|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Aug 29, 2013 6:44:36 GMT -5
ELA # Failed | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | Class of 2017 | 31 | 19 | 86 | 75 | 70 | 157 | Class of 2018 | | 25 | 40 | 59 | 59 | 138 | Class of 2019 | | | 60 | 52 | 47 | 149 | Class of 2020 | | | | 51 | 49 | 129 | Class of 2021 | | | | | 48 | 94 | Class of 2022 | | | | | | 75 | Per Grade Failures | 31 | 22 | 62 | 59 | 55 | 124 |
Math # Failed | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | Class of 2017 | 10 | 10 | 40 | 37 | 25 | 152 | Class of 2018 | | 3 | 48 | 35 | 32 | 94 | Class of 2019 | | | 52 | 37 | 47 | 120 | Class of 2020 | | | | 34 | 34 | 91 | Class of 2021 | | | | | 29 | 73 | Class of 2022 | | | | | | 57 | Per Grade Failures | 10 | 7 | 47 | 36 | 33 | 98 |
Explanations: - Data is from NYSED database, for the Wantagh School District.
- Illustrations are for District-wide ELA & Math Assessment results, with scores of 1 & 2 representing failure to attain grade level, and scores of 3 & 4 representing attainment of grade level
- # means number of students, either per se, or calculated using percentages reported and tests taken
- Years 2008 through 2013 (top row) are calendar year of the assessments taken
- Class of 2017...Class of 2022 (First Column) are the high school graduation years of classes of those specific students who, in 2013 were in Grades 8 through 3, respectively
- Numbers in the rank-and-file boxes are the number of students in each class who were reported as being "Not on Grade Level" in each year's assessment (excluding the bottom row)
- "Per Grade Failures" (bottom row) means the mean average number of students in the grade levels studied who were reported as being "Not on Grade Level" in each year's assessments.
- Numbers on bottom row are the average numbers of students per grade level who did not attain "On-Grade-Level" scores that year.
- Basic concept: track the same students results by their grade level through the several years between their own 3rd Grade Assessments and their own 8th Grade Assessments to see their progress or regression as indicated by their Assessment scores in any given year.
Comments: - ELA Average number of failures per grade level increased by 125% from 55 to 124, between 2012 and 2013.
- Math Average number of failures per grade level tripled from 33 to 98 between 2012 and 2013.
- District-wide, 742 students were reported "Not On-Grade-Level" for ELA in 2013
- District-wide, 587 students were reported "Not On-Grade-Level" for Math in 2013
The relative strength of Wantagh's District-wide Math program compared to our ELA program appears to be significant. It is certainly noticeable. Please do not infer that the 2013 Assessments had any validity or probative value concerning Wantagh's educational curriculum, efforts, or "real" learning outcomes. Comments welcome. Chris Wendt
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Aug 29, 2013 13:44:28 GMT -5
The following illustration may make the above charts easier to follow. Numbers in the rank-and-file boxes of this chart show the grade level each group of students (high school graduation class designation - first column) was in when the State Assessments were given for each of the calendar years shown in the top row. Grade Levels | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | Class of 2017 | 3rd | 4th | 5th | 6th | 7th | 8th | Class of 2018 | | 3rd | 4th | 5th | 6th | 7th | Class of 2019 | | | 3rd | 4th | 5th | 6th | Class of 2020 | | | | 3rd | 4th | 5th | Class of 2021 | | | | | 3rd | 4th | Class of 2022 | | | | | | 3rd | Per Grade Failures | 31 | 22 | 62 | 59 | 55 | 124 |
[/color][/table] [/color][/color][/color][/color][/color][/color] Regards, Chris Wendt
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Aug 30, 2013 6:47:07 GMT -5
Two numbers are most significant in the top post of this thread: - District-wide, 742 students were reported "Not On-Grade-Level" for ELA in 2013
- District-wide, 587 students were reported "Not On-Grade-Level" for Math in 2013
That makes 1,329 Assessment Scores in the failing range, presuming a typical parental perspective of their child not having attained "on-grade-level" status. Of course, these results cover two assessments (ELA & Math) among the same population of test-takers. Some students will have "passed" both assessments; some students will have "failed" both assessments, while some will have passed one and failed the other. There were 155 more ELA tests "failed" than Math tests "failed". In addition, some families have more than one child in school, perhaps some will have more than one child who sat for the assessments. and their scores may vary within the family. Negative parental reaction may soon follow the release of individual scores in September, and the Board of Education and the Superintendent, our building principals, as well as the Teachers Union and its President should be putting their heads together and working up a unified and proper Wantagh School District position about the 2013 Assessments and the resulting scores. As the charts above, and those to follow* will also, clearly demonstrate, the sudden failures, the doubling and tripling of Wantagh's failure rates among the identical same students' scores between 2012 and 2013, is an educational impossibility, ergo sequitur the 2013 Assessments were untimely, ill-advised, and their results should be ignored...but we all know these results will not be ignored! There are three public school districts' perspectives in the local media of which I want to make note: - Seaford Superintendent, bottom line: "embraces" (the implications of the Assessment results in line with) the Commissioner of Education's position.
- Rockville Centre Superintendent, bottom line: the Commissioner of Education was wrong, these tests were wrong, and the result are just wrong.
