the 11,257 DFG GH student MEAN of 361.7 of 500 possible. Twenty-four DFG GH districts had a lower MEAN. SO-M Rank = 12 of 36 * 259 of 331 Columbia students or 78.2% passed the Oct 1999 HSPT compared with 9,562 of 11,315 DFG GH test takers (84.5%). Four DFG GH districts had a lower percentage of test takers pass the HSPT in October 1999. Four DFG GH districts had a lower percentage of students passing. SO-M Rank = 32 of 36 Comparing Columbia's MEAN scores with the Specil Needs Districts and All Other NJ Districts: * In READING the 326 Columbia students had a MEAN score of 375.1 compared to the 9,693 Special Needs district students' MEAN of 314.2 and the 56,442 All Other district students' MEAN of 381.8 of 500 possible. * In MATHEMATICS 326 Columbia students had a MEAN score of 406 compared to the the 9,685 Special Needs district students' MEAN of 332 and the 56,441 All Other district students' MEAN of 405.8 of 500 possible. * In WRITING 326 Columbia students had a MEAN score of 366.6 compared to the 9,591 Special Needs district students' MEAN of 318 and the 56,394 All Other district students' MEAN of 358 of 500 possible. Data taken from the "October 1999 Grade 11 High School Proficiency Test (HSPT 11) State Summary" published by the NJ Department of Education in December 2000. Table 6 of State Summary includes a percent distribution of October 1999 HSPT scores within 5 ranges by District Factor Group. Interested parties may wish to contact the SO-M administration for a comparison of Columbia's scores within those ranges to various DFGs. Some DFG I districts include: South Orange-Maplewood, Caldwell, Berkeley Heights, Glen Ridge, Livingston, New Providence, Randolph, Chatham, Summit, Verona & Westfield. Examples of DFG GH schools are: Cedar Grove, Cranford, Montclair, Parsippany, Springfield & West Orange. Milburn is one of three high schools in the DFG - J, none of whose data is included. With very minor exceptions, the test was administered to 11th grade students who were taking it for the first time. Those with questions regarding the data above, but who do not wish to reveal their identity on the board, may call me at the number listed in the telephone directory. All calls will be confidential. JTL | ||
| Twig |
Fringe, Do you or anyone else have any idea what the standard deviation or variance was either on the overall or component (math, writing, reading) HSPT scores among Columbia students? I'm wondering whether the score distribution was normal or if it tended to be bi-polar in nature. Neither the percent passing the test or the actual average scores really tells the whole story of the test results. If the distribution is normal, then we can assume that there was a fairly even spread of students across the entire range of scores - that's typically the pattern and I assume it's the case here. But an overall school average score of 400 could also mean that one group of kids averaged 600 and the other half averaged 200 and there weren't many scores in between. If that is the distribution pattern at Columbia, it would suggest that there are two distinct sets of students with tremendous achievement gaps between those groups. If so, focused strategies that clearly target the less successful group would be appropriate. I realize that score discrepancies generally aren't as distinct as my example but it serves to make the point. Any insights? | ||
| Silkcity |
I am extremely troubled by these scores. What do others think? What can we do? I am a public school teacher. I understand that test scores such as these tell only a small part of the story, but these scores don't suggest success. | ||
| Malone |
If you've seen my posts in the past, you know that I'm not a big fan of the towns schools, but I see some bright spots. The % of CHS 11th graders passing all three sections of the HSPT went up from 75.9 to 78.2. Not a heck of a lot, but improvement nonetheless. The % passing the writing and the math sections was 92%. Looks like improvement to me, and I'm willing to see if this is a trend before throwing out the system. The disturbing thing is the horrific performance of our demonstration school. Only 37% of fourth graders at Seth Boyden were proficient in all three areas. Considering all of the resources we are throwing into this school at the expense of the others, shouldn't the performance be much better? | ||
| Spw784 |
re: the poor performance of CHS on HSPT... Is there a way to track the scores to find out how many of the students are products of our system (i.e. have been educated for most of their schooling here in SO-M) and how many are recent enrollees, or who enrolled as freshman? I would think if students have transferred in from a less academically challenging district, during their HS careers, they would ,of course, get lower scores and therefore bring down the mean score. | ||
