Decatur Students Rack Up Some of the Highest CRCT Scores in Metro Atlanta
Decatur Metro | June 22, 2011The CRCT scores are here! The CRCT scores are here!
The AJC alerts the educated-minded metro residents that Georgia’s CRCT scores were released this morning with an article and an easily searchable, but contextual-less database.
The article notes that Decatur had some of the highest pass rates among Atlanta metro cities, along with Buford. (A quick check of both Decatur and Buford fail-rates shows that Decatur had a clear advantage is most grades/subjects.)
Congrats to the school system, all the ‘rents, and especially the KIDS who continue to excel on these sorts of exams.
And since we like to hold ourselves to such a high standard, after the jump you’ll find Decatur and “top test performer” Fayette County’s fail-rates.
Latest from Decaturish
That is awesome!
Sadly, we got no love from Newsweek’s though on the best high schools list – http://www.newsweek.com/content/newsweek/feature/2011/americas-best-high-schools.html
12.7% failure rate for 3rd grade math is a topic I am familiar with since I have tutored that grade in the Math CRT. That rate is way to high! I strongly feel this rate can be lowered with a comprehensive citywide tutoring program focused on 3rd grade math CRT by using MAP scores to enroll kids that are on bubble in a parent staffed tutoring program. This will be a true application of it takes a village in that it will involve both Parents (tutors) and the school system (organization, materials). Parents that have typically volunteered for their child’s class can be recruited to be the tutors since by 3rd grade parent volunteering in the class room is discourage by both the teachers and the kids. There is also a huge untapped resource of retired folks. In tutoring this curriculum I found you can really give a child on the bubble a leg up in Math and prevent a potential downward spiral that can continue through high school. Also of course, it would directly address the 12.7%.
Both WP and Clairemont Elementary have just such a program (Decatur Education Foundation provided partial funding for both programs) and have had success in improving scores. This is a focus area for the school system.
I’ve mentioned it here before — Jump Math has had great success in tutoring programs and is developing as a full on curriculum. It breaks math down into such small, fundamental steps that even those that struggled with math as students can tutor it as adults.
http://jumpmath1.org/
You can download student workbook samples and teacher workbooks in their entirety here:
http://jumpmath1.org/publications
Watch some of their videos or read the NYT article.
I don’t have the statistics at hand, but I’d bet we have a much higher free/reduced lunch eligible student percentage than any of the other districts mentioned in the article – Fayette, Cherokee, Buford.
Which means our school system has a much tougher job of achieving at these levels.
Which means we’re better.
We may be better, but we are not facing a particular tough challenge as it relates to the economics of our kids. According to the DoE, (website: http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/ReportingFW.aspx?PageReq=211&PID=61&PTID=67&CTID=216&StateId=ALL&T=0&FY=2010 ), here are the percentage of students with free/reduced lunch for 2009-10:
Buford – 51%
Cherokee – 28%
Decatur – 26%
Fayette – 20%.
For what it’s worth, the statewide average is 56%. So, we handle a student population that has, in percentage terms, less than half the number of kids from lower economic range families as compared to the statewide average. Buford handled about double the percent of free/reduced lunch children, with Cherokee having slightly more and only Fayette have fewer among the districts you mentioned.
Nice 7th grade Science test scores.
Now I want to see the “Exceeded” percentages!
Glad the reading and math scores are so good, but without science and social studies we’ll be no better prepared to compete globally or to tackle political problems.
You can see exceeded by going to details
Thanks. It’s truly impressive to see the huge percentage of students who didn’t just just meet, but exceeded standards, at least in the grades I checked. (Although also a bit deflating as I realize that my children are not geniuses, just performing like their peers.) I went back a few years for a few grades and the percentage of students exceeding is substantially higher. Excellent news. Of course, lots of questions come to mind–what is working? Is the State DOE better at setting and implementing standards? Is it better instruction? Better attention to children with learning disabilities, some of whom are bright and do well if given support in the areas of deficit? Is this due to the changing composition of our student body as Decatur becomes more and more affluent? Whatever the reason, more students, not less, are exceeding and the opposite situation would be bad news.
I have to say that the improving scores statewide, in the middle of a recession, declining funding for schools, more family stress, poverty, etc. makes me worry whether or not the CRCT is a consistent, stable measure. How do we know whether the CRCT tests were easier this year or not? Sorry for my cynicism but I have worked with professional testing panels and have healthy skepticism of anything but the most rigorous test-writing.
Here’s a question, Karass, that’s in no way intended to be critical. Purely curious about how you see things. You question the reliability of CRCT score data yet often advocate for the use of online surveying by CSD to gather parent feedback. I can’t speak for the exact level of rigor in CRCT’s processes but I’d say with high confidence that, even if low, they still yield infinitely more reliable data than online surveys, which typically have no statistical value whatsoever and are the easiest form of opinion-gathering for organized groups to manipulate.
Again, not being critical. Just curious about what seems like a disconnect in where you’re skeptical. Am I missing some nuance in the larger picture?
I definitely think that CRCT data are better than “I got calls from three parents who said…”! The testing of all students annually is a systematic approach. What I don’t know about is the quality of the CRCT tests themselves. If they are consistent in rigor over time, then we’ve got comparable, useful data. My only reason for suspicion about consistency in rigor over time is that I am somewhat surprised to see the state improving as a whole when both household and school funding and conditions has been declining in most parts of the state. Perhaps my worry is unfounded. I certainly wouldn’t reject the CRCT data on the basis of that worry but one should always be thinking about what assumptions and biases that exist within a data system. My overall reaction to the CSD data was positive.
Re getting parent feedback: This is not a purely analytic task and rigorous methods of gathering data cannot be implemented, no matter how much I wish they could be. CSD cannot force every parent or every teacher or every community member to respond to a survey. Not only do they not have the legal authority but a lack of anonymity would invalidate the responses. But one still tries to get the best data they can, both descriptive and quantitative information, as a better alternative to anecdotal evidence. The latter gives too much weight to those who happen to know and have the ability to speak up; it is also heavily filtered by the unconscious biases of the listener. I happen to think that on-line surveys are a cheap way to get useful, if imperfect, feedback from parents, teachers, or the community. I remember the poll on the calendar–the results were pretty clear. A majority of teachers preferred the “balanced” (current) calendar and a majority of parents did not. Those data have been used over an over again in discussing the issue.
Whats up with the math and science scores?