On another post Anonymous wrote:
"Hey, parents, out there! Have you received your child's individual scores for this years PSSA?
Dr. French announced nearly two weeks ago that parents would have the individual students' PSSA results in Reading, Math and Science by June 22nd.
Has anyone received these 2011 PSSA scores?
How do they look? Better or worse than last year?
(These individual PSSA scores, with letters to parents, are sent every year in the first 10 days of June to every PA school district for distribution to parents___since 2003!)"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
40 comments:
Comments on this topic posted elsewhere were:
Anonymous said...
i received my daughter's PSSA scores a week ago. Have not received my son's. No change in her scores - she has scored advanced her entire life, and because the pssa's only test the current grade's knowledge there's no way to really see growth.j
Also, don't know where my son's are.
June 27, 2011 8:23 AM
Anonymous said...
Dr. Lippert mentioned that different buildings deliver different ways, I think. If your kids are in diffent buidlings that may be the reason you do not have your son's.
June 27, 2011 8:52 AM
Anonymous said...
8:23 - Parent's should be given an explanation of the skills tested on PSSA. Absolutely, you can see progress from one year to the next. The skills are all specifically identified and build in complexity from year to year. It is not the same test but skills are the same and extend from one to the next by levels of difficulty. Certainly, is your child is advanced one year and continues to be advanced the skills have been sequentially reinforced. If your child's scaled scores are higher than they were last year within the ranges of Below Basic, Basic, Proficient or Advanced, then your child has enhanced and advanced his abilities/capacities in the area(s) tested.
This information is available in multiple venues online at PDE.
Anon who received her daughter's scores just seemed to be saying that if a child is always advanced, there is no way to tell if the past year was particularly good in terms of the amount learned. In fact, it is possible that on a particular test (say for 8th grade) a child could have scored advanced if she had taken the test in 7th grade or 6th grade (this is the case with many students)- there is no way to tell if there has been significant progress.
The range of PSSA scaled scores could be from 1000 to 1600. If a student scores at 1600 each year, then Questioner could be correct about determining progress on the PSSA ONLY at that grade level. As a parent, I would have additional questions if my child had a perfect score every year.
Are scaled score averages for schools published? Reports just seem to be in terms of Advanced, Proficient, Basic and Below Basic.
Could it be that there is no policy or procedure on how to deliver the results? In the first year of the test parents got the results at Back to School night if I recall correctly. I know the turnaround time for grading and getting results back from PDE has improved, but could the hand-to-hand delivery still be an option in some buildings? In a perfect world the hotline would have the method recorded by school and the parent could make one inquiry and have an answer.
One kid's were sent home with the report card. Other kid (different school) got report a day later and it had no PSSA scores.
While schools can use these to figure out how they did, all the combined scores that determine AYP aren't released to the public until August.
No scaled score averages for SCHOOLS are not published as such since there are too many variables.
PSSA averages are only rough indicators for schools or districts. AYP is only rough indicator; and is not something that deserves any acclaim unless the scores for a school or a district are beyond the targeted expectation that is established by the state (PA).
The minimum target for Reading last year was 63%, next year it moves to 72%. In Math, the target last year was 54%, next year it will be 63%.
It is important, however, for parents, students, and teachers to track each student's progress with individual scaled scores. If the scores do not meet PA's minimum target, and they are not moving closer to 100% each year then they are not progressing which is the responsibility of the District.
PPS has failed in this responsibility, SINCE it is unlikely that PPS student majority will meet the 100% PA state target by 2014. Remember, these targets moved 9 points every three years (approx. 3 percentage points per year) since 2003. Over the past 8 years the majority of PPS students have NOT moved forward 3pts. every year.
Allderdice as an example was at 75% proficiency in Reading in 2003 when the PA target was 45%. Allderdice was 30 points ahead of the minimum PA target. In 2010 Allderdice was at 62% which is 13 points less than it was 8 years ago. Not only was there NO progress every year, Allderdice declined in Reading achievement over the last 8 years!
