NY lags in math scores

[lilly]

Just throwing it out there for discussion...

Any comments?
____________________________
www.newsday.com/long-island/math-scores-drop-for-ny-fourth-graders-1.3288462

Math scores drop for NY fourth-graders

New York is the only state where fourth-grade math scores fell significantly during the latest round of national testing.

On a scale of 0 to 500, average scores in New York dropped to 238 from 241 two years ago, federal officials reported Tuesday in the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

This marked the first time since 1992 that New York's performance in fourth-grade math has fallen below the national average in the assessment. The national average is 240 this year, up from 239 in 2009.

2011 NAEP REPORTS: Math | Reading

The assessment, described as the "nation's report card," is a federally funded project that since 1969 has tested samples of students at the national level, and more recently state-by-state.

In another blow to New York, the chairman of the NAEP's Governing Board Tuesday singled out the state, along with Iowa and West Virginia, as places where overall academic progress has been particularly sluggish -- both in reading and math -- during the past eight years. The board is a bipartisan panel appointed by the U.S. education secretary to oversee testing policy.

David Driscoll, the Governing Board chief who also is a former Massachusetts education commissioner, observed at a Washington news conference that the three states have "stood virtually still" since 2003 in percentages of students attaining proficiency on fourth- and eighth-grade tests.

Most other states since 2003 have shown substantial improvement in fourth- and eighth-grade math, and more modest gains in reading. In the 2011 round of testing, national scores rose significantly in fourth-grade and eighth-grade math and in eighth-grade reading. National results in fourth-grade reading remained flat.

New York State Education Commissioner John King Jr. called the results "disappointing and unacceptable." He added that a new Common Core curriculum, slated for statewide phase-in during the next school year, will help student achievement.

"The goal is college and career readiness for every student, and that starts the first day a child walks into a classroom," King said.

The Common Core curriculum is part of a multiyear, national drive to raise the bar of American students' achievement. The new standards put more emphasis on advanced literacy and applied math. The program, which is linked to international academic standards, has been approved by 44 states.

Driscoll said in a phone interview that New York has made considerable efforts to boost scholastic achievement. He suggested, however, that his own state of Massachusetts has made greater progress by aligning its testing standards early on with standards set at the national level -- a move that New York only recently began.

"I think the proof here is that Massachusetts leaped to the top of the country," Driscoll said of his state's test scores. "If you're a coach, I don't think you start the season saying you want to go two and eight."

Jack Bierwirth, superintendent of Herricks schools and an expert on testing issues, agreed that Massachusetts has set the pace among states in terms of rigorous assessments. Bierwirth added that New York needs to redouble its efforts to help failing students.

"We have some of the highest-achieving students, and we also have some of the lowest," said Bierwirth, who serves on state-level panels dealing with assessments. "And I think it's unconscionable that we have so many kids at the margin."

NAEP's math assessment was administered to a representative sample of 209,000 fourth-graders and 175,200 eighth-graders across the country. In reading, a representative sample of 213,100 fourth-graders and 168,200 eighth-graders participated.

The organization does not make public the districts where students are tested.

New York State racked up solid gains on most NAEP tests through 2007, but then the momentum slowed.

In more recent years, state school officials have conceded that the cutoff scores they set for students to reach the so-called proficiency level had dropped too low to keep pace with federal standards. Those cutoffs were raised in July 2010.
_______________________

[Chris_Wendt]

I posted the following comment on Newsday.com (3rd page of comments)

"What do the results indicate when grouped, for instance, with the Big Five Cities (New York, Yonkers, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse) in one group, and the rest of the state's schools in a second group? Or how about looking at how Nassau and Suffolk school districts performed compared to the other counties?

Measuring the entire state of New York results against the entire rest of the nation, while revealing, leads to the more important question, so what?"

Now let me answer so what...

With New York's math scores in the crapper, more tax dollars will undoubtedly be directed to fix under-performing schools in under-performing districts around NY state. Some of those "fixes" will likely require Wantagh to "FIX" what ain't broke, here.

What will that all mean?

1. Less state and federal aid coming to Wantagh, because more state and federal aid will be directed to those under-performing schools and districts. This could increase the school tax levy yet again.

2. Wantagh will incur more (unfunded) costs to adopt the (unnecessary) fixes in the state math syllabus, re-writing curriculum. and maybe changing text books yet again. This could increase the school budget yet again.

