Some CRCT charts

Claudia Koerner, a data guru here at the AJC, assembled some interesting charts showing how metro Atlanta school systems performed on the CRCT.

Test scores fall into three categories: did not meet, meet or exceeded. The charts look at where each district’s average score fell on the spectrum between meet and exceeded.

Here’s the information for grades three, five and eight.

Anything surprise you?

16 comments Add your comment

jim d

July 13th, 2009
4:44 pm

Truth of the matter is that if this were not so sad it would be laughable

Tony

July 13th, 2009
5:30 pm

These charts are meaningless. No context has been given. No statistician would present graphs and charts without properly explaining the data and why a particular format for presentation. There is no reference to previous year’s data. No reference to how many students. No reference to how the numbers on the charts are derived. I agree with jim d that this report is sad, but probably for different reasons.

Great things

July 13th, 2009
5:49 pm

It would be great if the public kept up the pressure on the APS cheating scandal. It would be great if the reporters of the AJC, and other news media, made sure the story didn’t die until there was some accountability on the part of all of those involved.

It would be great if people demanded these things, and then as a result of their actions, positive changes occurred.

More lost posts

July 13th, 2009
6:00 pm

Once again, the AJC fails to come even close to meeting expectations on what a quality website should be.

ShooShee

July 13th, 2009
10:35 pm

Give us a clue. Is something supposed to surprise us? Are we supposed to be surprised that everyone “met” the standards? (The standards set by the state to check to see if teachers are teaching the states curriculum?) Well, maybe, if someone would explain exactly what that means. I really rather prefer the ITBS.

ScienceTeacher671

July 13th, 2009
11:15 pm

Ok, it’s kind of interesting that third graders do about the same in math & reading, fifth graders generally do better at math than at reading, and 8th graders generally do better at reading than at math…

But that may be as much a function of where the cut scores are set as anything else. And, as Tony & ShoeShee have stated, these charts are pretty well meaningless. Lots more information on other websites that let you compare different districts with each other, and also break down the info.

Can you compare the CRCT averages you’ve compiled with average ITBS scores and grade equivalents? Or are those data available?

OldTeach

July 13th, 2009
11:15 pm

TONY RULES!!!! One of the more ridiculous aspects of NCLB is that each state can create their own test, set their own ” did not meet/ meets/ or exceeds ” cut offs AND adjust the tests from year to year to ensure that things …according to the test scores….are looking up at least a little bit. Additionally, progress cannot be tracked unless the same students are tested before instruction and again after instruction and then the scores compared. It’’s just al so-o-o Out of whack!!!1

Dr. John Trotter

July 13th, 2009
11:26 pm

Laura, I am going to have to agree with jim d. These charts are just an overall average for each system at these respective grades. Suburban schools invariably out-score urban schools, especially where urban areas reflect lower incomes, more social unrest (drug-infested neighborhoods, gang violence, etc.), and single parent homes. People are simply afraid to address these issues. I don’t know of any true research study which has not consistently yielded this finding. As I have said many times on this blog, scores on standardized tests simply predict free and reduced lunch scores, not effectiveness of teaching, the choice of curricula, or the stucture of a school (e.g., middle school vs. junior high school). The teachers teaching in urban areas should especially be given more latitude so that they can be creative in their attempts to reach students who are essentially disengaged from learning. The key in not raw intelligence but motivation which is essentially a social phenomenon. These theories are not new with me. In fact, two of my professors in yesteryear at UGA (Dr. Eugene Boyce and Dr. Carvin Brown) wrote extensively upon these concepts — the theory that the motivation to learn is a social process (Boyce) and the phenomenon that standardized test scores invariably correlate with socio-economic scores (Brown). I like to give credit when others come upon a concept. My personal mantra is this: “You can’t have good learning conditions until you first have good teaching conditions.” Now this is a Trotterian theory all the way, and I defy any dumbass administrator to prove this explanation (theory) to be false. Ha! There are exceptions to any “rule” (principle of action), but the exception only proves the rule. The sad thing about the charts is that they show absolutely nothing about the realities of cheating, and the urban systems’ scores could in reality be much worse than the charts show. The problem in the urban systems is the almost complete lack of discipline in the schools. The administrators act as though they are afraid (and, sadly, they probably are) of the students and their parents. These administrators seem to have accepted the defeatist view that the best thing for them to do is to simply “give” the students their grades despite so many of these children not putting forth any academic energy whatsoever. It is sad. Until our policy-makers admit their these urban systems are completely broken, then no kind of “reform” will change anything. It is all one big game, trying to fool the public into thinking that learning is taking place. I see, however, some glimmer of hope. The public is becoming more jaded and is becoming more skeptical of what these urban leaders are dishing out. I say all of this in reference to what the charts might be illustrating. I hope that it has been a bit helpful. (c) MACE, 2009.

Dr. John Trotter

July 13th, 2009
11:34 pm

Sorry, guys. I guess I was agreeing with Tony, not necessarily jim d, although jim d might be thinking the same thing in his state of “sad”ness. Laura, Thanks for providing the chart for discussion.

You would think

July 13th, 2009
11:40 pm

You would think, since the school officials in DeKalb and Atlanta are so proud of the accomplishments of their systems, they’d relish the opportunity to point out their systems accomplishments and at the same time point out the errors in Dr. Trotter’s criticism.

I’m sure any of the local stations, during their public affairs segment of their programming, would be more than happy to facilitate a discussion on educational issues of concern to all Georgians.

They have, after all, done such a great job, and certainly don’t deserve such unwarranted attacks, so why not publicly make the case that such attacks are indeed not warranted, while at the same time garnering some positive press for your school system?

Dr. Craig Spinks /Evans

July 14th, 2009
12:57 am

Discussion should be a precursor of action, not a substitute for it. When and how do we begin to solve the problems accurately identified by many who write upon this blog?

Vince

July 14th, 2009
8:36 am

Cool charts, I guess, but not very telling. It would be interesting to see the free and reduced lunch percentages thrown in for comparison as well. I would imagine they would fall right in line with the score averages. Forsyth’s would be low and Clayton and Dekalb’s would be high.

Where is Dr. Trotter’s criticism of Dekalb schools for which “You Would Think” (also Dr. Trotter, or a flunky) seeks rebuttal?

catlady

July 14th, 2009
10:16 am

Once again the leadership at the state DOE fails us; they do not provide adequate expertise/guidance to do anything meaningful.

Ernest

July 14th, 2009
10:26 am

I agree these chart only provide cursory information. In fairness, it was done by someone at the AJC who may not know how to add data labels or other information that can help us interpret this. To paraphrase what Dr. Spinks said, the chart should help us to ask more insightful questions, not just provide information.

ScienceTeacher671

July 14th, 2009
10:49 am

It would be difficult to compile, and possibly couldn’t be done due to privacy concerns, but I’d like to see a longitudinal study of students who were “committee-promoted” even though they failed the CRCT…do they also fail at the next level, or do they eventually find a way to catch up? How do they do in high school?

Ernest

July 14th, 2009
3:53 pm

ScienceTeacher671, that probably could be done in a manner that does not identify the student. Unfortunately, because of privacy concerns along with the perception of getting around ‘tracking’, it might be difficult to make that data available to the public at large.