New results on state tests show gains in Wake County with the inclusion of retests making the improvement even heftier in elementary and middle schools.
School officials say preliminary results show there was a "modest" increase in the passing rate on the end-of-grade tests given in grades 3-8 when you don't include retests. With the retests, the passing rate rose 8.5 percentage points in reading and 6.5 percentage points in math.
For the first time, the state told school districts to include successful retests in the passing rates. Gains have been seen all across the state.
The results were mostly good on the end-of-course exams taken by high school students.
Wake is saying that the district experienced gains of between 1 percentage point and 6 percentage points on most end-of-course exams. The exception was in Algebra I, which saw a drop of 2 percentage points.
The detailed figures will be released on Tuesday when the information is presented at the school board meeting. Staff should also present preliminary No Child Left Behind results.
Comments
behave!
Thu, 07/30/2009 - 02:38 — klanders65My middle school teacher self wanted to tell you folks to quit calling each other idiots. You didn't behave very well here.
Want to help? Share your story!!
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 13:07 — me_mcadamsI know there are a lot of passionate parents on this website. As a member of the WSCA, I’m collecting parent testimonials about how current WCPSS policies and practices have PERSONALLY impacted you. Please send me your stories, both positive and not-so-positive – I’d like to hear them all. Please email them to me by Fri, July 24 at time4WCPSSchange@google.com.
Please include the following information when you write:
1) Your name, 2) District, or base school, 3) Your story – the good, the bad, and/or the ugly, 4) Your satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) with the current WCPSS, 5) What, if anything, you’d like to see change and why, and 6) Whether or not you’d be willing to be quoted in writing.
Thanks in advance for taking the time to share!
One really big hole in all
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 11:19 — SDR256One really big hole in all this is that the EOG tests are a kind of navel gazing. They may tell how well kids are doing within the state, according to state-massaged goals, but they don't tell us how our children are doing as compared to the nation and/or the world. It seems to me to promote a kind of provincial bubble - dangerous when you live in a state not really known for its advancement in this area. It risks a case where we are so proud that our kids are the best spellin' hillbillies in Pigeon Gully when kids outside the valley are doing calculus.
I'll apoligize for using the
Sat, 07/18/2009 - 06:47 — shearertwI'll apoligize for using the work "idiot", however, let it be known I wasn't referring to anyone specifically here. It was used in the very first post to this blog.
That being said, I do hope you all who believe this is a show of improvement will consider what I've said and educate yourselves. To retest the failing group only and then include the increase in passing rate from the retest as a show of improvement is 100% wrong, terribly misleading and absolutelyu meaningless.
User, I'm sorry you do not understand this concept either. Your Ivy League background is in serious question now. I was not saying that if the students took the test a few more times they'd pass. I was pointing out the laws of probability that if they were retested an infinate amount of times, 100 (or close to 100%) would eventually pass due to chance alone. That is the nature of any multiple choice test.
The bar for passing the EOG is so low, why would anyone be happy with students requiring a second chance to pass? Passing the second time in not necessarily an indication they have mastered any more matrerial! Part of the problem here is that so many of you are happy with this level of mediocrity.
Name calling is not acceptable for adults either...
Sat, 07/18/2009 - 02:28 — karencheyneAmazing! I can't believe that people, discussing the issue of improvement in the local education system, have managed to call each other 'idiots' so many times. To be honest, the average parents do not comprehend, in depth, the intricacies of statistical analysis or even the basic premises of the Theory of Probability. All they really understand ( maybe) is that their child is either being left behind by most of his/her peers because he can't or won't learn or is being pushed ahead to a higher grade in which s/ he will be even less likely to understand the material and actually learn.
IMHO, the NCLB concept should only be implemented if it can be shown that the child has the ability to grasp the concepts taught at that advanced grade level. This is just as important for the minority or ED child as it would be for the non-minority, NED student. None of these children would benefit by being thrust among students who can actively participate in the class; they would simply be isolated by their peers and taunted and bullied during lunch breaks etc. Teachers should look to devise methods that would help those at the bottom levels in the class to succeed in passing all assigned tests...the first time. If the majority of those struggling are Hispanics, for example, who are having problems understanding the English language, then, arrange to have a teacher who can speak Spanish, teach the class ....in Spanish...at least one day a week until the students catch up with the others. It may only take one or two such sessions for the kids to understand what they couldn't grasp via the English language. English is a tough language to learn, especially if the child is speaking his native language in his home. He is not getting enough practice so...how can he understand complex concepts such as Algebra etc.?
