The latest PSSA 2009 scores for “Investigations” at the elementary school level provide another point of comparison with other area school districts. It should be noted that State College Area School District has a lower student:teacher ratio (13:1), a lower percentage of socioeconomically disadvantaged students (13%), and a higher annual expenditures per student ($11,203) than Bald Eagle (14:1, 35%, $9,354), Bellefonte (14:1, 28%, $9,327), Penns Valley (15:1, 24%, $10,076), and Philipsburg-Osceola (14:1, 43%, $10,746). However, SCASD’s math proficiency for all district students is not markedly higher and for some grades is markedly lower. These results mirror the profile of PSSA math scores from 2008.
Sadly, the math performance of children from socioeconomically disadvantaged families in SCASD is lower than the overall student population and a serious decline is evident across the elementary school grades from 79.3% (grade 3) to only 53.3% (grade 6) of students performing at the proficient or advanced level in mathematics. Basically, the longer these children have had “Investigations”, the worse their performance is.
I think it is sad that we are so competitive at State College that we can’t feel good about ourselves unless we are ahead of all the other districts. In fact we are ahead of the other districts from grade 7 and beyond. Do we need to ‘crush’ the competition?
Instead of looking over our shoulder, let’s look at where we stand on an absolute scale. The right question isn’t why aren’t we further ahead of the other districts, but why does proficiency fall steeply from grades 7 to 11? We can’t blame this problem on Investigations, which stops in grade 7. In fact, I submit that if we had investigations in the high school, we might alleviate the precipitous drop in competence.
Bob – Do you really think that this post is rooted in insecurity or a need to be the best?
There are certain factors that are expected to go along with academic achievement – student-teacher ratio, socioeconomic status, educational achievement of parents, to name a few. On the basis of these factors, SCASD should be performing better than the other Centre County districts, and we’re not. Curriculum is certainly not the whole story, but it’s worth considering that Penns Valley (the yellow bar that conspicuously stands out among the rest) uses a more traditional program.
You’re right that the drop-off in high school can’t be blamed on “Investigations”. That is actually a national trend that many people blame on relaxed math requirements.
Allow me to clarify that our district need not “be the best” relative to these other districts. As a community we should strive to do better than what Investigations has accomplished for our kids. What I see most glaringly evident in these data is that our outcomes for the least economically advantaged youth are pathetically low, and I would argue this to be true on an absolute scale as well.
The “Matthew effect” has been demonstrated in reading. In essence, the rich get richer. For example, in the middle grades the less able or motivated child might read 100,000 words a year, the average children might read 1,000,000, and the highest readers might be 10,000,000 or even higher. The more words kids read, the better their reading skills and vocabulary become. If you grow up in a household that supports and encourages exposure to words, you’re likely to benefit.
If we apply this to mathematics, it appears to me that those children who have the least economic and educational advantages (e.g., home support and learning practice related to mathematics) are not getting what they need from the Investigations curriculum if only half (53%) of these kids are proficient in mathematics by sixth grade. These children are being left behind.
SCASD is a ‘rich’ school district that should not be leaving kids behind. If other districts can accomplish better outcomes for these disadvantaged kids, there is absolutely no reason why SCASD cannot do better. The first step would be to select a better core curriculum in mathematics.