In short, increased costs, bigger budgets, less revenue, higher taxes. Mathematical equilibrium.

Chris Wendt

[lilly]

I suspected that would be your reaction.

And, it is way too easy an out, giving Wantagh and the majority of LI districts convenient permission to rest on laurels or status quo. Add on a dollop of fear mongering, "oh no, our taxes will go up and revenue will be diverted away from us for much ado about nothing". Really? A statewide drop in 4th grade math scores should not be a concern? NIMBY, lol?

Meanwhile, there has been an increase in colleges stating that incoming freshman are less prepared than ever in skills to handle a college curriculum. The money the colleges have to spend on basic remediation of those skills has increased and puts undue financial pressure on them. And, although an abysmal employment market, there are many unfilled math/science jobs since we as a country are not producing enough qualified people to fill them?

Who is to say that the standards in NYS NCLB and Regents tests are 'sufficient'? Price/value for the taxes paid, what should the benchmark be and how should it be measured? We are a suburb of the largest city in the country. Our standards should be high - for Wantagh, LI and the state.

Furthermore, Beech has always consistently carried Wantagh's strong scores. If that is not an incredibly obvious important case for a Princeton Plan in Wantagh, I don't know what is. I don't know why Mandalay and FL parents or the previous administration/BOE's have been completely asleep, ok silent, about this.

If I remember correctly, the big 5 have had gains in NCLB scores (or at least NYC) so really, what is driving the dynamics behind NY's performance in this federal measure?

And to further muck things up, following yesterday's headlines, look at today's Newsday. The principals and teachers remain all upset at the new teacher evaluations, apparently spending precious time on the taxpayer's dime protesting it. Are they kidding? Here is the basic problem - how to demonstrate accountability in teachers and use reviews as a useful action plan. What is the solution? I want to proactively hear feasible, realistic suggestions from an EDUCATOR, not the teachers union or politicians but that hasn't and will never happen. If you're not part of the solution, you are part of the PROBLEM.

All I need to hear now is a Randi Weingarten passive-aggressive non-answer comment ("of course we're behind teacher evals, but, but, but...") and I'll lose it a bit more.
___________________________
www.newsday.com/long-island/education/li-principals-fight-state-evaluation-system-1.3292236

LI principals fight state evaluation system

Originally published: November 2, 2011 6:07 PM
Updated: November 2, 2011 10:44 PM
By JO NAPOLITANO [e-mail]

More than half of Long Island's public school principals have united against the state's new teacher evaluation system, which links educator ratings to student test scores.

New York pledged to implement the system earlier this year to help win nearly $700 million in federal Race to the Top school-improvement money. It's unclear if late-stage tweaks to the plan, known as the Annual Professional Performance Review, could jeopardize the funding.

The move came as lawmakers from across the country -- including New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo -- started calling for greater accountability in public education, saying there is no room for substandard teachers.

MORE: Read the principals' letter

The 368 elementary, middle and high school principals who had signed the letter as of Wednesday night want the state to slow down, study the plan's fairness and value, and start with a pilot program instead. They represent more than 90 of the Island's 124 school districts -- plus the three BOCES programs in Nassau and Suffolk -- and have grown to include principals from a handful of upstate districts.

"We welcome accountability and continually strive to meet high standards," read the letter, which was sent to the state Board of Regents Wednesday night. "We believe, however, that an unproven, expensive and potentially harmful evaluation system is not the path to lasting school improvement."



'Legitimate concerns'

State Education Commissioner John B. King, in a statement late Wednesday, stressed that the new evaluation system was key to securing the millions in federal funds. He said, too, that research shows the best way to improve student performance in the classroom is to employ effective teachers.

The principals' letter raises "some legitimate concerns that the board is addressing in the design of the evaluation system," King said, but added that his most pressing task is to help students graduate college- and career-ready.

"That's not happening now," he said. "Teacher and principal evaluations are essential, and delay only denies students the best education we can give them. The longer we wait, the slower we'll go."

William L. Sanders, senior research fellow with the University of North Carolina system, has studied the issue for 30 years and has concluded there are fair -- though complex -- ways to use student test scores to determine teacher effectiveness.

