Yesterday I posted about my first impressions of the newly released AzMERIT scores. Passing rates dropped significantly statewide from the 2014 AIMS test, which has everything to do with a tougher test and higher cut scores and nothing to do with Arizona student achievement going downhill. The most obvious observation is that the highest scoring districts in the Tucson area are in the high rent districts, and the lowest scoring districts are in the low rent districts. And I observed that the passing rates fell further in the Flowing Wells and Nogales districts than in others, which is interesting because the previous AIMS scores of those districts were frequently cited to show those districts beat the odds and scored higher than you might expect given the socioeconomic status of their students. The new scores may or may not indicate that those two districts were overrated in the past.
Since then, I’ve dug deeper into the daunting piles of AzMERIT data the Department of Education put into its downloadable spreadsheets—far, far more data, by the way, than was ever supplied in previous years—and I’ve compared them to the scores on the 2014 AIMS test. I’ll give you some of the information I’ve pulled together and a few conclusions I’ve drawn from the data.
First, let’s look at how the passing rates changed in the Tucson-area and Nogales districts from the 2014 AIMS to the 2015 AzMERIT. All of them went down, just like the rest of the state, but they went down at different rates. (Note: I had to approximate the passing rates of the districts on the 2014 AIMS test because I couldn’t find that number in the data, but I used the same method of approximation for all the districts, so if the results aren’t perfect, they should be fairly consistent.) How much did district passing rates drop from AIMS to AzMERIT? The largest drop was in the Nogales district: 48 points, from an average of 73 percent to 25 percent passing. That drop could be explained by a cheating scandal in the district which inflated its numbers. Three districts dropped 40 points: Amphi, Flowing Wells and Sahuarita, followed by Sunnyside at 39 points and Marana at 38 points. Vail and Tanque Verde dropped 35 points and TUSD dropped 34 points. Catalina Foothills had the lowest dropoff, at 25 points.
What does all this mean? You can play with the numbers all day, but here’s one conclusion I arrived at. Even when the number of points the districts dropped were similar, the lower income districts with lower passing rates actually fell farther. I’ll use Vail and TUSD as an example. Vail fell one point more than TUSD, 35 points vs. 34 points, which makes it look like they took a similar hit. But in 2014, Vail’s passage rate was 28 points higher than TUSD’s, 89 percent vs. 61 percent. So while they fell about the same amount in absolute terms, TUSD’s passage rate fell by 57 percent while Vail’s fell by 41 percent, a 16 point difference. (As an example, think of two people whose incomes are $100,000 and $60,000. If both incomes drop by $40,000, it’s a far larger hit for the person at $60,000.) The same pattern follows elsewhere. The districts with lower income students, which also had the lowest scores on the 2014 AIMS, lost more ground than the districts with higher income students, even when the actual point drop was similar, because the high rent districts started with higher passing rates than the low rent districts.
Months ago I predicted that the drop in scores this year would be greater in low income than high income areas, which is what has happened. I also said that it doesn’t mean the achievement gap between the groups has increased. It’s what happens automatically when you raise the cut scores. It would have happened even if they kept the same AIMS test and raised the number of points it takes to pass.
I went through the 2014 AIMS and the 2015 AzMERIT passing rates at individual TUSD schools and compared how far the schools dropped. Almost without fail, the TUSD schools that started with the highest passage rates on AIMS had the smallest drop on the AzMERIT—less than 50 percent—while the schools with the lower AIMS passage rate had the greatest drop—generally more than 60 percent and sometimes as high as 70 percent. Here are a few examples. On the high end, Borman Elementary had an overall 83 percent passage rate on AIMS and a 55 percent rate on AzMERIT, a drop of 34 percent. On the low end, Maldonado Amelia Elementary had a 49 percent passage rate on AIMS and a 15 percent rate on AzMERIT, a drop of 69 percent. On the high end, Annie Kellond Elementary fell from 80 percent on AIMS to 46 percent on AzMERIT, a 42 percent drop. On the low end, Cavett Elementary dropped from 44 percent on AIMS to 14 percent on AzMERIT, a 68 percent drop.
