How did high schoolers do on the integrated geometry End of Course Test?
I thought this e-mail question from a reader today was worth putting out here for consideration:
Have you heard anything, either officially or unofficially, about this year’s Integrated Geometry EOTC? I know of one group of teachers that were almost tarred and feathered because of their across the board horrendous drop in scores.
Have heard unofficially that scores across the state tanked. Would be interested in how much truth there is to this, and more importantly, the state’s take on it.
So, how did your school or child do? Any systems already dissecting what they did right or wrong?
–From Maureen Downey, for the AJC Get Schooled blog
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
84 comments Add your comment
Dr. Craig Spinks/ Augusta
May 22nd, 2011
9:15 pm
Over the last several years, school- and system-level scores on the ITBS have become less and less accessible on the internet. Wonder why? Could it be that educrats don’t want concerned Georgia parents to compare our state’s schools and school systems with other schools and school systems throughout our nation?
Mike Honcho
May 22nd, 2011
9:22 pm
Although the accelerated Math I course includes standards from both Math I and parts of Math II, students take the Math I EOCT. Although the accelerated Math II course includes standards from Math II and all of the standards from Math III, students take the Math II EOCT which only contains questons pertaining to Math II standards.
I believe the state intended to make seperate EOCT’s for the accelerated courses, but they ran out of money.
ScienceTeacher671
May 22nd, 2011
9:39 pm
@Dr. Spinks, our 8th graders don’t take the ITBS anymore. The state made it optional several years ago, I believe.
justin
May 22nd, 2011
10:51 pm
So are hose who want ITBS supporting the Common Core? After all, what’s the difference between such a document, and a testmaker’s “standards”? I thought a lot of people here didn’t like teaching to the test? Why is the ITBS a different story?
David Sims
May 22nd, 2011
10:52 pm
I don’t think I’d have any trouble with the test. But I’m not required or eligible to take it, so I can’t really say.
East Cobb Parent
May 23rd, 2011
7:30 am
Thanks for the info on the Accelerated Math EOCT – really makes no sense to me. I know for my daughters final in Honors Alg 1 the test was different than the test given to on level Alg 1 students. For now we will not return to public schools, I don’t have confidence in the current math courses in public school (Cobb County).
For the comments regarding ITBS, I don’t think anyone teaches to the ITBS and many private schools give the Stanford instead. I would think that either of those tests gives you a decent idea how your child compares across the nation. Of course everyone wants to create new assessments for CCS – that’s where the money is tests, test prep, materials etc.
another view
May 23rd, 2011
7:56 am
Groan. Maureen, you really ought do some pieces trying to educate people on test tech basics. First, it’s unlikely the “cut score” was changed – it’ll still be 800. The test content (the questions) may have changed, making THE QUESTIONS easier or harder, or if the difficulty of the questions remained the same, the RAW SCORE required for passing may have been lowered (NOT raised!). Some poor soul above worried about “50%” being too easy. She and many others seem not to get that in commercial test construction it is STUPIDLY easy to make a test so that 2%, 50%, or 98% will “pass” with half the questions right. It simply depends on how tough you make the questions. It’s still the case that commercial (contract) test builders will try to set the average at a tad over half right, purely because that gets you the most reliable test.
As to whether the tests measure anything meaningful, likely not. Aside from the reality that there is absolutely no discernable difference between a kid who fails with a “score” of 795 and one who gets 805 (actually, it’s likely there’s no difference between 700 and 900), no one has ever even LOOKED to see whether someone who “passes” is more likely to be a successful citizen – except for the false reality created by arbitrarily and capriciously (it’s called “modified Angoff”) setting kids up for failure and hence dropout.
another view
May 23rd, 2011
8:01 am
And yes, the Iowa is optional. DO remember that even if we made the ITBS mandatory it then becomes “high stakes” and its meaning will be corrupted. That’s including with the vast majority of folks who would NOT even consider “cheating.” The ITBS (or the Stanford, etc. etc. etc. etc.) is a SAMPLE of content, and as soon as you start punishing people with it (’tis THE #1 fact of “accountability” as we play with it in the U.S.), the instruction will narrow toward that sample, and it’s no longer a sample. Just the way it is, folks.