| Sac |
Malone - 1999-2000 was the very first year of the Demonstration School program. Way too early to draw judgements. Those scores show part of the reason why Seth Boyden needed the new program as opposed to demonstrating a failing of it. What I hope and expect, both as a taxpayer and as a parent, is to see a rising trend in those scores over the next few years. | ||
| Cbbk |
My children are at SB, regardless of this transition year, these scores are upsetting. Last year my fourth grader was taught to the test. There was very little variation or exploration into subjects of interest to the children (i.e. science, literature etc.) The teacher once said, "This year in 4th grade we will teach the children what is to be expected on the ESPA". And sadly, that is what the class consisted of. I feel that many parts of the curriculum is in need of modification. The basics of education are only touched upon, from what I can tell at SB. I would like to know if the personnel responsible for overseeing the curriculum and its effectiveness, actually has visited classes in the district; assessed children's in class test scores, talked with teachers children and their parents about how they are doing regarding Math, Language Arts, Science and Social Studies. | ||
| Deadwhitemale |
South Orange Middle School is next on the Board and Superintendent's list for Demonstration Schools. No doubt about it. More teachers, more resources, less results. Elections are two months away. DWM | ||
| Sac |
I don't contest the fact that the scores are disappointing. I only contest using that fact to cast doubt on the Demonstration School approach at this stage. I apologize if my post was misleading in that regard. However, I think that it is patently unfair to attempt to judge the Demonstration School or any other significant educational initiative in such a short period of time. | ||
| Manley |
In the last five years,our district has had a 60% staff turnover.That includes teachers and administrators.It takes teachers at least 5 years to hit their stride as a teacher.In those 5 years they realize that the "fluff" they learned in college is not practical in some classrooms.Discipline,phonics,and basics should be incorporated with our present curriculum. Mandatory summer school for students who are having trouble passing the test. In the high school, any freshman who needs remediation should have a structured program.The program should include study skills, computer literacy,and establish fundamentals in all their weak subjects.These students should be taught by department chairs in each subject. This will be the first step to our scores rising to 90%. For gifted students, they will have an opportunity to choose their programs.They must have recommendations from their teachers in the middle school. What can we do right now? Be patient. With stability and experience our school system will be ok.As long as we learn from our mistakes. | ||
| Fringe |
Readers have called asking for a two year comparison of the data originally posted. Comparing Columbia High School's October 1999 (1999-2000 school year) & October 1998 MEAN performance on the Grade 11 High School Proficiency Test in READING, MATHEMATICS, and WRITING with those of the 49 other districts in SO-M's socio-economic grouping (District Factor Group I) that have high schools the rankings would be: * READING - 1998 - SO-M MEAN = 381.8; DFG I MEAN = 405.1 SO-M Rank = 49th of 49 districts 1999 - SO-M MEAN = 375.1; DFG I MEAN = 406.5. SO-M Rank = 49th of 49 districts * MATHEMATICS - 1998 - SO-M MEAN = 400.8; DFG I MEAN = 434.7 SO-M Rank = 49th of 49 districts 1999 - SO-M MEAN = 406 ; DFG I MEAN = 433.5 SO-M Rank = 49th of 49 districts * WRITING 1998 - SO-M MEAN = 380.5; DFG I MEAN = 392.9 SO-M Rank = 47th of 49 districts 1999 - SO-M MEAN = 366.6 ; DFG I MEAN = 376.2. SO-M Rank = 44th of 49 districts * PERCENT PASSING (all 3 sections - first attempt) 1998 - SO-M = 75.9% ; DFG I = 92.4% SO-M Rank = 49th of 49 districts 1999 - SO-M = 78.2% ; DFG I = 91.2%. SO-M Rank = 49th of 49 districts If Columbia's performance were compared with the 36 (including SO-M) districts in DFG GH (the next lowest socio-economic grouping) with high schools, the rankings would be: * READING - 1998 - SO-M MEAN = 381.8; DFG GH MEAN = 390.9 SO-M Rank = 28th of 36 districts 1999 - SO-M MEAN = 375.1; DFG GH MEAN = 390.1 SO-M Rank = 33rd of 36 districts * MATHEMATICS - 1998 - SO-M MEAN = 