On another post Anonymous wrote:
"Interesting Tribune-Review article today on the Summer Dreamers Camp.
If the study showing that the campers picked a full grade of reading in last years' camp is valid, you would expect to see a dramatic spike in this year's 8th grade scores."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
On another post Anonymous wrote:
"Data from a reading assessment test given after camp showed that the students gained nearly an entire school year's worth of reading skills, although Reed said that could be misleading.
"A lot of these kids are kids who are often discouraged by school, so their initial scores many have been misleading because they didn't try as hard," Reed said. "But when they were encouraged to put in that effort, their gains looked higher."
Read more: Pittsburgh Public Schools' day camp program runs out of money - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_745137.html#ixzz1R9RwhH1j
"
When the district itself is saying that the results could be misleading, you know they surely are.
A better study than before and after session pre and post-tests would be to have looked at PSSA scores and first 4-sight in the fall. As far as those tests go (and the PSSAs are what we're using to measure overall) -- the first test in the fall, given within the first week or two of school would be a much better indicator of gains (or even lack of loss) over the summer and if it really helped the kids.
Would also like to see previous year PSSA compared to this year PSSA score for reading for the kids that attended last year. If the gains don't stick (if for instance, the kids totally did nothing on the pre-test, which they basically admit) and they offered incentives for the post-test -- do well or no final field trip... is that reading gain?
The study was done by the National Association for Summer Learning. Could the district have chosen any less objective group? And what kind of example does the methodology set in terms of analysis and scientific method?
PROPAGANDA, plain and simple.
The indication here that kids don't take a test seriously is a direct reflection on the relationship students have with their teachers. Not good, not good at all. I wonder who gets the blame for that?
Is there available information on, specifically, what pre-tests and post-tests are being referenced here? Are these related to PSSA? Are they 4Sight?
Or are they independent of these two assessments?
That information is critical to any conclusions about whether reading improved or not and how much. Without that, it is vacuous claim.
"A better study than before and after session pre and post-tests would be to have looked at PSSA scores and first 4-sight in the fall."
Just curious and more than a little puzzled. Why would the previously stated be a better study?
Can you tell us why PSSA scores and the first 4Sight in the fall would be "a better study."
I don't trust PSSA scores.
If it's not a study prepared in a 24 hour period of time by the Council of Great City Schools or written by the son of a Broad Superintendent's Academy graduate, it's not a fair assessment of the Roosevelt/Fischetti/Lane years.
From what is described, it sounds like they did a pre and post-test of the 5 (4 1/2) week program.
The Cate Reed quote indicates why that's problematic (well, one reason). Imagine you're a kid sent to "Summer Dreamers" with promises of [kayaking, frisbee, acting etc.] and on the very first day you're given a reading test.
That doesn't say anything about your relationship with your teacher! That says you are a going into 6-8th grader who is not at all pleased to find yourself back in school, taking a test.
Then at the end of the session, after "encouragement" a post-test was better. One would certainly hope that was the case, but the claim that one and half hours of reading a day for 23 days created a year's worth of real gain? Hahahahahaha.
Since the district uses the PSSA for its measuring of students (and teachers too) and the 4-sight is supposed to (obviously there are arguments about how well it works) predict those scores, those would seem to be the measures you would need to use to see if the money spent equalled any gains.
Not saying that those are good measures in and of themselves, or that that should be the sole goal of a summer program, but if that's what you want to see, that's what you should look at!
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1120.html
Click Read Online to see the 117 page monograph.
Page 36 (of 117 in file) says that scores from Spring to Fall benchmark tests were the same for students involved in Summer Dreamers and those who were NOT.
I'll read more but that sounds like maybe some pre/post test showed gains, but they weren't apparent a month later.
Now I'll go see if I can find where they got the year gain idea from.
With this much money spent on an experiment, even if it was fun for the kids, the results should have been measured in a way that would meet accepted standards for research in the education field.
"A lot of these kids are kids who are often discouraged by school, so their initial scores many have been misleading because they didn't try as hard," Reed said. "But when they were encouraged to put in that effort, their gains looked higher."