- Wantagh Superintendent, bottom line: some things were wrong with these tests, the Commissioner knew that, but, darn, now we are stuck with bad results, so please try to understand....Read Maureen Goldberg's letter
The Wantagh letter is moderate in tone, professional in its perspective, while recognizing the realities and taking due note of events. But I like the RVC stance; I think it will resonate better with parents who will be trying to deal with the coming shock of the news of their kids "failings". Wantagh's Don Sternberg and Bill Johnson, RVC Superintendent, stirring-up solidarity among parents concerned about testing, over-testing, teaching-to-the-tests, and looking for options-out (of all this testing). What do you think? Sincerely, Chris Wendt (p.s. - I am serious about the need for collaboration among the Board, Administration, Principals, and Teachers Union before these scores are in the mail to parents.) * Watch for failure analyses by building, coming soon, here!
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Aug 31, 2013 6:51:25 GMT -5
Below you will find the building results for each elementary school in Wantagh. But first, a few words: - My use of the word "failure" is deliberate and by example only. These are assessments, designed in accordance with federal NCLB legislation to assess which children require remedial services (Score = 1), which children require supportive services (Score = 2), and which children are functioning on or above Grade Level (Score = 3 or 4). The concept was and is simple: children are assessed, and services are provided to those who require them with the goal of bringing those children up to Grade Level Performance as soon as possible during their school careers. THERE IS NO "FAILURE" HERE. Or, there is not supposed to be anything regarded as "FAILURE" in the NCLB Assessment process.
- The NCLB Assessments have been perverted by many, especially the media, as (inappropriate) methods of ranking and comparing schools and school districts, or even states. Such was never the intent underlying the NCLB Assessment process.
- The NCLB Assessments have been purloined by federal and state legislators, as (also inappropriate) methods of evaluating teacher performance and deciding, in part, identification and removal of "bad" or ineffective teachers. This also was never the intent underlying the NCLB Assessment process.
- My purpose in posting these and the prior district-wide results is to demonstrate that the 2013 ELA & Math Assessments and their results are INVALID on their face. This in the hopes that public and legislative outrage will ensue, forcing NYSED to correct or expunge the results of the 2013 Assessments from the official records of students, teachers, schools and districts.
- The following charts are based on source data from the NYSED database
- They purport to be longitudinal studies of discreet classes (high school graduation year classes) of students as each class moved from Third Grade to 8th Grade in the years beginning 2008 through 2013.
- The years in the top row are the calendar years in which the Assessments were administered to these classes.
- The rank-and-file numbers across each row are the number of students in the same group (class) reported below grade level in each year's assessment, as that class progressed through grades 3-8
- The numbers along the bottom row in each table are the AVERAGE numbers of failures per grade level in each calendar year studied.
- "Bottom Line" information is reported, intended to be the main take-away.
Here we go: Mandalay Elementary School - Longitudinal Assessment Failure Rates, 2008-2013 ELA # Failed | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | Class of 2017 | 9 | 1 | 11 | | | | Class of 2018 | | 3 | 5 | 8 | | | Class of 2019 | | | 11 | 9 | 7 | | Class of 2020 | | | | 6 | 8 | 22 | Class of 2021 | | | | | 8 | 15 | Class of 2022 | | | | | | 15 | Failed / Yr | 9 | 2 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 17 |
Average annual per-class ELA Failure Rate more than Doubled, from 8 to 17, at Mandalay in 2013 Math # Failed | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | Class of 2017 | 1 | 0 | 5 | | | | Class of 2018 | | 0 | 9 | 5 | | | Class of 2019 | | | 9 | 4 | 3 | | Class of 2020 | | | | 4 | 4 | 9 | Class of 2021 | | | | | 2 | 11 | Class of 2022 | | | | | | 13 | Failed / Yr | 1 | 0 | 8 | 4 | 3 | 11 |
Average annual per-class Math Failure Rate Quadrupled, from 3.5 to 11, at Mandalay in 2013 Forest Lake Elementary School - Longitudinal Assessment Failure Rates, 2008-2013 ELA # Failed | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | Class of 2017 | 13 | 8 | 21 | | | | Class of 2018 | | 5 | 14 | 13 | | | Class of 2019 | | | 16 | 24 | 12 | | Class of 2020 | | | | 12 | 15 | 31 | Class of 2021 | | | | | 16 | 30 | Class of 2022 | | | | | | 29 | Failed / Yr | 13 | 6.5 | 17 | 16 | 14 | 30 |
Average annual per-class ELA Failure Rate more than Doubled, from 14 to 30, at Forest Lake in 2013 Math # Failed | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | Class of 2017 | 6 | 5 | 16 | | | | Class of 2018 | | 3 | 14 | 8 | | | Class of 2019 | | | 14 | 9 | 9 | | Class of 2020 | | | | 8 | 11 | 18 | Class of 2021 | | | | | 7 | 18 | Class of 2022 | | | | | | 27 | Failed / Yr | 6 | 4 | 15 | 8 | 9 | 21 |
Average annual per-class Math Failure Rate more than doubled, from 9 to 21 at Forest Lake in 2013 Wantagh Elementary School (WES) - Longitudinal Assessment Failure Rates, 2008-2013 ELA # Failed | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | Class of 2017 | 13 | 10 | 53 | | | | Class of 2018 | | 17 | 22 | 38 | | | Class of 2019 | | | 33 | 20 | 30 | | Class of 2020 | | | | 34 | 28 | 76 | Class of 2021 | | | | | 25 | 50 | Class of 2022 | | | | | | 32 | Failed/ Yr | 13 | 14 | 36 | 31 | 28 | 53 |
Average annual per-class ELA Failure Rate nearly Doubled, from 28 to 53, at WES in 2013. Math # Failed | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | Class of 2017 | 2 | 5 | 22 | | | | Class of 2018 | | 2 | 27 | 24 | | | Class of 2019 | | | 31 | 23 | 36 | | Class of 2020 | | | | 24 | 17 | 65 | Class of 2021 | | | | | 20 | 44 | Class of 2022 | | | | | | 19 | Failed/ Yr | 2 | 4 | 27 | 24 | 24 | 43 |
Average annual per-class Math Failure Rate increased 75% from 24 to 43, at WES in 2013. This last chart is by way of explaining the grade levels in which each class was during the corresponding Assessment Years. Grade Levels | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | Class of 2017 | 3rd Grade | 4th Grade | 5th Grade | (WMS) | (WMS) | (WMS) | Class of 2018 | | 3rd Grade | 4th Grade | 5th Grade | (WMS) | (WMS) | Class of 2019 | | | 3rd Grade | 4th Grade | 5th Grade | (WMS) | Class of 2020 | | | | 3rd Grade | 4th Grade | 5th Grade | Class of 2021 | | | | | 3rd Grade | 4th Grade | Class of 2022 | | | | | | 3rd Grade |
