Four Year Old Kindergarten Update: January 2008
I had the pleasure of attending the Wisconsin Association of School Boards (WASB) State Convention on January 23rd. There were so many fine offerings that it was hard to decide which ones to attend. One of the Idea Exchange sessions was entitled “Many Happy Returns: Why School Boards Should Care about Pre-K,” presented by Patte Barth, director of the center for public education and Chrisanne Gayl, director of federal programs. I spent many an agonizing hour over this topic, as can be seen by the many essays here. I debated about attending, doubting my ability to be unbiased. I asked myself a few questions. Could I be open-minded to new data? Can I shut up and listen? Probably not, but I really was curious about the state-of-the-art data available on this controversial topic.
I finally found the room just as they were finishing the presentation. Not only that, but they had not produced enough copies of their slides for all the attendees, so I had to squint to make out the references on the slides. Sure enough, there it was: “High/Scopes Perry Preschool Project” in living color. I sighed audibly. Universal Preschool program advocates continue to insist on pulling out that old saw from the early 1960’s to prove their point. Questioning revealed that newer data were available. We were directed to look up Oklahoma’s data at our leisure because they present compelling current data regarding that subject. Since it was only begun in 1998, there are no long-term data available to check the long-term socioeconomic impact, but student achievement comparisons are impressive. “Why,” I asked her, “don’t you show it to us?” Ms. Barth made the point that pre-K studies were notoriously difficult to evaluate because they lack standardization. One might even expand on that statement. There also lacks formal study of the baseline environment, which makes it difficult to measure progress made toward the goal, which further assumes that a concrete, measurable goal has been established. This is the essential point opponents of Universal 4K have tried to make for years. There is a cart before the horse approach taken with pre-K. The older studies such as High/Scopes proves that a well designed experiment is feasible with concrete baselines, goals and measurements. Pointing out the dearth of sound experimental procedure used to evaluate 4K programs is lost on the proponents of Universal 4K. They merrily go about insisting that Universal 4K needs to be implemented with no questions asked, while characterizing opponents as evil Republicans with no regard for our children. I assure you I am neither. If this bunch would speak with data instead of appealing to emotional arguments and inapplicable 40-year-old studies, they would be more successful.
I also asked why the group wishes to expand to Universal 4K instead of advocating for and targeting the “in between” demographic of at risk population who can’t afford pre-school but don’t qualify for Head Start. For example, why not work on increasing the income qualification levels for Head Start in Wisconsin (a pitiful 100% of the federal poverty level, or FPL) instead of paying over 90 Million Dollars a Year to provide a Universal program? Other more successful states have up to 250% of the FPL as the threshold income qualification for Head Start. That was answered with an illuminating “Head Start is a federally funded program.” Well, DUH! And “Each community must decide how its program should look.” AARGH! That is NOT the answer to my question.
When I returned home, I logged onto the website where Ms. Barth’s presentation is located (www.centerforpubliceducation.org) and found more research studies. Two more studies from the late 60’s and early 70’s were noted there. The Abecedarian Project at the University of North Carolina (1972-1985) was mentioned, which had fewer participants than High/Scopes did (111) and also dealt exclusively with a high-risk population. This study included birth to 5-year-old interventions, with eligible children receiving services up to age 8. Similar educational gains were seen for these children, as well as social gains. The Chicago Child Parent Centers begun in 1967 was another touted study. The demographic focus was again economically disadvantaged children and similar successes were seen with the study participants. And none of them are Universal 4K programs.
Contemporary Universal 4K studies include those in Oklahoma and Kansas. Georgetown University analyzed the Tulsa, Oklahoma school district program and NIEER (National Institute for Early Education Research) evaluated the Kansas program. According to NIEER, it is difficult to control the variables in a side-by-side study of students with and those without pre-K, so they designed the study differently. They used as a control group students with birthday cut-off dates just after the 4K-eligibility date. The study group consisted of students with birthdays just before the cut-off date. One reason NIEER felt compelled to use this protocol was because “it was impossible to extract a control demographic because there was no way of telling whether or not individuals in the control group attended other preschool programs.” The study compared results on various testing protocols implemented by the teachers. Other contemporary 4K studies have followed suit in their protocols. However, this does not meet the criteria of a side-by-side study sought by so many of us. These are not students from the same cohort, but students who are one year apart in school, regardless of their age group. Comparison of students who have completed an entire year of 4K to students just entering 4K of similar age range is an interesting exercise, but doesn’t really drive home the point. In Tulsa, despite the program being Universal, only 60% of the 4-year-olds are enrolled. There ought to be plenty of students to randomly choose from as a true control. Why does it matter whether or not they have had other pre-school experience? They are the control. If publicly funded pre-K is so superior, it should hold up to comparisons to other programs. The reluctance of Universal Pre-K proponents to show these data lead cynics such as myself to conclude that a true side-by-side study would NOT show all the fabulous social and educational gains one is led to expect from their constant quoting of results from the High/Scopes and Abecedarian Projects.
