Thursday, September 29, 2011

PSSA results released

From another post "Dr. Marge McMackin has left a new comment":

"TODAY the Pennsylvania Department of Education released the OFFICIAL AYP/PSSA results for 2011. Listed here for public access are the PDE websites for information relevant to this region.

You will see ALL of the Allegheny County School Districts that made AYP outright. PPS did NOT.
PPS is in "Making Progress -Corrective Action II"

ALL Allegheny County Districts “Made AYP” outright EXCEPT the following five Districts: (Pittsburgh and Wilkinsburg are in “Making Progress”)

1. Wilkinsburg “Making Progress-School
Improvement II”

2. Pittsburgh Public “Making Progress: in Corrective
Action II”

3. Sto-Rox –“District Improvement I”

4. McKeesport - “Corrective Action II 1st Year”

5. Woodland Hills - “Corrective Action II 3rd Year”





Anonymous said...

Oops. Please add Duquesne City Schools to the list of Allegheny County Schools that did not make AYP (outright). That list includes:

1. Wilkinsburg “Making Progress - School
Improvement II”

2. Pittsburgh Public Schools “Making Progress: in
Corrective Action II”

3. Duquesne City - "Warning"

3. Sto-Rox –“District Improvement I”

4. McKeesport - “Corrective Action II 1st Year”

5. Woodland Hills - “Corrective Action II 3rd Year”

Randall Taylor said...

Should it be an issue that the Pittsburgh Public Schools now seem to have a practice of NOT releasing PSSA school by school results to the public. I feel that parents have right to use that information to better make educational choices for their children. The Pittsburgh School Board obviously does not.

Anonymous said...

It is perhaps better that PPS does not release school scores.

It is much more accurate and realistic to wait for the release of the scores from the PA Department of Education as Dr. McMackin has posted here.

This shows a very comprehensive report on the data for each school including Black versus White achievement, Male versus Female achievement, as well as the improvement or lack thereof from the previous year (2010).

We can also see the minimum achievement TARGET at the state level and how each school compares to that minimum level in both Reading and Math.

We need to see the data as it actually exists. PDE gives us that. PPS does NOT.

Anonymous said...

Notice that neither Pittsburgh Public School District, nor Wilkinsburg School District are in "Made AYP" category In PA as designated on the PDE chart.

Both PPS and Wilkinsburg are in the "Making Progress" category with Pittsburgh still in "Corrective Action II" and Wilkinsburg, (a little better) in "District Improvement I."

Technically, in spite of all the hoopla and celebration, Pittsburgh Public did NOT yet "Make AYP" according to the requirements/definition at the PA Department of Education.

Anonymous said...

NCLB and PA legislation requires that in order for a District to "Make AYP" it has to meet the requirements of "Making Progress" two years in a row.

In 2010, PPS was in Corrective Action II, 3rd Year.

This year, 2011, PPS improved a few percentage points, so it qualified for "Making Progress in Corrective Action II."

If PPS, in 2012, makes sufficient progress two years in a row (a few more percentage points), PPS will qualify for "Made AYP."

But this year PPS is NOT in the "Made AYP"
category as defined by the State. Rather, it is a "Making Progress in Corrective Action II"

(This all available on the PDE website.)

Bulldog Forever said...

I guess all of the PPS press releases, banners and other propaganda should read:

"Making Progress: in Corrective
Action II"

Doesn't quite have the same ring to it, does it?

Angry Taxpayer said...

Bulldog, you are certainly on to something. As we drill into the detail, it becomes clear that for each of the categories a school district can:

- Simply meet the mark, noted by a checkmark (Group met measure)


There is the whole other group of ways a benchmark can be made:

-Group met goal using Confidence Interval
-Group met target using Safe Harbor
-Group met target using Safe Harbor with Confidence Interval
-Group met measure using Growth Model
-Group met goal or target using an Appeal

Why how about that? As you look at the results, most of Pittsburgh's measures are something other than outright meeting the standard!

What a mouthful this would be for the banner stands:

"Making Progress: in Corrective
Action II...and we only got here through a combination of Confidence Interval, Safe Harbor, Safe Harbor with Confidence Interval, Growth Model and Appeal."

Hardly a ringing endorsement of the reform agenda, eh?

Watching the "Believe" video said...

Statewide 463 school districts outright made AYP, which means they met the standards two years in a row.

PPS is one of four districts in the group that is making progress.

I am guessing that at the latest staff picnic no one bothered to point out around the grill that this means PPS is tied as the 464th best school district in Pennsylvania out of 500.

That would not meet most definitions of "Excellence."

Anonymous said...

I find it fascinating that on the state grid "making progress" is yellow.

Didn't Pps show us a flow chart that had it green, along with made AYP, a designation for districts that meet the benchmarks two years in a row?

How misleading.

Anonymous said...

7:42 - This was pointed out, directly, to Board and Administration, to no avail.

So, "misleading" is a deliberate strategy under PR in PPS.

Anonymous said...

All the PPS Ministy of Information sends out is disinformation. Smoke and mirrors.
What a scam. Get rid of the Broad & Gates influence.

Its all a bunch of lies.

Anonymous said...


Pittsburgh uses the "Growth Model." Notice that it is "used to calculate AYP only if the indicator cohort has not met AYP performance by any of the existing goals or targets"

Here is PDE's definition of the "Growth Model"

What is the Growth Model?
The Growth Model recognizes the efforts of schools whose students have not achieved proficiency but are on trajectories towards proficiency on future PSSA exams. The Growth Model will be calculated for Performance Indicators (i.e., the all student group and up to nine subgroups). Projected scores are calculated for all students - including students who are proficient. If a projected score cannot be calculated for a particular student, the student’s actual score is used. The Growth Model will be applied to an AYP Performance Indicator only if the indicator cohort has not met AYP performance by any of the existing goals or targets. Actual, not projected, PASA scores, PSSA-M scores, 3rd grade scores, and 11th grade scores are always used, as well as the scores for any students with insufficient data points to make a projection.

“The Growth Model will be applied to an AYP Performance Indicator only if the indicator cohort has not met AYP performance by any of the existing goals or targets.”

Anonymous said...

The "Growth Model" is a last resort to make PPS achievement SEEM TO BE 'improved.'

Since it is a "projection" based on past performance, it ASSUMES that the student is on a "trajectory" that will, IN THE FUTURE, yield improvement.

So it is really NOT existing, documented proof of achievement, but rather a prediction?

My goodness, lets have the facts as they exist so that we can do something about it----not a projection, trajectory or prediction of what MIGHT happen in future years.

Anonymous said...

Yes, 6:32 - When you are checking the progress of your child's school, be sure to note the formula used:

CI -- Group met goal using Confidence Interval
SH -- Group met target using Safe Harbor
SHCI--Group met target using Safe Harbor
with Confidence Interval
GM -- Group met measure using Growth Model
A -- Group met goal or target using an Appeal

Next, look at the PA minimum target for proficiency in Reading and Math and how close your child's school is to that target.

Remember: Districts have had nearly 10 years to reach the target. How well is PPS doing?

Old Timer said...

Someday, some entrepreneur or philanthropist will come along and rebuild the way we measure our students' learning.
They will make clear that "tests" like the PSSA, SAT, etc, are a cottage industry that provides hundreds of millions of dollars to a small circle of companies that write and then subsequently score such tests.
And they are a useless barometer of your kid's learning, of teachers and of schools.
Propaganda rules the day, and it's upsetting that instead of questioning, we continue to just go with the flow and not enact meaningful change.
Let's just continue to fund the corporate cow.