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.

After making transparent the results of my own evaluation by both myself and my faculty, it is time to turn to our other annual survey: the Annual Parent Survey.  [For comparison sake, you are welcome to explore last year’s reflection.]

I will try to highlight any trends I see over the years as well as indicate anything of import in this year’s survey.

The first trend is that this year more parents (32 vs 22 vs. 39 vs. 64) filled out surveys! This is the first time the number has gone up, although it is still a low number considering this represents the number of students whose parents filled them out.  (Remember, it isn’t that 32 separate parents took the survey.  It is the parents of 32 students (many of whom are siblings) who took the survey.

Possible explanations for ongoing low turnout?

Families could be thrilled with what’s going on.  Families could be resigned that the results are not taken seriously enough to invest the time in.  There could be a certain amount of apathy.  Or perhaps we are not marketing the surveys enough.

Possible explanations for slightly higher turnout this year?

Families could be more satisfied or unsatisfied than last year.  Families may believe that the results are taken seriously enough to invest the time in.

Regardless, we have the data we have, so in the spirit of hoping to learn from whatever there is to learn…let’s move on to the results.

This actually maps pretty well to last year’s distribution once you take into account class size.  Let’s look at the BIG PICTURE:

The score is still promising, although a bit lower.  On a  scale of 1-10, our average score wound up being a 7.8.  Last year we scored an 8.0.  It is a fairly stable score – especially considering the sample – but definitely leaves us some room to grow.  Let’s dig deeper.

[If you would like to see the full text of the questions, I need to refer you back to last year’s blog post.  Our survey software changed and I cannot create a clean graph that has the full labels written out.  For consistency sake, I like using the same survey each year, but we may revisit this in the future.]

When it comes to communication, we dipped down almost a full point in just about every category (except electronic communication).   The biggest drop came in providing opportunities for parents to be involved in student learning (which was the highest improvement last year after having been the lowest one the prior year).  Another decrease – and one that takes me by surprises –  was in parent-teacher conferences, which this year saw us expand our Student-Led Conferences from Grades 4-5 to Grades 4-8.  Feedback we received specific to those conferences was positive, so I would have imagined scoring better here.  We will have to go back and be sure we are being clear in what our expectations are in the new format and whether we are meeting them.  I am additionally disappointed considering our renewed emphasis on “Community of Kindness” that our sense of being welcoming dropped.  I do wonder if this is a result of increased expectations, which should only stimulate us to reach higher.  And one place to keep working appears to be ongoing communication about children’s academic status.

All in all, it is a disappointment to see us drop in this area and we will need to do our due diligence in reflecting and planning to do better.  [I will have a thought at the end about what this all means in light of being in transition to a new head of school.]

I know it is a little crowded, so let me break down some of the highlights.

Let me unpack the non-subject specific areas first:

• Very similar to above, everything is down about a point.
• One category worth watching is homework.  We have completely revised the homework guidelines and philosophy this year and I will be very curious to see how this changes in next year’s survey.

General Studies:

• The big picture remains stable (as does our overall school satisfaction number).
• Continue to be pleased with the impact of Singapore Math and look to see next year what the impact of expanded use of the Daily 5 will be.
• The greatest jump up was in Science!  I will attribute this having a first-time, full-time K-8 Science Instructor.
• But there is still room to grow.  Writing took a drop.  Don’t know if this is connected to our iPad initiative and what the perception of that is on “writing”, but I do know that writing is a critical skill and we either need to do a better job hitting our writing benchmarks and/or we need to do a better job (as it says above) communicating to parents about what we are doing in this curricular area.

Jewish Studies, Resources and Extracurricular Activities:

• Our marks in all these areas are up from last year!  Perhaps the renewed commitment to Hebrew immersion has finally kicked in, but our Jewish Studies marks are way up and that is something to be proud of!
• All our resources are up and even our extracurricular activities went up!  We have had new offerings this year and hopefully they are something we can continue to build on.

So there you have it for 2013-2014!

Thanks to all the parents who took the time and care to fill out surveys.  In addition to the multiple choice questions, there were opportunities for open-ended responses.  They added an additional layer of depth; one which is difficult to summarize for a post like this. But please know that all comments will be shared with those they concern as we use this data to make enhancements and improvements headed into next year.  This is especially true in a year of transition.

