On another post Anonymous wrote:
NEW POST
http://www.pps.k12.pa.us/143110829171011580/site/default.asp
PPS GRAPHS PROGRESS ON PSSA OVER LAST 10 YEARS . . . .
Notice the Pittsburgh Public School Chart that graphs the district’s progress (or lack thereof) on PSSA over the past ten years. You will see that the progress during the Roosevelt/Lane years was a point or two per year and 15 to 20 points below the PA minimum target!
However prior to the Roosevelt/ Lane regime, the progress in Reading was 10% in one year and the progress in Math was 20% in one year.
After Roosevelt arrived continuing progress dropped off dramatically, while minimum achievement targets rose by 9-10 points every three years!
(The 2012 PA minimum target in Reading is 82% and in Math it is 73%.)
In 2003, PPS MET the STATE’S MINIMUM TARGET in READING and MATH. (Before Roosevelt/Lane)
In 2012, PPS is 20 pts. SHORT of the PA MINIMUM TARGET in READING and 15 pts SHORT of the PA MINIMUM TARGET in MATH !
Remember that the skills assessed by the PSSA remained the same over 10 years, so you would assume that each year students would move forward as the same skills were taught year after year. Yet in PPS students fell further behind each year during the Lane Administration in terms of making progress. Unbelievable! ???
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
The NCLB goals are interesting and all, but anyone who was paying attention knew that they'd pushed all the expected gains into the last couple of years.
BUT what I find most obvious from that graph is that all of the money, time, changes implemented in "the Broad/Gates era" have done NOTHING.
Roosevelt arrived for the 2005-2006 school year, but instituted no big changes that year. The 2006-2007 school year was the first that began instituting the "reforms" of this era.
Look at the graph on that link again. That's when the slope of the results started to flatten out.
What were the gains?
2002-2006 +12.2 in Reading
2007-2012 +7.4 in Reading
2002-2006 +21.7 in Math
2007-2012 +7.0 in Math
What exactly has all this spending, change, fidelity, RISE...done for us, other than slow the rate of positive change?
Correction on 11: 49: "anyone who was paying attention knew that they'd pushed all the expected gains into the last couple of years" is an INCORRECT statement.
Look back at the PA minimum targets and you will wee that the moved upward 9-10 points every three years. That incremental change in target stayed the same and has been absolutely consistent over all 10 years. At NO time were "expected gains" changed more than 9 points over a three year period.
So it is NOT TRUE that "they'd pushed all of the expected gains
into the last couple of years."
Also, please check the PPS figures against the PDE percentage figures!
And YES you are CORRECT that what the current administration has down is significantly SLOW the rate of change. If early progress (before Roosevelt/Lane had continued PPS would significantly surpass the AP minimum competency standards in Reading and Math instead of falling 15 to 20pts BELOW the PA minimum standard!
And we will also see shortly that the "achievement gap" has widened under the Lane administration !!!!!
Again WHERE IS the OUTRAGE?
"According to the federal No Child Left Behind Act, students must be 100% proficient in reading and math by 2014.
The federal No Child Left Behind Act also requires states to determine annually whether schools and districts in Pennsylvania make Adequate Yearly Progress, also known as AYP. The 2010-11 targets were 67% proficient or advanced in math and 72% proficient or advanced in reading."
(from the PDE website)
To get to 100% in 2014 (three years from 2011 targets above) is a lot more than "9 or 10 points" over three years.
It's a 33 "point" jump in math and a 28 "point" jump in reading. There's a chart of the targets in the link which shows how the targets were loaded toward the end.
But again, my point was that it's really the PPS actual numbers that count.
Again, to 3:12:
This comment is incorrect.
"To get to 100% in 2014 (three years from 2011 targets above) is a lot more than "9 or 10 points" over three years."
As explained previously (and it is captured on the PPS site). Starting in 2002-03-04 the PA minimum target for Reading was 45%, in 2005-06-07, the target was 54% (+9pts), in 2008-09-10 the target was 63% (+9 pts.), and in 2011 the target was 72%.