Sanders, senior manager of value-added assessment and research for SAS Institute Inc. in Cary, N.C., said Wednesday that teachers can't be held responsible for the academic standing of students who arrive in their classrooms in the fall, but they can be fairly judged in part on a child's academic achievement at the end of the school year.

"To ignore this, we are basically saying that the educational attainment of parents, household income and the neighborhood kids come from is their destiny," he said.

As the new evaluations are phased in, they will eventually cover about 250,000 teachers and other professional school workers statewide, including 35,000 on the Island.

The letter notes the system could create situations in which poorly performing students are steered away from the teachers most able to help them because low scores could bring down their teachers' rating, potentially putting their jobs in danger.

The principals say, too, that implementation will be expensive for already cash-strapped districts. They recommend the development of an index that takes schoolwide achievement results into account in the evaluations. The current system, they say, doesn't recognize that others in a school -- including reading and resource room teachers, guidance counselors and psychologists -- can influence student performance.



More than a number

The letter endorses the use of "performance bands" or ratings labels such as "ineffective," "developing," "effective" and "highly effective" -- which are currently included in the new evaluation system. But it says the newly created 100-point numerical rating system should be abandoned because no number could capture all a teacher does.

Sean Feeney, principal of The Wheatley School in Old Westbury, and Carol Burris, principal of South Side High School in Rockville Centre, co-wrote the letter.

Feeney is president of the Nassau County High School Principals' Association and Burris was named 2010 Educator of the Year by the School Administrators Association of New York State. Her blog posts have caught the attention of U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan, who called her this summer to discuss her grievances about his school reform agenda.

Feeney said the letter also will be sent to area legislators, who are under pressure not to pursue unfunded mandates.

The School Administrators Association issued a statement Wednesday supporting the principals' "grassroot efforts." The association, which has 7,000 members, earlier lobbied the Board of Regents to reconsider the evaluation plan, drafting its own letters asking that the state seek a one-year extension from the U.S. Education Department before starting it.

Richard C. Iannuzzi, president of New York State United Teachers, the state teachers' union, agreed that the system should have been tried first as a pilot program, but he doesn't believe educators will shortchange students to save their jobs.

"I give a lot more credit to teachers with respect to the fear that they will start to do things differently and make strategic decisions as to where they place special needs students," he said.

He said, too, that he thinks teachers should be evaluated individually and not as a group.

Teacher unions in Buffalo and Rochester said Wednesday that they, too, have appealed to the Education Department, saying the evaluation system, as proposed, is unfair. The evaluation system also is hamstrung by pending legal action as the courts determine exactly what percentage of a teacher's evaluation can be linked to test scores.




New teacher evaluation system



Eventually expected to affect about 250,000 teachers and principals statewide, including 35,000 on Long Island. Teachers would be given one of four ratings: highly effective, effective, developing and ineffective. Those rated "ineffective" two consecutive years may be cited for incompetence and fired, after expedited hearings.

Educators would be evaluated on a 100-point scale:

20 percent on student exams

20 percent on local measures of student achievement determined through collective bargaining.

60 percent on other criteria, such as classroom observation, also determined through collective bargaining.


LI principals' objections



Research argues against tying teacher ratings to test scores; different models could yield drastically different results and don't produce gains in student achievement.

The Regents exams in grades 3-8 are not designed to measure teacher effectiveness, but student learning.

Focus on test scores will further narrow curriculum, allowing art, music and civics to slide.

Struggling students could be discouraged from taking more rigorous courses for fear they could bring down a teachers' rating.

Collaboration between teachers will be replaced by competition.

Implementation will cost valuable time and money as schools struggle with the new 2-percent property-tax cap and decreased state aid.

Principals' open letter of concern
________________________

Then there's another Newsday article out this morning, reminding us all that "Long Island educators top compensation list".

[Chris_Wendt]

Take-away #1. If math or other assessment or standardized test scores serve as an impetus for Wantagh adopting a modified Princeton Plan, and instituting Full-day K, then I would align myself with that movement.

Take-away #2. This is a critical thinking issue. My opinion, Wantagh has exactly NO principals in need of evaluations or improvement. Let us not waste any time or money on that. We probably have at most 5-6 teachers in need of improvement. Some of those need training, some may simply need to retire. BULLETIN: our principals KNOW who those 5-6 teachers are.