............................................................................................. I teach the NC curriculum and the tests measure the NC curriculum, so the test measures the same thing I am teaching...klanders 65 ............................................................................................... That's the way it should be; however, some tests could be carried out on the national scale to see where the NC curriculum is compared to other states ( to determine uniform college entrance requirements, perhaps). Other schools may have a slightly different curriculum and your students haven't been prepared for those questions and could , later on, be refused entry to desired colleges. A teacher should always be striving to have his students perform above the norm, rather than just meeting the accepted line.
different kinds of tests
Sat, 07/18/2009 - 01:58 — klanders65Willynilly, you have something mixed up. There are 2 different kinds of standardized tests: Norm Referenced and Content Mastery (also called Criterion Referenced).The Norm-Referenced tests compare students to some group (not the other test takers, as you thought and as I had always assumed). They report where the student falls compared to the others in the normed group. For example, 86th percentile means that 85 percent of the students in the normed group scored lower than they did. No one cares what the Norm Referenced tests are measuring or how much the kids get right. The results just tell us where kids' scores fall relative to the group that they use to norm the test.These are a bell curve of sorts. It tells where the kid would have fallen if they had been taking the test with the norming group.But, no one really knew or cared what was being measured. (If all kids did poorly, then being in the 86th percentile would mean you did better than 85 percent of the kids who knew nothing.)
NC took the CA achievement test and I remember lots of complaints that we don't even teach what they teach there. The answer was that it doesn't matter. The Norm Referenced Aptitude tests test "ability to learn" and then rank the kids compared to scores of some norming group.We never really used those scores for anything because we didn't know how to use them. Maybe some kids would be described as gifted because they scored in a high percentile, which would be interpreted to mean that they have a greater potential to learn than other students.
Then, NCLB came along. They were going to use those scores but wanted to know what they actually meant. They did a lot of research to see if there was any evidence that some kids learn better or more easily than others. There wasn't any evidence of this. Researchers learned that there was no correlation between ability to learn and this so called "aptitude." Kids who scored the highest had been taught the most.
NCLB said that tests had to measure Content Mastery--not relative scores of who knows what compared to some norming group. NCLB said that states had to say what they wanted the kids to know, then test for whether they know it. It is a totally different perspective. Instead of saying some kids can learn and others can't, you have to say what you want to teach and then measure whether kids have learned it.And, you can't say that some kinds of kids (minorities, ED, etc.) simply can't learn so we can't teach them. All kids have to have the same learning goals and you have to report whether or not you've taught them. You can't just leave these kids behind like we've always done before. You have to measure whether you are teaching them what NC says they should learn.
In contrast, the other tests would test the kids and verify that they do not have the ability to learn.The proficiency scores are not a comparison with other kids. They tell us whether kids have mastered what they were supposed to, at grade level. If not, it is because we are not teaching them--not because they can't learn.
And the Highly Qualified thing... I am a math teacher.
I have been teaching for decades. I've taught with many math teachers who were filling in till we could find someone. They would schedule the low income and minority students into their classes. We don't have enough math teachers. These teachers hated having to pick up a math class. They hated math. It was usually punishment for the bad teachers. They'd make them teach a math class. NCLB won't let them continue this practice.Before, they could use tests that told how kids rank, and give kids with whose parents have no power these math teachers with no qualifications. They interpreted the aptitude tests to mean that the kids can't learn. It was about the kids. Of course the kids with the good teachers scored higher but they said the tests measured what you were born with, not what you were taught. But the kids born with the important parents got the "real" math teachers.
This is the system we are moving out of.
One really big hole in all
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 11:19 — SDR256One really big hole in all this is that the EOG tests are a kind of navel gazing. They may tell how well kids are doing within the state, according to state-massaged goals, but they don't tell us how our children are doing as compared to the nation and/or the world. It seems to me to promote a kind of provincial bubble - dangerous when you live in a state not really known for its advancement in this area. It risks a case where we are so proud that our kids are the best spellin' hillbillies in Pigeon Gully when kids outside the valley are doing calculus.