There is no building table for WMS; see District table, top post in this thread. In September, individual letters from BOCES will arrive in the homes of our students bearing the news of their scores on the 2013 Assessments. There will be a lot of BAD NEWS in those envelopes. Despite preparing the school community and school communities around the state for the coming tidal wave of bad news, I think the level of surprise, even outrage will exceed the expectations of the Commissioner of Education, and of many of our State Legislators. The "OPT-OUT" movement will likely become highly energized and more intensely motivated than ever. It could spread like wildfire across the Island and around the entire state. Perhaps like nothing we have seen previously. Imagine organized anarchy amidst widespread incredulity among the populace and perhaps leading to the total loss of credibility for the New York State Education Department. Good luck to us all! Chris Wendt
|
|
greda
Junior Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by greda on Sept 6, 2013 15:36:30 GMT -5
Hopefully you are being sarcastic.
The only way to measure anything is using concrete data. These test provide a baseline in which to judge. The common core was developed based on other countries who are basically kicking our a$$ is education.
there is an interesting op-ed in today's Wall Street journal by the CEO of Exxon-Mobil who lays out the difficulty of finding employees with adequate math schools.
The new standards because the school systems in urban areas are awful and is what a lot of this should address. The students in Wantagh are smart and intelligent enought to master these skills. However the concern is other outside areas.
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Sept 7, 2013 16:08:07 GMT -5
Hopefully you are being sarcastic. Not sure why that was your hope, but no, I was not being sarcastic. These analyses are intended to be taken seriously. The only way to measure anything is using concrete data. These test provide a baseline in which to judge. The common core was developed based on other countries who are basically kicking our a$$ is education. While the test results may appear to be "concrete data", they attempted to measure a level of instruction that was not given to the students before they took the tests. As you can see by following the longitudinal data in above posts, the data from 2013 radically and suddenly departs from the performance trends among identical individuals when viewed over a 5-year period. The students did not change. The teachers did not change. The teaching methods and curriculum taught did not change. The scores fell off a cliff last year. I infer the tests were bad, and the results were bad, meaning bad data, as opposed to being useful, or good data that could serve some valid purpose. Although you could point to these results as "baseline", I do not see any value to doing that. These tests were designed under the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), as the principal means to determine which students should receive remedial services (score=1) and which students should receive supportive services (score=2). They were not designed to "judge" anything else, although doing so (sitting in judgment) has become a widespread spectator sport among the media and critics of public education. Regardless of the genesis of the "Common Core", these tests, these results, do not relate last year's students to the Common Core Curriculum in any meaningful way. The comment about other countries kicking our butts in education may apply to big city schools in Los Angeles, Chicago, and parts of NY City and other large urban school systems. But such an assessment would not hold true for Wantagh or most LI or Westchester school districts. There is an interesting op-ed in today's Wall Street journal by the CEO of Exxon-Mobil who lays out the difficulty of finding employees with adequate math schools. The new standards because the school systems in urban areas are awful and is what a lot of this should address. The students in Wantagh are smart and intelligent enough to master these skills. However the concern is other outside areas. I think you meant math skills instead of math schools. The underlying problem is not lack of availability of adequate math or science or engineering skills among our college graduates in those fields, but that there are tidal waves of applicants for highly skilled jobs, the majority of whom do not possess the necessary experiential components of those technical skills to be useful, meaning to be immediately productive to prospective employers, like Exxon-Mobile. I place significant blame on corporations who no longer provide paid internships to college students, and thus deprive those students and their own corporations of much needed real-world applied, science, technology, engineering or math (STEM) experience. The rest of the blame, perhaps even most of the blame for lack of experience among junior workers in STEM occupations goes to my earlier contention that many Baby Boomers, such as myself, are working well past normal retirement age because we cannot afford to retire due to our savings having been eroded by economic downturns. So we senior workers continue in our jobs, instead of retiring on schedule, thus NOT turning over our jobs to younger workers who need either to start or to move to the next level of their careers. I disagree wholeheartedly that the Common Core Curriculum will improve failing schools in large urban school systems, or even in struggling small suburban and rural school districts. Common Core may do something much more akin to killing some of those schools, however, and our Governor is already talking the "Death Penalty" for "Failed Schools" (hyperlink), of which NY has many. (The Governor should read-up on the Roosevelt Union Free School District, which NY State took over and ran for 11 miserable years.) I appreciate your response and recognize your perspective, although I take exception with much of it. I can be reached at chriswendt117@gmail.com for additional information. Regards, Chris Wendt
|
|
greda
Junior Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by greda on Sept 7, 2013 23:05:01 GMT -5
The testing movement was established by the NCLB act signed by George Bush but the common core standards is something that was developed starting in 2009 and is being pushed by Obama and Sect of Education Artie Duncan, especially with the race to the top grant, so you would need to correct your statement
I have attached the article in which the CEO discusses about the lack of skills (that was a typo) and what is needed to reverse this trend. (Pasted below after my rants)
While part of the employment issue is caused by old timers like yourself sticking around past your prime, there is truly a lack of skills. (and for you to still have to schelp to work instead of enjoying your golden years blame the fed and its ridiculous depression of rates - however if you kept your money in stocks you would be back to where you were when this mess all started and retired in Florida where the taxes are a lot better than here.)