Like a good soldier, Ms.Reed spouts the company line quite well. And it's a lot of baloney. Perhaps if Reed or others within PPS had any kind of backbone, they'd tell it like it is:
"We test the kids to death. In fact, we have our teachers 'teaching to the test' with guns to their heads. The poor kids have a hard time figuring what's important, what's not and truly, just what constitutes learning. And isn't that what school is supposed to be, after all---learning."
But we'll never hear this from Reed, Poncelet, French, Lippert and especially, anyone who works a wonderful office job in either the ELA or Math departments.
I'd say that only a fool would believe this line of reasoning, but that would be insulting fools everywhere.
Some things to consider:
Q 12:05 PM:
The real question isn't whether or not the student made a year's worth of growth, but how many years behind they are.
The worst mistake anyone can make is comparing PSSA results by naked outcome from one year to the next. The same is true of 4Sight scores. The PSSA isn't vertically scaled, so the relationship between a student's scores from one year to the next is VERY complicated, and as a matter of fact, is EXPECTED to trend downward over time. (This is the reason that PVAAS was introduced, so that meaningful relationships between scores can be established across years)
The 4Sight test methodology is as such: give a student and end of year test at intervals throughout the year and track their progress. This is useful for differentiating instruction for THAT STUDENT. Also, for large values of N (District Level), 4Sight results are a reasonably reliable indicator of PSSA performance (r~0.8) ... but certainly not at the classroom level, let alone the student level.
Expecting a student to do well on an end-of-year test at the beginning of the year is quite silly, and even sillier when you’re trying to use it as a measure of learning loss (since the previous year’s PSSA test isn’t at all related to the current year PSSA or 4Sight).
The summer school final assessment given to the students (K through 8) is a 4Sight test, so comparisons in that school year are valid (September to June and Summer School)
A 1:37 PM:
Remember that while the PSSA and 4Sight is high stakes to the school and district, they have no real impact on the student (with the exception of 11th grade, where there is a performance requirement tied to graduation, but simple enough to circumvent).
A 1:44 PM:
A better study would be to give an identical (difficult) test pre-summer and post-summer to measure learning loss, but this isn’t terribly practical.
A 2:10 PM:
HAHA!
One last thought, as the time of PSSA Test Score reporting approaches …
results in grade X in year Y are COMPLETELY unrelated to results in Grade X in year Y+1, as the N is comprised of almost entirely different students (except for the students repeating a grade). Not to mention that at least every two years they COMPLETELY OVERHAUL the test.
Apparently the pre and post tests are administered as a part of the Summer Dreamers and they are NOT necessarily connected to 4Sight or PSSA which are the tests of record in PPS and PA. Thus, if we don't know what these pre and post are, specifically, we don't know quite what they are testing? Right?
If the PPS District compared the May 4Sight with the September 4Sight, they'd get a more realistic sense of whether there was improvement or NOT; or, they’ll find an excuse about whether kids 'tried' or not. (The comment about the relationship of teachers and students only applies during the regular school year (4:01 is right about kids having different expectations for a summer camp experience), and, its likely that they do not know the summer teacher.
Also it is very important for everyone to understand the very flawed nature and construct of the 4Sight assessment. At each and every grade level 4Sight only assesses about 50% of what is on the PSSA. (At the High School level that percentage ism considerably lower !?!?). Therefore the 4Sight scores are always going to be considerably better than PSSA results, particularly if teachers rely on 4Sight to determine weaknesses in preparation for PSSA. (The district was informed of this more than three years ago; but chose to ignore the information and warnings.)
The lack of competence at the District level is alarming! They don’t know WHAT they don’t know! Worse yet, they don’t want to!
KDKA TV reported tonight that Summer Dreamers "is out of money." They went on to talk about "not being able to serve the upwards of 5000 kids that they could" and that they won't be able to next year, either.
After asking yourself just who in the world writes public relations/news stories these days--as this is almost unintelligible---ask yourself about the placement of the Trib article and then this "news."
Remember when journalists did more then just read press releases as news???
Meanwhile, the fiscal mismanagement in this district is worthy of an exhaustive investigative piece.
The Trib article states: "Although the camp is open to all students, many of last year's participants were in the at-risk category."
Note the word "many." It was reported previously that these "at risk" students were in the minority at day camp. So, the Trib report of a year's growth in reading applies to WHOM? All students? With how many already "advanced" students included? With what ratio of typically high achieving to low achieving students? And we still don't know what tests were used? So what do we really know about this?