I thought I remembered there
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 14:47 — user1234I thought I remembered there is a Public Interest group that normalized the EOG test difficulty state to state. I thought they were holding up SC as being tough which explained their low pass rate.
Yup.
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 15:22 — Bob_SconceI don't know if you can call the US Department of Education a "Public Interest" group.
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2007482.pdf
The interesting graphs start on about P. 38.
Note that it only looks at reading and math. I think doing this avoids the "each state tests its own curriculum" thing because math and reading are pretty universal. It's not like you're going to see "Well, NAEP tests the number 13, and North Carolina doesn't teach the number 13 until 5th grade."
It's also a bit out of date -- it uses the NC 2005 EOGs, which have been revised some in response.
Thank God for TN and GA
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 17:05 — user1234and MS ...
HQ
Sat, 07/18/2009 - 23:34 — willynillySorry, NCLB states that NC (and all other states) must set a standard that defines HQ. NC is the entity that says etachers must test this and that. Firtunately states like Vermont have just said keep your d--n money and we will take care of oursleves. Not such a bad idea.
The formula for the EOGs takes into consideration the averages from the previous year. It was Old Dominion University that I learned how this works. NC is, as it is in most other places in the country, a laughing stock there. Virginia has been testing ALL areas of elarning since 1997 from Art to Math to Reading to PE. The philosophy is, I guess......if you teach it test it. What a concept. My science students have been doing well in the science EOG each eyar the scores have been available. I teach the urriculum, NOT the test. I wonder where those teachers are that used to tie dye t-shirts for 8th grade science.
You sound like a good
Sun, 07/19/2009 - 17:12 — momof2goodboysYou sound like a good teacher, but my problem with all the testing is that a lot of the teachers teach for the test and nothing much else. Things like science should be fun, along with the learning. Getting and keeping kids interested in a subject by making it fun and exciting is important too I think. That's where our future scientists and inventors will come from!
The tests didn't make those
Sun, 07/19/2009 - 18:46 — klanders65The tests didn't make those teachers bad. They were bad already. They already weren't making it fun and exciting.
Without the tests we can't spot these teachers (although we already knew who they were.)
Do you hear of any wonderful teachers, who everyone wants their kids to have--changing the way they teach and now just practicing test taking or something. It isn't happening. The good teachers are still good. They don't even care about the tests because their kids do fine. The teachers who care and are whining about them and trying to get everyone else to whine about them also are the teachers who weren't teaching the kids anything anyway. The last thing they want is to have that documented.
If you follow that logic,
Sun, 07/19/2009 - 23:53 — momof2goodboysIf you follow that logic, then you still can't spot the teachers who simply teach for the test because their kids pass the test, but don't learn anything else. Still nothing gained in my opinion.
Their kids don't pass the
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 09:07 — klanders65Their kids don't pass the tests. They supposedly teach to them, which is low level memorization, and a terrible way to teach. Kids score much higher on the tests when they simply have had good instruction and learned something.
Think about it. I teach math. If my students learn to solve equations, keep track of their negative signs, handle fractions correctly, graph, understand the graphs, etc. why wouldn't they pass a multiple choice math test that required having those skills? I don't need to teach any differently because the kids are going to take a multiple choice test and will have to do some computations. I can teach the same way I always have. The kids have those skills after I've taught them.
On the other hand, if I quit teaching for learning, and started having the kids memorize multiple choice wording or something (I am not even sure what teaching to the test would mean... I think it means giving lots of multiple choice worksheets) the students would score way worse because they would be stumped by unfamiliar problems. Those teachers kids do score poorly even though they "teach to the test."
I give up. You don't seem
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 23:36 — momof2goodboysI give up. You don't seem to get what I am tryng to say. The way I feel is voiced every year when we, as parents. show up at school to proctor these tests. I have no doubt that you are a wonderful teacher, and you are definitely passionate about your students and teaching. I just don't think you can see this testing from any other perspective because you are teaching the right way. Keep on doing what you are doing.
"They don't even care about
Sun, 07/19/2009 - 21:54 — user1234"They don't even care about the tests because their kids do fine."