Negotiating points:

1. Principals Association: District agrees that all current principals are fully whatever and do not require further evaluation for the duration of the contract; in exchange, the Principals will rank all teachers in their building according to perceived performance, and identify to the Super in June of each year the bottom five percent low performing teachers according to each the Principal's personal assessment and professional judgment.

2. Teachers' Union: District agrees that 95% of current teachers are fully whatever and do not require further formal evaluation during the term of the contract; in exchange, WUT agrees that principals will informally assess teachers and identify to the Super the lowest performing 5% in each building for formal evaluation or the opportunity to resign or retire. Those who do not leave voluntarily would become subject to the state evaluation consequences and may be fired in two years.

Something like that.

Under the application of this clause, the district may dismiss without recourse up to five teachers each year on the basis of Principal evaluations. That number would include any tenured teachers who resign or retire after a negative assessment by their principal.

Otherwise, and as it stands right now, the principals cited in Newsday are quite right in their gripes.

For what it is worth...

Chris Wendt

[Chris_Wendt]

Homage (pronounced oh-maj) to the squeaking wheel!

Quoting Jo Napolitano in today's Newsday:

"State Education Commissioner John B. King, Jr. said ...he would be willing to meet with the Long Island principals who drafted a missive challenging the state's controversial new teacher evaluation system."

But this gesture is more than good PR. Continuing the Newsday quote:

"The (teacher & principal evaluation) system was crucial to the state securing $700 Million in federal Race to the Top money, King said this week. A spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Education said yesterday that any significant changes in New York's overall plan would put that funding 'in jeopardy'.""

So then, it's d**n what's RIGHT for schools, for the teachers, for "The Children"...its FULL SPEED AHEAD...for the MONEY!!![/b][/i]

I would love to be a fly on the wall at that meeting with Commissioner King!

No, wait! Even before that meeting with the Commissioner. Imagine the ""guidance"" Lynne D'Agostino would be getting in advance of the meeting, from the Superintendent, the Board of Education and the District's PR firm.

Chris Wendt

[lilly]

Ironically, I had lunch yesterday with friends (who happen to be ex-PTA presidents and regional heads, not from Wantagh) and teacher evals as well as the principals' letter of protest came up during conversation. We were discussing one friend's evaluation (private sector employee) situation and that spurred another to bring up the teacher evals and more than a few comments ensued. Apparently, I am def not alone in my thoughts about this.

A few more general comments about it, even though I am sure I can't convince you otherwise.

Just say Beech is carrying the strong Wantagh NCLB test scores. Has there been any recognition or action plan on the part of principals or administration to address that? Wouldn't test scores as some part of a teacher evaluation bring that to light a bit more?

If I were a teacher, your proposed bottom 5% or whatever (arbitrary?) cut-off and potential subjectivity in those evals might scare me. Public schools are not an industry used to doing evals plus evals in industries that are experienced with them are never perfect anyway. Subjectivity should be minimized and controlled particularly when data and performance results are available to include plus there are always qualitative factors that need to be addressed. Furthermore, prior to this APPR talk, I have never met a good teacher who was afraid of an evaluation including one that has a degree of basis on test scores. Most good teachers I know have commented to me 'bring it on' and stand behind their work. How much of this APPR stuff comments from the union leaders as opposed to the membership?

Now for comments on dysfunctional NYSED. NY is always last to adopt most fed regs e.g., IDEIA, RtI, etc. In fact, many times, the last in the nation! (Gotta love living in the #1 state with this dinosaur of a state ed dept.) How many times did NY get a free pass in re-submitting the app for RTTT $ bc they were so ill-prepared and culturally against it. (I agree that NY getting RTTT $'s involved politics. Can you imagine the political fall-out to NY not getting that $?) Instead of reaching out to other states/districts where these practices have been adopted for their key learning i.e., take advantage of being LAST by letting others do the work/learning, they miss the opp'ys. Didn't the NY principals' letter cite another state (RI?) that has been doing evals for a few years? Did anyone from NY get that key learning instead of what seems to be an exercise in reinventing the wheel?

I'm sure this happens in other states but it is def part of NYS culture to take regs and interpret them as CYA or meeting minimum legal requirements for school districts. How many times have you heard a district (or Wantagh) state that all they have to do is "X", the minimum requirement to be perceived as legal under regs? All regs do is attempt to put a framework around something that is in many situations, unwieldy, they don't tell you how to do something or what the magic answer is. That interpretation is left to the school administrators. The intention of the teacher evals is to lift performance of the teachers and schools, so Wantagh should just take a step back and figure out how to use evals (including whatever evals shoved down their throats by NYSED) as tools to do just that instead of the perception of fighting the inevitable every step of the way.