And while the lack of preparation for the tests was and is an issue, you have to start someplace. this society seems to develop a fear of failure. So to counteract that lets lower our standards and lets make everyone a winner so we don't hurt anyone's feelings. That is not how life works.
In an ideal world, this changing of the standards would go off without a hitch. But being in fear of change and listening to teachers unions discuss "the children" when they are more concerned with their members and collecting dues is laughable.
If you would like an example of what change can bring to the education system, I would suggest you look at the CUNY where Chancellor Goldstein transformed the system. HE did this with little outside support but he has been proven to be correct. He pointed out the fact that many of the people who were entering the system could barely read and write and do math at the appropriate level. He made the students, if they didn't have the proper skills start at the Community College level before they went to the 4-year skills. He turned the system around and has made a degree from that system worth what it was in the past. With him retiring, one would hope that they don't take a step backwards
Higher standards should be embraced. And given goals to shoot for, the students in Wantagh as well as Seaford will be ready for the challenge. It may take a while but it will be well worth it in the end. And I can tell you from personal experience that they do a lot better teaching my daughter writing skills in 3rd grade than when my son was there 3 years before.
Hopefully this paste job worked How to Stop the Drop in American Education Your math teacher was right: Algebra matters. Common Core standards are vital too. [/u]
With headlines announcing unemployment rates above 8% in some parts of the country, many people I talk to are surprised to learn that jobs by the hundreds of thousands remain vacant.
The reason for that is clear: American employers do not have enough applicants with adequate skills, especially in science, technology, engineering and math. The "STEM-related" positions that U.S. industry needs to fill are not just for biochemists, biophysicists and engineers. More and more jobs are applying cutting-edge technologies and now demand deeper knowledge of math and science in positions that most people don't think of as STEM-related, including machinists, electricians, auto techs, medical technicians, plumbers and pipefitters.
In fact, after more than 30 years working in the energy industry, and now as I work with business leaders from every sector of the American economy, I can attest that your high-school math teacher was right: Algebra matters.
These days the energy industry tests for math and science aptitude when hiring for entry-level positions. Our industry is seeking to fill positions that range from mechanics and lab support to blend and process technicians. But many applicants fail these basic tests, losing out on opportunities for good pay and good benefits.
The U.S. military is also being forced to turn away applicants because of a lack of preparation in math, science and other subjects. Each year, approximately 30% of high-school graduates who take the Armed Forces entrance exam fail the test.
Even more concerning, many of these educational shortfalls are apparent before students reach high school. According to the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Process, only 35% of eighth graders performed at grade level or above in math.
As a nation, we must unite in recognizing the mounting evidence that the U.S. is falling behind international competitors in producing students ready for 21st-century jobs. According to the most recent Program for International Assessment, U.S. students rank 14th in the world in reading, 17th in science and 25th in math—and the trend line is moving in the wrong direction.
We have an opportunity to reverse this trend but it will take setting the right priorities. That starts with establishing high standards. It means leaders from government and business, and parents, need to defend the Common Core State Standards, which have been adopted wholly or in part by dozens of states in recent years but are increasingly under attack from across the political spectrum.
These voluntary, state-driven standards are a set of expectations for the knowledge and skills that students from kindergarten to 12th grade need to master for college and career readiness. Some oppose the standards, complaining that they undermine the autonomy of teachers; others decry the standards as a takeover of local schools by big government.
The criticism is misguided. The Common Core State Standards are based on the best international research. They are built on the standards used by the most effective education systems around the world, including Singapore, Finland, Canada and the U.K. The standards are also designed to allow each state to make its own decisions regarding the curriculum, technology and lesson plans to be used in local schools.
In other words, the standards stipulate what we want all students to know and be able to do, but each state retains the explicit authority to determine how it teaches its students. The standards are a tool to help educators, not a straitjacket for them.
A major benefit of the Common Core State Standards is that they encourage students to analyze and apply critical reasoning skills to the texts they are reading and the math problems they are solving. These are the capabilities that students need as they prepare for high-skill jobs.
We need to raise expectations at every grade level so that, for instance, students who do well in math in lower grades are spurred to take algebra and more advanced math. But we need high standards to drive efforts to improve educational outcomes in every subject.
With these education standards under attack in many states where they have been adopted or are being considered, the Common Core needs support now more than ever if America is going to reverse its education decline and prepare its young people to compete in today's dynamic global economy. To abandon the standards is to endanger America's ability to create the technologies that change the world for the better.
The Common Core State Standards are the path to renewed competitiveness, and they deserve to be at the center of every state's effort to improve the education—and future—of every American child.
Mr. Tillerson is the chairman and CEO of Exxon Mobil Corp. and the chairman of the Business Roundtable's Education & Workforce Committee.