I think that might be more of an NED statement where like you say almost everyone passes so you have more freedom and further worries.
I have taught in very high
Sun, 07/19/2009 - 23:32 — klanders65I have taught in very high ED schools and I didn't care about the tests, nor did the other good teachers.
And, my kids did fine after I'd repair the damage done by their unqualified teachers they have before me. The district would say they had low test scores before I got them because they were ED.
It isn't true. They had low test scores because they had unqualified teachers who "taught to the test" and complained that they had to.
And Wake uses that Effectiveness Index to adjust for the fact that the ED kids get poor teachers (often, not always--I taught them.) But boy, our school was full of really bad teachers. I think they put people there who they wish would quit and they thought teaching in our school would drive them out, so they wouldn't have to fire them.
As a result of being treated this way by the district (not by their parents), they had lower test scores.
The district used that Effectiveness Index to report whether teachers were getting "expected gains" from their students. It would report that these bad teachers were doing fine because they adjust the expectation to be little or no learning for ED kids in high ED schools.
They can't fire anyone Bob_S until they get rid of that Effectiveness Index. Right now they put those who need fired in high ED schools, then adjust their performance indicators with that Effectiveness Index. How could you fire someone and at the same time report to their principal that they are getting the expected growth or better out of the kids?
"The district used that
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 07:28 — user1234"The district used that Effectiveness Index to report whether teachers were getting "expected gains" from their students. "
I don't see where the EI is used or reported on the WCPSS or DPI websites (e.g. this score adjusted for EI) just the passing rate, AYP, NCLB metric which I assume are not affected by the EI. Since everything revolves around the State test results, I am not sure what impact the EI has on pay, bonuses, promotions.
The principals get reports
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 09:01 — klanders65The principals get reports of their teachers using the EI. And their research dept calls programs effective if they get the "expected" results. All their "research" they do and publish on their website is based on using EI to measure successful programs, successful students, and successful teachers.
The teachers all know their EI scores. This year, they are providing "target scores" for kids based on EI. All internal decisions are based on EI. There is a big conflict with internal and external data.
They used to report EI scores for schools on the School Profiles. But they quit making those a few years back.
Darn right, IMO
Sun, 07/19/2009 - 19:04 — shank56The teachers who care and are whining about them and trying to get everyone else to whine about them also are the teachers who weren't teaching the kids anything anyway. The last thing they want is to have that documented.
20 Thumbs up for all of your posts, K..65. Have converted all of my fingers/ digits to thumbs.
We've had great teachers. We've had those who are not so good. You describe them well.
Sadly, some are very good "teachers" and persons of character, but they have neglected and refused to adapt and comply with their obligations- a la teach the curriculum. This includes technology (even using e-mail and doing interims!) It is time for them to go.
We can't get all new teachers
Sun, 07/19/2009 - 21:37 — klanders65We can't get all new teachers. We have to work with what we've got. I think, that just like I expect my students can learn, even if they come to me practically clueless. I just have to create an environment of expectations, then provide them with the support to help them succeed. Sometimes I am amazed at the progress they can make.
We can't get new teachers. There is about to be a huge teacher shortage. But, we can expect more out of those we have. And teaching is no easy job. A lot of teachers could be more successful with proper support.
Many teachers don't know a thing about technology, even something as basic as using email. They could learn. They have just never been expected to and have received no support. It has never been a priority. I don't think anyone in central office would be equipped to teach them.
Things need to change. We are not going to get all new people. I am hoping this new school board will bring some changes.
I'd like to know if the candidates understand data, and if they understand technology. Change for the better is going to be very difficult if we continue to not use data or technology.
Why not?
Sun, 07/19/2009 - 21:48 — Bob_SconceWhy can't we get new teachers? We don't have teachers' unions here. Getting rid of poor teachers should be much easier than it is in places like, say, New York.
I'm not saying the district should embark on any mass firings or anything. But, one or two bad teachers can do serious and lasting harm to students, especially in areas like math and reading. In some cases, the only way to minimize the damage is to let the teacher find a different career that they're better suited to.
The other side is making sure that poor teachers never get hired. And, that implies raising salaries to attract great experienced teachers from other districts.
