Ponitz graduation 2012
Cars and Parts Swap Meet
2012 senior class photos
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2006 > July > 16
Sunday, July 16, 2006
The Miami Valley’s most overachieving (and underachieving) school districts
In earlier posts, I used data for the Miami Valley to test the theory that family income strongly influences standardized test scores.
If that’s true, then districts with a test score rank below their income rank could be viewed as underachieving. And those with test score ranks above their income ranks would then be overachievers.
Following that rationale, here are the 10 most overachieving Miami Valley school districts:
Versallies. This small, rural district north Miami Valley ranks 11th for test performance but only 41st for income.
Cedar Cliff. Also small and rural, Cedar Cliff ranks 19th for test performance and 43 for income.
Russia. Small, rural and at the northern edge of the valley, this district ranks an impressive third for test performance despite being only 22nd for income.
Milton-Union. Another small town in the northern Miami Valley, though slightly less rural than the others. Test performance rank is 22 with an income rank of 40
Fort Loramie. Small, rural, north. Noticing a pattern yet? Test performance rank of 15 and income rank of 29.
Mississinawa Valley. This is an interesting case because this small, rural, northern district is both poor and low performing. But its school officials can perhaps argue that they aren’t doing so bad. Ranked 58th (third from the bottom) for income, the district’s test performance rating is 45.
Greenville. Similar story here, although Greenville is a fairly large city in a northern rural county. Income rank 55 but a test performance rank of 43.
Vandalia. This is a fairly affluent suburban district, ranked 19th for income, but test performance is even better, ranking 8th.
Kettering. This major suburban district’s income ranking is perhaps lower than you might have guessed at 27, but its test performance is higher than might be predicted at 16.
Sidney. This city is like Greenville, fairly big but in a northern rural county. Income rank is 51 and test performance rank is 40
Now let’s look at the 10 most underachieving districts:
Bethel. Traditionally a small, rural district, the northern suburbs are putting more affluent neighborhoods within its boundaries. Income rank is a surprisingly high 9th while test performance ranks 35th.
Twin Valley South. The first of three Preble County districts on this list. It’s small and rural with an income rank of 28, but test performance ranks just 48th.
Carlisle. Sort of an oddball district in Warren County since it is neither suburban nor exploding with growth like some of its neighbors. The small city ranks 18th for income but 38 for test performance.
Shawnee. The second Preble County district on the underachiever list. Shawnee, small and rural, ranks 36 for income but 55 for test performance.
Jackson Center. This district seems like it’s on the wrong list. Small, rural and north like many of the high achievers, but test performance has dropped to a ranking of 49 while income ranks 30th.
Tipp City. Like its neighbor Bethel, Tipp is a former small town that has become a growing suburb. Ranked 11th for income and 27th for test performance.
Huber Heights. A large close-in suburb, Huber ranks 17th for income but 30th for test performance.
Jefferson Twp. Small and rural but close-in and suburban in some areas. Jefferson ranks 48th for income but last (60) for test performance.
Tri-County North. From Preble County, the third of five districts from that county that make the underachiever list. Ranks 24 for income but 36 for test performance.
Tri-Village. Small and rural, this district ranks 45 for income and 56 for test performance.
One more list for you. Here are the four district in the Miami Valley who are EXACTLY where income predicts they should be:
Mason. Ranks second for income behind Springboro and second for test performance behind Oakwood.
Newton. Small, rural, north and ranked 20th for both income and test performance.
National Trail. The fourth of five Preble County districts to make one of my lists. Small and rural, Trail ranks 47th on both lists.
Dayton. How’s this for a surprise? As much as the district is criticized for underperforming, perhaps critics forget how poor Dayton is? Ranks above only Northridge for income and only beats Jefferson for test performance — 59th out of 60 on both lists.
Permalink | Comments (4) | Categories: Testing
How much does income affect test results?
Household income is a factor in how kids score on standardized tests. I don’t think there’s much debate about that. The question is how big a factor is family wealth?
Many studies have shown family income is one of the most powerful predictors of student performance on standardized tests. Here’s one example of such a study that I was able to find quickly.
Recently, I wrote a story about the a study that showed Dayton was hit harder in the 2003 recession than other Ohio cities. For the story, I obtained tax return data, broken down by school district, that showed median income.
I thought it might be interesting to line up each school district’s median income with standardized test performance, based on each district’s “performance index” score.” The state-generated score reflects test performance across all tests taken.
I put the data together here so we could test the assumption that family income is a primary driver of student performance on standardized tests for the 60 school districts in the Miami Valley. If that assumption is true, the top 10 and bottom 10 districts for income locally should roughly match up with the 10 best and 10 worst scoring districts.