Philosopher
May 23rd, 2011
8:10 am
Not to brag, or anything, but my child took the advanced integrated math this year in 8th grade and aced the EOCT. A tough course- all year- but the hard work showed on her test. My feeling about the new math, the old math and everything in between is…we need decent math teachers! There is no educational foundation (other than reading) that a kid needs more. Accepting the ever-present litany about lousy parenting in this blog- I’m talking about good students, here. One poor math teacher can completely undo a kid on his/her path to math. Fortunately, we have a lot of strong math support here in my household because without it my child would have floundered. Her math teacher is brilliant but a terrible teacher! Show a math problem on the board…no explanation, and tell them when they beg for help- show them how you can do another one…no explanation…and then when they still don’t get it, tell them to “self-teach”. NO lie!! Most parents just are not able to help their kids with math- it’s different from the way we did it and it’s been too damn long! I wonder how many bright kids are lost along the way because they have no math resources at home and can’t afford tutors. SOME of them don’t deserve to fail!
East Cobb Parent
May 23rd, 2011
8:26 am
@Philosopher – we had the same issue when my daughter attended public school, no explanation on the math. The teacher had them guessing, drawing and finally using calculators. This was 6th grade. Daughter came home frustrated, we would show a formula the light went on and she would do her assignments. She made A’s in the AC 6/7 class, but said it was what we (parents) taught her. For those that say the CRCT is worth measuring I think she missed one question on the math portion. The teacher was very nice and likable. We decided to remove from public school. Two main differences we see, subjects are taught and no discipline problems. Although once we hit MS and my daughter had all AC courses she said very few students in her classes caused disruptions.
thomas
May 23rd, 2011
8:28 am
@ Philospher,
There are people on this forum who believe “worked out examples” are the best way to teach math. So, your daughter’s teacher is practicing exactly that. So, don’t label her a “terrible teacher.”
Philosopher
May 23rd, 2011
8:37 am
@thomas- If no explanation accompanies the “worked out problem” no teaching is happening- all the kid sees is that the teacher knows how to do the problem. I stand by my statement…she’s a sweet lady and a good mathematician…and a TERRIBLE teacher!
Clueless
May 23rd, 2011
9:08 am
Cut scores = number of questions a student must get right to pass, not the arbitrary “200″, “800″, etc. given as the raw passing score.
See link:
http://www.educationsector.org/sites/default/files/publications/EXPCutScores.pdf
Pluto
May 23rd, 2011
9:31 am
I really don’t know why the EOCTs are given any credence. Of my two physical science classes, there were no DNM from this assessment. My kids scores look like I should be the TOTY! I watched one student complete the first section in under 20 minutes and then fall promptly asleep. They did the same on the second section. The score for this effort was an 86. I had another student with a raw score of 93 and was awarded a 95. The score of 65 was bumped up 25 points to a 90. I think my next EOCT class we will sit around and watch videos. These tests don’t really measure a whole lot.
Philosopher
May 23rd, 2011
9:49 am
@Pluto: I am glad you don’t mind saying that…I have to admit I did wonder…My daughter worked her butt off all year to grasp the math. Even though she had straight As, I expected it to be a tough test…she said the EOCT was easy…(she did say the science one was harder than the math, but only because there was material on the test that was not covered in class). Do you think they are created to produce falsely high scores?? Why do you think they seem to be so easy?
Dr. Craig Spinks/ Augusta
May 23rd, 2011
9:54 am
Clueless:
THANKS for the link to Education Sector. I’m much less-clueless about “cut scores” than I was before I read the ES material.
By the way, our state was listed on the ES website among the states which did not offer a clear explanation of its “cut score”-setting process on the web. Hopefully, Dr. Barge and his team are working to correct that historical lack of transparency.
Furthermore, let us hope that Dr. Barge and his team have the fortitude to resist educratic efforts to set “cut scores” low enough so that no LBEs or SSs might be embarrassed by the under-performances of their local schools and students.
Pluto
May 23rd, 2011
10:54 am
@ Philosopher … In our effort to not leave anybody behind we have created a dumbing down phenonenom in order to acheive the tenets of AYP. From what I gleaned from the physical science eoct; I though it was a fair test but the grading scheme employed is ridiculous. Now these kids will talk to the next batch of test takers telling them that there is nothing to worry about because they curve the daylights out of it. You will have a hard time interpreting results to see where you could improve delivery or activities. I prefer teaching non-eoct courses because students know they will not get the BIG bounce from the cumulative final.