I don't think there are
Sun, 07/19/2009 - 23:01 — klanders65I don't think there are enough people who would be willing to be teachers who would also be good at it. We should get rid of he horrible teachers, but some could be improved if they were expected to improve.
As a teacher, I am so glad
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 10:01 — dryeraseuserAs a teacher, I am so glad that every one of you have all the answers to fix the problem. You must have been sent down from God himself!! Until teachers get the support and respect they deserve and need...all of you will continue to "think" you know who is good and who is bad. That's one of the biggest flaws with blogs....a whole lot of people that know ALOT about NOTHING.
It's A LOT. Sorry...former
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 16:02 — nktrailIt's A LOT. Sorry...former English teacher...can't help myself....
It's A LOT. Sorry...former
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 16:01 — nktrailIt's A LOT. Sorry...former English teacher...can't help myself....
I don't quite understand
Sun, 07/19/2009 - 11:59 — klanders65I don't quite understand where you and I differ. I, too, want those teachers who tie die shirts, or play games for math to be held accountable. In math, we have teachers who don't even know the subject, so they can't teach it. My own kids have had a few. They do projects with no learning goals. More or less arts and crafts lessons. They are not teaching the curriculum.
NCLB says we can't keep hiding the fact that we have these teachers. We have to say what we mean by HQ, then report how many kids are not taught by HQ teachers. I think that is a good thing. I'm sure HQ is probably defined in some very general way that makes it possible to keep most of these "arts and crafts" teachers. But at least they have to keep track of something instead of nothing.
And I have no problem testing what we teach. NCLB says you have to test what you are teaching instead of giving "aptitude tests" which supposedly identify who is most "teachable" but tells nothing of what has been taught.
I often have a hard time figuring out what people don't like about it. Tests aren't new. We've always tested the kids. Now, we have to test what we are teaching. The tests aren't high stakes for the kids. They are high stakes for the schools. You have to actually teach the kids the curriculum instead of tie dying t-shirts, and having toga parties. If you don't, you get sanctioned. And you have to report which of your algebra classes are being taught by football coaches.
Then people say this is awful...etc.
I think some of the sanctions for not making the grade are wrong and a waste of money, not likely to be helpful, etc. And in some cases down right stupid or horrible. So, I would complain about them. But the idea of testing what you teach and having to have some definition of what the acceptable qualities of a teacher are then report how many kids are taught by teachers who do not have those qualities is a welcome thing to me.
I think the loudest complainers are the tie-dyer types. This is going to make them have to actually work and be accountable. Someone may be able to tell that their students learn nothing. And before we could simply ignore that so many math and science teachers have grasp of what they are teaching, because they are out-of-field.
Where is it that you and I differ? I must be misreading you because it sounds like you agree with me, but yet you don't like NCLB. Without NCLB, the tie-dyers can keep it up forever.
I think the loudest
Sun, 07/19/2009 - 13:17 — gwaihirI think the loudest complainers are the tie-dyer types. This is going to make them have to actually work and be accountable. Someone may be able to tell that their students learn nothing. And before we could simply ignore that so many math and science teachers have grasp of what they are teaching, because they are out-of-field.
==========
This also relates to a comment I made previously, which was that I think teachers should have degrees in the subjects that they are teaching. To me, it seems that any teacher that is out-of-field is probably poorly-equipped to teach in that field, through being not educated enough in it, especially for teaching at the high school level.
A teacher who knows the subject thoroughly and is confident in it, is able to teach the concepts in many different ways till their students "get it", as opposed to a more poorly-educated teacher who might only teach out of the textbook. I think that having a degree in the subject would show that the teacher has some competence in it.
I personally think that whenever I question the qualifications of teachers, the ones that squeal are the very ones whose oxen are being gored. The tie-dyers, in your words.
It's interesting that your own impression is also "many".
not impression
Sun, 07/19/2009 - 13:57 — klanders65It is not my "impression" that there are so many. I know there are. Years ago, before NCLB, NCSU did a study for the state to determine how many math and sci teachers are "out-of-field." I forget the results but I remember being shocked when I saw them. It was a huge percentage.