Cate Reed chooses her words very carefully, and they do not always reflect the reality of any situation. They 'qualify' in ways that are sometimes not quickly discernible. And, when questioned on her 'reports' she often becomes flushed with a deep red color. A reporter might not 'get' the nuance in choice of words. In PPS, it tends to be all about PR.
Read more: Pittsburgh Public Schools' day camp program runs out of money - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_745137.html#ixzz1RBHPpWRk
Has it occured to anyone else that the other 42 school districts in this County don't even follow Pittsburgh's academic experiments and adopt them as their own?
Re: Running out of money- when the federal stimulus dollars were made available, districts were told not to use the money to fund a recurring expense because the funds would not continue. The advice was, use the money for a one-time expense (for example, to renovate a building). Too bad the federal gov didn't enforce this as a requirement. When Roosevelt was asked about this advice he said not to worry, monies would become available if the program produced results.
Does Cate Reed have the appropriate certification to supervise pupil personnel services in the Commonwealth?
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/administrative_supervisory/8820/district-wide_supervisory_certificate__pupil_personnel_services/506758
She's a Broadie, and so she gets special treatment. Remember, it just takes a few weeks to be a superintendent!
Add in the fact they misused title one money for the summer dreamer program.
I am not paying for it if they get caught.
Anonymous 11;23 your question suggests that there is a flaw existing in the law about non-certification. We parents get a short letter from the district if our kid is being taught by a teacher not certified in a subject area after a certain amount of time (21 days maybe?). Could it be that no such requirement exists in NCLB or other school law to be applied to admin?
On another post Anonymous said
"Cate Reed is their token Pgh native who also [SORRY PURE HAS TO DELETE THIS] (after being in private school for most of her K12 years) and whose father is the Reed from the big law firm Reed Smith downtown.
Make more sense now?
In what way was Title I money misused?
**and whose father is the Reed from the big law firm Reed Smith downtown.**
Well he's certainly not "the" Reed -- the firm was begun in 1877, and that Reed was 24 at the time (according to their website). I'm guessing he wasn't still around and having children 100 years later.
There is nothing about this certification that is optional and somewhere down the line her lack of the certificate will lead to PA taking back a portion of basic education subsidy.
Here's the text right from PDE's website:
"This certificate entitles the holder to coordinate or supervise all of the pupil personnel service areas, design and develop supporting materials and innovative and experimental processes and programs affecting the delivery of pupil personnel service, direct or conduct basic or applied research within the pupil personnel service areas, and to articulate the pupil personnel services within the instructional services.
Issuance of the Supervisor of Pupil Personnel Services certificate requires a minimum of five years professional school experience in a pupil personnel service area.
Preparation for this professional certificate is at the graduate level and presumes in-depth study in the area of pupil personnel services.
A person prepared as a Supervisor of Pupil Personnel Services may be eligible for certification provided the applicant:
Has completed an approved program of graduate study preparing the applicant for the broad area, district-wide supervisory functions specified by the endorsement area of the certificate. (Preparation completed out-of-state must meet Pennsylvania standards for certification.)
Is recommended for certification by the authorized certification officer of the institution where such education was obtained, or holds a comparable certificate from another state (for out-of-state graduates only).
Provides a chief school administrator's verification of the completion of five years of satisfactory professional school experience as mentioned above (22 PA Code Section 49.111).
Has provided evidence of satisfactory achievement on assessments prescribed by the Department under Section 49.18(a).
Is able to meet all other requirements provided by law."
Are you sure about Ms. Reed's background? I thought she was a PPS grad.
Word is that she was in PPS for most of high school only. Does not seem to be related to the Reed in Reed Smith.
Well, maybe they could lay her off after this summer. Didn't she run this program last year from Washington D.C. Time to cut this expense, lay her off. She's earning a big time Broadie salary
Does she ever show her face at camps, she has barely ever worked directly with children.
What a Joke
Anonymous you may have Ms. Reed confused with someone else.
The Trib. said $7 million for Summer Dreamers. Today's P-G has an article that says $11 million. Is $4 million being used for something else? p. A-6 Tight budgets... from the NY Times.
Any way you look at it, that is alot of money (our tax dollars) for a 5 week camp.
Post a Comment