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Sept 8, 2013 6:17:55 GMT -5
Hi Greda, I would encourage you to dig just a little deeper to get a better (different) understanding of the big picture. In re: "...many...educational shortfalls are apparent before students reach high school. According to the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Process, only 35% of eighth graders performed at grade level or above in math. Good point, but that point actually is that regulatory standards DO NOT SUPPORT curricular and testing standards. To wit, Seaford had to suspend its social promotion policy this year when it learned the district was unable to leave back a group of students who had "failed two or more core subjects" in Middle School. The regulatory standard is this: if elementary or middle school students put in the required "seat time" (attendance), they cannot be left back, regardless of failing subjects (unless the parents agree to their child being left back). So the state can impose any curriculum standard it wishes to, but unfortunately, the neither the state nor the school district can enforce those standards upon students or their parents. "These days the energy industry tests for math and science aptitude when hiring for entry-level positions. Our industry is seeking to fill positions that range from mechanics and lab support to blend and process technicians. But many applicants fail these basic tests, losing out on opportunities for good pay and good benefits."
"The U.S. military is also being forced to turn away applicants because of a lack of preparation in math, science and other subjects. Each year, approximately 30% of high-school graduates who take the Armed Forces entrance exam fail the test." This makes my point that the part of the problem is caused by tidal waves of unqualified applicants with no practical experience (perhaps "graduates" of failed public schools) flooding the job market, in effect swamping the recruiting process, making it difficult to find those qualified people who are in that vast sea of applicants, whose resumes are in those piles submitted. You cannot ignore applicants and comply with EEO requirements. So you interview and test a lot of people who put themselves forward with no real qualifications. But this is part of the hiring process, and has been for many years. Same thing with the ASVAB test (military). This is an aptitude test, and it does an excellent job of matching prospective recruits with open billets based on skills, training, and education. The military is viewed by many prospects as an employer of last resort, so they go down to sign up. But if they have no skills, their "jobs" and opportunities in the military will be very limited. If they do not meet the most basic requirements, the military may not become their employer of last resort. But, where is the case that higher standards, ever-higher standards, will fix any of this? Today's curricular standards are sufficiently high to have precluded students from graduating high school with limited skills. But, as you correctly put it, hundreds of thousands are out there that DO NOT MEASURE-UP to existing standards; raising the bar will only mean the numbers of unqualified graduates will increase proportionately, and that the relative deficits of their skills upon graduation will increase to the same degree the so-called standards increase. More kids will fail worse, unless we shore-up the regulatory standards and end what amounts to lawfully forced social promotion in public schools. Finally, in re: "The testing movement was established by the NCLB act signed by George Bush but the common core standards is something that was developed starting in 2009 and is being pushed by Obama and Sect of Education Artie Duncan, especially with the race to the top grant, so you would need to correct your statement" My statement stands. Let's try to get this straight between us? The "testing movement" is a misnomer. We are (I am specifically) talking about the assessment component of the NCLB which was intended and designed to identify students who require additional services in order for them to not have been left behind at the end of their public school education. There was no "failing" these assessments, just categorizing and identifying the children and the scope of services required to bring them along instead of leaving them behind. These are the very same (student-focused) assessments now having been purloined as inappropriate devices for evaluating individual teacher performance, and (quite improperly) to serve as some ersatz "baseline" for raising curriculum standards. I think it is important for you and I to understand our disagreement. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Interesting to note, that in the course of researching the assessment results I found a terse comment on the NYSED website: "The 2011-12 Item Analysis Will Not be Published". The Item Analysis is what teachers, department heads, principals, and local district curriculum writers use to apply past test results to focus and reinforce future classroom teaching. Regards, Chris Wendt
|
|
greda
Junior Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by greda on Sept 8, 2013 9:40:53 GMT -5
You haven't address or seen my point and you probably never will
First, the point in the article the Tillerson was making was about entry level positions which would mean people who are coming out of college and looking for their first job. You seem to reference something else
Second, it sounds as if you are recommending that we wallow in mediocrity. Lets just repeat the same curriculum over and over while our countries rankings in regards to education keep on going down.
In any type of experiment you have to some sort of baseline to work off of. These tests will at least do that. You can make corrections and adjustments going forward. You learn nothing in life without failure. You use failure to see how you can improve yourself
And in regards to what higher standards will bring, once again I suggest you look at the success of CUNY. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. It seems to me that you operate under the assumption that our kids can't handle this (and this is about kids not the teachers). I believe by teaching the kids to think and write and problem solve that they will meet the challenge. (and if kids can't get left back because they failed then the joke will be on them when they can't get a job)
In honor of kick-off Sunday, I will leave you with a man who understood what I am talking about - Vince Lombardi
What It Takes to be Number One "Winning is not a sometime thing; it's an all the time thing. You don't win once in a while; you don't do things right once in a while; you do them right all of the time. Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing.
There is no room for second place. There is only one place in my game, and that's first place. I have finished second twice in my time at Green Bay, and I don't ever want to finish second again. There is a second place bowl game, but it is a game for losers played by losers. It is and always has been an American zeal to be first in anything we do, and to win, and to win, and to win.
Every time a football player goes to ply his trade he's got to play from the ground up - from the soles of his feet right up to his head. Every inch of him has to play. Some guys play with their heads. That's O.K. You've got to be smart to be number one in any business. But more importantly, you've got to play with your heart, with every fiber of your body. If you're lucky enough to find a guy with a lot of head and a lot of heart, he's never going to come off the field second.