I once taught in a middle school where I was the only "in field" math teacher. Then, some report came out where they were reviewing the schools and the report said that our school had no out-of-field math teachers. I followed up on that and learned a lot. This was pre-NCLB. At that time, they explained to me that any teacher could teach one class in a different subject, with no permit, no record of it even. That teacher would be called an "in-field" teacher because they taught all but one class "in field."
Our school had every 6th and 7th grade math class taught by a teacher who had no qualifications or understanding of math, and most of them hated the subject. But each teacher was picking up one math class. The way this was defined, even though every 6th and 7th grade student was taught be someone with no math education or knowledge of the subject, and no certification in math we officially had no "out-of-field" teachers. There would have been no way to know how many students were taught by teachers with no certification because you didn't even have to keep records of this.
I had to fix so many things when I got the kids. They skipped half the book, and taught some things incorrectly. (Needless to say, this was a high ED school. When our 6th and 7th graders did poorly in math the district could explain that these kids didn't have the aptitude to learn it, or their parents weren't supportive, etc. Actually, their teachers didn't have the aptitude to teach it and the district wasn't supportive of them. If I had believed that, I probably would not have expected them to learn. But since I could see what was going on, I did expect them to and they did learn. I had to undo the damage done by the previous years, then put them back on track.)
NCLB requires that every state now defines what they mean by a Highly Qualified math teacher, as characteristics of the teacher (certification, experience, etc.). Then, they have to report how many students are taught by teachers who don't fit this description. And, they have to make this information public.
I've seen a list for elementary and middle schools. It varies tremendously by school, as to how many students are taught by Not HQ teachers.
We don't need to go by our impressions any more. It is now public record.
Can the N&O find out for us how many students in Wake are taught math by not-HQ teachers, by school? And maybe science also? I am pretty sure it is public record now, as part of NCLB. They have to keep track, report to the feds, and let the parents know if they ask.
Testing
Fri, 07/17/2009 - 23:55 — willynillyIn about 1993 the EOGs were implemented in NC. Tests of this nature must have standards and norms. These are set on a bell curve for the most part. Even with the CAT (Calif Ach Test) the scores are delivered as, if you get an 86% you scored better than 85% of the students who took the test. If memory serves that means for that particular year. The EOG is done the same way and the EOG only uses NC students in setting it's standards and norms. That would be fine except that NC and Mississippi have been at the bottom of the pile for many years trading last place.
The enactment of the NCLB legislation has been a bone of contention for many years. First, Ted Kennedy was one of the three original architects of the legislation. So for those that blame Bush....get a clue. However, the Bush administartion DOES deserve the blame for NOT funding the legislation. There is alot of confusion about teacher certification too, concerning NCLB. I heard in a full faculty meeting on more than one occassion a WCPSS rep from Central Office tell an entire school that NCLB mandated that teachers do (this and that) to be considered highly qualified (HQ). The FACT is that NCLB mandated that THE STATES determine a standard for HQ teachers. (If you don't believe me then go read the legislation, I did) The dept of public instruction for NC also told many teachers that their hardships to HQ were courtesy of NCLB.
In years past I saw many students miss passing an EOG (math or reading) by merely one point. The retake never counted, but the kids passed the retake. It only stands to reason that if a child misses by that little (and this was pretty frequent in my experience) that if you count the retake then of course (DUH) the percentages go up.
what percentiles meant
Sat, 07/18/2009 - 00:18 — klanders65I thought for years what you say here about what 86%-tile (these were percentiles, not percents) meant. I thought it meant that the kid scored better than 85 percent of the kids who took the test that year. I was surprised to learn that it didn't mean that. They had norming groups that they used to compare kids against. They didn't update them very often, either. Finally, people started wondering how more than half the kids could score above the 50th percentile, etc. Then the test companies fessed up that they were comparing current year test takers against a norm group from many 1950. Eventually, the scores went up and up because we teach more kids more things now than then.
Fact. Students now given current year EOG's with answers...
Fri, 07/17/2009 - 21:10 — vraptorI stand by my statement.
The students are given the current year EOG's tests with answers at the beginning of the year.
They are told the questions are scrambled so you cannot memorize 1=A, 2=C, 3=B....
They are asked to return the tests 1 month before the actual tests. Guess they do not know about copy machines.
This is new. This has been verified.
I am asking for an investigation...........
Plus some other new garbage just instituted.