Philosopher
May 23rd, 2011
11:52 am
Thanks, Pluto. But does that mean that a 98 on the eoct is not really a 98, then? It’s been curved up?
Dr. Craig Spinks/ Augusta
May 23rd, 2011
12:05 pm
Pluto:
GA educrats aren’t trying “,,, to not leave anybody behind.” They’re trying to avoid embarrassing themselves and the organizations which issue them their checks.
Lt Dan
May 23rd, 2011
12:07 pm
What the hell’s the damn problem? Geo is nothing but plain ole common damn sense…if only the schools/teachers were allowed to COMMAND full and complete student attention. There’s absolutely no reason why such a simple simmon topic should yield such dismal results. I know, such basic concepts are difficult to grasp…I had exactly the same difficulties. However, MY teachers, MY folks, and just about anyone else remotely interested in MY future all had carte blanche to do whatever it took to gain my complete unadulturated attention. If that meant building a (motivational) fire under my six, so be it. As long as education remains on the “as the mood strikes you” plane, this is exactly where these generations are going to wind up on the global stage…(world to U.S.) “oh, we’ll get around to you…AS THE MOOD STRIKES US”.
There’s still time, people…ya gotta start DEMANDING results from these damn kids…NOW!
Scott Allen
May 23rd, 2011
12:30 pm
I’m bewildered at those who claim these high-stakes tests are “meaningless.” Tests are how we assess student learning. Students who are able to compute correct answers have learned something. Those who can’t haven’t learned as much. Assessing math is as cut and dried as it gets. Test scores are directly correlated to future math success or lack thereof… with the understanding that some kids may be better at some types of math than others (algebra vs. geometry vs. statistics).
If you don’t want to use test scores, what would you propose instead? Certainly not teacher grades (these vary wildly with many “easy” teachers giving A’s and B’s for nothing). Certainly not student effort… no one cares how hard you worked to get the wrong answer! Or how many extra credit worksheets you turned in at the end of the year to raise your grade!
That said, both the CRCT and EOCT are toothless assessments. The CRCT, which is fairly reliable by its nature (”criterion, reference, competency” test), is systematically ignored. Otherwise the roughly 25% of 5th graders and 8th graders who fail these tests would be retained until their schools actually taught them the curriculum. (Note that it is not so much the schools’ teachers that are at fault, but many spineless administrators who refuse to hold lazy, under-skilled students responsible to learn anything.)
The EOCT has a different issue. Unlike the CRCT, it is greatly curved. While there are two arbitrary cut scores for “meets” and “exceeds” standards, these are mapped to grades of 70 and 90 respectively. Yet very poor achievers routinely score in the 60’s on this exam, and almost never is a score below 50 encountered. This matters because the EOCT is *averaged* into the student’s grade and is rarely enough of a factor to undo teachers’ inflated homework and test grades. Even when it increases from 15% to 20%, many students who need to be held back won’t be… because administrators don’t want to know about failing kids and simply blame the teachers for them when they hear about them.
These tests tell us what we need to know… but too many school officials and parents sit around with their proverbial heads in the sand, ignoring the facts. And so our students continue to struggle instead of being helped with their skill deficiencies. And is it any wonder so many incoming college students test into remedial classes? Shouldn’t be… the CRCT, EOCT, and GHSGT have been telling us the same thing all along…
ScienceTeacher671
May 23rd, 2011
6:16 pm
Scott Allen, although I agree wholeheartedly with most of your post, you do not seem to realize what a minimal competency test the CRCT is. If you can, examine the Lexile scores of students who barely pass, or compare CRCT results with national tests such as the ITBS. You will find that students who barely pass the CRCT are up to 4 years below grade level.
Unfortunately, parents, the general public, and even some teachers believe that passing the CRCT means that a student must be “proficient” — that is, working at grade level. I’m convinced that’s one reason parents allow their children to be socially promoted when they fail the CRCT: the parents don’t think their child is that far behind.
You are correct that students who should be receiving remediation are not, and that there are many heads in the sand…and maybe a few propogating the big deception.
