After 58 years, Ehler retiring
Funeral for Miami student manager
Winter weather photos
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2007 > August > 27 > Entry
What we can (and can’t) learn from test scores
Local blogger Thespis Journal isn’t a big fan of newspaper stories about state achievement test results. Thespis goes so far as to call the ranking of schools based on their test performance “lurid.”
Thespis has a point. Test scores have limited value. Many studies have shown the strong correlation between family income and test scores or parental education level and test scores. The wealthier and more educated your parents are, the more likely you are to be a high test scorer.
This is not even to get into the very open question of what standardized tests actually measure and how good the information they give about a student or a school really is. A school that scores badly is not necessarily a bad school.
That doesn’t mean there is NOTHING that can be learned from comparing test results. Consider the examples in Sunday’s stories about high schools.
Going back to the argument about family income and its strong connection to test scores — you see that in the top 15 highest scoring high schools. Only two of the 13 are from outside a small, elite group of the richest 6 percent of communities in the state.
But one of those top scorers is Ft. Recovery, not a rich district by a long shot. How do they do it?
Superintendent David Riel said it is a combination of factors that explains the district’s test success. The community values education greatly and has high expectations for their children academically. Good teachers from the community return to teach there for less money because of their commitment to their friends and families. And there is a cultural work ethic that shows itself in the classroom, on the athletic field and in the blue collar work of the local people.
Taken together, those factors help overcome a deep income divide with the other top schools.
Even Oakwood is an interesting example. Oakwood is plenty wealthy — ranking 9th richest of all the school districts in Ohio. But even so, there is a pretty big gulf between it and the Orange school district near Cleveland at No. 1. The median income in Oakwood is about $10,000 less than Orange. That’s a lot.
Oakwood should be one of the best scoring school districts in the state. But you wouldn’t necessarily expect its high school to come in No. 1.
And what do we know about Oakwood? It’s a rich Ft. Recovery. Families in Oakwood also place a high value on education. It’s also a community with great school support and with high-end teachers. And again, the school has better than expected test results.
On the flip side, you see the impact of poverty on low income districts like Dayton, Jefferson Township and Trotwood. And in charter schools, you see the difficulties of high risk populations — most of Dayton’s charter high schools serve dropouts, or kids at risk to drop out of school. Even the best of those schools struggle with test scores.
So I think there is some value in looking at these scores and rankings. It does tell you something about schools and school districts, even if it doesn’t tell you everything.
Permalink | Comments (15) | Categories: Testing
Comments
By Washington Township
August 29, 2007 6:00 PM | Link to this
Take a look at the data at the state board of ed site on the % of economically disadvantaged students by district… they have that back to the early 2000s. What’s really striking about this series is the steady increase in the # of disadvantaged kids in suburban districts. The top three increases are Vandalia (20.8% increase), West Carrolton (15.6% increase) and New Lebanon (13.8% increase). Kettering saw an 8.8% increase, with over 25% of schoolkids there fitting the category.By Lea
August 28, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this
Laura, I think you have something there. Last year my stepchildren missed a combined total of 41 days of school including 2 days each in the first week. My stepson is older than most of children in his class due to the fact that he was not started in school when he should have been. I am surprised that the school district they attended let them by with so many absences. However since custody changed at the end of last school year, not only has their behavior been much better, even though they both think their new schools’ work is harder, they’re more enthusiastic about getting up for school, and homework is getting done even before we get home from work. Why? We’re involved. That’s all. We’re not rocket scientists, but we’re available - which in my opinion makes all the difference. And, by the way, we’re not rich either… But we’re in an “excellent” school district. We do homework together, and even “fun” stuff like a camping trip is a learning experience. And if we don’t know the answer… We find out! We’re still learning too.By School Supporter
August 27, 2007 9:22 PM | Link to this
