Live by the scores

Live by the scores...

(Released to the web February 12, 2009)

Make no mistake about it, this website has railed against the idea of placing almost any significance at all on the scores of high stakes tests like the state mandated NJASK, or on the scores of district implemented norm-referenced tests such as the NWEA or TerraNova series. Indeed, for over five years readers have found on this website nothing but arguments against the test-oriented "accountability" juggernaut which now dominates our public schools.

However, our current administration and school board disagrees with this view, and they have made crystal clear both publicly and privately that their efforts are focused on raising test scores. Hardly a school board meeting goes by without test scores coming up in conversation, debate or presentation. Uncounted Powerpoint slide shows by administrators have honed in on test scores: dissected, pinned and labeled in gory detail. Over the last two years of the current administration, a time-intensive and very expensive NWEA testing program has been implemented as a means to predict and support state NJASK test scores. Students are assigned intrusive test-prep homework like Study Island on the theory that practicing taking tests will help raise state test scores. Our administration has created homogeneous student ability groupings and has added more time for "core" subjects while cutting recess time, all in the name of increasing scores. In short, our administration, backed by our school board, has been obsessed with raising state test scores.

So, if our school leaders feel so strongly that their efforts should be judged by test scores, perhaps we should grant them their wish. You live by the scores, you die by the scores. An examination of the data in the recently released 2007-2008 NJ School Report Cards reveals some disquieting information. Despite the intense concentration on test scores in Readington schools, and despite the myriad programs and practices designed to raise scores, the data shows that we are not only failing to live up to the Readington scores in previous years, we do not compare well with neighboring districts either.

New Jersey classifies school districts by "district factor group" (DFG) as a means to allow comparison of districts with similar socio-economic and other features. Readington is an "I" district, as are our neighboring school districts in Branchburg and Flemington-Raritan. By comparing the test score "proficiency percentages" between Readington and our neighbors, we can engage in exactly the kind of meaningless horse-race this website has recommended against. Yet, it is an exercise we must do to prove a point.

First, though, we must recognize that the 2007-2008 NJASK scores for Readington are troublesome (for our administration) even when compared to scores of previous years within our district. For example, the district's third grade language arts scores (across both elementary schools) show only 8.2 percent of students in the advanced proficient category, even though in 2006-2007 it was 18.9 percent. In Holland Brook, only 3.7 percent of fourth grade students scored advanced proficient in language arts in 2007-2008, versus 13.7 in the previous year. Our administration often argues that year to year comparisons for other grades are now unfair because the tests were altered last year. (Presumably, then, they also count on teachers knowing the tests in order to prep students, which sounds an awful lot like teaching to the test. But, we digress.) Though some of the tests were changed from the previous year, comparisons with other districts are still valid, because students there took the same battery of new tests.

We took a look at the scores for both Flemington-Raritan and Branchburg and compared them to Readington. A spreadsheet with selected data is available. Comparative cost per pupil spending in Readington is $11,922, in Flem-Rar it is $11,712 and in Branchburg it is $13,384. Both neighboring districts spend more than Readington in the "classroom instruction" category monitored by the state. Readington spends a total of $6894 on classroom instruction per student, Flem-Rar spends $7212, and Branchburg spends almost one thousand dollars more per student than Readington at $7864.

When we compare Readington middle school with Flem-Raritan's JP Case and Branchburg's Central, we find that our neighbors are producing more impressive scores. For instance, on the NJASK grade 8 language arts test, Branchburg has 18.7% of students scoring advanced proficient, versus Readington's mere 14.8%. (Branchburg also outscores in the proficient category.) Flem-Raritan's JP case does even better, with 20.7% scoring advanced proficient. On the eighth grade math test, Branchburg has more students scoring advanced proficient and both Flem-Rar and Branchburg have more scoring proficient. Our administration sometimes argues that our special-ed population puts us at a disadvantage in these sorts of comparisons. However, when the scores are separated out to include only general population, most of these comparisons do hold up. Besides, are we not to count the special-ed population? Don't they matter too?

On the NJASK grade 8 science test, Branchburg outperforms us in the advanced proficient category by nearly 16 percentage points, and Flem-Rar by 9 percentage points! Comparing only the general population hardly improves the disparity. Similar results are found on the NJASK seventh grade language arts and math tests. At best, Readington keeps parity with our neighbors. Far more often, though, we compare poorly or rank humiliatingly low.

On NJASK fourth grade tests, Branchburg and Flemington far outperform us in math, language arts and science. Branchburg's Old York school has 14.2% of fourth grade students scoring advanced proficient in language arts to Readington's 3.7% at Holland Brook School--a 10.5 percentage point difference. On the NJASK third grade math test, Readington might take solace in beating out Branchburg's Old York School in the advanced proficiency category, accept that Flem-Raritan's Barley Sheaf did much better than Whitehouse or Three Bridges in the same category.

The overall picture which emerges from examining this data is that Branchburg appears to have a distinct edge when it comes to scores, Flemington-Raritan is superior in most respects to Readington, and our own district has very little to show for all the time and money spent trying to raise NJASK test scores. In certain specific categories, the data is downright embarrassing.

Other data appears in these report cards. Interestingly, Readington middle school leads in student suspensions, with 5%. Flem-Raritan's JP case has only a 2% student suspension rate, and Branchburg's Central a 1% rate. We have the highest middle school class size, at 23.8 average students. JP case has only a 16.2 student average and Central a 22.3 student average per class. We also have the most computers per student, with 1.5 students per computer. JP Case has 1.9 students per computer and Central 2.3 students per computer. To summarize, then, Readington middle school, with the highest student suspension rate, the most students per class, and the highest number of computers per student is also the school with poorest showing on state standardized tests. Apparently our administration's "rightsizing" effort to maximize class size has not raised scores, our heavy-handed discipline has not raised scores, and our massive spending on computers and technology has not raised scores.

What this exercise unfortunately shows is that, if one takes at face value the legitimacy and supposed utility of state standardized test scores, Readington compares quite badly to similar neighboring districts in spite of a concerted and expensive effort by our current administration over the past two years to raise scores. And, if our administration and school board insist on embracing the state testing and the accompanying horse race, then what choice do we have but to evaluate them on their own terms? Clearly, they are dropping the ball when it comes to the test scores by which they say we must judge their work. It would seem that the latest data would force our school leaders to admit that their programs and practices are failing our students, or else to loosen their grip on test scores as the arbiter of success.

What is next? Are we to continue our infatuation with test scores and push even harder with the programs and practices that have failed to raise those scores? Or, will we finally reject the horse race and focus instead on authentic learning with accountability based on professional and parental oversight? Will our school leaders plow blindly ahead or will they reevaluate our goals and systems? If we live by these test scores then we will die by them. Sadly, classes of hundreds of students continue to exit our district each year having missed valuable opportunity while the adults still spin their wheels in the mud of accountability.

For more information: