In a previous post I talked about the AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) scores for the Iredell-Statesville Schools. As was reported in that post, only 54.3% of the I-SS schools met the AYP standards for the 2009–10 school year which was a drop of 25.7% from the 2008–09 school year when 80.0% of the I-SS schools met the AYP standards.
The ABC scores for the 2009–10 school year have also been published. According to a recent article in the Statesville Record & Landmark, I-SS's performance composite for the 2009-10 school year increased by 2.1% (from 78.6% in 2008-09 to 80.7%) over the previous year.
Record & Landmark ABC Scores Article
This 2.1% gain in the ABC scores is small compared to the 25.7% decrease in the AYP scores. Of course I-SS is making a big deal out of the increase in ABC scores and downplaying the drop in the AYP scores. The Record & Landmark quotes Superintendent Johnson as saying “The trend is going in the right direction," and continues that Johnson said the growth is inspiring and a "morale booster" during difficult days for the district. In its article on the I-SS End-of Year Review Session the Record & Landmark reported that Chairman David Cash said that the district did well in its overall performance.
You may use the link below to access the Record and Landmark on-line article about the I-SS End-of Year Review Session.
I-SS End of Year Review Session
I congratulate I-SS on its increase in the ABC scores. However, I-SS needs to carefully examine both the ABC scores and the AYP scores to see why there is only a small gain in the ABC scores and why there is such a significant decrease in the AYP scores. I-SS continues to extol the current I-SS Model without any real proof its efficacy. When dealing with over 20,000 students anecdotal evidence is not sufficient to justify a particular approach to the education of those students.
You may click on the image below to see the 2009-10 ABC scores for I-SS.
AYP and ABC scores are not comparable statistics. That is like taking Batting Average and comparing it to Steal Percentage.
ReplyDeletePaul as smart as you claim to be you should know AYP is about as much as a joke as you are.
ReplyDeleteThe whole state saw a large drop in AYP - 71% last year is down to 58%.
ReplyDeleteThe criteria for tests each year changes in NC.
ReplyDeleteIt is rarely the same. It is the way the wind changes directions and the way it blows.
AYP and ABC scores are are indeed two different measures but each is a measure of the school district's performance. Last year, after the AYP scores were announced, I-SS officials were quick to point out that the increase in AYP scores was an indication of how well the district was doing. One of I-SS's primary goals has been that 96% of the AYP target goals would be met in 2010 and 98% would be met by 2012. In 2010 I-SS met 89.1% of the target goals which means the district did not achieve one of it's primary goals for the school year. I-SS cannot neglect the the AYP results and simply look only at the ABC scores.
ReplyDeleteWell, since last year you were quoted on here as saying that those gains were only because of the excellent teachers? Do those same teachers get the blame this year?
ReplyDeleteAug. 13, 9:45PM: I think that teachers should take pride in the increase in the ABC scores but they must also take some responsibility for the decrease in AYP scores. I do agree that I-SS does have many excellent teachers. Perhaps the decrease in AYP scores was due to the constraints placed on the teachers by the I-SS model. Unfortunately we may never know the real reason for the decrease in the AYP scores since the administration seems unwilling to professionally examine the situation and the efficacy of the I-SS model. Instead they are content to sweep any poor scores under the rug and tell everyone that they are doing a great job.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to know why it is that Northview got the second highest performance composite in the district yet got NR (No Recognition)?? Can someone explain why that is and how that happens??
ReplyDeleteNo recognition because they didn't make expected growth based on last year's EOG scale score.
ReplyDeleteOk, well Northview as it is in it's current state (an IB school)did not exist prior to last school year, and neither did Mt. Mourne (as an IB school) yet they got recognition. Going on the statement made by Anonymous Aug. 16, 4:18pm, then Mt. Mourne should have No Recognition also. Correct??? Or is the state using Mt. Mourne's EOG scores from previous years for 3rd, 4th, and 5th grades?? If that's the case, then that's not fair to Northview.
ReplyDeleteRiddle me this...heard from a friend that 4th grades classes at Lakeshore has 23 students. Cloverleaf 4th grades classes had 28 or more students. Bear in mind that Cloverleaf has 24 subgroups while Lakeshore has only 13 subgroups. This makes absolutely no sense!?!
ReplyDeleteRecipe for unsuccessful = high subgroup total + large class size + low socieo-economics
To see the subgroup total for all I-SS schools look here:
http://iss.schoolwires.com/15311071210271457/blank/browse.asp?a=383&BMDRN=2000&BCOB=0&c=87923
Anonymous 9:09 - growth is based on the individual student's growth from one year to the next, not the school as a whole. For example if Johnny went to West Middle for 6th grade, then Northview IB for 7th, his growth is calculated using his score from last year (at WIMS) compared to his score this year (at NV IB). Growth is an important factor for a school like an IB school where most of the kids are going to pass the EOG. Growth lets you know if they are moving up from the prior year to an even higher score.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 9:34: Ok, if that were the case, then Northview should have received SOME type of recognition since all of those students came from schools within the district and have EOG scores from the previous year. It still doesn't make sense why Northview got "No Recognition" then.
ReplyDeleteBasically b/c the state doesn't not think a school that doesn't show growth deserves recognition. It really doesn't matter if 97% of the students passed the test if they didn't grow in ability from the prior year. For example, if a kid made a level 4 the year before, then a level 3 this year, they actually went down in score, but still passed the test. I wouldn't think that is anything to be recognized for. You can't just look at passing rates.
ReplyDeleteThen the same should hold true for Mt. Mourne.
ReplyDeleteWell Mt. Mourne made growth, so it did hold true for them. I don't think you understand...Northview IB students did not make expected growth, it has nothing to do with that school being new.
ReplyDeleteThat's my point. How could they not make growth, yet have scores second under Mt. Mourne?? Again, they were not a school who previously had EOG scores to go by, but each student in the school did. Then how did Mt. Mourne show growth if they're a new IB school who have a whole new set of students just like Northview??
ReplyDeleteLets try this again, you don't go by the "schools" scores the year before, you go by the individual students. The students at Mt. Mourne made growth as compared to their "as in each students" scores from last year (not the schools scores last year). Northview IB students did not make growth based on their "as in each students" scores from last year. Growth is calculated by looking at each students score from the year before and comparing it to the current score.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter if you move schools, you still have your individual student growth calculated (that is, unless you are from out of state). For example, if a kid goes to LNE in 4th grade and then transfers to Troutman elementary for 5th grade, they still count in the growth component.
As far as having high scores and not making growth, it works like this. If Johnny makes a level 4 in the 97th percentile in 6th grade math and then makes a level 4 in the 92nd percentile in 7th grade math, he did not improve. So even though he still made a 4 and that score is high, he actually went down in comparison to his peers.
And Cloverleaf was built for 850 students yet now they have pulled in trailers because they are overcrowded and understaffed -- setting them up for failure????
ReplyDelete