(Math started at 35% in 2002 and also rose a total of 9pts. for every three years until this year.)
Therefore this year was the 1st year that the target rose 9+ pts in one year. So, to reach 100% (which cannot happen for many reasons, but it is a goal to which we should all aspire the, the goal will rise 9 pts every year 1012, 2013, 2014 for the next two years.
However, the oncoming Common Core Standards & Assessments will cause a significant disruption of those progress goals particularly at the Secondary level.
Many Pittsburgh High Schools that are now scoring at the 20-30-40% leve of proficiency are NOW MINUS 40 to 50 to 60 points away from the the current (2012) goal of 81% in Reading, alone.
Heaven help our current 11th and 12th grade students who are 40 to 50 to 60 points short of "proficiency" in reading when in 2002-03 our students were at and above the 45% target.
PPS HAS MADE NOT MADE PROGRESS over the last 5-6 years!
Notice also that PPS has finally admitted that it did not make AYP last year, stating in this recent release, (page 5 of 7, last paragraph) this year the PPS status has "changed from "Making Progress" to "Corrective Action II.""
First you (11:49) said
"That incremental change in target stayed the same and has been absolutely consistent over all 10 years. At NO time were "expected gains" changed more than 9 points over a three year period.
So it is NOT TRUE that "they'd pushed all of the expected gains
into the last couple of years."
Then you (4:03) said:
"Therefore this year was the 1st year that the target rose 9+ pts in one year. So, to reach 100% (which cannot happen for many reasons, but it is a goal to which we should all aspire the, the goal will rise 9 pts every year 1012, 2013, 2014 for the next two years. "
Which directly contradicts what you had said before and directly supports what I said (that the required gains were not even distributed over the timeframe and went up rapidly during the last few years.
So, perhaps you can refrain from expecting that everyone else is "INCORRECT" when in fact you point out your own error?
Also, I know the "Making progress" designation is some particular deep interest of yours.
To clarify in case someone else reads your posts, a school only gets the "made AYP" label after the second year of meeting their standard (which, yes, can be through safe harbor or growth model).
So if a school doesn't make AYP in one year, the next year one of two things will happen:
Not make AYP in next year: move down a classification (school improvement I to school improvement II)
Make AYP in next year: labeled "making progress"
So, yes, they are in a state of both having made AYP for that one year but also having to make it again the next year to be labeled as "made AYP."
But AGAIN, I can't think of why any parent in PPS really gives a hoot about all these designations. They should look at the district's scores overall and at their child's school's scores. They should know if those are the "real" numbers or growth model numbers.
They should know their own child's scores. If their child is basic or below basic, they should be able to ask the school (and better yet, the school board, every single month) what is being done to make sure that they get to proficiency.
They should NOT accept the answer that the curriculum will do it. The results over the last 6 years prove that the combination of this curriculum and the administration's heavy-handed top-down know-it-all management style is NOT WORKING.
Please can we try to keep a supportive tone here, we are all working toward the same goals.
At the Education Committee Meeting this month, in the School Improvement Plan Presentation, 11 schools were identified to be eligible for SES tutoring because they were in corrective action according to last years PSSA results.
http://www.pps.k12.pa.us/14311059122535553/lib/14311059122535553/Improvement_Plan_Process4.pdf.
Dr. Holley asked if the schools that are in corrective action NOW, 15 of them according to the new PSSA results, would be able to receive SES tutoring.
No answer was given. We need to keep an eye on this.
AGREED on all that 4:31 states EXCEPT that___from 2002 until 2012 the expectation by the state was that the the scores would go up 9 points every three years___that is the fact.
From NOW (with 81% in Reading) until 2014, the expectation changes to 9 pts each year until 2014. That did not apply to "the last few years" as was stated several times.
And you are probably correct, "nobody gives a hoot". Sorry.