I reiterate that the socioeconomic and educational gains proven by the well designed studies such as The High/Scope Perry Preschool Project, Chicago Parent Child Project and The Abecedarian Project apply to children demonstrating one or more high risk factors such as poverty and developmental delays. Society in general and these children in particular gain so much from nurturing a strong emphasis on the benefits of education. These students are often already served by Head Start, a fantastic program. The students we need to focus our limited resources on are the “in-between” kids, children of struggling parents who wish to provide but cannot afford quality pre-school for their children. And our resources are limited. As much as we all would like to take the hundreds of billions of dollars we spend on the Defense Department and spend it on other more lofty goals such as education, it’s not going to happen any time soon. Implementing Universal 4K will result in the cancellation of other proven educational programs, such as Gifted and Talented programs. Then what will we do with all of those baby Einsteins we produce with Universal 4K?
Monday, January 28, 2008
Student Achievement Data Update: January 2008
Student Achievement Data Update: January 2008
A strong reason for attending the Wisconsin Association of School Boards Convention on Wednesday was to observe the Education Forum presentation by Dr. Jeffery Braden entitled “A Policymaker’s Guide to Student Achievement Data.” I was impressed with the generally high quality of the speakers at the convention. Dr. Braden was fabulous, and he had plenty of handouts. I learned quite a bit about the origin or our own Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Exam (WKCE), the variety of test protocols available to measure student achievement and, the biggie, whether or not the tests actually do measure student achievement. Here’s some highlights learned from Dr. Braden’s presentation.
The Wisconsin Student Assessment System (WSAS) has 4 Goals.
Provide clear expectations of standards for student learning.
Provide student achievement data relative to the expectations or standards.
Use assessment methods that promote high quality curriculum and instruction.
Provide feedback to students, teachers and parents to assist in educational planning.
The great drawback of the WKCE has been and continues to be the timing of #4. Feedback in May from testing in October is essentially useless in the goal of assisting in educational planning for the school year the test is taken. Educators have no way to direct their classrooms toward areas in need of improvement because they don’t know what those areas are until the end of the year. Our district recently instituted MAP testing to alleviate this issue. It provides immediate feedback, is a growth model test and aids in individualized (differentiated) instruction. The Evansville School Board is drafting a proclamation to the DPI urging them to replace the current WKCE model with growth testing protocols. The WASB had this in their resolutions as well. Dr. Braden is on a committee working to encourage the federal government to utilize such value added growth model testing as the standard in the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) policy.
An interesting point addressed in the discussion regarded the classroom time spent taking the WKCE. This is a frequent complaint of many stakeholders in this process including parents, students and teachers. However, the most time intensive tests at grade 4, 8 and 10 only take 1.5% of total class time, with the other years in grades 3-9 averaging less than 1% of total class time. Dr. Braden compared that to the industry standard of 18-22% of time spent completing performance evaluations and 4-5% of the workday spent measuring product outcomes (quality assurance). That was an inspired comparison, which helps non-educators understand it in familiar terms. This analysis only included classroom time TAKING the test. Test preparation time is not included. Dr. Braden emphasized that it has been determined that time spent in class specifically on test preparation doesn’t pay off. A well-functioning school that teaches to the standards to begin with will perform well on the test.