Instead, NYSED sets up rules that districts have to go for X # of training sessions. (Ironically provided at BOCES by ex-supers whose training and forte prob isn't teacher evals bc how fruitful were past public school teacher evals? And of course, prob generating revenue for BOCES at taxpayer expense.) That is before they're able to get consensus and support for the evals. What a mess...

[Chris_Wendt]

(Lilly) A few more general comments about it, even though I am sure I can't convince you otherwise.

I don't know about that.

(Lilly) Just say Beech is carrying the strong Wantagh NCLB test scores. Has there been any recognition or action plan on the part of principals or administration to address that? Wouldn't test scores as some part of a teacher evaluation bring that to light a bit more?

Test scores can be and are dis-aggregated for analysis. Bringing something to light, and bringing something to light a bit more, the difference is time...and money. In the end, you have the same thing. To answer your actual question, yes, there is recognition and action plans based on where the deficiencies appear, and, where strength is evident. I have thought for a long time that a modified Princeton Plan would be a great plan to address some of what you are suggesting.

However, bringing test results such as they currently exist down to individual teacher evaluations makes no sense to me at all, in terms of having any value to the students.

What I had always hoped for (and we now have the technology that would allow this to happen) is longitudinal tracking-back from high school test results and other student performance metrics to each student's elementary school, and their individual elementary school teachers. My intent for doing this long look back was not for the purpose of teacher evaluation, but rather to learn what has worked best (and what has not worked as well) in terms of elementary organization, program delivery, and the many creative ideas instituted over the years by innovative teachers and forward-looking principals. How did these ideas pan-out by the time the students were ready to graduate from high school?

In addition to pedagogical efficacy issues (did these things actually work), taking a long look back would also yield a retrospective cost-benefit analysis of some of those ideas we tried and some of the money we either spent or "saved".

(Lilly) If I were a teacher, your proposed bottom 5% or whatever (arbitrary?) cut-off and potential subjectivity in those evals might scare me.

Sorry to be glib, but fear is a great motivator. And, yes, 'whatever' is both arbitrary and movable. To do it right, the cutoff would be determined using the standard deviation curve (I posted one on Patch). Group performance (and improvement) would establish the baseline each year, and individual performance would determine who should be scared, a different and smaller number as time progressed.

(Lilly) Public schools are not an industry used to doing evals plus evals in industries that are experienced with them are never perfect anyway.

We agree here.

(Lilly) Subjectivity should be minimized and controlled particularly when data and performance results are available to include plus there are always qualitative factors that need to be addressed.

No way. You just admitted to shading data using qualitative factors which by definition are very subjective.

"Performance results" and data are two completely different things! Data is a readout: scores, percentiles. Results are those totally subjective ways we look at and interpret data (scores, percentiles) and then group and label buckets of data or quartiles and deciles which we call "grades", "levels", "satisfactory", "outstanding", "developing", "qualified", "honor", "advanced", "gifted", or way back when, "tracks".

(Lilly) Furthermore, prior to this APPR talk, I have never met a good teacher who was afraid of an evaluation including one that has a degree of basis on test scores. Most good teachers I know have commented to me 'bring it on' and stand behind their work. How much of this APPR stuff comments from the union leaders as opposed to the membership?

Before you agree with "bring it on!", ask: what is it going to cost and who is going to do it, and for what SMART result?
S - Specific
M - Measurable
A - Attainable
R - Relevant
T - Time-bound

(Lilly) Now for comments on dysfunctional NYSED. NY is always last to adopt most fed regs e.g., IDEIA, RtI, etc. In fact, many times, the last in the nation! (Gotta love living in the #1 state with this dinosaur of a state ed dept.) How many times did NY get a free pass in re-submitting the app for RTTT $ bc they were so ill-prepared and culturally against it. (I agree that NY getting RTTT $'s involved politics. Can you imagine the political fall-out to NY not getting that $?) Instead of reaching out to other states/districts where these practices have been adopted for their key learning i.e., take advantage of being LAST by letting others do the work/learning, they miss the opp'ys. Didn't the NY principals' letter cite another state (RI?) that has been doing evals for a few years? Did anyone from NY get that key learning instead of what seems to be an exercise in reinventing the wheel?