Running a football team is no different than running any other kind of organization - an army, a political party or a business. The principles are the same. The object is to win - to beat the other guy. Maybe that sounds hard or cruel. I don't think it is.
It is a reality of life that men are competitive and the most competitive games draw the most competitive men. That's why they are there - to compete. The object is to win fairly, squarely, by the rules - but to win.
And in truth, I've never known a man worth his salt who in the long run, deep down in his heart, didn't appreciate the grind, the discipline. There is something in good men that really yearns for discipline and the harsh reality of head to head combat.
I don't say these things because I believe in the ‘brute' nature of men or that men must be brutalized to be combative. I believe in God, and I believe in human decency. But I firmly believe that any man's finest hour -- his greatest fulfillment to all he holds dear -- is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle - victorious.
Not everyone can be number one but you know something everyone will be proud of themselves for the work that they put into it.
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Sept 9, 2013 11:02:38 GMT -5
Greda, I think this is a worthwhile discourse, and appreciate your perspectives. But... The “data” you are looking at, and upon which you are basing your comments, is not data, meaning, it is not “hard data”. It is derivative data, and as a matter of fact, it is third-generation derivative data (or more correctly, information). Please take a look at this explanation sheet furnished by NYSED for parents to help them understand their child’s assessment results. 1 = Scaled Score…this is a second-generation derivation of the raw assessment (test) scores, which are not shown to parents, and probably not to school districts or teachers, either. The raw scores are the real “data”, or “hard data” product of the assessments. 2 = “Performance Level” (1,2,3,4)…which is a third-generation derivative of the raw scores, being the result of (arbitrary) cut-off points for each level, and allegedly indicative of “performance”; it is actually a subjective ranking of scaled scores. 3 = Overall State Percentile Rank…is also derivative from the scaled scores, or third-generation “data”; this indicates each individual student’s individual ranking, on a percentile basis, among all the students across the state who took that same test. This is a wholly meaningless comparison among approximately 207,000 test takers in each subject and grade level, across all socioeconomic, racial, and cultural groupings. Each percentile encompasses approximately 2,077 students with approximately the same scaled scores. Of course, what nobody knows is what, if any, factors are used to “scale” the raw data to compensate for socioeconomic, racial, or cultural factors. Because the scaling factor(s) can change each year, and because they do change between subjects (ELA, Math, and Science) and among grade levels, and, because the category cut-off points can be and are manipulated at any time for any assessment, these second- and third-generation derivative “data” (information) cannot be relied upon, either for consistent comparisons (forward or backward), and especially not for purposes of establishing “baselines” for student, teacher, school or district performance. Here are graphic representations of the ELA & Math “Failure” Rates (number of students reported as being not on-grade-level, for Wantagh’s Class of 2017, as this specific group of identical students progressed from Third Grade, in 2008, through Eighth Grade in 2013. In addition to the departure or excursion from the 4-year “failure” trends in 2013, you can also discern the true “base lines” of each of these graphs. A brief treatise on “baseline” data. I have 14 monitoring wells in a Brownfield remediation site in Queens. Among those wells I have ten soil vapor extraction points and three air sparge discharge lines which will function as an AS/SVE System to remove contaminants from the groundwater and subsoil. Before the system was put into operation, we took hard data readings from each of the 14 monitoring wells, and that data became our baseline for the performance of the system, which was then put into operation. Now, there is no comparing among the 14 sampling wells, no ranking, no levels; just measurements every three months. Over the course of the next several years, the various wells will yield results which will fall to within federally regulated safe limits. As each well reaches an acceptable limit, the corresponding SVE points will be turned off, having done their job. Each well will likely reach its satisfactory point in a different year from now, because the amounts of contamination vary, the subsoil soil composition and conditions vary, and the water table varies across the Brownfield. The purpose of having established a baseline will ultimately be to determine the cost effectiveness of the AS/SVE system as well as to adjudge its efficacy in remediating the type and amounts of contamination present from the outset. (It will have cost $X to remediate Y & Z contaminants starting at baseline levels to acceptable levels from one acre of ground in 5 years). One potential result from having the baseline data would be to determine that the AS/SVE system is not working as intended, indicating the need to re-engineer the project, and try something different. The important point is that the baseline data is hard data, X parts per billion of Y and Z contaminants. It is NOT soft, relative data, not comparative data, nor derivative data, unlike those arbitrary Scaled Scores, Performance Levels, and Percentiles, used by NYSED to dupe parents about the success or failures of their children’s education. Sincerely, Chris Wendt
|
|
greda
Junior Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by greda on Sept 9, 2013 17:21:19 GMT -5
Mr. Wendt I would have to disagree with your definition of what hard data is and what is a baseline. In statistics, data is usually broken down into two groups – primary and secondary. You are discussing the source of the data which is used in determining the rankings. The source material used for this analysis can be broken down into two categories – hard data and soft data. Hard data is what can be described with some specificity, which usually means that it is quantified. Soft date is anecdotal, usually gathered in informal communications and lacks the rigor that is implied in statistical data. Test scores would fall under the first category and is hard data because it is quantifiable. You may not like how it is derived but that is determined by the state (which in on their website has a pdf on Analysis of State Test Data) Since we are not discussing baseball and who would want to unless you are a Dodgers fan, a baseline is defined as a datum used as a basis for calculation or comparison. The first year of any test would have to be the baseline by which you can compare future measurements. Your use of a baseline to determine cost effectiveness of your remediation efforts is correct but it is still telling you any change in the levels in the ground from your base level. That is what these tests will attempt to do. The curriculum has changed big time and these lower scores reflect it. However once the teachers and administrators develop lesson plans to teach this new material, I am pretty certain that the students will be able to meet the challenge. This is what happened when tougher standards were imposed upon CUNY and there is no reason why similar results will not be achieved here. (This link will bring you to an article that discusses more in depth what Chancellor Goldstein accomplished - www.highereducation.org/crosstalk/ct0205/news0205-cuny.shtml). This whole back and forth seems to me that you are missing the forest for the trees. You have spewed out posts after posts in a Chicken Little type fashion saying how bad these tests are or how you can’t compare different subjects or grades, which doesn’t make sense to me, yet you say nothing about how students in the United States are doing badly compared to other countries. Or how Mr. Tillerson dicusses how entry level workers are not educationally prepared to enter the workforce where the economy has been and will be transitioning away from a manufacturing one to more informational or white collar work for lack of a better term. Our students need to be challenged and yet you seem to be more concerned with how the system looks than how our students are doing. Change is tough and egos will be bruised and maybe teachers will lose jobs. But if that is what it takes, then so be it. Higher standards work at schools like Kellenberg and Chaminade and there is no reason why our students can’t do it here in Wantagh.
