No one is happy with the achievement levels, but we have improvement plans in place that are reviewed each year, and we have been seeing steady improvement for at least 3-4 years. That is why Middletown earned an A in value added growth.  We have been above value added for the last three years in a row.  That means that students in Middletown City schools are learning more than a year's worth each year.  To me, this is the most important grade on the report card, because it shows how well a district is doing in actually improving a student's academic success, rather than just reflect the socio-economic background of the students who walk through its doors. (A news release yesterday from OSBA and OASBO stated that there was a high correlation between test scores for Ohio school districts and the income/poverty levels of the student body).

 

Middletown's Performance Index rose again, about a point from last year.  It remains a C (Continuous Improvement last year), but it is moving in the right direction.  The Performance Index measures all scores on all tested subjects, and gives weight to which of the 5 levels (Basic, Limited, Proficient, Accelerated, Advanced) a student scores, not just whether or not they passed.  So, it looks at the achievement of all students, not just the ones hovering above or below just passing.

 

The first letter grade for standards met is Vet's favorite, the old number of indicators reached out of 24.  Middletown reached 8 this year, up from 6 last year. Again, no one is saying we are content with 8 but that is still improvement. On almost every indicator, the percentage of students passing rose, but if you don't hit the magic (arbitrary) 75% district-wide, you don't earn the indicator.  The higher percentage passing does show up indirectly in the Performance Index and the Value Added Growth factors.

 

The 4 year and 5 year graduation rates also rose from last year -- I don't have the numbers in front of me, but by several percentage points. This is something the district is really working hard to increase, identifying kids at risk of dropping out (or not passing the OGTs) early and getting them extra help. 

I used to work at MCSD.  Truth-be-told, the lack of text books is a point of rage for many of the teachers as well. Many teachers spend (or, at least used to spend) their planning periods making copies of text materials so students would have something to help them learn with.  

On a side note, I have thought about posting up an "ask me anything" on these forums regarding the schools as seen through the eyes of a former employe.  Was not sure if there would be interest on these boards or not.  

It Depends, what was your position?

Pacman

Due to wanting to stay as anonymous as possible on the Internet (right, NSA?) I am a little hesitant to throw out what I used to do there. I can say, I had daily interaction with teachers and faculty. I was actually contracted by an outside source and spent several years in the district.  

 

But, your answer leads me to think that the reason you left out the good results is that you do not understand what the Value Added score is measuring. You said, "THE TESTS DETERMINE HOW EFFECTIVELY THEY RETAINED THE KNOWLEDGE THEY LEARNED. IF THEY CAN"T RETAIN THE KNOWLEDGE TO DEMONSTRATE A PASSING GRADE ON RECALL< WHAT DOOD DID "LEARNING MORE THAN A YEAR"S WORTH IN A YEAR" DO?"  The Value Added Score is derived from the same tests as the score for the number of Indicators Met and the score for the Performance Index.  The difference is, Indicators Met and Performance Index only look at a snapshot of how the students scored on one day in April 2013.  The Value Added score compares how the students did one day in April 2013 to how the same students did one day in April 2012.  Put another way, in response to your comment, Indicators Met and Performance Index measure how effectively the students retained the knowledge learned to demonstrate recall on the tests, whereas Value Added asks, did the student retain (and recall for the test) more knowledge this year than last year?

 

To think about how schools can earn an A on Value Added while getting an F for Indicators Met and a C for Performance Index, let me try to give a few hypothetical examples. 

 

Example 1: In 2012, Student 1 had the correct answer to 20% of the questions on the 3rd grade reading test.  That student was not "proficient" in reading so the district does not have 75% or more of all students proficient on the 3rd grade reading test, and does not meet that Indicator.  A 20% score is the lowest level, Limited, earning the fewest points toward the Performance Index score for the district.  In 2013, Student 1's reading ability improved quite a bit, and he answered 55% of the questions right on the 4th Grade Reading test.  This raised Student 1 to the next of 5 levels, Basic, but is still not Proficient, so does not add to the percentage of students district-wide who scored Proficient or higher on the 4th Grade Reading.  So, despite the improvement of imaginary Student 1 (multiplied by other students), the number of tests where the district has 75% or more students pass does not change, so the number of Indicators Met does not change.  In this hypothetical, the district's Performance Index would go up a little, because a Basic score earns more points than a Limited score, although both are still fewer points than Proficient, Accelerated or Advanced.

 

Example 2: In 2012, Students 2 through 11 answer 60% of the questions right on 3rd grade reading, and do not pass -- they score Basic, not Proficient.  The district does not earn the Indicator Met for 3rd grade reading because only 70% of the students are Proficient or higher.  In 2013, Students 2 through 11 answer 70% of the questions right on 4th grade reading, so their scores improve to Proficient.  These 10 students are 10% of the 4th graders so (assuming for the example that every other 4th grader scored on 4th grade reading at the same level they scored on 3rd grade reading the prior year) the percentage of students district wide increases to 72% on 4th grade reading.  However, the magic cut off of 75% is not reached, so the district does not earn that indicator, and its score on Indicators Met stays at F.  The District's Performance Index would go up a little bit because these Proficient scores earn more points than Basic scores.