Fort Recovery went to work on district achievement issues before No Child Left Behind passed, and hence, before the unions adopted their “unfunded mandate” opposition to NCLB. In the past, the “Mercer County Miracle” powerpoints were on the web, but google doesn’t find them anymore. There’s much more going on in Fort Recovery than midwestern small-town wholesomeness: they proactively and intelligently responded to Ohio’s standards-based education reforms. Regarding parent involvement, that could be a $1000 per student savings for a district. Perhaps board candidates will address the district’s response to the requirement to “Develop policies regarding school involvement with parents and families and distribute the policy in language they can understand,” or the requirements of the Ohio Revised Code at http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3313.472 And of course, the teachers have all made good points. Regarding “parents who do not care. Period,” the community really needs to bridge that parent-school gap. Social agencies, Urban League, congregations (haven’t heard much from Pastor Kennedy), etc. might leverage the Democratic and Republican organizations—or do we have a non-partisan block captains?By Laura
August 27, 2007 7:44 PM | Link to this
The story might not conclude that parents of poor children don’t care, but I think it is, in general, a true statement. Obviously, there are always going to be exceptions. But, I have worked in the poorest of the poor in Dayton and although they won’t say it, their actions show they don’t. I’m not talking about parents who don’t know better or can’t do better. For example, if you repeatedly keep your child home to babysit, have their hair done, go to the doctor with you (not for themselves), just let them stay home for no reason according to the child, never accept a phone call from the teacher, knowingly not insist a child do their homework, refuse to attend a conference requested by the principal or even make a phone call, keep a 6 or 7 year old home until someone notifies the authorities. I could probably go on for an hour, but you get the idea. We have a lot of parents who do not care. Period.By Mary
August 27, 2007 6:47 PM | Link to this
I just read on another list about a commentary in today’s Washington Post that relates to my previous comments. It is about gifted students fleeing schools because the teachers seem to be focussed only on bringing lower peforming student scores up.By Calvin
August 27, 2007 6:45 PM | Link to this
Scott, when the proficiency testing was first ineptly implemented by the legislature the Plain Dealer did a study of the testing results for 4 counties and found that such factors as the number of parents with a college education (partial/complete), number of parents at home, number of homes rated for poverty level for district, and some other factors played a role and matched up with the proficiency results. I believe more recently the Beacon Journal did a series. These factors group explains the steadiness of the values of the Ft. Recovery parents and kids and the result of school’s being important. Compare that to the high teenage and high unwed birthrate in Dayton and other urban districts. Compare to the welfare syndrome-gimme, gimme, why should I work syndrome. The answers are already there. There are many students working through the poor value system of the urban residents and being successful. But the answers have already been found as to why students are less successful. They’re not in the Fordham plan. And giving more rather than requiring more from the city parents and students isn’t the answer. Discipline. Expulsion so others can learn. The answers are already known. It’s making them work that’s needed.By lou
August 27, 2007 5:13 PM | Link to this
Dayton View Triangle Mom, Read with children daily. Share the reading, talk about the reading. Give children books, take them places, doesn’t have to far. Ask children about their school day, look over their work, make them bring it home, ask questions. Come to parent teacher conferences with your child. Listen to the teaches before defending the child, not all of us are “out to get them”, most of us truely care about each child. Let the child know that an education is important, and WHY. Demand that the board of Education supply the materials needed to teach your child. Ask the teachers if you could volunteer. If your children have friends that parents are working evenings, do the same with them. It seems like a lot, but the pay back is huge. If every parent did these things DPS would be second to none. Thank You for asking.By Rick
August 27, 2007 5:06 PM | Link to this
Nothing surprising here. Many immigrants come to this country and liver in big cities with lousy school systems. Yet their children did much better than the native population because their parents were interested in and watched over their education. It’s the culture that counts. I believe that income is related to education only to the extent that wealthy folks are high achievers who know what it takes to succeed in life, which includes a good education. Since they have succeeded that watch over the education of their children so that they succeed.By Dayton View Triangle mom
August 27, 2007 4:08 PM | Link to this