Additionally, School PSSA Scores, are available in Mid-July to Districts and Schools with a password.
From the NYT, "Reform Chicago Style":
"Larry Cuban, professor emeritus at Stanford University's school of education, says schools that allow data to drive decisions risk "perverse outcomes" that make aggregate numbers look better but don't improve educational outcomes for most students. He pointed, for example, to schools that focus on getting students just below passing level on state exams over the bar, while ignoring children at the lowest levels."
So true, that is exactly what most struggling districts do and it is 'unconscionable." Pittsburgh is one of them. The people from PSDI who do the training for 4Sight, emphasize this strategy. It is only one of many reasons that PPS has moved backward instead of forward in achievement. The leadership in PPS division of Assessment is grossly incompetent. The answers to questions reveal a total lack of knowledge and understanding in her area of responsibility.
These techniques seemed to become much more prevalent when Mark Roosevelt arrived, and many more people were assigned to massage data Then a big to do was made if better results could be identified somewhere in the district.
It seems like PPS did not make AYP after making AYP (when was that?) less information about PSSA scores are being published. I recall all grade levels (who took he test) being posted on school websites a few years ago. Now it looks like 1-2 grade levels are hand picked.
As an educator, I would like to make one think abundantly clear. As sustained emphasis, usually "practice" of PSSA skill is absolutely contra-indicated and counterproductive. PSSA skill require thinking skills which are best acquired by students or anyone else by understanding the specific skills, their attributes, and application in situational as well as textual ways.
To consciously and deliberately deny broad educational opportunities, to limit student access to foreign language, the arts, music, games, athletics, etc. in the "effort" to provide more time in reading and math is again, unconscionable! PPS, routinely limits or denies the aforementioned with the belief that students must "focus" on reading and math to the exclusion of its natural connection and integration with the all areas of activity, learning and personal involvement. To deny the aforesaid learning opportunities denies children needed opportunities to develop cognitive capacities in a broad range of developmental opportunities.
This denial, subsequently, effects eligibility for entrance into CAPA, Sci-Tech, Obama, etc. where skill development in a wide range of areas is a requirement. This is "tracking" in one of its forms and in PPS "tracking" is transparently present in many, many forms.
We need administrators with STRONG educational experience and expertise.
As sustained emphasis, usually "practice" of PSSA skill is absolutely contra-indicated and counterproductive. PSSA skill require thinking skills which are best acquired by students or anyone else by understanding the specific skills, their attributes, and application in situational as well as textual ways.
I know that that's what the PSSA is meant to be and that they say that it tests thinking skills, as well as content. However, the truth is that just like any formulaic test which changes little from year to year and is based on unchanging content, it CAN be studied for and scores will increase because of that.
However, I'd agree that solely doing test prep type study, especially to an exclusion of other subjects is horrible overall for thinking skills and for general level of education.
Then again, when you have kids reaching 7th and 8th grade and still reading at early elementary levels (with minimal academic vocabularies that go along with that) and not clear on the basics of multiplying and dividing, let alone fractions or decimals or more complex word problems -- one can see the attraction of trying to at least teach them SOMETHING that will show up on the test.
But, again, this is a problem that doesn't occur in 7th and 8th grades, it's a problem that hasn't been well-addressed in all the years leading up.
This math and reading only focus has filtered all the way down to Kindergarten as well, and the time for play time, read alouds, and "writing" stories and drawing pictures of their own have all vanished. At best they get some free time to play with math manipulatives or draw at some point in the day (and when a coach isn't lurking to write them up).
It used to be that while children learned reading and math in K, they also learned how to behave in school, how to learn, how to get along with others, etc.
Now, they get to high school with minimal academic skills and, in some cases, still unable to sit and learn and get along with others.
But mark this---somehow, PPS will have made AYP this year. It's beyond a prediction. This crew has learned to fudge numbers and how to play to the crowd when things are slipping.
