On another post Anonymous wrote:
"Report on PSSA scores raises possibility of cheating
PITTSBURGH BEING INVESTIGATED ON PSSA SCORES
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Last updated: 11:55 am
Schools in six Western Pennsylvania districts, along with the state's largest cyber charter school, are flagged in a 2009 report indicating possible cheating on the PSSA.
Schools in Uniontown, New Kensington-Arnold, Connellsville, Monessen, Gateway and Pittsburgh, along with Midland-based PA Cyber, all appear on the newly surfaced report that Pennsylvania Department of Education officials say they're examining.
The data forensics report examines results of the 2008-09 Pennsylvania System of School Assessment. The annual tests measure math and reading skills in students statewide in grades 3-8 and 11.
The report flags exam scores in about 35 districts, plus some charter schools. It does not assert cheating occurred, but says that certain answer patterns and erasures make the results suspicious.
The report by Data Recognition Corp. was first obtained and published this week by The Notebook, an independent news service covering the Philadelphia school district.
It's unclear whether the report, which The Notebook posted on its website, is complete. The news service reported that the Education Department commissioned the report.
Read more: Report on PSSA scores raises possibility of cheating - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_746379.html#ixzz1RugOpC1F"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
Maybe they can also look into how PPS made AYP that year. It seemed strange that AYP was based on growth in the grade 3-5 band when longitudinal scores from grades 3 to 4 and grades 4 to 5 showed little growth.
Here's a link to the report- in Pittsburgh it only seems to mention Sterrett:
http://www.thenotebook.org/sites/default/files/PA838_Data%20Forensics%20Report%20Final1.pdf
And the principal's husband, Thomas Sumpter, is on the Board.
"Educators accused of tampering with students' tests from D.C. to Pennsylvania"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/11/educators-tamper-students-tests_n_895179.html?icid=main%7Chtmlws-main-n%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%7C218748
Outrageous witch hunting. Period. No teacher cheats for these tests. What an outrage.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/
news/breaking/s_746379.html
"School officials said they didn't know the report existed until the Tribune-Review contacted them for comment.
The report doesn't detail Pittsburgh Public Schools' irregularity, but spokeswoman Ebony Pugh said the state told the district that Sterrett Classical Academy in Point Breeze showed a 27 percent jump in participation by economically disadvantaged students."
That is a jump that one would notice.
From the PG:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11194/1160004-454-3.stm
- PPS indicates the flags for Sterrett had nothing to do with erasures, just an increase in economically disadvantaged students taking the test.
To 11:14
I agree it's a witch hunt but I can imagine some teachers bending under pressure from their principals to alter tests. It happened in Atlanta and I don't see why it couldn't happen here. I blame this ridiculous reliance on test scores for determining which schools are good schools and, ultimately, which teachers are good teachers. In Atlanta, people's livelihoods were on the line -- they could lose their job if their scores didn't improve. 90% of the administration changed (firings, retirements, etc) during the tenure of that Atlanta superintendent who made standardized test scores tied to the performance of her principals. People panic and make poor choices sometimes. It's a terrible thing.
You're missing the point. In true, political cover-your-ass style, the state pushes out this piece of trash for the media, as if this is some model commonwealth that is so proactive in such matters.
Districts and principals in particular are pushed to ensure EVERYONE takes the PSSA's.
EVERYONE.
And Sterrett is called on the carpet because literally everyone DID take the test???
Ridiculous.
I hope Mrs.Sumpter tells the state where they can stick their "red flags".
We need a revolution in this country in so many ways, and this is yet another example.
Didn't the report flag schools that tripped three or more flags?
I am not sure why a flag would be raised with just a jump in the number of economically disadvantaged students being tested. Is this a non-story for PPS?
The only (non-cheating) explanation for this 27% jump would be a 27 % increase in economically disadvantaged children attending Sterrett compared to 2008. There is a practice at certain districts to "not push" lower achieving kids into taking the test. Therefore this is why it was flagged. I believe the 3 flags represent 1 for each grade at Sterrett.
It is very plausable there was a 27% increase in 2009. That would mesh with Minadeo changing demographics in 2006. Less than 400 kids attend that school, so the actual
number of students may not be very high, but it sticks out statistically.
From everything I have heard Mrs. Sumpter is very highly thought of and respected.
Like you, all I know is what I am reading here. Sterrett is being called on the carpet for one item--something it should be applauded for.Read between the lines to see what this report is all about.
I was taken aback by the PG's report of these revelations and the comments of Andy Porter, a dean of graduate education at Penn...
"I don't think we're talking about student cheating here at all. We're talking about adult cheating."
Aside from the feeling that Mr.Porter can kiss my backside, let's be clear here: security for these tests in PPS over the last few years has been stellar. Incredible precautions have been taken at the school level. The only dealings teachers have with the actual tests is passing them out to the kids and collecting them. They are disseminated to teachers just as students are ready to take the test and collected at the very end of the testing period.