As I begin to work with Rabbi Rogozen to prepare for his assumption of this headship, my hope and my prayer is simple…

Everything that we already do well, I hope under Rabbi Rogozen’s leadership we continue to do and do even better.  And in each area that we have room to grow, I hope with Rabbi Rogozen’s experience and expertise we grow and grow demonstrably.  I will surely share my thoughts as my time here draws to a close about what we accomplished and experienced together while I was here.  But as a returning parent and as someone who cares deeply about this school, my thoughts about the future could not be more clear – let it only be better and brighter than today…and I am confident that it will!

We are into the second year utilizing our school’s new learning target.  I blogged last year, as part of “The Transparency Files,” about why and how we created the target and how it would guide important decisions about how the school runs, what programs the school invests in, and about anything and everything central to questions of teaching and learning.  And so far it has.  Our decision to move to a 1:1 BYOiPad pilot for Grades 4 & 5, helps move us closer to the target.  Creating a “Community of Kindness” position and utilizing the 7 Habits to develop the program, helps move us closer to the target.  Our work in Middle School, developing a new app that will become commercially available in time for Purim, helps move us closer to the target.  Our decision to expand the use of “Student-Led Conferences” to Grades 4-8, helps moves up closer to the target.  Our move to Singapore Math, expansion of the Daily 5, use of blogfolios, our current conversation about homework, increasing the amount of immersion in our teaching of Hebrew – all of these decisions are framed by whether or not it will bring us closer to the target.  That’s the power of having a clear and shared vision for what teaching and learning ought to look like in our school.

So it should have been so surprise that when it came time to re-imagine what teacher evaluation ought to look like…we looked to the target to guide us.

We realized last year that with the success of student-led conferences, that we are actually treating our students with greater ownership of their evaluation process that we were our teachers!  If our students are supposed to own their learning, then our teachers ought to own their professional growth.  And if our students can collect artifacts of their growth, organize them on their blogfolios, reflect on their growth and present to their teachers and parents…

And so we charged our faculty to form a “Teacher Evaluation Committee” to re-imagine the evaluation process for teachers and what they came up with is our new “Teacher-Led Evaluation”.  It reflects what we believe is the most authentic way for teachers (and teaching assistants) to document, reflect and share their professional growth while still allowing for the accountability necessary to ensure expectations are met.  In the spirit of transparency, I would like to share the process and briefly reflect on how it working out so far…

This is what teachers received a couple of months back:

Dear Faculty:

For the fall evaluation, please schedule an appointment with Jon before Winter break. You will need the following:

• A completed self-evaluation packet (checklist plus narrative)
• Be prepared to discuss your self-evaluation with Jon
• Not required at this time: A presentation, artifacts, a video-recorded lesson or peer observation

For the spring evaluation, please schedule an appointment with Jon in April. You will need the following:

• A completed self-evaluation checklist (narrative not required)
• A presentation aligned with the Learning Target documenting your professional growth during this school year in a format of your choice, including the following:
• Artifacts to show evidence of growth
•  A reflection of your video-recorded lesson
•  A reflection of your peer observation
• Goals: Where do I go from here?

• Be prepared to discuss your self-evaluation with Jon

Teacher Evaluation Committee

The self-evaluation comes straight from the target:

And the narrative prompt:

Please reflect in writing on your growth as a teacher at this point in time. Your reflection should be directly related to the Learning Target. Make sure to address your professional development goals and offer an evaluation of your progress to date. Also consider the following questions: What are my successes? Is there room for improvement? Do I have artifacts as evidence of my learning? What tools or resources do I need to continue my professional growth on the Learning Target continuum?

I have made my way through about a half to two-thirds of the faculty and I am enjoying it immensely.  The conversations have been more focused on growth and less focused on what I (or others) feel is lacking.  The conversations are led by teachers who are experts in who they are and not guided by me who, in the past, would have to play detective in order to have what to present.  The artifacts are fabulous, the discussions are rich and – most importantly – what teachers are working on is astounding.

The accountability is still there – teachers are required to demonstrate growth in areas mutually agreed upon by them and me – but the shift in emphasis has brought a shift in attitude that brought a level of professional development we have never seen before.

All in all, this first go around has been a true success.  I can’t wait to see the fuller presentations in the spring and see how much more growth there is to come!