400.8; DFG GH MEAN = 417.8 SO-M Rank = 29th of 36 districts 1999 - SO-M MEAN = 406 ; DFG GH MEAN = 415.4 SO-M Rank = 28th of 36 districts * WRITING 1998 - SO-M MEAN = 380.5; DFG GH MEAN = 380.3 SO-M Rank = 14th of 36 districts 1999 - SO-M MEAN = 366.6 ; DFG GH MEAN = 361.7 SO-M Rank = 12th of 36 districts * PERCENT PASSING (all 3 sections - first attempt) 1998 - SO-M = 75.9%; DFG GH = 86.8% SO-M Rank = 33rd of 36 districts 1999 - SO-M = 78.2% ; DFG GH = 84.5%. SO-M Rank = 32nd of 36 districts Data taken from the "October 1999 Grade 11 High School Proficiency Test (HSPT 11) State Summary" and "October 1998 Grade 11 High School Proficiency Test (HSPT 11) State Summary"published by the NJ StateDepartment of Education. The State Summary provides only the MEAN score for the three areas tested for each school and district. Prior to 1998, the State Summary included the percentage of the schools and districts' scores in 5 ranges (100-249; 250-299, 300-349, 350-399, & 400-500). Data for the DFGs is still provided in this manner, but now only the school/district has its data. Past analysis of this data has shown that the distribution of Columbia's scores is not bi-polar but more "fat tail" towards the low end of the scores. Almost four years ago, the district assessment co-ordinator made an unexpected analysis of the Stanford - 8 test data (grades 3-7). As noted elsewhere, on presentation to the school board, one member remarked that it appeared the longer a student was in the SO-M district, the lower his/her scores. Despite rhetoric that evening by the board to follow-up on the analysis, no comparative studies on the effects of student longevity within the district have been done. Rather, the elementary test has been changed so no comparison is possible with past years, and the assessment co-ordinator retired early. Since that presentation the district, for whatever reason, has been more restrictive on the amount and manner of test data it releases (unlike the Ryan approach on the Maplewood reval debate). While there may be an argument that the HSPT scores are negatively affected by the number of students arriving in the SO-M district in 9th Grade, that does not explain SO-M comarative performance on the 4th & 8th Grade NJ standardized tests or the performance of CHS students on the SAT on a 75th percentile comparison. An analysis of the SAT data from the 2000 Report Card is forthcoming. JTL | ||
| Lisat |
About the SB Demonstration School... first I'd like to say that I fully support the concept. If anything, I think that it needs more funding to make the promises of a more integrated curriculum and truly modern teaching methods become real. (I'm not saying the school district can afford the extra funding. And I wonder how much extra funding SB gets and what it's for. Busing students in from other zones is vital, I think, but it's not going to lead to a more integrated curriculum or help realize some of the other goals.) Does anyone know if there's a plan in place for deciphering future scores at SB? Scores could go up simply because students transferring in would likely have higher reading scores. I realize I'm making an assumption here about the link between income and scores. But I don't think we should fool ourselves into believing what we'd like. Some people might say that we should just be happy if the scores rise. But if they rise because higher income students transfer in, then the increase is not due solely to SB's effectiveness. If that's the case there would likely see a big discrepency between the 2 sets of students, those from the district vs. those from out of the zone. That discrepency would be a disservice, especially to those who live in the SB zone. How will testing be analyzed so that the the effectiveness of SB vs. the effect of the influx of higher income students be clearly understood? | ||
| Sac |
Re analysis of SB test scores, I've also wondered how this will be carried out. It should be possible to do an analysis that takes into account the transfers, since for every child it is known what school they are zoned for now, what school they were previously zoned for, and what school they now attend. We might need a budget increase for score analysis, however :-) Of course we all need to use caution, particularly with those 4th grade ESPA scores, since the state doesn't seem to have figured that one out very well yet. | ||
| Deadwhitemale |
