Austin
Independent
School
District
and
Atlanta Public Schools Viewed through
Atlanta
Public
Schools
Viewed
through
NAEP
TUDA
2005
‐
2013
Prepared
March
30,
2014
by
Ed
Johnson
Advocate
for
Quality
in
Public
Education
Atlanta,
GA
edwjohnson@aol.com
Headed in a “positive” direction?
Headed
in
a
positive
direction?
•
Question
With b d i hi h di ti ill
– With everyone onboard , in which direction will any one passenger go?
•
Answer
– The direction in which the ship goes, although any passengers may at various times deliberately or randomly go here and there while aboard ship
•
Question
– Why might the ship go in a different direction?
•
Answer
h C i h ffi i k l d
– The Captain has new sufficient knowledge to change course. Not optimism, not pessimism, not ideology, not training; rather, knowledge
•
Question
– Does everyone know they are on the same ship, or not?
•
Answer
– How could they know?
National
Assessment
of
Education
Progress
(NAEP)
Trial Urban District
District
#
District
1
Albuquerque
2
A l
Trial
Urban
District
Assessment
(TUDA)
2
Atlanta
3
Austin
4
Baltimore
City
5
Boston
Each chart in this presentation aims to tell a systemic story much at a glance, drawing the reader into light analyses if at all The
6
Charlotte
7
Chicago
8
Cleveland
9
Dallas
the reader into light analyses, if at all. The focus is Austin with respect to Atlanta.
“Systemic” means all Trial Urban Districts (TUD) as a system, a particular TUD as a system, Reading as a system, Mathematics as
a system, 4th Grades as a system, and 8th
9
Dallas
10
Detroit
11
District
of
Columbia
(DCPS)
12
Fresno
13
Hillsborough County (FL)
y , y ,
Grades as a system. In no case does systemic mean students.
NAEP TUDA defines scale scores for both Reading and Mathematics to range between zero and 500, inclusive.
13
Hillsborough
County
(FL)
14
Houston
15
Jefferson
County
(KY)
16
Los
Angeles
This presentation looks at TUDA average scale scores that were generated by subject, grade, year, jurisdiction, and student‐ reported race/ethnicity using the NAEP Data Explorer, at
http://nces ed gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/
17
Miami
‐
Dade
18
Milwaukee
19
New
York
City
20
Philadelphia
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/ Some charts in this presentation show District #’s instead of District names to avoid clutter.
Refer to the table at the right to translate a District # into its District name
21
San
Diego
NAEP TUDA, Reading, 2002
‐
2013
NAEP TUDA, Math, 2003
‐
2013
NAEP TUDA, Reading, Grade 4, All Students
NAEP
TUDA,
Reading,
Grade
4,
All
Students
AISD
APS
AISD
UCL 226.3 CL 219 8 220 230Yearly
Scale
Scores
(X)
APS
220 230
Yearly
Scale
Scores
(X)
CL 219.8 LCL 213.3 190 200 210 220
Meria Carstarphen as Superintendnet.
UCL 217.5 CL 208.7 LCL 199.8 190 200 210 220 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 10 12
Year
‐
to
‐
Year
Scale
Score
Ranges
(mR)
UCL 10.9
10 12
Yeat
‐
to
‐
Year
Scale
Score
Ranges
(mR)
UCL 8.0 CL 2.5 2 4 6 8 CL 3.3 2 4 6 8
NAEP TUDA, Reading, Grade 8, All Students
NAEP
TUDA,
Reading,
Grade
8,
All
Students
AISD
APS
AISD
UCL 262.8 CL 259 4 260 270Yearly
Scale
Scores
(X)
APS
UCL 258 4
260 270
Yearly
Scale
Scores
(X)
CL 259.4 LCL 256.0 230 240 250 260
Meria Carstarphen as Superintendnet.
UCL 258.4 CL 248.3 LCL 238.3 230 240 250 260 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 12 14
Year
‐
to
‐
Year
Scale
Score
Ranges
(mR)
UCL 12.3
12 14
Year
‐
to
‐
Year
Scale
Score
Ranges
(mR)
UCL 4.2 CL 1.3 0 2 4 6 8 10 CL 3.8 0 2 4 6 8 10
What caused this
“unusual” change?
NAEP TUDA, Math, Grade 4, All Students
NAEP
TUDA,
Math,
Grade
4,
All
Students
AISD
APS
AISD
UCL 247.2 CL 242.7 240 250Yearly
Scale
Scores
(X)
APS
240 250
Yearly
Scale
Scores
(X)
LCL 238.2
210 220 230 240
Meria Carstarphen as Superintendnet. UCL 234.4
CL 226.2 LCL 218.0 210 220 230 240 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 10 12
Year
‐
to
‐
Year
Scale
Score
Ranges
(mR)
UCL 10.0
10 12
Year
‐
to
‐
Year
Scale
Score
Ranges
(mR)
UCL 5.6 CL 1.7 2 4 6 8 CL 3.1 2 4 6 8
NAEP TUDA, Math, Grade 8, All Students
NAEP
TUDA,
Math,
Grade
8,
All
Students
AISD
APS
AISD
UCL 290.4 CL 284.4 290 300Yearly
Scale
Scores
(X)
APS
290 300Yearly
Scale
Scores
(X)
LCL 278.5 230 240 250 260 270 280
Meria Carstarphen as Superintendnet.
UCL 273.1 CL 258.7 LCL 244.3 230 240 250 260 270 280 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 16 18 20
Year
‐
to
‐
Year
Scale
Score
Ranges
(mR)
UCL 17.7
16 18 20
Year
‐
to
‐
Year
Scale
Score
Ranges
(mR)
UCL 7.4 CL 2.2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 CL 5.4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
Some key considerations…
Some
key
considerations…
1. AISD wonders around the ship’s upper side without gaining systemic capability to improve, especially not since 2009.
2 ASID experienced usual increases in 2009 or 2011 save 2. ASID experienced usual increases in 2009 or 2011, save the “unusual” increase in 2009 in Reading, Grade 8, that warrants investigating.
3. APS moved from the ship’s lower side to its upper side in a continuous, non‐random way that may come to warrant investigating
warrant investigating.
4. APS stands to “jump ship” and go in a more quality improvement direction than does ASID.
5. Thinking APS needs a “turn around” or “fix it” strategy based in “choice” is unwarranted.
6 Thinking APS needs a superintendency focused on 6. Thinking APS needs a superintendency focused on
“urban school reform” is unwarranted.
7. Thinking APS needs an unconventional Systems Thinking superintendency to lead it out of the “urban” education isolationism that keeps its doomed to remain aboard ship is warranted
ship is warranted.
8. Systems Thinkers are unlikely to be among any “urban” education isolationists onboard ship.