Anonymous @ 1:47. Are you referring to Paulette Poncelet? If so, I totally agree. PPS needs better assessments in all subject areas.
I don't know how PPS could make AYP this year. The bar was raised substantially and even in best conditions it would be difficult to meet. So if they do indeed make it, it would be interesting to see how they did it. As for Poncelet -- she should have never been hired and most definitely should have been one of those let go last week. But why let go of an administrator making 140K plus bonuses who does nothing, who actually blocks progress, when you you can let go of a clerical person of 30 yrs making 30K who adds value?
Poncelet's very position is just the very embodiment of everything Roosevelt believed in and that Lane does not have the courage to jettison: education is a bland, nameless, faceless series of statistics, and not students or their needs. Let's make decisions based upon numbers. Let's make conclusions based upon numerous ridiculous testing opportunities. Hell, let's just refer to students by their school ID numbers. It's not like we are talking about actual people.
This type of mentality is pervasive on Bellefield Avenue. Spend a moment talking to these people and you quickly forget that you are talking about a "people industry", in this case, children.
This thinking explains the outrageously poor curriculum that is championed by Pitt's IFL and enforced by Johnston's PELA program.
If parents truly took the time to look at the bigger picture, the kids, their needs and this horrible curriculum, they'd be marching on Bellefield Avenue with torches in their hands.
But apathy prevails.
The time for the Poncelets, the Lipperts, the Johnstons, the Otuwas, the Frenches---for any people who are in education but don't actually have to work with the stakeholders--the kids--and, My God!--get their hands dirty--has come.
I'm hearing similar things about PSSA results this year. "Fudging the numbers?"
No, it wouldn't surprise me if somehow, the district made AYP this year, which would heap validity upon a district whose leadership works only to ensure its future employment.
There's a million ways to dress a pig, after all, but it's still a pig.
Yes Old Timer and as Al Fondy said, " You cant fatten a pig by weighing it"and all we do is weigh and measure-ask your kids about the drills about reading words as fast as you can...gee and THEN, wondering about comprehension! Watch the cutting of librarians too- yes it is going on around the country-- but not in top school districts-- and in "Broad influenced" districts this certainly stops "free-range reading" that most people grew up with-- instead, let's be sure that all reading is connected to an expensive program of word calling.
I wish every school district in the US would be required to give the IOWA test, even if for just 2 yrs in a row. It is a way to measure if a kid is learning at an expected rate. It also tests their cognitive level. It isn't a teach and regurgitate test. My son's private school (Kentucky Ave) uses this test to find strengths and weaknesses to help the KID, not for school PR. We didn't have a history to compare since this is the first time our son took the test.
State tests are money making machines for private industries.
Unless you have taken the tests that you praise or criticize and have the expertise and the background knowledge needed to evaluate each of them, it truly is a mistake to comment on any of the assessments that are administered.
The resulting "opinions" cause unnecessary confusion for everyone, parents, students and teachers, the public in general.
One very important skill that we all need to learn is to distinguish fact from opinion. It is not always an easy task to support with criteria and evidence; but it is what defines.
There was a time when public schools administered the Iowa test. I remember taking the test in elementary school, but that was before the radical social revolutionists (reformists) of the 70's.
Bring back the Iowa test!
Presumably the educators at the Kentucky school have the background and expertise to select a test, and it is useful to hear from other parents about what has been chosen elsewhere and what they have found useful- even if the parent him or herself has not taken the test (but has perhaps looked at sample questions or received explanatory information from the school). This type of sharing of information is to be encouraged.
This might help explain the Iowa test scoring.
http://itp.education.uiowa.edu/itbs/itbs_interp_score.aspx
Parochial schools locally still take the Iowa tests. It is not too farfetched that Corbett will bring them back with some version of his voucher plan during hids administration.
Heck, even the PPS were giving these at some point -- what's given to 2nd graders now, there is still something, right?
Other people who haven't received PSSA scores on their kids. My 11th grader's scores still haven't arrived. He's at Obama. Has anyone else received 11th grade scores?