How do you like your eggs on your face??? Scrambled or fried???
Never heard of this
Fri, 07/17/2009 - 21:47 — klanders65I have never heard of this. I just can't believe this. I would have heard of it if it were true.
This year?
Fri, 07/17/2009 - 21:06 — JSBinNCIt is my understanding that there will NOT be Pre-EOG testing this year. At least not in third grade. Did anyone else hear that?
I blogged it about earlier
Fri, 07/17/2009 - 22:04 — KeungHui (author)I blogged it about earlier this year. The state scratched the 3rd grade pretests for budget reasons. Without the pretests they'll scrap 3rd-grade for determining growth scores. They'll still use the EOGs in 3rd-grade for determining performance composites.
You are correct
Fri, 07/17/2009 - 21:58 — FalcIt was in our school-wide communications from our principal.
They (3rd grade pre-EOGs) were suspended by the State School Board due the economic/budget situation. Therefore, 3rd grade reading and math will not be included in the growth calculations for 2009-10 year (will still be included in AYP and ABCs performance composite).
Thanks...
Fri, 07/17/2009 - 23:23 — JSBinNCI think in the blur of new-baby-itis I missed both the blog and any communication from our school last year. :)
...only including successful retests in the results?
Fri, 07/17/2009 - 18:41 — JustAGuyInNCseriously? - that's just plain ridiculous! Wow, the state education body is about as bad as the local school board.
The entire public
Fri, 07/17/2009 - 18:09 — NoNewGunControlThe entire public school system is a sham. middle school students are passed regardless of test scores, attendance stats, work ethic or the amount of trouble they have caused all year. Kids know this now, so many of them are just showing up (part of the time), hanging out and waiting to move on up, and don't care about what or how much they learn, and as long as the kids pass, the parents have no clue and no desire to know. Many...many struggle when they are moved up to high school using their free pass known as "No Child Left Behind" and then eventually drop out. (or that's how it was when I walked away from this joke called..... the public school "education" system)
In many cases, non English speaking Hispanic students were sitting in classrooms "taught" by non Spanish speaking teachers, and getting C's on every report card and were shuffled on up to the next grade not having learned anything of any use.
It's really a farce that teachers have no control over. Clueless parents and a school board that only cares about statistics and appearances are calling all the shots and playing a game of smoke and mirrors. Only the kids with intelligence, discipline, desire and a good work ethic are learning anything. All the losers will still graduate right along with them using marginal scores and the "free pass". They can be found at the car wash and drive-thru windows all over the state.
wrong understanding but right anger
Fri, 07/17/2009 - 18:33 — klanders65I agree with your anger and with what you are angry about. But there is a misunderstanding about some things.
Prior to NCLB, kids could be passed without knowing anything. The Iowa Test of Basic Skills that someone mentions below wasn't used in NC, but a similar aptitude test was. Those measured "aptitude", not what kids have learned. Nobody used the scores for anything. They were so inflated. Half my 7th graders scored in the 90th percentile. They were being compared to some out-of-date norming group. I think everyone liked those inflated scores so, and they weren't used for anything so everybody was happy--especially the testing companies.
Kids got passed every year without knowing anything. I had 8th graders who couldn't read or do a lick of math. Report card grades and the standardized tests were used for nothing and didn't tell you anything.
And, equity was worse than it is now. Access to advanced courses was restricted by having no objective way kids gained access.
Test results were reported as whole schools, so it was easy to hide the fact that you weren't teaching the nonEnglish speakers, or giving all the ED kids rememdial work so you could keep your title 1 money and not need any more qualifited math teachers.
NCLB said you couldn't use the shell game of averaging all your scores together. You have to report them for all the subgroups so we can tell if you are not teaching the ED kids, or the nonEnglish speakers. And, you can't pass them every year even though you aren't teaching them anything. There are certain grades where if they haven't reached some extremely minimum level of proficiency, you have to hold them back. (I guess principals can waive that.)
And, instead of giving the Iowa Test or the CA Achievement test that don't measure what NC teaches, you have to give a test that measures what you say you want the kids to learn. They left it up to each state to say what they want the kids to learn, then they had to give a test that tells whether kids have learned it. You have to report each group separately to shed light on the fact that you may not be teaching certain groups what the state says they should learn.