The discussion finally got to the point where proficiency levels and their origin were discussed. This was fascinating to me. How good is good and who says so? Wisconsin has recently taken quite a beating in the press about their lax standards and all was explained here! The levels of proficiency were determined by a method called “bookmarking.” Experts for each subject were gathered by grade level and provided with bookmarks labeled Minimal, Basic, Proficient and Advanced. They were given a book with questions in their subject arranged in order from easiest to hardest and asked to place each bookmark where they thought each performance level should fall in the order of question difficulty. Naturally, there were differences in where this point was for each expert, so the next step was to get together and agree where the levels should be placed. This was done for each grade level from 3-10 for each subject tested within the WKCE. Wisconsin got into trouble when they ran numbers to evaluate where our schools would fall within the context of this first “bookmarking” session. Apparently, it wasn’t pretty, with only about 10% of the students scoring proficient or advanced using the original bookmarks. So, in a classic political maneuver, they went back and changed the bookmarks to inflate the scores. A little later in the presentation, Wisconsin’s performance on the WKCE was compared to it’s performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a National Test. The most bleak data shown were the 8th grade reading data: 2006-2007 WKCE showed 85% proficient or better where 2006-2007 NAEP showed only 33% proficient or better. I commented, “So that means that the teachers and experts who participated in the original bookmarking sessions in Wisconsin were right!” Dr. Braden agreed, remarking that since there were no National numbers to run, there were never any inflated bookmarks created for the NAEP test. Further information comparing WKCE scores with NAEP results can be found by Googling “National Report Card.”
This score inflation bodes no good news for Evansville. Our performance on WKCE test has waned over time. 85% proficient is really 33% proficient and Wisconsin sold out the true measurement to get those crucial federal dollars. As we tick toward 2014, when, of course, 100% of all the children in America will be proficient or advanced, I reckon the definition of proficient will evolve to mean mediocre.
A strong reason for attending the Wisconsin Association of School Boards Convention on Wednesday was to observe the Education Forum presentation by Dr. Jeffery Braden entitled “A Policymaker’s Guide to Student Achievement Data.” I was impressed with the generally high quality of the speakers at the convention. Dr. Braden was fabulous, and he had plenty of handouts. I learned quite a bit about the origin or our own Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Exam (WKCE), the variety of test protocols available to measure student achievement and, the biggie, whether or not the tests actually do measure student achievement. Here’s some highlights learned from Dr. Braden’s presentation.
The Wisconsin Student Assessment System (WSAS) has 4 Goals.
Provide clear expectations of standards for student learning.
Provide student achievement data relative to the expectations or standards.
Use assessment methods that promote high quality curriculum and instruction.
Provide feedback to students, teachers and parents to assist in educational planning.
The great drawback of the WKCE has been and continues to be the timing of #4. Feedback in May from testing in October is essentially useless in the goal of assisting in educational planning for the school year the test is taken. Educators have no way to direct their classrooms toward areas in need of improvement because they don’t know what those areas are until the end of the year. Our district recently instituted MAP testing to alleviate this issue. It provides immediate feedback, is a growth model test and aids in individualized (differentiated) instruction. The Evansville School Board is drafting a proclamation to the DPI urging them to replace the current WKCE model with growth testing protocols. The WASB had this in their resolutions as well. Dr. Braden is on a committee working to encourage the federal government to utilize such value added growth model testing as the standard in the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) policy.
An interesting point addressed in the discussion regarded the classroom time spent taking the WKCE. This is a frequent complaint of many stakeholders in this process including parents, students and teachers. However, the most time intensive tests at grade 4, 8 and 10 only take 1.5% of total class time, with the other years in grades 3-9 averaging less than 1% of total class time. Dr. Braden compared that to the industry standard of 18-22% of time spent completing performance evaluations and 4-5% of the workday spent measuring product outcomes (quality assurance). That was an inspired comparison, which helps non-educators understand it in familiar terms. This analysis only included classroom time TAKING the test. Test preparation time is not included. Dr. Braden emphasized that it has been determined that time spent in class specifically on test preparation doesn’t pay off. A well-functioning school that teaches to the standards to begin with will perform well on the test.