The increased standardized test score gaps between the educational haves and have nots have nothing to do with an increased achievement gap. But be ready for the faux gaspings which are sure to come from conservatives: “Oh my God, it’s even worse than I thought! And it keeps getting worser and worser! Just look at this years’ scores!” Which means, of course, they’ll be even more adamant that we need to give less money to those “failing schools” and more to the “successful schools” in high rent areas, and, of course, more money to charter schools and private school vouchers.
This article appears in Nov 26 – Dec 2, 2015.
“…The most obvious observation is that the highest scoring districts in the Tucson area are in the high rent districts, and the lowest scoring districts are in the low rent districts. …”
Mr. Safier, as you know, or should know, Academic Ability has absolutely NOTHING to do with a Students Economic Status and their ability to learn. Academic achievement is, however determined, in the main, by an Effective Classroom Instructional Program and Student Motivation. Parental involvement is important of course….but…the main determinant, in my view, in an Effective Classroom Instructional Program. Students will not learn otherwise.
It must be determined, in the first instance, if these data reflect Schools, because of there location, that are staffed by a second rate, ill prepared/incompetent Teachers.
What about a little different theory? Those that work hardest at improvement achieve the most. What a novel idea. No blame, no scapegoat, no whining, and most of all no government attempts at financial equalization.
INPUT DRIVEN equals OUTPUT ACHIEVED.
Can you handle it?
Returning to the idea expressed in earlier commentary that differences in scores may be related not just to differences of support available at home between high SES and low SES districts, but to differences in the level of accountability-advocacy parents in these districts engage in with the districts’ board and administration: you get a similar effect between high SES and low SES schools within TUSD. Schools like Sam Hughes, Soleng Tom, Fruchthendler, and Sabino have highly engaged parent communities who will step up to ensure gaps that occur in the school’s services are filled through parent volunteerism, parent fundraising, and parent advocacy at the district level. When there isn’t enough peanut butter to cover the toast district-wide, it’s understandable if central admin sometimes ends up putting more peanut-butter on parts of the bread that will scream bloody murder and phone their influential friends if their particular concerns are not addressed. (Some say the proposed investment of district funds in the creation of an east-side affluent-constituent Fruchthendler-Sabino direct feed is, in part, an example of this kind of decision-making.)
The prevention of inequitable distribution of resources when allocations go in part to keep the most vigilant portions of the parent population happy and / or the prevention of uniformly poor service delivery in schools that serve primarily poor and minority populations is one of the things the desegregation order is supposed to be accomplishing. Would it help the testing gaps between schools serving affluent populations and schools serving challenged populations to have someone on the board requiring district administrators to engage in transparent budgeting and requiring them to implement the USP and build constructive relationships with the desegregation authority?
The answer, I believe, is “Yes.” So the good news for Safier is that he could actually have something new to say, if he chose to say it: beyond continuing to flog the well-worn truism that test scores are correlated with students’ SES, he could move on to the more interesting and constructive point that something can be done to close achievement gaps when the massive amounts of supplementary funding made available through desegregation levies are applied in the right way, and when the results of the application is reported in a way that responsibly and persuasively documents student benefit.
The key, of course, is getting the right people on the board to oversee how the administration is applying funds…
Charter schools all over the country have statistically proven the theory that income level is tied to academic capacity is WRONG. Your article yesterday was absurd, your article today expanded on the absurdity. Correlation does not equate to causation.
Nogales, as an example, was accused of a cheating scandal, for which you only have dropping test scores as evidence. What if they were teaching precisely to the old test format? The cross the board drop indicates the cutoff is higher. The size of the drop indicates that all districts were teaching to the test. The smaller drop in some districts, relative to others, could easily be explained by those schools already exceeding the old standard by so much (for some students) that they were less affected by these two factors.
