Menu
Paid Advertisement
view counter

An 8th straight year of PSSA gains

By Paul Socolar on Jun 16, 2010 04:35 PM

Preliminary results on this spring's state standardized test, the PSSA, are good news for the District, Superintendent Ackerman told the School Reform Commission today. For the first time ever, more than half of District students scored proficient in both reading and math.

Proficiency rates districtwide have climbed to 57 percent in math and 51 percent in reading, the eighth consecutive year of growth. This year's gains - four points in math and three points in reading - are consistent with the growth rate over the previous seven years.

There was some acceleration of the rate of improvement in low-performing Empowerment Schools. In both reading and math, gains were about two points higher those in District schools overall.

"This was the first full year that we had all the targeted resources in place for the Empowerment Schools," Ackerman said. Those 107 schools are receiving more than $30 million in additional supports including a social services liaison, parent ombudsman, "response teams" that regularly visit each school, increased nursing services, a full-time sub, and instructional specialists. On top of that extra spending, Empowerment Schools got a larger share of the teachers hired for class size reduction.

The Empowerment Schools now use a modified core curriculum and and a "Direct Instruction" model of remedial interventions including Corrective Reading and Corrective Math. "I know people don't like it, but it's proving that it's working," Ackerman said.

"The fact that we have the biggest gains in the Empowerment Schools tells me that we now have to take some of the things we've done in the Empowerment Schools and replicate them in some of our traditional schools," she added.

Eleventh graders, for years the District's lowest-scoring, showed the largest single-year increase ever. Proficiency rates climbed seven points to 45 percent in math and 38 percent in reading. Ackerman noted that this year high schools implemented common planning time and an extra period, "so students could take remedial classes, but not at the expense of elective classes."

The disappointing news in the presentation to the SRC from Michael Schlesinger of the School District's accountability office, is that there was minimal progress in narrowing the District's achievement gap. Black and Latino students still have proficiency rates 22 to 24 points lower than Whites.

In the only negative trend in the grade-by-grade results, 3rd grade reading proficiency rates dropped one point to 53 percent. Fifth grade math scores were flat. Proficiency rates were up in all other tested grades; the PSSA reading and math tests are given in grades 3 through 8 and in grade 11.

view counter

Comments (12)

Submitted by Timothy Boyle on June 16, 2010 8:40 pm

 "The fact that we have the biggest gains in the Empowerment Schools tells me that we now have to take some of the things we've done in the Empowerment Schools and replicate them in some of our traditional schools," she added.

 

Corrective for all!!!!! Get your scheduling tool of choice out IRFs, its going to be a complicated rostering next fall.

Submitted by teacher in the trenches (not verified) on June 17, 2010 4:57 pm

FORGET THE CORRECTIVE NONSENSE. We need the truancy support - the parent connections for behaviors, staff development and TIME to make it work. Our kids are growing - without that stuff. KEEP IT Ackerman (sorry, Ms. Ackerman.)

Submitted by Philly HS Teacher (not verified) on June 16, 2010 8:45 pm

Corrective Reading and Math had no impact on high schools. First, it was only offered in 9th grade and 2nd, even if a student completes the highest level of Corrective Reading and Math, they are only doing 6th grade work. There also was no modified curriculum for 11th grade. If there is high school improvement, it was because of school based plans and teachers using our heads - not regurgitating from a script.

Submitted by Teacher (K.R. Luebbert) (not verified) on June 16, 2010 9:46 pm

I do not think that Corrective Reading had any impact on PSSAs in Empowerment schools. CR does not include higher order thinking skills, and the PSSAs are full of them. True confession, I know that when I taught corrective reading I added some HOT questions, and I am sure most of my colleagues did. Also, after the corrective periods, we did what we do and really used good lessons and teaching skills (not scripted programs) to bring our students up to where they needed to be.

Submitted by Angela Chan on June 16, 2010 11:26 pm

Did Dr. Ackerman say what supports in Empowerment Schools should be replicated in traditional schools? I’d imagine schools would welcome a parent ombudsman or instructional specialists. Or was she referring to remedial interventions?

Is anyone still pushing the District to make public data that show a tangible correlation between CR/CM and PSSA scores?

And what does it say about the current remedial interventions if they didn’t have a significant impact on the achievement gap?

I am also not surprised at third grade’s one-point drop. Third grade is a crucial transition year from “learning to read” to “reading to learn”. In other words, readers must apply their early reading skills to actively construct meaning as they interact with text. In third grade, they are just learning to do this independently. I do believe it would be harder to compensate for the loss of time to teach and practice comprehension strategies in third grade. Instead, many of them, even the stronger readers, were placed into first and second grade level Reading Mastery classes.

For schools implementing CR in the second year, it does seem like more students will be transitioned out of CR next year. However, I’m curious to see how the Imagine It! reading series will affect the K-6 Empowerment School curriculum and what it would mean for student learning.

Submitted by Meg (not verified) on June 17, 2010 6:07 am

I think we also need to take into account the work done before this year. A fifth grader who is scoring anywhere on these PSSA tests has been a third graders in a reduced size class, functioning with other programs. No matter what the grade you look at or the scoring, that child did not get there in a day. All testing includes what the child learned this year, last year, the year before and the year before. It did not happen in one year. No scores jump because of what happens in that month. It is an accumulation of past learning and teachers. It is a huge mistake to forget this.

Submitted by Frank Murphy on June 16, 2010 11:48 pm

Dr. Ackerman’s claim that the PSSA test results are proof of the success of the Corrective Reading and Math programs in helping to raise student achievement is questionable.