The discussion finally got to the point where proficiency levels and their origin were discussed. This was fascinating to me. How good is good and who says so? Wisconsin has recently taken quite a beating in the press about their lax standards and all was explained here! The levels of proficiency were determined by a method called “bookmarking.” Experts for each subject were gathered by grade level and provided with bookmarks labeled Minimal, Basic, Proficient and Advanced. They were given a book with questions in their subject arranged in order from easiest to hardest and asked to place each bookmark where they thought each performance level should fall in the order of question difficulty. Naturally, there were differences in where this point was for each expert, so the next step was to get together and agree where the levels should be placed. This was done for each grade level from 3-10 for each subject tested within the WKCE. Wisconsin got into trouble when they ran numbers to evaluate where our schools would fall within the context of this first “bookmarking” session. Apparently, it wasn’t pretty, with only about 10% of the students scoring proficient or advanced using the original bookmarks. So, in a classic political maneuver, they went back and changed the bookmarks to inflate the scores. A little later in the presentation, Wisconsin’s performance on the WKCE was compared to it’s performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a National Test. The most bleak data shown were the 8th grade reading data: 2006-2007 WKCE showed 85% proficient or better where 2006-2007 NAEP showed only 33% proficient or better. I commented, “So that means that the teachers and experts who participated in the original bookmarking sessions in Wisconsin were right!” Dr. Braden agreed, remarking that since there were no National numbers to run, there were never any inflated bookmarks created for the NAEP test. Further information comparing WKCE scores with NAEP results can be found by Googling “National Report Card.”
This score inflation bodes no good news for Evansville. Our performance on WKCE test has waned over time. 85% proficient is really 33% proficient and Wisconsin sold out the true measurement to get those crucial federal dollars. As we tick toward 2014, when, of course, 100% of all the children in America will be proficient or advanced, I reckon the definition of proficient will evolve to mean mediocre.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
School Debate: Melissa Speaks" 4 Questions; 4 Answers; Evansville School Board Forum
Question 1). You have each chosen to take on the difficult and rewarding task of running for the Evansville School Board. Please share with us the top two reasons you wish to serve.
First and foremost, our children will shape our future. Effective education of our children will determine the path that future will take. From a purely selfish standpoint, I have three of those reasons named Sarah, Holly and Will whose future depends on providing them with the best education possible within budget limitations. It is an honor to have the opportunity to serve on the Board and bring my research and analytical skills to bear on the many challenging decisions that the Board faces both immediately and long term.
The second reason compelling me to seek a seat on the Evansville School Board results from my experiences with the Board over the last 11 months.
I attended my first School Board meeting last March to support a program jeopardized by the perennial budget squeeze, in this case our last half-day kindergarten section. What I anticipated to be a one-time appearance quickly became a standing commitment. Other valuable programs I supported were also placed on the endangered species list, such as AP Chemistry and the Gifted and Talented program. There was a proposal brought to the board for universal 4K that changed with each presentation, lacked a firm budgetary analysis, had no facilities commitments and did not have the support of the average taxpayer in our district. Through it all, it became apparent to me as an analytical scientist that the Board was being asked to make critical high dollar decisions based on incomplete and in some cases inaccurate data. I wrote reports in an effort to clarify some of these issues for myself and copied the Board and the administration on my findings. From these experiences and the encouragement of a wide cross-section of people, I concluded that my skills and abilities would be a good fit for the Board at this time.
Question 2: The School Board is asked to respond to the needs, wants and demands of many stakeholders in the district. Who is the primary customer of the School Board and why?
The Wisconsin State Journal stated in their school funding series this week that the price tag for Wisconsin Public Schools now exceeds 10 billion dollars. This represents 40% of the general fund for the entire State. So the short answer is that the taxpayer is the primary customer of the School Board. But that is a simplistic answer to a complex question. The word “customer” connotes an economic relationship in which goods or services are rendered for a fee. One can define the School Board’s “business” as the effective oversight of budget and policy decisions in order to provide the best possible public education for our children while remaining mindful of taxpayer burden. The “product” of the School Board, in that case, is education and the primary customer is the taxpayer who is funding the education.
One important aspect of the customer/supplier relationship is satisfaction. If customers at a traditional retail establishment are unsatisfied with the selection or quality of the product, they can return the defective product, get a refund and choose to spend their future dollars elsewhere. These options do not exist for the taxpayer-customer whose sales tax, income tax and property taxes are not optional. Alternate programming costs are above and beyond this commitment as opposed to instead of this cost. Returns are not possible and refunds are non-existent. So there is a greater onus of responsibility placed on the Board to provide as best it can for each and every student’s needs, working with parents and taxpayers to strike that crucial balance between needs, wants and demands.
I propose an alternate definition for the relationship formed by the triangle of taxpayer, School Board and parent. Rather than considering the school board/taxpayer relationship as one that exists between a supplier and a customer, maybe we can broaden that definition to a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship. The School Board administers the funds gleaned from the taxpayers, many of whom are parents who donate their time and talents in volunteering at the school, supporting homework assignments at home and furthering the success of the symbiote, our school district. Everyone has a stake in the successful outcome. Parents and taxpayers are put where they want to be-neither being steered by, nor steering the School Board-but at the helm with the School Board. And the effective education of our children becomes the focal point for all parties.