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Sept 10, 2013 13:27:41 GMT -5
Higher standards work at schools like Kellenberg and Chaminade and there is no reason why our students can’t do it here in Wantagh. This is absolutely true, and was among the first lessons I learned upon becoming a Board of Education Trustee. My fellow board member, Bob O'Donovan and I are both Chaminade alumni, and way back then we worked very deliberately together to instill what we called "Chaminade standards" in Wantagh. To be certain, Bob & I were not the do-ers, but in our policy-making roles, and together with the entire Board including Wayne Wagner and Chris Prinzivalli, and Dr. Ed Goldstein, we attempted to act as drivers toward higher standards and outcomes. Looking back from the vantage point of having completed my tenure on the Board, I feel that Wantagh has attained very high educational standards, and that Wantagh High School, in many respects, offers a broader range of more challenging course work than Chaminade is capable of offering, not in the least because Wantagh's offerings are available to young women as well as young men, and to students of all levels of ability, with no entrance exam required to cross Wantagh's threshold and be seated in any of our classrooms. But Wantagh is a K-12 public school district, and Chaminade is an all-male Catholic High School. So there are significant barriers (that Chaminade does NOT face) to Wantagh raising its standards, especially in the K-8 grades. The BIGGEST limitations to Wantagh's elementary and middle school standards are the STATE STANDARDS themselves, and especially those horrid assessments, even the ones before 2013. We teach to the tests, because we have no choice but to teach to those tests, or, we risk losing funding (aid) and having our prestige ruined if we do not toe-the-line both on assessment rankings and Acceptable Yearly Progress (AYP) in every grade and all subjects tested. But the tests only measure theoretical on-grade-level performance for the specific grade and subject matter (curriculum) being tested. So let's pick a grade, Fifth Grade. The Fifth Grade ELA assessment only reports each fifth grade student's performance as being below, far below, on, or above Fifth Grade performance for ELA. In order for each elementary school, and for the district as a whole to measure-up on Fifth Grade performance, we must teach the State's prescribed Fifth Grade curriculum. We CAN NOT ENRICH THAT CURRICULUM in any meaningful way, or we risk having our students becoming better challenged at a higher level of learning, but NOT PREPARED TO SCORE WELL on the NYS 5th Grade ELA Assessment, which is laser-focused on the State's version of Fifth Grade ELA learning. Therefore, at best, Wantagh kids, as smart as they may be, will leave 8th Grade and enter Wantagh High pretty much LIMITED and constrained by the NY State Elementary and Mid Level ELA (and Math) "STANDARDS" and very little more than that. Meanwhile, Chaminade, Kellenberg, St. Anthony's, LI Lutheran, Friends Academy, the Schecter School, Woodmere Academy, and the Hebrew Academy of the Five Towns are either receiving students from "feeder schools" that have enjoyed higher standards than the NY State curriculum, or, they are able to test prospective entrants and skim-off the cream of the crop coming out of Wantagh and other public LI middle schools. It may interest readers to learn that neither Chaminade nor Kellenberg offer any AP© courses, whereas Wantagh offers many AP© courses, and will be expanding AP© offerings next year. This is really important because, in the final analysis, universities will be looking closely at AP© test scores, and will not even see anyone's Fifth Grade ELA Assessment score. Wantagh High School is a NYS "Highest Performing Reward School". There is no actual "reward", however, other than making the Commissioner's List, sort of like making The Dean's List in college. One reward I would like to see is WUFSD being excused from the Assessments for three years! That, and every WHS student and teacher should get to wear a pin, you know, just like the Dean's List pin in college! Hopeful, yet content in the knowledge and belief that the sky is not falling. At least not over Wantagh! Sincerely, Chris Wendt Edited to correct typo 9-11-13
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Sept 11, 2013 5:46:15 GMT -5
I want to take a moment to focus on one item, above: It may interest readers to learn that neither Chaminade nor Kellenberg offer any AP© courses, whereas Wantagh offers many AP© courses, and will be expanding AP© offerings next year. This is really important because, in the final analysis, universities will be looking closely at AP© test scores, and will not even see anyone's Fifth Grade ELA Assessment score. The implication, which does not pop from the page upon reading that statement, is that two of the perennially best high schools on LI have not followed the AP© course trend, which happens to be very powerful and efficacious in terms of public high school graduates' acceptance into good, better, and the best universities. But this begs the question, then how can Chaminade and Kellenberg afford to ignore or even buck this seemingly overwhelming trend of offering AP© courses? There is no simple answer to this. There is an answer, to be sure, but it encompasses the entire Marianist teaching philosophy and the beliefs and values which are at the core of both of these schools, as well as the deep and wide support system they enjoy from parents and from us, alumni. The roll of Chaminade alumni is generations deep, meaning it includes many fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers of students as well as recent graduates themselves. The core academic program is fully evolved and remains cutting-edge in most facets, particularly the sciences and technology, yet in other areas the curriculum remains appropriately traditional and steadfast, most notably but not exclusively in the teaching and learning about and living one's religion. For myriad reasons, Chaminade and Kellenberg have developed and honed a long-standing and well-proven cachet among college admissions officers across the country. The perspective value of that cachet is worth more than any AP© test scores. Sincerely, Chris Wendt Edited for grammar 9-11-13
|
|
|
Post by rr on Sept 11, 2013 12:55:31 GMT -5
Chris, do you honestly think it's a fair comparison to look at a private school that has admission tests and costs a good deal of money in addition to our taxes to a public school? I think there's an inherent bias within those two groups...
