Here's one of those times the original stats make you look really good but once you dig into the data it's more of a "meh" experience. I'm going to preface this short post by saying I don't know how kosher it is to talk about test data in the larger math teacher community. I've taught in failing schools. I've taught in stellar schools. Test data is something that mattered in each of the 6 districts in which I've taught. A lot. It's something we parse and mine and talk about over and over again. So, here's me laying out the good and the bad of last year's data.
Last Spring's 2015 PARCC results for students performing proficient or above:
MATH:
Last Spring's 2015 PARCC results for students performing proficient or above:
MATH:
- Algebra 1 - 93% (our score) / State 30% / district 49%
- Geometry 75% (our score) / State 24% / district 43%
| Background: Almost all of our 8th grade students are in an Algebra 1 equivalent or higher. This means our 8th grade students took subject specific tests (Alg1, Geom, etc) rather than the general 8th grade math test. |
At first glance, this data makes our school look flipping awesome. But when you start wading into the massive excel files you realize the data isn't as brilliant as it seems. We're a middle school. Our Geometry students and our Algebra students are advanced compared to the average high school student. Of course our scores are better than the local high schools on subject-specific tests; our kids still do homework. When you compare us to other top-performing middle schools, the story changes.
For the middle schools in our state with Algebra 1 data available, the average jumps from 30% as a state to 88.6% for 7th graders and 65.3% for 8th graders. That's a huge change. Our score of 93%, though still decent, is not nearly as dramatic as before.
For middle schools in our state with Geometry data available, the increase is similar to before--81.5% proficiency for 8th graders (no scores for 7th graders). All of a sudden our 75% is no longer impressive at all and on the low end of average for middle schools.
The data validates my standing complaint that our white knuckled grip on a "Proof Geometry" course based off the old Moise-Downs means we're no longer aligned to the CCSS and it's going to start negatively affecting our students. I'm not sure I want to bring out our private disagreements into a public forum so I'll table the curriculum discussion for now. I did my best last year to supplement but I just don't know Geometry inside and out like I do an Algebra course. Either I've got to double down on supplementing our text or it's time for a new text. I prefer the latter option.
For the middle schools in our state with Algebra 1 data available, the average jumps from 30% as a state to 88.6% for 7th graders and 65.3% for 8th graders. That's a huge change. Our score of 93%, though still decent, is not nearly as dramatic as before.
For middle schools in our state with Geometry data available, the increase is similar to before--81.5% proficiency for 8th graders (no scores for 7th graders). All of a sudden our 75% is no longer impressive at all and on the low end of average for middle schools.
The data validates my standing complaint that our white knuckled grip on a "Proof Geometry" course based off the old Moise-Downs means we're no longer aligned to the CCSS and it's going to start negatively affecting our students. I'm not sure I want to bring out our private disagreements into a public forum so I'll table the curriculum discussion for now. I did my best last year to supplement but I just don't know Geometry inside and out like I do an Algebra course. Either I've got to double down on supplementing our text or it's time for a new text. I prefer the latter option.
RSS Feed