Maybe later for this, and the rest....

(Lilly) What a mess...

Again, we agree!

Regards,

Chris Wendt

[cathy]

Where can you see the results by school? I was told that Mandalay outperformed FL & Beech last year.

[Michael Soethout]

reportcards.nysed.gov/schools.php?
year=2010&instid=800000049319

Cathy,

Attached above is the link to the NYS Education Department Website.

But the last scores posted by NYS are for 2009-2010.

I have listed the mean scores for grade 3-5 below, but please
feel free to check the website yourself, I believe there is also a link to the report cards on the District Website, in Dr. Appriarias's page.

Mandalay School:
3rd grade ELA 684
3rd grade Math 708

4th grade ELA 696
4th grade Math 721
4th grade Science 91

5th grade ELA 689
5th grade Math 709

Wantagh Elemantary:
3rd grade ELA 679
3rd grade Math 708

4th grade ELA 697
4th grade Math 702
4th grade Science 91

5th grade ELA 683
5th grade Math 700

Forest Lake School:
3rd grade ELA 682
3rd grade Math 700

4th grade ELA 689
4th grade Math 699
4th grade science 89

5th grade ELA 681
5th grade Math 688

Sincerely,
Michael

[Chris_Wendt]

picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/nBShkIL_LndbqroH7Q2uQxEblXDV455PYrQYbWLMkfk?feat=directlink

The math scores graph to fairly even performance among the three schools. I think the operable phrase is "not statistically significant".

The ELA scores are grouped even closer. The science scores, about as identical as you can get.

Regardless, these assessments are not a competition, were never intended to be.

Regards

Chris Wendt

[lilly]

Here are % proficient scores for 4th grade math by elem school (% of kids scoring a 3 or 4).

NYS must have changed the test considerably or curric standards in 2009/10 bc all schools dipped a lot. Prior to that, Mandalay and Wantagh El traded off the #'s 1 and 2 spots for 4th grade math.

Wantagh El is going to drive performance in district scores bc enrollment there is usually about 1/2 of total district.

(Note don't have county averages to compare.)

2004/05
WEl 99
FL 95
Mand 100

2005/06
WEl 92
FL 86
Mand 97

2006/07
WEl 96
FL 83
Mand 95

2007/08
WEl 97
FL 95
Mand 95

2008/09
WEl 97
FL 93
Mand 100

2009/10
WEl 80
FL 82
Mand 85

[lilly]

Now for 4th grade ELA.

I'm not paying much attention to other grades as 4th graders have been tested the longest and there were similar math & ELA patterns in 3rd and 5th grades. Science in elementary is different than math and ELA since the latter 2 are more of life skills and a foundation in later grades.

Up until 2008/09, Wantagh El with 1/2 of the district's elem enrollment, was the clear consistent leader in ELA.

A note about special ed. FL has always had self-contained and resource room, Wantagh El has inclusion and resource room. Mandalay, resource room only.

I don't know when the 4th grade inclusion class started in Wantagh El, but based on the #'s I suspect it may have been either 2007/08 or 2008/09? In 2007/08, the # of special ed kids doubled but the district classification rate for 4th graders went from 10% to 15% that year also. Concurrently, beginning those years, FL and Mandalay had half the amount of kids with disabilities they had prior, while Wantagh El's doubled. In fact, Mandalay's general enrollment and special ed #'s for 4th grades the smallest of all 3 schools. The state did not allow # of special ed kids to be reported for 2009/10 Mandalay, it was so small. So, it looks like administration/BOE needs to scrutinize the reports with that in mind (maybe looking at #'s with and without special ed) to clearly understand what is going on, if they haven't already.

And no, it is not a competition but use the tests for the diagnostic purposes (for students and teachers) originally intended. We paid for them, didn't we?

2004/05
WEl 95
FL 86
Mand 88

2005/06
WEl 88
FL 80
Mand 88

2006/07
WEl 96
FL 83
Mand 84

2007/08
WEl 97
FL 87
Mand 86

2008/09
WEl 94
FL 90
Mand 99

2009/10
WEl 84
FL 82
Mand 91