In addition to showing S-G's performance on state
exams, the table above permits a comparison of the performance of
8th graders in 2003-2005 with their 1999-2001 4th grade
performance. Based on 2003 scores, by 8th grade
three-quarters of our best English students and two-thirds of our
best math students had been normalized. Based on 2004
scores, by 8th grade we lost 70% of our top performing English
students and 37% of our top performing math students.
Score attrition between 4th and 8th grade became worse in
2005. 30% of
our 4th graders scored in the top level on the 2001 ELA exam, but
by 2005 only 5% did. 36% of 4th graders earned the top score
in 2001, but on the 2005 8th-grade math exam only 9% earned the
top score. This trend is a direct result of the
district's practice of teaching to the middle with an emphasis on the Level 1's and 2's.
Our best performing students are being under-challenged and
basically ignored because of an entrenched ideology to equalize
students rather than provide every student with the opportunities
needed for her/his greatest success.
|
S-G Ranking Among 41 Capital District
Schools
|
|
Score/ Year
|
2005
|
2004
|
2003
|
2002
|
2001
|
2000
|
1999
|
|
4th Grade Mean
|
20 |
17
|
22
|
18
|
12
|
8
|
11
|
|
4th Grade Top Level
|
19 |
15
|
22
|
16
|
11
|
10
|
13
|
|
8th Grade Mean
|
18
|
22
|
26
|
21
|
14
|
14
|
14
|
|
8th Grade Top Level
|
25
|
20
|
27
|
15
|
16
|
10
|
11
|
4th-GRADE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
ARTS RESULTS
In the above chart, I answer the question,
"How has the number of students performing in each level
changed over time, assuming the same number of students took the
exam each year?" The number of students performing in
each of the levels for 2005 are the actual numbers. For
prior years, the number of students performing in each level
reflects the number of students who would have been placed in
each level had the same number of students taken the test as in
2005. I calculate these numbers using the percentages
provided by the state for each performance level.
Interpretation of Performance
Levels:
Level 4 – exceeds the standards
Level 3 – meets all the standards
Level 2 – meets some of the standards or partially meets the
standards
Level 1 – shows serious academic difficulties.
The
above chart shows the percentage of students scoring in each level
in each of the 42 NY capital district public schools with
elementary schools. The schools are arranged in order of the
percentage of students passing the exam (scoring at Level 3 or 4)
from most to least. Scotia-Glenville is in 21st place and
its score is outlined in red.
The following table
shows the 1-, 3- and 6-year rankings of capital district schools
based on the percentage of students passing the 4th-grade ELA
exam. The more years averaged into the ranking, the better
Scotia-Glenville does. That's because relative to other
schools, its performance has been declining over time. This
will become more apparent in a later graphic.
Table
of Various Rankings Based on ELA-4 Pass Rates
The following table shows the 1-, 3- and 6-year
rankings of the schools based on the percentage of students
performing in Level 4, the top level. In 2005, S-G had a
higher percentage of students scoring in Level 4 compared to its
3-year average but a lower percentage compared to its 6-year
average. This indicates an inconsistent ability to move
students into the top performance level. Schuylerville, on
the other hand, shows an improving ability to move students into
the top performance level. In 2005, it had 36.8% of its
students performing at this level, compared to 26.6% for its 2003
to 2005 average and 22.2% for its 2000 to 2005 average.
Table of Various
Rankings Based on ELA-4 Top Performance