The numbers appear to back the theory that family income is highly correlated with test performance. Let’s look first at the top 10 districts by income, in order, and their test performance rank:
Springboro 8
Mason 2
Oakwood 1
Sugarcreek 6
Beavercreek 12
Centerville 5
Little Miami 18
Kings 4
Bethel 35
Lebanon 13
Six of the top 10 districts for income also rank in the top ten for test performance. That’s a pretty strong correlation. Now let’s look at the bottom 10 districts for income out of the 60 Miami Valley districts, with the lowest income at the top of this list and No. 51 at the bottom. The performance index rankings here would all be expected to be greater than 50:
Northride 57
Dayton 59
Mississinawa Valley 45
Trotwood 58
Piqua 50
Greenville 43
Mad River 44
Ansonia 46
Bradford 54
Sidney 40
The correlation, interestingly, is not as strong at the bottom as it is at the top, but it’s still pretty strong. Four of the bottom 10 districts for income also are in the bottom 10 for test performance.
So, generally, the Miami Valley data tends to show that median income rank is likely to correlate pretty strongly with standardized test performance in the school district. Following that rationale and using this data, we can probably determine the most underachieving and overachieving local school districts.
Follow the link to see those lists. It’s interesting to see what the school districts on each list have in common.
Permalink | Comments (8) | Categories: Testing
Miami Valley school district income vs. test performance
This list, ranked by median income, compares the median income of school districts to their rank in the Miami Valley for performance index score. The first number is a median income ranking in the Miami Valley. The second number is the ranking for performance index score in the Miami Valley:
Springboro 1, 8
Mason 2,2
Oakwood 3,1
Sugarcreek 4, 6
Beavercreek 5, 12
Centerville 6, 5
Little Miami 7, 18
Kings 8, 4
Bethel 9, 35
Lebanon 10, 13
Tipp City 11, 27
Wayne 12, 21
Northmont 13, 7
Valley View 14, 22
Miamisburg 15, 14
Anna 16, 10
Huber Heights 17, 30
Carlisle 18, 38
Vandalia 19, 8
Newton 20, 20
Yellow Springs 21, 28
Russia 22, 3
Miami East 2, 29
Tri-county North 24, 36
Greenview 25, 34
Botkins 26, 16
Kettering 27, 16
Twin Valley South 28, 48
Fort Loramie 29, 15
Jackson Center 30, 49
Brookville 31, 26
Troy 32, 25
Covington 33, 24
Franklin-Monroe 34, 32
Hardin-Houston 35, 36
Preble Shawnee 36, 55
New Lebanon 37, 32
Eaton 38,39
Arcanum 39, 31
Milton Union 40, 22
Versallies 41, 11
West Carrollton 42, 41
Cedar Cliff 43, 19
Franklin 44, 50
Tri-Village 45, 56
Xenia 46, 52
National Trail 47, 47
Jefferson Twp 48, 60
Fairlawn 49, 42
Fairborn 50, 53
Sidney 51, 40
Bradford 52, 54
Ansonia 53,46
Mad River 54,44
Greenville 55, 43
Piqua 56, 50
Trotwood 57, 58
Mississinawa Valley 58, 45
Dayton 59, 59
Northridge 60, 57
Permalink | | Categories: Testing
Miami Valley school districts ranked by performance index
This list ranks school districts in the seven-county Miami Valley area by their 2005 “performance index score.” This state-generated number represents state achievement test results for students in the district across all tests given.
Springboro 101.7
Mason 105.7
Oakwood 108.1
Sugarcreek 102.2
Beavercreek 100.6
Centerville 102.5
Little Miami 98.1
Kings 103.3
Bethel 94
Lebanon 100.4
Tipp City 96.6
Wayne 97.5
Northmont 102
Valley View 97.2
Miamisburg 100.3
Anna 101.5
Huber Heights 94.9
Carlisle 92.7
Vandalia 101.7
Newton 97.6
Yellow Springs 96.3
Russia 103.5
Miami East 96.2
Tri-county North 93.5
Greenview 94.1
Botkins 98.7
Kettering 98.7
Twin Valley South 87.7
Fort Loramie 100.2
Jackson Center 86.9
Brookville 96.8
Troy 96.9
Covington 97.1
Franklin-Monroe 94.4
Hardin-Houston 93.5
Preble Shawnee 83.6
New Lebanon 94.4
Eaton 92.6
Arcanum 94.8
Milton Union 97.2
Versallies 100.7
West Carrollton 89.9
Cedar Cliff 97.8
Franklin 86.5
Tri-Village 83.4
Xenia 86.3
National Trail 87.9
Jefferson Twp 63.3
Fairlawn 89.4
Fairborn 85.7
Sidney 91.5
Bradford 85.6
Ansonia 88
Mad River 88.5
Greenville 88.7
Piqua 86.5
Trotwood 72.8
Mississinawa Valley 88.1
Dayton 66.4
Northridge 80.9
Permalink | | Categories: Testing
Miami Valley school districts ranked by income
The following is 2003 median income figures, taken from tax return data, broken down by school districts in the seven-county Miami Valley area, ranked from highest income to lowest:
Springboro $56,800
Mason $54,838
Oakwood $54,280
Sugarcreek $47,130
Beavercreek $45,831
Centerville $43,994
Little Miami $43,181
Kings $41,385
Bethel $37,197
Lebanon $35,749
Tipp City $35,393
Wayne $35,209
Northmont $34,817
Valley View $34,350
Miamisburg $34,238
Anna $33,926
Huber Heights $33,640
Carlisle $32,932
Vandalia $32,882
Newton $32,800
Yellow Springs $32,702
Russia $32,640
Miami East $32,157
Tri-county North $31,918
Greenview $31,703
Botkins $31,578
Kettering $31,562
Twin Valley South $31,386
Fort Loramie $31,225
Jackson Center $31,188
Brookville $30,976
Troy $30,963
Covington $30,692
Franklin-Monroe $30,618
Hardin-Houston $30,351
Preble Shawnee $31,386
New Lebanon $30,290
Eaton $30,204
Arcanum $30,055
Milton Union $30,017
Versallies $29,800
West Carrollton $29,495
Cedar Cliff $29,393
Franklin $28,878
Tri-Village $28,425
Xenia $28,349
National Trail $28,068
Jefferson Twp $27,992
Fairlawn $27,879
Fairborn $27,755
Sidney $27,625
Bradford $27,518
Ansonia $27,092
Mad River $26,649
Greenville $26,101
Piqua $25,362
Trotwood $24,836
Mississinawa Valley $24,564
Dayton $22,995
Northridge $22,480
Permalink | Comments (4) | Categories: Testing
Letting a friend “look at” your homework
Is it ever OK for a student to borrow a friend’s homework just to “look at?” And if the borrower instead plagiarizes, how much punishment does the homework lender deserve?