Standardized testing is stupid. Looking at standardized testing as a litmus test that your theories about income inequality have been confirmed is about the only thing more stupid. I am unsubscribing from this newsletter because the value it provides isn’t worth the irritation and migraine I get from trying to reach your absurd conclusions using your unsupportable arguments.
Thank you David S. I know of the test and know it was a terrible test and that the state created a new committee to revamp it. I wish we would just let teachers teach and quit this horrible testing which is being used to abuse teachers and lower SES schools. Charter schools are doing no better. So much for they will solve the problem. THey are making it worse… those that are not held accountable for money spent which, I believe, is most of them. What amazes me is the amount of people who aren’t screaming about that who say regular public schools are wasting money.
Really? This is little different from the mess that the government has made out of health care. We have two choices, free enterprise or poorly regulated chaos and failure. Face the facts, education is evolving. Thank you progressives.
Change the relationship between the terms you use, Rat T, and you will have an accurate statement:
“Free enterprise” = poorly regulated chaos in our school systems.
Public institutions can do better than this, but only if they are properly overseen. It takes an informed electorate and a press corps that does a much better job of holding elected officials accountable than Tucson Weekly and the Arizona Daily Star have yet found themselves able to do.
Great Post…Supporting Public Ed Means Supporting Local Reform…you are on target!!!!
Sorry but charters and private schools are the epitome of free enterprise. Public schools have become government chaos. Much like the TSA at airports. 95% of contraband gets through.
There are parallels through out our government.
I’m not sure he did.
The one truth we can observe from the statistics is obvious, all districts and schools did substantially worse on passing the AzMERIT tests than on the AIMS tests a year earlier. This includes Catalina Foothills with a 25% drop, Vail with a 35% drop and Sahuarita with a 39% drop. These districts are certainly not among the most challenged in terms of the affluence of the populations they serve. The problem, it would seem, is the test is, like its predecessor, is not an accurate indicator of the curriculum delivered to students across districts and schools. Test construction is a risky business, minefields like validity and reliability determine the ultimate value of the test over time. AzMERIT was developed to address the requirements of Arizona’s flavor of the Common Core Curriculum whose rate of development and implementation varies widely by district and the teachers actually trained to use the standards effectively.
The cart was placed before the horse.
That less affluent districts fared more poorly than the poor performance of more affluent districts should come as no surprise, this disparity has been in place for as long as testing has been used for comparative practice. The issue now as in the past is how to improve student learning in less affluent districts to at least a normal bell shaped curve with the majority passing with some students excelling.
Continuing to use tests that are out of synch with the curriculum developed locally and taught effectively, without resorting to teaching to the test, is the biggest challenge to public education today – and yesterday.
I know how to fix it. Have the teachers teach to the test. That way we can continue to fool the taxpayers. That is until these kids strike out in the world and strike out. Then they turn to crime.
Why can’t education see what the problem is? How about trying a return to the values of the 60s and 70s and teach them something that will benefit them and society later in life? 3Rs.
In business, there are two types of tests that are run on products such as batteries and other items.
A significant sample of each lot is given to test minimum standards for the product – voltage output, strength (strngth test to see if dropping a battery will cause a rupture or leak), etc.
A second test is a destructive test, putting a stress on the battery so strong until it ruptures. Needless to say, you apply the destructive test to very few of the product, otherwise there are no batteries to sell.
Clearly, AZMerit test is a destructive test, designed to break the will to learn on the part of the student and the will to teach of the teachers. On top of everything, this test is given to all students who are told that failure will prevent graduation and schools can be defunded and closed in case of failure.
We have a choice. Clearly, the failure of even the most successful school districts indicates that someone needs to be fired. We can fire all the teachers and administrators or we can fire the gang of idiots who designed the test.
I support firing the idiots who designed the test. In addition, let’s fire the politicians that hired the idiots that designed the tests. AZMerit cost millions to buy and millions more in wasted time and trouble conducting a test that clearly measures nothing accurately.