Question 3. We read each week of the competing demands placed on the school district and upon the board. Please focus on those that you consider to be the top two issues facing the board after the election and how you would balance them with the remaining issues.
The first issue I see facing our district is our hemorrhaging facilities costs. I wrote a report in May in which I compared the state average per capita school spending in 2004-2005 with Evansville’s per capita spending in the same year for various categories (www2.dpi.state.wi.us/sfsdw/Std_Rpts_Results.asp). Evansville showed impressive fiscal restraint in all but facilities costs, which were 53% higher than the state average per capita facilities costs. In concrete terms, we spent $637,686 above the expected value had our district facilities costs been equal to the state average value. This cost essentially negated the savings shown by frugality in all of the other budget categories combined. I would scrutinize this line item to evaluate where to begin improvements, if this were my own budget.
The second issue I see facing our district is growth, which directly competes with what I perceive as the first issue. The State of Wisconsin population is estimated to have increased by 3.2% from 2000 to 2005 (quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/55000.html). Our district enrollment has increased by 11.5% in the same time frame while the overall state public school enrollment has decreased by 0.18%. It could be instructive to study the demographics of our remarkable increase to help understand in what ways Evansville differs from the average Wisconsin community and to better prepare for our future.
Our administration’s response to both of these issues was to ask the Board to commission a facilities survey that recommended building new schools. This document by PRA claims to show many inadequacies even at our new high school. I challenge some of their conclusions and cannot foresee community support for building new schools at this time. People have remarked to me that they were under the impression that the deficiencies outlined in the recent PRA report had been addressed with funds from the last referendum.
The report also predicts overcrowding at all facilities within 4 years, apparently predicated on a continued 11% growth rate in our district. I can’t speak to the logic of that approach, but our 7th grader recently said to me, “Overcrowded classrooms? We have PLENTY of SPACE. CHAIRS? Now that’s a different story. Get us some CHAIRS!” A brief evaluation of square footage per student in our district compared to National Averages proves Sarah right. If you took all the Gross Square Footage and divided it by all the enrolled students, the result is 255 SF per student, 1.5 times the (weighted) National Average of 170 SF per student. The facility closest to capacity now is Levi Leonard, which just happens to be attached to an underutilized Theodore Robinson. This indicates to me that redistribution, not a building referendum, is called for. This won’t fix the code violations at JC McKenna, but redistributing the younger grades instead of building new schools, will leave more money to address the problems at the Middle School. Just like a personal budget, you don’t necessarily go out and build a new house because it’s old fashioned or needs a new roof.
I surmise that the cost savings realized by considering the above approaches would then be available for some of the other competing issues the Board faces, such as hiring a sufficient number of teachers for our growing district.
Question 4: There are six candidates to fill two seats. Why should the voters of the district hire you? What skills and experiences will you bring to the board making you the best candidate for the position?
In addition to the cute factor and a good sense of humor, I see four areas where my strengths will be an asset to our School Board. First, my former career as an analytical chemist with Wisconsin Energies honed my research and analytical skills. I was also trained in budget responsibilities for our department after a 40% layoff forced restructuring of our lab. I am familiar with crisis management modes and how to minimize their impact. I wrote several research reports for the School Board over the last 11 months that illustrate my analytical skills. The topics ranged from 4K to AP Chemistry. The results are mixed at this time, but together with a dedicated group of involved parents, we made a cogent fiscal argument for maintaining our last stand-alone half-day kindergarten as long as enrollment minimums are met.
Secondly, I’m familiar with several of the issues currently being considered by the Board. This would give me an opportunity to “hit the ground running” if I am elected. I attended all but 2 of the regular Board meetings in the last 11 months as well as the “budget retreat” and a few committee meetings. During these meetings, I listened, presented research or challenged the administration, as the situation demanded. I will always do the research necessary to ask the right questions. I will never vote on a measure without the pertinent data at hand. I’m a firm believer in these credos: “Show me the data!” and “Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.” My experiences with the Board, the administration and the public lead me to believe that my informed, outspoken style will be a welcome asset on the Board.