How much money will it take for all students to be excellent students? It seems that the district's true educational believers still keep the faith in the inexorable equation: money = achievement. Pragmatic observation proves otherwise. Money and achievement are not related at all. Student motivation, parental involvement, and inherited ability are at the core. All students are not created equal. Used to be that they were created equally. Buy, medical advances have eliminated that truism. DWM | ||
| Ucnthndlthtruth |
By Silkcity on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 11:25 am "I am extremely troubled by these scores. What do others think? What can we do? I am a public school teacher. I understand that test scores such as these tell only a small part of the story, but these scores don't suggest success." By Deadwhitemale on Thursday, December 28, 2000 - 11:08 am: "That math program has resulted in district scores that can be compared to other districts and our own, before Chicago Math. We now score in the middle of district factor groups at least two groupings below ours. But, the board and super do nothing about it. This is the 90's tradition, now on the verge of being ratified in this decade. The program is inferior. But, once chosen, no administrator can admit a mistake was made. So the program continues. It is also expensive to administer, because the workbooks can not be re-used. Tenured teachers, some, those who remember better times, supplement the program with their own materials. Parents buy drill and skill materials which they supply teachers, and use at home. The program fails the students who need a good program most, as explained on line two years ago. Research from Johns Hopkins was referenced. But, our educrats never make mistakes. So, do the best you can for your own children. The system just sails on." By Silkcity on Friday, December 29, 2000 - 08:44 am: "Hmm... I've been teaching for more than ten years, and I hear -- and have experienced -- lots of good things re: Chicago Math. And I can't imagine what's wrong with Whole Language" Silkcity, What can we do? Follow DWM's advice from Dec. 28 ö get rid of the current Math Curriculum. IT IS OBVIOUSLY NOT WORKING. Then, revamp our "Language Arts" curriculum. IT IS NOT WORKING "arly reading instruction is ineffective in many American schools, and teachers' stubborn loyalty to whole-language instruction is perpetuating the problem, contends a report sponsored by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation." - From Education Week, December 13, 2000 That would be a good beginning. (Hello Nan) | ||
| Nicky |
Does anyone have information on how the other grammar schools in the district scored. | ||
| Ashear |
Its all on the DOE website. | ||
| Nan |
U, Your continued refusal to engage in any kind of meaningful dialog, along with your gnat-like devotion to cut-and-paste do not help to win me over to your basic "argument" that we should just hand our school district over to a conservative think tank. Look Ma! I can do it too! Here is another educational entity reviewing (one of your fav's) Thomas B. Fordham's The State of Standards" http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/CERAI/edpolicyproject/cerai-00-07.htmlegitimate. "The Fordham Foundation has produced a system for rating state' standard, the validity of which is not at all obvious. The procedures for determining the rankings are unclear and, therefore, difficult to replicate. The qualification of the "experts" whose expertise was used in some unspecified way is questionable. If the system had some immediately obvious merit, these objections would be of no import. When one looks, however, at the most immediately obvious place for validating the system - the academic performance of the state - one finds absolutely no correlation. States with well-received standards score low, states labeled as "irresponsible" because of their "lousy" standards score high. Taking this report seriously could well lead reformers down blind alleys or toward questionable ends." We could go on like this forever, posting excerpts from obscure conflicting sources and never say, or mean, a thing··. Is that your objective? "He who posts the same blather over and over the most wins"? I am finding it harder and harder to believe that you care a bit about the schools in Maplewood or South Orange. | ||
| Nicky |
Thanks Ashear. | ||
| Ucnthndlthtruth |
I have given up the expectation of a "meaningful" dialog with Nan quite some time ago. Our schools are performing miserably. Our curriculum is not working. Drastic measures are needed. Drop The current Math And Language Arts curriculum. The community is beginning to rumble on these issues and it ain't all coming from me ! South Orange middle school parents, Seth Boydn parents, Colombia teachers and students . (PS. Cannot access link) |