In third grade the district average in reading declined by a point. If the Corrective Reading program was really effective, this is the grade in which I would expect to see the most improvement in test scores.  The great emphasis that Corrective Reading places on developing phonics skills and reading fluency is of greater importance at this grade level than potentially any other.

The flat fifth grade scores don’t support her claim.  The corrective programs are used in ninth grade; however ninth graders do not take the PSSA tests.  There isn't any proof here.  The great increase in eleventh grade test scores would positively affect the overall average of district scores. However the corrective programs are not used at the eleventh grade level.   So I wonder where is the proof?

What is more likely is that other factors were responsible for the continued increase in the district’s scores. Here are some alternative possibilities to consider.

• Increased social services and parent outreach efforts in empowerment schools may have had a positive effect on student engagement.  This in turn could have resulted in students performing more effectively on the test.

• Increased health services in empowerment schools could also have had a positive effect on student performance.

•Regular visits from regional and central office response teams to empowerment schools most likely raised the level of apprehension of teachers and principals in these schools.  In response to this pressure they may have worked to achieve AYP targets in any way they could.

• Greater class reduction in empowerment schools may have been a causal factor in higher test scores.

• Students are familiar with the PSSA test format and the content of the test. Therefore they performed better on the test than in previous years.

•After eight years of test administration teachers are more familiar with the PSSA test format and content.  Thus they are more skillful at teaching to the test.

• Placing a full time sub assigned in a school will decrease the amount of daily interruptions to the schools instructional program.  Fewer interruptions would lead to a more focused instructional environment.  Perhaps the better deployment of sub service to empowerment schools some how translated into better test performance on the part of the students.

• Having the availability of an instructional specialist assigned to a school could assist teachers in developing more effective classroom practices.

These variables would have to be taken into account before jumping to the conclusion that the Corrective Reading and Math programs are responsible for the gains in the district’s overall PSSA scores. 

Dr. Ackerman may not like hearing this but once again she is making unsubstantiated statements regarding the usefulness of the "Direct Instruction" model of remedial interventions including Corrective Reading and Corrective Math that she has imposed on empowerment schools. 

Shows us the data Dr. Ackerman.

 

 

Submitted by Meg (not verified) on June 17, 2010 6:01 am

I agree with each point, F.
I would also love to see the attendance data in these sites. Did this improve, also? Just coming in more frequently would improve all scores. How about lateness? Are these sites feeding all the kids breakfast now, too? That would have an impact.
I stated once already and am repeating myself now, but no improvements were made by one year of any program, without the foundations from the years before. Johnny might be doing better this year, but it is because of all he was introduced to last year, his own efforts (we need to support this side of things, too), His attendance, attitude towards school, learning and testing and so much more. Did he feel safe? Was he actively involved in the daily processes? Was someone helping him with homework? Did he know what each day would bring? These issues impact every lesson and do not fit into the lesson plans.
CR and CM did not create these improvements alone. It is not possible.

Submitted by Ms. Chips (not verified) on June 17, 2010 6:41 am

Look closely at HS data. Actually, this should not be difficult: 8th grade has carried the 11th for many years, which on aggregate is abysmal.

Many of the empowerment schools' scores have been decreasing, some precipitously, over the last 2 years. Will this purported increase be over last year's performance, or over time?

For example, if a school decreased from 40% grade level and above in 2008, to 30% in 2009, and this year clocks in at 36%, that's a 20% increase from 2009, but still 10% below '08 performance.

District reports assume the reader is innumerate.
Remember that "proficient" means at grade level, a performance that should not be the ultimate goal.

Submitted by C Ebby (not verified) on June 17, 2010 1:52 pm

Perhaps the fact that the Empowerment Schools were teaching nothing but reading and math for the months leading up to the PSSA had something to do with it? Small gains, but at what cost?

Did every Empowerment School show an increase?

Where is the control group?

It is concerning that such broad sweeping curricular decisions are based on questionable data, anecdotal experiences, and personal beliefs while ignoring recommendations of reputable national professional organizations. Philadelphia is going to have a hard time showing that we are implementing the new Common Core Standards if this is the direction we're going in.

Submitted by Annonymous (not verified) on June 18, 2010 12:01 pm

The AFT American Educator Summer 2010 edition has an article in this vein - "Unintended Consequences: HIgh Stakes can Result in Low Standards" - http://www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals/ae/

While test scores might rise, what happens to the curriculum that isn't test prep / reading / math? Is "ignrance" bliss?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on September 11, 2010 1:30 pm

My son got his PSSA 5th grade result and scored advanced in both math and reading but proficient in writing: Composition 70 out of 80 ie Narrative 30/40 while Informational was 40/40 yet strength profile = Medium, Revising and Editing was 19 out of 20, strength profile = Medium also, Total score was 1821. I want to know how 19/20 is regarded as medium and how the grading is proficient. My son took it in stride and it only helps to give him strength to work harder but I wonder how they arrived at proficient as opposed to advanced. Can anyone break it down for me?

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. We reserve the right to delete or remove any material deemed to be in violation of this rule, and to ban anyone who violates this rule. Please see our "Terms of Usage" for more detail concerning your obligations as a user of this service. Reader comments are limited to 500 words. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

Follow Us On

Read the latest print issue

Philly Ed Feed

Become a Notebook member

 

Recent Comments

Top

Public School Notebook

699 Ranstead St.
Third Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: (215) 839-0082
Fax: (215) 238-2300
notebook@thenotebook.org

© Copyright 2013 The Philadelphia Public School Notebook. All Rights Reserved.
Terms of Usage and Privacy Policy