The third characteristic I bring to my campaign for School Board is persistence in pursuing a goal. I spent months trying to decipher the funding streams for half-day kindergarten. I drove lots of people crazy asking apparently meaningless questions. It was all worth it when I reached that AHA moment in September where I finally grasped the issue as a whole. I would bring this persistence to any unresolved question in my mind and benefit the district as a whole in so doing.
Finally, my experience as the wife of an Evansville alderman for the last 6 years has prepared me for the rigors of the life of a public servant. I have a realistic view of the time commitment. I am prepared to deal with concerned citizens and irate taxpayers. I do not expect positive reinforcement beyond that gotten from dedicating personal strengths to public service. I’m equal to the task and would be honored if elected.
First and foremost, our children will shape our future. Effective education of our children will determine the path that future will take. From a purely selfish standpoint, I have three of those reasons named Sarah, Holly and Will whose future depends on providing them with the best education possible within budget limitations. It is an honor to have the opportunity to serve on the Board and bring my research and analytical skills to bear on the many challenging decisions that the Board faces both immediately and long term.
The second reason compelling me to seek a seat on the Evansville School Board results from my experiences with the Board over the last 11 months.
I attended my first School Board meeting last March to support a program jeopardized by the perennial budget squeeze, in this case our last half-day kindergarten section. What I anticipated to be a one-time appearance quickly became a standing commitment. Other valuable programs I supported were also placed on the endangered species list, such as AP Chemistry and the Gifted and Talented program. There was a proposal brought to the board for universal 4K that changed with each presentation, lacked a firm budgetary analysis, had no facilities commitments and did not have the support of the average taxpayer in our district. Through it all, it became apparent to me as an analytical scientist that the Board was being asked to make critical high dollar decisions based on incomplete and in some cases inaccurate data. I wrote reports in an effort to clarify some of these issues for myself and copied the Board and the administration on my findings. From these experiences and the encouragement of a wide cross-section of people, I concluded that my skills and abilities would be a good fit for the Board at this time.
Question 2: The School Board is asked to respond to the needs, wants and demands of many stakeholders in the district. Who is the primary customer of the School Board and why?
The Wisconsin State Journal stated in their school funding series this week that the price tag for Wisconsin Public Schools now exceeds 10 billion dollars. This represents 40% of the general fund for the entire State. So the short answer is that the taxpayer is the primary customer of the School Board. But that is a simplistic answer to a complex question. The word “customer” connotes an economic relationship in which goods or services are rendered for a fee. One can define the School Board’s “business” as the effective oversight of budget and policy decisions in order to provide the best possible public education for our children while remaining mindful of taxpayer burden. The “product” of the School Board, in that case, is education and the primary customer is the taxpayer who is funding the education.
One important aspect of the customer/supplier relationship is satisfaction. If customers at a traditional retail establishment are unsatisfied with the selection or quality of the product, they can return the defective product, get a refund and choose to spend their future dollars elsewhere. These options do not exist for the taxpayer-customer whose sales tax, income tax and property taxes are not optional. Alternate programming costs are above and beyond this commitment as opposed to instead of this cost. Returns are not possible and refunds are non-existent. So there is a greater onus of responsibility placed on the Board to provide as best it can for each and every student’s needs, working with parents and taxpayers to strike that crucial balance between needs, wants and demands.
I propose an alternate definition for the relationship formed by the triangle of taxpayer, School Board and parent. Rather than considering the school board/taxpayer relationship as one that exists between a supplier and a customer, maybe we can broaden that definition to a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship. The School Board administers the funds gleaned from the taxpayers, many of whom are parents who donate their time and talents in volunteering at the school, supporting homework assignments at home and furthering the success of the symbiote, our school district. Everyone has a stake in the successful outcome. Parents and taxpayers are put where they want to be-neither being steered by, nor steering the School Board-but at the helm with the School Board. And the effective education of our children becomes the focal point for all parties.
Question 3. We read each week of the competing demands placed on the school district and upon the board. Please focus on those that you consider to be the top two issues facing the board after the election and how you would balance them with the remaining issues.
The first issue I see facing our district is our hemorrhaging facilities costs. I wrote a report in May in which I compared the state average per capita school spending in 2004-2005 with Evansville’s per capita spending in the same year for various categories (www2.dpi.state.wi.us/sfsdw/Std_Rpts_Results.asp). Evansville showed impressive fiscal restraint in all but facilities costs, which were 53% higher than the state average per capita facilities costs. In concrete terms, we spent $637,686 above the expected value had our district facilities costs been equal to the state average value. This cost essentially negated the savings shown by frugality in all of the other budget categories combined. I would scrutinize this line item to evaluate where to begin improvements, if this were my own budget.