 

So, while I have over-simplified the examples, this is what has been happening in the Middletown schools.. For at least the last 3 years, Middletown has earned Above Value Added growth.  Some students are increasing their individual scores on the state tests, but still below proficient, while others are achieving proficient for the first time but the district-wide results for that grade level have not crossed the 75% threshold to earn the Indicator Met.  (Or, in some grade level/subjects, the percentage is hovering right around 75%, and small changes in the number of students proficient each year cause the number to move just below or just above 75% versus the prior year, with the resulting swing from 5 Indicators Met (2010) to 10 Indicators Met (2011) to 6 Indicators Met (2012) to 8 Indicators Met (2013).  I would also like to point out that the percentage of students scoring Accelerated or Advanced has steadily increased each of the last 5 years as well.  This does not impact the number of Indicators Met but it does increase the Performance Index score, because Accelerated and Advanced scores earn more points.  So, over the last 5 years, Middletown's Performance Index score has improved from 81.7 to 88.5, which reflects these various types of growth.

 

By the way, the answer to my question about Hamilton City Schools, which you ignored, is that 7 of 10 school buildings received an F for Value Added, meaning their students on average learned less than a year's worth in a year.  This backwards progress is reflected in the district's Performance Index score, which went down from 93.7 in 2012 to 91.5 in 2013.

 

First, Franklin did not improve.  Franklin's Performance Index went down from 98.5 in 2012 to 97.9 in 2013.  Franklin scored a C on overall Value Added as a District..I agree that Franklin's B for Performance Index is better than Middletown's C, and that Franklin's B for Indicators Met is better than Middletown's F.

 

Second, Franklin's demographics are not similar to Middletown's.  Middletown had 71% economically disadvantaged students, compared to 50% in Franklin; Middletown had 35% non-white students, compared to 5% in Franklin; Middletown had 5% students for whom English is their second language, compared to fewer than 10 students in the entire Franklin distirct. These are not excuses, they are just the facts that the schools have to deal with.

 

As a golfer, do you think it would be fair to judge your ability level as a golfer by your score on one particular day, regardless of how you were feeling that day?  Don't golfers keep a lifetime handicap based on the average of their scores over dozens, if not hundreds of rounds? 

 

Do you think it would be fair to judge how your ability to play golf has improved or declined year to year by looking only at your score on that one particular day each spring, but making you play a different course each year while giving you only some vague information about which course you would play on the day that counted for your annual score?

 

Let's say you take lessons from a pro.  Do you think it would be fair to judge his ability as a pro by whether and how much your handicap improves?  Do you think it would be fair to judge his ability as a pro by whether and how much the handicap of all of his clients improves, even if he can't choose who to take on as his client, and his client base includes golfers with physical and mental disabilities and others who have no hand/eye coordination and only show up at the golf course under threat of punishment?

 

My questions may sound ridiculous, but this is how public education is judged in the U.S.

 

 

It is not my view that Value Added is the only measure that matters.  Each of the grades tells us something. I will readily admit to being stubborn and argumentative as well.  However, I try to keep an open mind and not jump to conclusions until I have all the information.

 

I did not come up with this state grading system and don't defend it.  However, as to why it is helpful to look at progress of the same student from one year to the next, let me throw out another analogy.  Say you were going to buy stock.  Company A and B both have earnings per share of $40.  But Company A's earnings per share have risen steadily from $25 to $40 over the last 3 years, while Company B's earnings per share have dropped over the same time period from $55 to $40.  Trend data tells you a different story about those two companies that you won't see if you only look at a snapshot of how they did in the most recent year.

I agree with others that say a large part of the reason for our standardized test results is our kids not the teachers, the teaching methods, or the options.  I suppose SOME of those things play a role.  And improvements should always be sought but to pretend that the test data is some sort of indictment of the district's staff is not realistic.

 

OhioStorm also wrote, "What about the performance of Central Academy. . . it obviously is not meeting the standards of education that have been set."  Central Academy's grade of F for Value Added is definitely a concern and it is being addressed. It is not consistent with past results; Central has generally in the past been one of the highest scoring elementaries in Middletown.  This year's results varied greatly depending on the grade level.  Central's 3rd grade and 7th grade both out-performed the district average by large margins in both reading and math. (83.3% of Central 3rd graders scored proficient or higher on reading, compared to 73.6% district-wide; 91.7% of Central 3rd graders scored proficient or higher on math, compared to 69.5% district-wide; 90.3% of Central 7th graders scored proficient or higher on reading, compared to 67.2% district-wide; 74.2% of Central 7th graders scored proficient or higher on math, compared to 63.8% district-wide.) (All 4 of those results also exceeded state-wide averages, btw). In 4th grade, however, the opposite happened (72.9% of Central 4th graders scored proficient or higher in reading, compared to 82.3% district-wide; just 54.2% of Central 4th graders scored proficient or higher on math, compared to 70.6% district-wide). Central's results for grades 5, 6 and 8 compared to the rest of the district were more mixed.  So, there were definitely some issues last year that the district has made moves to fix, but where some of these results exceed 90% passing, the data does not support your conclusion that the school "is not meeting the standards of education."

 

I encourage any one who is interested in more detailed breakdowns of scores by school or by grade level to go the Ohio department of education web site; there are links on the home page to search for state report card results that include lots of charts and graphs.

 

As to the suggestion that money could be saved by closing Central, I don't think that we could close the building. The elementary buildings are full as we already reduced the number from 8 to 7 a couple of years ago, when we closed Verity and re-purposed Highview as the 6th Grade Center.

John Stossel - Stupid in America