And how far should the lender’s parents go to object if they believe their child’s punishment is too severe?
I’m a huge fan of Randy Cohen’s column “The Ethicist” in the Sunday New York Times Magazine. It’s an advice column in which Cohen tells letter writers his view of what the “ethical” path is for them in a sticky situation.
This week, there is a great school-based question. Here it is:
My son, a high-school junior, lent his completed homework to a friend, intending only to show him the general approach to the assignment. The friend plagiarized some of it, and their teacher found out. Although the friend backed my son’s story, the teacher put a derogatory note in my son’s file. This could prevent his getting into the National Honor Society and may discourage other teachers from writing him college recommendations. Did my son do so wrong? Name Withheld, Oregon
This is a great example of the sort of annoying issues and second-guessing teachers face every day. Let’s go through it:
—First of all, as Cohen states more politely, the lender is a either a cheater or a fool. If you want to help a friend with homework, that’s great. Sit down with them and answer their questions. If you want to help them cheat, give them you completed paper.
—The writer says the other boy backed the lender’s story that the intent was not to cheat and admits he plagiarized on his own. This sounds like a pretty obvious “oops, we got caught” cover story.
—The lender was disciplined with a note in his file. And his parents are complaining? At the college where my father taught for most of his career, involvement in plagiarism — or any kind of any cheating — was an automatic expulsion on the first offense! That was back when cheating used to be considered a serious offense. Even if you accept everything the lender is saying as true, the boy needs to learn an important lesson about cheating. Some discipline is called for.
—The parent ends with the concern that a note in the file could harm the son’s chances for National Honor Society or college. If the rest of his school career is exemplary, one reprimand is not likely to harm this boy’s chances for a good recommendation letter. As for National Honor Society, or the trust of other teachers, he’s got to earn all that back. But it can be done.
I liked all of Cohen’s answers until the end, where he addresses how the parents might respond to the reprimand:
If you disagree with its assertions, you should be given a chance to refute them. Talk to the teacher and the principal to learn your options and to determine if you are exaggerating the likely impact of this note on your son’s academic future.
I cringed at the suggestion here of involving the principal. Talk to the teacher, yes, but the parent’s posture in that conversation should not be confrontational. They should be asking the teacher what else they can do to help their son stay on the straight and narrow from now on, not arguing the reprimand, point-by-point, as the letter writer appears ready to do.
Here’s what I bet probably really happened in this case:
The kid and tried to help his friend cheat using a strategy that probably worked with other, less conscientious teachers. This careful teacher busted them and disciplined them. But the uptight parents, unwilling to see even the slightest blemish on their little darling’s record, decided to go to war over it, dragging administrators and the principal into the mix.
And what probably happened in the end? More often than not, administrators cave and the penalty is reduced or expunged. And discipline is again subtly eroded.
Permalink | Comments (4) | Categories: The Parent-Teacher Divide
Future girl gone wild
Recent news stories warning students that their MySpace pages or Web comments can come back to haunt them if college admissions counselors or prospective employers do a simple Google search reminded me of a funny story.
A friend relayed this from an educator friend. The friend had run into the mother of a former student. The woman’s daughter had been a good student and went off to a good college. Her mother was relaying all the good news of what her daughter was doing now.
“The whole time this woman was talking to me, all I could think about was the time her daughter sent me an E-mail from her home account,” the educator said. “I was shocked by her screen name, which was illshowyoumybuttfor$@email.com.”
So remember, kids — behave yourself on the Internet. You never know who’s watching, now or someday in the future.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Categories: Colleges and Universities