In my opinion, THAT is the biggest cheating scandal in Georgia. Wonder what John Barge will do about it?
justin
May 23rd, 2011
6:26 pm
@ Science Teacher,
You aren’t seriously thinking a politician like Barge will do anything, are you???
northatlantateacher
May 23rd, 2011
7:35 pm
Philosopher and Scott Allen: Yes, a 98 on the EOCT is nowhere near a 98. Scott Allen: I am not anti testing. I am anti testing when the bar is set so low kids that are well below grade level can still pass and show “competency”. It sends a very mixed message to parents of kids who meet but ESPECIALLY kids who exceed. Frankly, most kids perfoming on grade level should exceed. In my class, the EOCT actually inflates their grades. The scores are almost always higher that the grade in my class.
Mike Honcho
May 23rd, 2011
8:52 pm
I have the same experience as northatlantateacher. The EOCT inflates grades. I love explaining why Johnny did not pass the class, but he passed the EOCT. All I can do is show the number of questions answered correctly vs. the number possible and try to explain why a 71 on the EOCT equates to less than 50% answered correctly.
ScienceTeacher671
May 23rd, 2011
9:13 pm
@Mike Honcho: ” I love explaining why Johnny did not pass the class, but he passed the EOCT.”
Isn’t that the truth! And it’s not right when the child who actually gets 90% of the questions correct on the EOCT is only given a couple of points more on the score conversion than the child who got 65% of the questions correct.
Mike Honcho
May 24th, 2011
8:57 am
@ Science
I totally agree.
Really amazed
May 24th, 2011
10:28 am
@Dr.GSA, you hit the nail on the head!!!! Georgia is scared to death with parents comparing itbs scores and never doing crct again. Parents and students nowadays LOVE the self-esteem boasting that they can do when little Susies or Johnnie meet or exceed the CRCT. I even had a parent and student tell me, when I asked…how did they do on itbs. The response was oh I guess I passed that. This is almost like the school, teacher and admis. doesn’t want them to know the difference. They just care about the CRCT to meet AYP. This has nothing to do with the student. So, so very sad. The parents in Georgia have been brained washed into drinking the kool-aid. The sad thing is that it is working.
williev2000
May 24th, 2011
11:33 pm
The ITBS is a Norm-Referenced Test, whereas the CRCT is a Criteria-Referenced Test. You can’t use a Norm-Referenced assessment to measure the curriculum (what’s being talked in Georgia).
Maureen Downey
May 24th, 2011
11:41 pm
@Williev, At a candidates debate at Inman Middle School during the campaign, John Barge talked about going to a single test, citing the ITBS as a possibility, saying that there should not be that much difference in what kids are being taught in Georgia and Iowa.
He may have changed his mind now that he is at DOE.
Maureen
hssped
May 24th, 2011
11:56 pm
@ Old Timer Educator
You are referring to the line of best fit, or med-med line? I can’t remember for sure if it was on there, or not. The test, though, was heavy with stats. We taught the kids how to draw it and figure it, use the formula to figure it, and use the calculator to get it. The reg scientific calcs (that are permitted on the EOCT) have the capability. We really pushed the kids to learn it on the calc and had it on numerous quizzes and the unit test. Then we spent a lot of time on it prior to the test when we had our EOCT review. When tutoring, you may want to show them how to do it on the calculator and make them memorize the steps. It is a HUGE timesaver.
On another note, I also read the new math GHSGT to a group. It, from what I recall, did not have any Math III questions, not even from the 1st semester units. Thus indicating, to me, that the state had already determined that the Math III class would not be needed for graduation purposes. Of which they informed us AFTER we had already started our IEP meetings. Anyway, that is a good thing to know if you tutor kids for the math part of the GHSGT.
Scott Allen
May 25th, 2011
12:10 am
@northatlantateacher and @ScienceTeacher671,
Point taken about the tests being too easy/minimal. That definitely compounds the problems. And to think that parents and administrators makes excuses for these kids who cannot even pass these basic tests. And you’re right, some kids who pass the CRCT in middle school still don’t know what they need for high school math. But you think we could at least hold back the “no-brainers” who are clearly multiple skill levels behind!
ScienceTeacher671
May 25th, 2011
6:26 am
@Scott Allen, the kids now think that “No Child Left Behind” means that no one, no matter how incompetent, is allowed to fail — which wasn’t the original meaning at all….
@WillieV – I may be wrong, but I believe the ITBS’s web page says that it can be used as a criterion-referenced assessment.
Concerned Teacher
May 25th, 2011
11:07 am
University Community Academy a charter school in Atlanta had 26 8th grade students fail the Math portion of the CRCT. This is out of about 40 students who took the test.