This is our fourth year of publishing the “Grade Equivalent Scores” for the Iowa Test of Basic Skills or ITBS – the standardized test we take annually at the Martin J. Gottlieb Day School. (We did not have comparison data the first year we published results.) I also blogged that first year about our overall philosophy regarding the proper context for standardized testing.
There remains some confusion about the proper understanding of what a “grade equivalent score” is and, more importantly, is not. I am happy to refer you to a thorough explanation, but if you want the quick summary:
Grade-equivalent scores attempt to show at what grade level and month your child is functioning. However, grade-equivalent scores are not able to show this. Let me use an example to illustrate this. In reading comprehension, your son scored a 7.3 grade equivalent. The seven represents the grade level while the 3 represents the month. 7.3 would represent the seventh grade, third month, which is December. The reason it is the third month is because September is zero, October is one, etc. It is not true though that your son is functioning at the seventh grade level since he was never tested on seventh grade material. He was only tested on fifth grade material. That’s why the grade-equivalent scores should not be used to decide at what grade level a students is functioning.
We do not believe that standardized test scores represent the only, nor surely the best, evidence for academic success. Our goal continues to be providing each student with a “floor, but no ceiling” representing each student’s maximum success. Our best outcome is still producing students who become lifelong learners.
But I also don’t want to undersell the objective evidence that shows that the work we are doing here does in fact lead to tangible success!
Our graduates the last four years have successfully placed into the high school programs of their choice. Each one had a different ceiling – they are all different – but working with them, their families and their teachers, we successfully transitioned them all to the schools and programs they qualified for.
And now for four years running, despite all the qualifications and caveats, our ITBS scores continue to demonstrate excellence. Excellence within the grades and between them. And let’s be clear, this academic excellence comes with an inclusive admissions process.
That’s the headline…let’s look more closely at the story.
First up is “Language”.
Remember…in order to track a class you have to compare 2012 to 2013 to 2014. For example, in 2012, the Language Grade Equivalent of Average for Grade Two was 3.4. In 2013, those kids in Grade Three scored 4.9. In 2014 those same kids in Grade Four scored 6.8. That class “grew” 1.5 from 2012 to 2013 and “grew” another 1.9 to this. (Also, the scale stops at 13…it is the highest score available.)
The positive, of course, is that each grade is functioning at an extremely high level! There are dips up and down, but when both the averages and the diversity level is high, it is hard to find much to point to. One data point to explore is that almost every class grew over a full grade level, but there is some “flatness” between Kindergarten and Grade One. They still have high averages, but this is worth looking at further. It could be that Kindergarden’s high starting point is a mismatch with Grade One curriculum, for example. This is one of the benefits of not teaching to the test…it can sometimes uncover gaps in curriculum.
Let’s move onto “Reading”.
Here again the news is largely positive! Most grades have growth of at least one grade level, despite high starting points. Grades One and Three were slightly less. Next year when we fully embrace the Daily Five, we will have to pay attention to these scores to see how it impacts Grades One-Three. There was also a dip from Grade 7 to Grade 8 – these scores are awfully high to begin with, but we will have to track to see if this is an anomaly or becomes a trend.
Let’s look at “Math”.
Again, the overwhelming news is positive. This marks the third year we are using Singapore Math in Grades K-5, the second year of departmentalization in Grades Four & Five, and we added a new Middle School Math Teacher. The only trends worth noting is the relatively flat growth in the youngest grades. The grade averages, even in those grades, are appropriately high and the class averages still show growth. It is the rate of growth we will need to explore. [NOTE: It takes a lot of courage for teachers to work under this level of transparency.] We have noted in the past that the curriculum tends to start out slow and build, and now after a couple of years of similar results it is time to revisit how we supplement the curriculum in the lower grades to ensure maximal growth. It is also worth noting the extreme jumps in the Middle School this year. This could be due to the impact of students coming out the Lower School with better skills from having been more fully in Singapore Math or it could be the impact of professional growth on our Middle School Faculty…or both!
To sum up, despite our focus on individual growth, our average growth continues to significantly outpace national percentiles and grade equivalency scores. Does “reflection lead to achievement” at MJGDS? Does being a 21st century learning pioneer translate into high academic success?
Four years in a row may not be conclusive, but it may be heading towards it!
Please know that all receiving teachers will have prior years’ data and be charged with making the next year even better. They have been up to the task these last four years and we look forward to more learning, more growth and more excellence in the year to come.