I don't like a lot of things about NCLB, but I like these things.
Students given complete EOG test with correct answers!!!
Fri, 07/17/2009 - 17:58 — vraptorThat is correct. In Wake County, at the start of a new school year, the students are given a copy of the EOG tests that they will need to take in the spring. They are also given the correct answers.
And this is all the better the students can do???
This points out that their are groups of students who just do not care and will never do well on test even when they are given the answers....
Pretty sad.
No more school bonds for wake county..........
Yeah, right!
Fri, 07/17/2009 - 18:28 — BerniesEvery year old EOG questions are released and there are practice tests. But in no way is the test given to the students at the beginning of the year. You're obviously some teenager spamming the boards.
WRONG- my child took the
Fri, 07/17/2009 - 19:41 — mommapWRONG
- my child took the test two years in a row and was shown old tests so many times that he recognized the questions on the test for the current year - when a sixth and seventh grader can actually remember the questions they have been over exposed. Apparently your child is too young to know or just hasn't figured it out for themselves - meaning they may be one of those kids taking it more than once per year???
Are you sure?
Fri, 07/17/2009 - 20:08 — ashmo27510How do you know that your child took the same test two years in a row? Where you there to see the questions? EOG booklets and questions are not released by the next year so I have no idea how you could know this. It seems to me that perhaps some of the questions were similiar (which makes sense if the curriculum is the same), not the exact same test.
The things that you people
Fri, 07/17/2009 - 20:52 — dryeraseuserThe things that you people come up with about this test, and the questions and the answers etc., just amazes me sometimes. This is certainly typical talk that I call "carpool conversation". People sitting around venting and talking about something that they know a little about but not the whole truth comes out. Kids are given items from a test bank, however, this will not be the exact test question they will see. Children will see similarities when they take a test with items from a test bank, but it will NOT be the exact one. Once again...."believe every word your child says"...then share that with the world...that is such a dangerous mixture.
Why Not Iowa Test?
Fri, 07/17/2009 - 17:09 — changewcpssWhy doesn't Wake County use the Iowa Test of Basic Skills? In today's global environment it appears that Wake is far behind the times. They put more emphasis on competing within their own small community than measuring how they compare with the rest of the country. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
This is just one of many outdated policies that must change if we ever want to compete globally.
They actually do use it to
Fri, 07/17/2009 - 19:35 — mommapThey actually do use it to test whether or not a child is gifted or not - then they leave it up to the parents to wade their way through all the websites and try to find ways to help their child get a real education since our middle schools don't offer any differentiated programs for middle school aged kids. Unless they are lucky to get into a magnet program.
Gotta keep those smart kids in their place or they will make the rest look bad!
How Do You Compare Apples to Apples?
Sun, 07/19/2009 - 18:42 — changewcpssIf it's not the Iowa test, is there a standardized test to show how Wake County students elementary and middle schools compare to others across the country? I wouldn't want to be the big fish in the small pond of North Carolina (which BTW doesn't seem to be the brain trust of the US to begin with). I would want to be at the top of the heap when compared to top counties across the US.
what iowa test is for
Fri, 07/17/2009 - 19:47 — klanders65They can't legally use it for the main standardized test since NCLB because it measures "aptitude" which we now realize doesn't really mean anything. The kids who score the highest on aptitude tests are the ones who have been taught the most. It isn't some thing they are born with, but rather anyone can develop "aptitude" by being taught challenging things in quality courses.
The Iowa test assumed that only some students would benefit from quality instruction in challenging courses and we were trying to find them so we could provide that to them.
This is the same idea as gifted. Gifted is a hold-over from when we used to think that some kids learn better than others, rather than that all the kids would learn more if the instruction and curriculum were higher quality and more rigorous.
We don't have smart kids and dumb kids. We have kids who get higher quality instruction at the schools compared with others. And getting your kid labeled gifted is a great way to get more high quality instruction that they all should be getting and would benefit from. You better believe I got my kids labeled.
The "gifted" resources are the not same in all the schools. Another way to say this is that the rigorous high quality resources are not the same in all the schools.
Go buy a house in the Ligon or Enloe area, then you get really high quality resources. Get your kid labeled as gifted first. It isn't hard to do.