Rome Grade 3-8 Testing Results

Rome's results on the finally released grade 3-8 test results require digestion. But one thing for sure. The dropoff in ELA in 8th grade is unfortunate. One of the big reasons for the grade 3-8 testing for New York State is to see how students are progressing towards eventually passing the Regents Exam in 11th grade. If you get a 3 or a 4 on the 8th grade ELA test, you are supposed to be on track to pass the Regents Exam. Fortunately, the 8th grade ELA results have always been too pessimistic. But to drop from the 60% range to the 40% range in one year is unfortunate. Granted that the 60% from last year was by far the best Rome had ever done, but it is still unfortunate. As for the state, they are still, as last year, claiming that incredible increases in percentages meeting standards are real improvement by students and not simply test artifacts. They have got to be kidding. They even claim this year to have had their tests verified externally. But there is, statistically, simply no way. And the National Assessment of Educational Progress confirmed this last year. But I guess Commissioner Mills is shameless.

Amazed, I'll wait to see an informed analysis before making judgement. But as you point out, last year's results could have been an anomaly. It's risky to make general systematic assessments with such a small data set as one or two tests.

One thing we hear frequently is that Rome (as in other school districts) is too top-heavy in administration. If I were emperor of schools, I'd make certain there were sufficient resources to provide for competent analysis tools and personnel. With all the time and money we spend on testing, it's wasteful not to learn as much as possible from the test results. Most people read the numbers, shrug, and go back to doing the same things over and over again.

The Rome schools generate an enormous amount of data that just begs for analysis but gets little or none.

frankcor wrote:

Amazed, I'll wait to see an informed analysis before making judgement. But as you point out, last year's results could have been an anomaly. It's risky to make general systematic assessments with such a small data set as one or two tests.
One thing we hear frequently is that Rome (as in other school districts) is too top-heavy in administration. If I were emperor of schools, I'd make certain there were sufficient resources to provide for competent analysis tools and personnel. With all the time and money we spend on testing, it's wasteful not to learn as much as possible from the test results. Most people read the numbers, shrug, and go back to doing the same things over and over again.
The Rome schools generate an enormous amount of data that just begs for analysis but gets little or none.

Here we are agreed. There is a lot of data that begs for analysis. And it should be timely analysis. Right now the district simply relies on the state. And the state doesn't seem to care when they release data. They just released this data a week or so ago. The state had it awhile back but they "embargoed" it. Look at the bottom of every page. It says "Embargoed until June 23, 2008." I'm surprised they didn't simply say, "Do not open 'til Christmas!"

well.... if the top heavy people were more interested in looking at that data and NOT participating in on any copper theft or mainatance barbeques then perhaps we could see more get done.

I'm not aware that the Buildings & Grounds departments have any role in instructional data analysis. Can you show us your evidence to the contrary?

That's my point. They are so wrapped up with everything and accusations of people that now they have floated away from what we all want our kids get! EDUCATION! That being said, maybe now that Vito is suing they can focus more on giving people more monney that are going to acually help the kids in the classrooms. Forget about how many secretary positions, copper issues, etc. are going on. Utica has done it and here there guy is going to be prosecuted in the near future. IT is like our district is centuries behind on being able to MULTI-TASK!!!!

The people can do data analysis if they have the will and the state doesn't "embargo" the data. If there is a 10% tax increase, we don't have to wait for analysis of the data by the district to know that's bad. Likewise, we should have an idea of what we consider acceptable achievement levels. Is a 50% graduation rate acceptable? 75%? 90%?

I would vote for a 100% graduation rate as long as learning disabled students had a seperate set of achievement standards.

In a district where nearly 50% of the students are handicapped in some way and all students are required to meet the same standards, I suppose a 60% graduation rate is acceptable.

Neighborhood schools will do nothing to improve the graduation rate if the expense of providing them causes us to restrict the programs available to students.

frankcor wrote:

I would vote for a 100% graduation rate as long as learning disabled students had a seperate set of achievement standards.
In a district where nearly 50% of the students are handicapped in some way and all students are required to meet the same standards, I suppose a 60% graduation rate is acceptable.
Neighborhood schools will do nothing to improve the graduation rate if the expense of providing them causes us to restrict the programs available to students.

As I'm sure you know, the last Rome graduation rate that is published, from two years ago, was 61%. By No Child Left Behind (NCLB) standards, Rome did just fine, though, because the NCLB standard to avoid being "on the list" is 55%. This is complicated by the fact that the number that the state gets for comparison to the 55% for Rome is 76%. I kid you not. And these contradictory numbers, from two years ago, are the most recent publicly available numbers! More recent numbers have, so far, dropped into a black hole somewhere.

Does the contradiction come from a different measurement standard between state and federal requirements? NCLB is an unconstitutional intrusion by the feds into public education -- clearly an area where they have no jurisdiction. Having said that, I am not familiar with how these numbers you quote are determined or how they compare with one another. I do know it is not uncommon for the most recent data to be from 2 years previous. One man's black hole is another's bureaucratic livelihood.

Unfortunately, you are right about bureaucratic livelihood. I have spent some of my time as a bureaucrat and I can sympathize with the attitude I expressed about the black hole. Regulations made me do it, but from the outside some of my activities had to look both mysterious and senseless, and maybe they were! Anyway, the difference comes from what is considered the size of the cohort, 478 for the lower number and 426 for the higher number. The difference confuses me. Here is the website:
https://www.nystart.gov/publicweb-rc/2006/AOR...
Look at pages 14 and 16. Maybe you can figure it out.

Amazed, I still haven't had time to verify this, but I think the discrepancy you point out comes from the use of two different cohorts.

One of the calculated numbers comes from using the 2001 cohort (478) while the other uses the 2002 cohort (426). The cohort is the number of freshmen entering high school in the corresponding years. The rate is determined by dividing the number in the cohort into the number of graduates of that corresponding cohort. For some reason I can't determine, the state did the 2005 calculation using two different cohorts.

frankcor wrote:

Amazed, I still haven't had time to verify this, but I think the discrepancy you point out comes from the use of two different cohorts.
One of the calculated numbers comes from using the 2001 cohort (478) while the other uses the 2002 cohort (426). The cohort is the number of freshmen entering high school in the corresponding years. The rate is determined by dividing the number in the cohort into the number of graduates of that corresponding cohort. For some reason I can't determine, the state did the 2005 calculation using two different cohorts.

Let's try it this way. Look at page 35 of the report card. It shows that the four year graduation rate for the 2001 cohort was 68% and that the four year graduation rate for the 2002 cohort was 61%. Are you mad and not willing to take it anymore? Wouldn't you like to know the four year graduation rate for the 2003 cohort and the 2004 cohort in order to decide whether you should continue to be mad?

Amazed... at least I agree with you!:-) I understand what you aare saying totally. Too bad our previous board member does not!