While I agree with some of your points I agree mostly with greda and maintain a stance that it will only help our kids to raise the bar and become better students and thinkers. It's not going to be easy, for the kids, the teachers or the parents, and it's not gonna be quick but in the long run I think it will benefit the kids. My kids are young and are now learning the common core so for them it will likely be easier for the kids currently in middle school now and that's difficult and I feel for those kids and parents but in order to accomplish real change you need to take dramatic steps. I'm tired of hearing that the "teachers teach to the test" - to me that sounds like an insult to some of the great teachers in our district and across the LI who are teaching the concepts and encourage learning and making school what it's meant to be. I honestly hope and feel that in a few years this will be a non-issue as the good teachers and students rise to the occasion. In the end the "better" students will still be making the grade and getting great college and career opportunities and the middle of the road students will have better choices available to them and maybe the students that used to fall through the cracks will receive the help and attention they need because of a more rigorous curriculum and the accountability. The process isn't perfect, but to me, and some of the educators I've spoken to about it, it's a step in the right direction to create more accountability for us as parents, our kids, the schools and the teachers and as greda says it will take time and egos will be hurt and some teachers may not cut it but change is not easy...in fact it's extremely hard, you know that. It's discouraging to me that someone like you, a vocal person with strong opinions and a long history with the town and District has taken this stance and has become an advocate for opting out...is this thread meant just to stir dialogue or is there an alternative to the common core you're advocating for? Because to me, that's what the missing piece is...of all I've read about this subject I've yet to hear anyone come forward with a good alternative.
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Sept 11, 2013 20:44:16 GMT -5
With no urging from me, it appears that Wantagh may have experienced as much as a 6% overall opt-out rate on the 2013 Assessments. Population | Assessment | 2012 Tests | 2013 Tests | Opt-Outs | Opt-Out % | Class of 2021 | Grade 3 Math | 237 | -- | 23 | 10% | Class of 2021 | Grade 4 Math | -- | 214 | -- | -- | | | | | | | Class of 2020 | Grade 4 Math | 257 | -- | 17 | 7% | Class of 2020 | Grade 5 Math | -- | 240 | -- | -- | | | | | | | Class of 2019 | Grade 5 Math | 260 | -- | 8 | 3% | Class of 2019 | Grade 6 Math | -- | 252 | -- | -- | | | | | | | Class of 2018 | Grade 6 Math | 264 | -- | 18 | 7% | Class of 2018 | Grade 7 Math | -- | 246 | -- | -- | | | | | | | Class of 2017 | Grade 7 Math | 302 | -- | 18 | 6% | Class of 2017 | Grade 8 Math | -- | 284 | -- | -- | | | | | | | Total Tests Taken | | 1320 | 1236 | 84 | 6% |
...and with Wantagh Elementary distinguishing itself as the hotbed of dissent with what looks like 10-11 percent abstaining from the Assessments. NAME | Assessment | NTEST | Years | WANTAGH SCHOOL | Grade 3 ELA | 131 | 2012 | WANTAGH SCHOOL | Grade 4 ELA | 117 | 2013 | Opt-Out # | | -14 | | Opt-Out % | | -11% | | | | | | WANTAGH SCHOOL | Grade 4 ELA | 137 | 2012 | WANTAGH SCHOOL | Grade 5 ELA | 123 | 2013 | Opt-Out # | | -14 | | Opt-Out % | | -10% | |
There certainly may be other explanations for the N-Test numbers falling off for the same classes of kids from one year to the next, and I would be glad to hear those explanations. The official stats will be included in the 2012-13 School Report Cards for the District and for each school building. If the official Participation Rates drop as a result of "opting-out" or for any reason the N-Test numbers are significantly less than the enrollment numbers, then some buildings or even the district could fail AYP on that basis alone, the Performance Indices notwithstanding. But lets assume, arguendo, that the declines reported in the preliminary N-Test numbers are real and are the result of opting-out. Does that fact not further compromise and further erode the validity and value or usefulness of the 2013 Assessment Scores? In other words, has the Good Ship Credibility already sailed for ports unknown as far as NYS Assessments are concerned? Has the tide of parental support those assessments already turned? Remind me to tell you about the interesting conversation I had with the SED today about Assessment Performance ratings and jiggering the AIS cut-offs. This is where crappy tests and crappy scores and bad decision-making in Albany combine and could start to hurt your kid, if your kid may need AIS. But that's a story for another day. Best regards, Chris Wendt
|
|