As parents, grandparents, and stakeholders in this community of Dayton, OH; I think we have to ask ourselves how we can mimic Ft. Recovery and Oakwood. Moreover, the question should be what can I do? So, Scott - what do Fort Recovery and Oakwood parents do at home, before and after school. Most of us are not administrators or teachers. But most of us do come in to contact with a child or two. So, can we volunteer to tutor children? What are the strategies that the non-professional educators can use to assist the educators in achieving “excellent results”? I believe that everybody in our community has a stake in this - for our housing values, for our crime rates, for the future of our city.By Mary
August 27, 2007 1:29 PM | Link to this
As I am reading all the glowing remarks about Ft Recovery (good for them), I wonder how good their gifted program is. I grew up in rural schools, too. I wonder if the superintendent invests as much time, interest and money in the gifted ed progam as he does the athletics program. This is a real question, since I have no first hand knowledge of Fort Recovery. High IQ students there can help the scores, but still not be learning anything from year to year. What is being done for them?By Buford
August 27, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this
Scott, I echo the comments and observations from Ft Recovery. I had have been in the High School there a number of times over the years. I have talked at some length with various staff members,Counselors,Teachers, Principal,Superintendent also. I have seen the students when classes were changing. From all I heard, and my personal observations on scene, I would believe kids up there believe school is their “job” just like they generally have chores to do around the farms in the area, and at their part time jobs in various businesses. Rules of conduct are in place and enforced as necessary - but I got the impression very few kids wanted to challenge the system. Plus, I also got the feeling that the kids themselves seemed to take interest in how the school day progressed. Ft Recovery was one of my favorite places to work. A lot of decent, hard-working people up there. I will point out there is not much minority representation within the school body.By just a gramma
August 27, 2007 10:59 AM | Link to this
I just discovered you all today! So I kind of feel I’m butting in on private conversations. So, excuse me? I agree that children whose (families) value education will do well in school regardless - but I would add that it’s not just valuing education. It’s taking an active role in the child’s education. There really is no choice. They are not getting the education they need in school. Period. The family has to educate them. But when you have millions of functionally illiterate parents, how can they teach their children? I read in some post where the solution to the education problem was to cure the problem of poverty. I think that’s backwards. If you want to cure poverty, you have to educate first. Look at the 860 million people in the world who can’t read or write. Look at the 250 million children who have to go to work for their daily bread instead of going to school. Int’l Literacy Day is coming up, and honest, I feel it is an International Day of Mourning and Shame!By Scott Elliott
August 27, 2007 10:53 AM | Link to this
To ohdave — the cover story was very short. It was really more of a tease to the inside story. The inside story did discuss wealth as a factor in test scores. But stay tuned. I’m looking at a future story just on the impact of wealth and poverty on these test results. To Old Prof, I don’t think the story concludes that parents don’t care in poor scoring schools. I think the success of a district like Fort Recovery demonstrates that the right kind of support, culture and climate in a school can successfully combat the heavy influence of household income on test scores.By Oldprof
August 27, 2007 8:31 AM | Link to this
So Scott, what you’re saying is that the children of families that value education do well regardless of the school system, while children whose parents don’t care will do poorly. This is another insight that the Charter school devotees fail to grasp when they say parents deserve “choice”—it gives the irresponsible parent even more power to steer the child away from learning. Does anyone here fail to see that many of the low-performing charters are recruiting their students from personal relationships—the parents want their kid to get schooled by their Sunday School teacher five more days per week, or the parents want their kid to stay with “their own kind”? {sigh} America continues to fragment into an “I-me-mine” culture, where each individual is entitled to break off from mainstream society and we all must engage in do-it-yourself government—except that we still have to pay the elected officials for not creating the systems and refusing to set tax rates.By ohdave
August 27, 2007 6:53 AM | Link to this
I wish you had explained or mentioned the role of poverty in your cover story as you did here. It sounded like you were merely making excuses (maybe explanations is a fairer word) for charter schools. Your story in the DDN went to pains to explain the reason why some charters fell near the bottom but failed to provide similar context for Dunbar. The way it is worded here is much more fair and even-handed.