Let's take a closer look at the train wreck that IS PPS central administration. Over the summer, the head of the English Department (ELA) resigned. Yesterday, the head of the math department resigned.
Do we really need to look any further to see where the problem lies?
It is simple:
PPS essentially farms out there curriculum formation to Pitt's IFL.
PPS makes it clear that all teachers are to follow the curriculum "with fidelity."
The PSSA scores continue to make it clear that PPS students are not doing well.
It is clear that since you have taken the teacher out of the equation, the curriculum is a complete failure.
The association between this district, and Judy Johnston and Pitt's IFL must be examined closely. How much money has she made in constancy fees? How much money has been sent to Pitt for this "relationship?"
This district fired almost 400 teachers this summer.
It fired 1 administrator.
It has admittedly saved money thanks to transportation revisions and in other ways.
NOT ONE teacher should have been furloughed. NOT ONE.
Ask yourself why our kids are performing poorly.
Examine all of the factors as described above.
It is clear that this administration has failed the students and families of the city of Pittsburgh. It's clear that a complete revamping of the district needs to be undertaken:
-new superintendent
-new top administration officials
-streamlining of administrative posts
-belt-tightening where budget is concerned---especially where consultants and third parties are concerned.
-complete restructuring of curriculum---throw out the failures of curricula we have now and allow teachers to write curriculum
-complete eradication of RISE process. It is clear that teachers are NOT the problem----administrative meddling and short-sightedness IS the problem.
August 28th 6:27am
I see that you failed to add the failed leadership of the PFT Executives: Tarka, Esposito, VanHorn, Gensure, Wilson, Hileman etc. They threw us all under the bus with the promise of RISE as empowering teachers. RISE is a recipe for removing any teacher out the door if they fail to nod their head in agreement like a bobble head. We as members have the privilege of paying union dues to a union that has supported the failed educational reform initiatives from Broad, Gates and IFL.
This is why my child is no longer attending PPS. Not due to the teachers, they are handcuffed!
"The Middle School curriculum is designed to have students arrive at understanding. We believe that all learning comes from creating meaning. Therefore the curriculum is designed to enable students to use and create information. The Middle School uses a multiage approach to foster a sense of community. As in the primary years program the Middle School curriculum holds to the principles of Responsive Classroom as delineated in the Developmental Designs Program. Each morning students participate in the Circle of Power and Respect to develop a sense of commonality and community."
http://www.kentuckyavenueschool.org/curriculum/middle
It must be noted that apparently, a few presenters at the ELA in service last week made mention of the fact that the curriculum is "not working" and the PSSA scores "bear that out." A couple of teachers had to actually ask aloud if what they were hearing was true.
Teachers were told that they can "augment" the curriculum in an effort to address the needs of kids.
Let's say it again, shall we, and let's hope Judy Johnston pops in here once in a while to read it: Managed curriculum equals forced, curriculum in a can. Making teachers instruct via "managed curriculum" is nice, but what Pitt's IFL has pumped out has been shown to be a complete and utter failure. PSSA scores rove it and CBA tallies aren't anything to brag about, either.
Ms.Johnston has become proficient at writing letters to the editor, well, in fairness I would hope that she would be a straight shooter and write a letter that details how this curriculum has failed the students of Pittsburgh.
Just how long can administration and consultants think they can fool the Pittsburgh taxpayer with the outrageous commentary that "it's all the teachers' faults." If you are forcing them to teach a certain way and certain material, then it is your curriculum and guidance which is an utter failure.
Ms.Johnston, may I suggest it is time for you to take up water painting and feeding the pigeons? It's obvious that the needs of today's urban students are unknown entities where you and Pitt are concerned.
Even presenters are saying as much.
Was the resignation of the heads of the English and Math departments related to the curriculum not working?
Is it this bad here?
http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2012/08/who-else-would-title-it-scripting.html
I love the teachers response!
Post a Comment