Why would anyone suggest bringing back the IOWA?
Given the online descriptions, purposes, skills assessed the comparative analysis of IOWA and the PSSA reveals that the PSSA is a much more appropriate and comprehensive assessment that assesses the ability to think in ways that are critical to success in post-secondary education, career goals and life in general.
The IOWA does not necessarily assess the PA Academic Standards which have been evaluated to be one of the highest rated in the nation.
It is distressing that any parent or teacher would not want the best for the children. in their charge. And given the detail and supplementary curricular designs, lesson plans and design materials provided by PDE, if needed for struggling teachers, students have a much greater chance of acquiring the needed thinking skills to do well on any assessment (SAT, ACT, AP, NOXTI, College Boards, etc.) or problem-solving life skills.
So, why, specifically, would anyone want the IOWA?
**PSSA is a much more appropriate and comprehensive assessment that assesses the ability to think in ways that are critical to success in post-secondary education, career goals and life in general.
The IOWA does not necessarily assess the PA Academic Standards which have been evaluated to be one of the highest rated in the nation.**
Talk about Kool-Aid!
How about the fact that PPS curriculum -- the new ones -- are still not aligned with the standards?
Do you really think that a high-takes test pushes higher level thinking skills into the classroom?
NO, high-stakes tests do not push higher level thinking into classroom, TEACHERS DO!
The point that you 'prove' without meaning to, is that you do not have any idea of WHAT or HOW or WHY the PSSA is constructed, what its purpose is, or precisely what is being tested. Its NOT CONTENT; BUT IT IS THINKING SKILLS! _____ The THINKING SKILLS that should be taught to all children beginning in early childhood and on through adulthood. The FACT that PPS students, in the majority, score so poorly on PSSA THINKING skills that should be what they are LEARNING, brings home the fact that NO ONE is teaching children how to think.
P.S. I'd be glad to hold a session that demonstrates, concretely the THINKING skills that WE ALL SHOULD HAVE and are being assessed on the PSSA, whether or not anyone (or to be fair, only a few) "get it"
Why don't you post three or four questions each from math and reading and explain why they test thinking skills rather than content?
Are you sayint that they both align with the PA standards and yet don't test the content of the PA standards?
How does anyone child or adult have (or even develop) "thinking skills" in the abstract without CONTENT to think about? That is a mystery!
Odd that the PSSA is referred to as "high-stakes" when it is a minimum competency test that reflects students ability or capacity to "think."
Minimum competency. Why are schools not helping students acquire minimum competency?
Quality teachers do it every day with every student. Right? Why not all teachers with all students? it is definitely doable!
**Its NOT CONTENT; BUT IT IS THINKING SKILLS! **
This is the Kool-Aid. You still find it in many Ed schools and you still find it in many places in the PPS.
This is like trying to teach someone to sew by showing them pictures from fashion magazines and taking them shopping. Once they are given fabric, thread, scissors and a sewing maching? They'd be lost. They have no skills with which to work.
I'm not saying that those pictures and clothes they saw are useless, but I am saying that someone who learned how to read a pattern, cut, stitch, etc. and who practices it will be much more likely to be able to create a pattern of their own or work from a picture than someone who has no skills.
This is what some of our curriculum has done to kids -- they work in small groups with other kids who don't know any more than they do. Teachers are told just to notice errors but not help or correct during work times (in math), etc.
Kids end up trying to get through algebra (thinking skills!) without being able to simplify equations because they can't multiply or divide simple numbers in their heads.
Give them the tools, the content AND then give them problems to solve, gradually increasing the difficulty and "distance" from what's been explicitly taught.
Correction:
Can anyone actually name 3 teachers (or even 1) who has enabled their entire class to reach the minimum competency required by the PSSA?
It is high stakes because some teachers whose students don't make AYP feel they are in danger of losing their jobs, and some schools that don't make AYP are in danger of being closed. Now if the district doesn't make AYP- there don't seem to be any real consequences.
