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 > Entry
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
Comments
By Doug
July 17, 2006 2:01 PM | Link to this
People forget that there has never been a study to show that the achievement tests given by the state of Ohio are valid. In my years of administering the test from 1997 to 2004, I say these test are not valid. Having said that, family values play just as much a part of academic achievement as family income. Family untis that are in tact or that value education but have low income status can have children who score well on these tests. Also, the best teachers, meaning the best people at teaching to the test tend to gravitate away form urban schools and head to suburban schools. The pay in rural schools does not keep pace with what you can get teaching in the suburbs.By Peter J
July 17, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this
Scott - How about the Catholic schools in particular districts? Or do they not factor? Also, you didn’t respond to my e-mail concerning DPS’s plans for Eastmont Elementary off of Woodbine Ave. Do you know what the district has planned for that school and land?By Scott Elliott
July 17, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this
Michael, the point of this particular post is to use this information to judge whether school districts in the area are over or under performing when you consder the wealth in the community. If you accept that family income is strongly correlated to test performance, then you would expect school district test scores to roughly rank about the same as median income. This post shows the districts that are way out of line, either in a good direction or a bad direction. What’s your reaction to the districts on these lists? Do you think the overachievers deserve praise for much higher scores than income would predict? And does this data suggest there is something amiss for the underachievers?By Michael
July 17, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this
Scott: It is true there is a strong correlation between family income and test scores. But what is your point?