"Cheating" is a term then that would be relegated to administrators. For the record, I have heard numerous principals and counselors speak about oversight and security and as such, I would be glad to say that no administrator in this district would ever feel pressure to the degree that they'd erase and fix student errors.
That's absurd and typical of charlatans like Mr.Porter to make such a comment.
Reality check here-- there are a million ways to cheat- and a million reasons why-- even before "high stakes" teachers did things in PPS that could be called cheating. examples: before all the security, "practice" tests were sent home for homework-- they just happened to be the same questions that were on the test. Some teachers really felt they were giving their "disadvantaged kids" more of a shot. Sometimes, "good hearted" teachers would see a kid struggling and point to an answer. Even in the SEVENTIES, there were rumors of tracking individual student scores to see if they magically dropped the next year. And when they do drop- is it a reflection on this year's teacher, or what a former teacher did? For years people in Pittsburgh have questioned the disappearance of all the high-scoring elementary kids when they got to middle school- whole schools of them! Another way to "cheat"-- which does somehow sound sensible-- test the student on the level they have worked on all year-- i.e. if someone is doing 3rd grade work ALL YEAR, what is the purpose of a 6th grade test-- and that was done by ADMIN, and yes, ADMIN conveniently lost some kids tests. But that is in the past-- which is why today there is such an emphasis on the changing of answers-- as one college professor said, " with all the insane poressure for scores insteaqd of learning- the only question is "art gum or big pink" which eraser to use. How about- talk to your kids-- off script-- you will know if they are learning.
Oh my goodness!!!!
"Like you, all I know is what I am reading here. Sterrett is being called on the carpet for one item--something it should be applauded for.Read between the lines to see what this report is all about"
The state looks at Data year to year. In 2008 and prior to that, Sterrett had 27% less participation in that socioeconomic group. it is a factor in making AYP. Why was there 27% less participation/Aka didn't take the test before? Same principal. It does raise flags, even if it is a "good school". Do I personally think Sterrett was cheating? No, but that is just my gut feel.
Sterrett was not singled out either, it is being reported as PPS by the media, and many other districts are in this report, every single one for a reason. If you read their report it clearly states this does not indicate a district cheated, simply a reason to investigate.
Did the state take into account that perhaps a feeder pattern had changed and as such, the groupings had changed?
Probably not.
It doesn't look as good in print and this kind of publicity, along with comments like the one which came from Porter, not only make the department look proactive but also once again points an accusatory finger at an easy target: people who actually work in schools.
Dear Mr.Porter...come on down to Pittsburgh and see if you can stand in my shoes for just one day.
Ignorant boob.
It is a magnet school. If they have done nothing wrong, no need to sweat it. I have not heard one peep from my friends who have kids at Sterrett.
It's no longer a real magnet school. And no, they have done nothing wrong. Listen to the Gateway Superintendent's comments this morning.
To me, this was intentionally put out there.
Troublemakers.
I read the report and Sterrett did nothing wrong. Feeder pattern changes and changes in determining low income students affected Sterret's dramatic change in subgroup size. If they were going to cheat, they would have underreported the number of low income students, not increased the number. This report is being used inappropriately, it is not being interpreted correctly by the media.
What is the change in determining who is a low income student? Is this a district wide change? A statewide change? If low income is expanded to include students who previously were not considered low income, then this change could raise the percentage proficent in the "low income" group. (Of course if the state directed the school to use a different income threshold it really can't complain.)
The percent proficient for Sterret's low income group actually went down. So again, the opposite of what would be considered cheating. Most schools in the district recently offered free and reduced meals to all students in a school. This change could cause a whole school to now become low income and have a subgroup that was not previusly measurable. Schools that offered free meals to all students may no longer have checked income status.
Two things- the percent proficient could well have declined by even more if students not low income under traditional standards had been excluded.
And, the whole purpose of the low income sub category is undermined if a school can get around it merely by offering everyone a reduced price lunch regardless of income and so concluding that all students are low income. That does sound questionable!
This could have been an honest mistake, though- ie, a computer programmed to count students as low income if they receive a free lunch working on a database where everyone is listed as qualified for lunch- with no intentions re: the PSSA whatsoever. The state's flags could be very useful in picking up this type of programming error.
Schools that offer all free lunch work very hard to get all their low income information in -- as a parent, I can tell you that! Even if there's no way you would qualify, you are told to fill out the form.
I don't believe there was any state-wide change in the criteria.
One (or both) of two things happened at Sterrett -- they had a huge bump-up due to more lower income kids were coming in and/or they miscounted. It doesn't seem like they miscounted to make themselves look better, so... There are lots more kids at Sterrett now from both the Lincoln and the Faison feeder patterns. That has been going on since the closing of Reizenstein and Sterrett's switch to neighborhood school -- many parents tried say, Faison, that first year or two and then did what they could to get their kid out.
they should also look into Westinghouse that had an incredible jump in scores in 2008 and then went right back down in 2009!
Considering one school in this entire district raised a flag due to a demographic jump makes me feel confident that cheating is not an issue for PPS.
I am critical of PPS however, I am glad that cheating on PSSA's is not a major concern.
Post a Comment