3:25 _ Sorry that I missed your post until now. Certainly, THINKING SKILLS are always USED in a CONTENT with a CONTEXT!
However, the thinking skill can be defined independent of on content or context. Examples: !) Distinguish FACT from OPINION;
2) Identify the MAIN IDEA and SUPPORTING DETAILS; 3) IDENTIFY CAUSE and EFFECT; 4) USE CONTEXT CLUES to DETERMINE the MEANING of a word (vocabulary); 5) Given the events or statements provided (in the text or situation,) what INFERENCES or GENERALIZATIONS can be made?
These examples are just a few of the "thinking skills" required for the PSSA and certain other standardized tests. The PSSA requires no prior knowledge to answer questions in READING. Instead, students must read the text and use the "thinking skills" to answer the questions. It truly is very DOABLE for every student when taught the skills and ask to apply them across fiction and non-fiction in every day teaching and learning opportunities.
Does the Iowa test not require students to:
1) Distinguish FACT from OPINION;
2) Identify the MAIN IDEA and SUPPORTING DETAILS; 3) IDENTIFY CAUSE and EFFECT; 4) USE CONTEXT CLUES to DETERMINE the MEANING of a word (vocabulary); 5) Given the events or statements provided (in the text or situation,) what INFERENCES or GENERALIZATIONS can be made?
** The PSSA requires no prior knowledge to answer questions in READING. Instead, students must read the text and use the "thinking skills" to answer the questions.**
So perhaps you might want to go from your all or nothing "PSSA = THINKING SKILLS TEST ONLY" to something a bit more nuanced? "There are skills associated with reading well that are tested on the PSSA Reading sections which show if the student has been able to comprehend the passage." It's not a test of "thinking skills" alone by your very definition.
Reading and math are very different tests. Math does in fact test content -- quite specifically spelled out at each grade level as "eligible content."
All the examples you give do in fact hinge on the students knowing some content such as the meaning of main ideas, supporting details, fact, opinion, inference, etc.
That structure *is* the background content knowledge required to do well on a multiple choice test of a passage you haven't read before.
Also, of course, the students need to have been taught to read and be able to do more than just say the words. A student who knows more vocabulary words (usually from reading on her own) will always do better on vocabulary -- that's content, too.
I certainly agree that the absolutely worst way to teach reading is to spend all year reading passages as dull and "out of context" as those on the PSSA and then answering repetitive (what's the gist?!) multiple choice questions about the main idea, supporting details, etc.
That is the surest way to make sure that your students will hate everything about reading.
We've come a long way in this back and forth; its not worth quibbling over some definition of terms such as "content" or adding it, (to differentiate), for "content knowledge." Just one more point regarding prior content knowledge and the PSSA: The test is "text dependent" which is why "no prior knowledge" was necessary. Agreed, it should have been stated "no prior content knowledge is necessary."
You appear to include "thinking skills" as "content" whereas, my statements differentiate thinking from content.
Also AGREED, that PSSA practice is boring. If thinking, as defined here, is a part of the day to day classroom interaction, no such "practice" is necessary. As stated, such practice becomes counterproductive.
Uhh, well two things -- math (and science) are still content based -- so please in the future remember that you are posting only about one PSSA type.
I understand your point that there are not texts that have to be read ahead of time. There are going to be no "How did Tom get his friends to paint the fence?" type questions.
But,
"The test is "text dependent" which is why "no prior knowledge" was necessary. Agreed, it should have been stated "no prior content knowledge is necessary."
No prior knowledge?! Not of the text, yes, we know that. The content necessary is understanding and knowing what all those terms in the questions mean (as listed above) and with any luck, a lot of vocabulary words.
You appear to include "thinking skills" as "content" whereas, my statements differentiate thinking from content."
Uh, no, making an inference is a thinking skill -- but knowing what an inference is, is a content skill. You have to have that knowledge of "inference" BEFORE you can perform the thinking skill, right?
Absolutely!
Post a Comment