The second issue I see facing our district is growth, which directly competes with what I perceive as the first issue. The State of Wisconsin population is estimated to have increased by 3.2% from 2000 to 2005 (quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/55000.html). Our district enrollment has increased by 11.5% in the same time frame while the overall state public school enrollment has decreased by 0.18%. It could be instructive to study the demographics of our remarkable increase to help understand in what ways Evansville differs from the average Wisconsin community and to better prepare for our future.
Our administration’s response to both of these issues was to ask the Board to commission a facilities survey that recommended building new schools. This document by PRA claims to show many inadequacies even at our new high school. I challenge some of their conclusions and cannot foresee community support for building new schools at this time. People have remarked to me that they were under the impression that the deficiencies outlined in the recent PRA report had been addressed with funds from the last referendum.
The report also predicts overcrowding at all facilities within 4 years, apparently predicated on a continued 11% growth rate in our district. I can’t speak to the logic of that approach, but our 7th grader recently said to me, “Overcrowded classrooms? We have PLENTY of SPACE. CHAIRS? Now that’s a different story. Get us some CHAIRS!” A brief evaluation of square footage per student in our district compared to National Averages proves Sarah right. If you took all the Gross Square Footage and divided it by all the enrolled students, the result is 255 SF per student, 1.5 times the (weighted) National Average of 170 SF per student. The facility closest to capacity now is Levi Leonard, which just happens to be attached to an underutilized Theodore Robinson. This indicates to me that redistribution, not a building referendum, is called for. This won’t fix the code violations at JC McKenna, but redistributing the younger grades instead of building new schools, will leave more money to address the problems at the Middle School. Just like a personal budget, you don’t necessarily go out and build a new house because it’s old fashioned or needs a new roof.
I surmise that the cost savings realized by considering the above approaches would then be available for some of the other competing issues the Board faces, such as hiring a sufficient number of teachers for our growing district.
Question 4: There are six candidates to fill two seats. Why should the voters of the district hire you? What skills and experiences will you bring to the board making you the best candidate for the position?
In addition to the cute factor and a good sense of humor, I see four areas where my strengths will be an asset to our School Board. First, my former career as an analytical chemist with Wisconsin Energies honed my research and analytical skills. I was also trained in budget responsibilities for our department after a 40% layoff forced restructuring of our lab. I am familiar with crisis management modes and how to minimize their impact. I wrote several research reports for the School Board over the last 11 months that illustrate my analytical skills. The topics ranged from 4K to AP Chemistry. The results are mixed at this time, but together with a dedicated group of involved parents, we made a cogent fiscal argument for maintaining our last stand-alone half-day kindergarten as long as enrollment minimums are met.
Secondly, I’m familiar with several of the issues currently being considered by the Board. This would give me an opportunity to “hit the ground running” if I am elected. I attended all but 2 of the regular Board meetings in the last 11 months as well as the “budget retreat” and a few committee meetings. During these meetings, I listened, presented research or challenged the administration, as the situation demanded. I will always do the research necessary to ask the right questions. I will never vote on a measure without the pertinent data at hand. I’m a firm believer in these credos: “Show me the data!” and “Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.” My experiences with the Board, the administration and the public lead me to believe that my informed, outspoken style will be a welcome asset on the Board.
The third characteristic I bring to my campaign for School Board is persistence in pursuing a goal. I spent months trying to decipher the funding streams for half-day kindergarten. I drove lots of people crazy asking apparently meaningless questions. It was all worth it when I reached that AHA moment in September where I finally grasped the issue as a whole. I would bring this persistence to any unresolved question in my mind and benefit the district as a whole in so doing.
Finally, my experience as the wife of an Evansville alderman for the last 6 years has prepared me for the rigors of the life of a public servant. I have a realistic view of the time commitment. I am prepared to deal with concerned citizens and irate taxpayers. I do not expect positive reinforcement beyond that gotten from dedicating personal strengths to public service. I’m equal to the task and would be honored if elected.
May 2006: GAT Position: Melissa Speaks
May 8, 2006
To: Evansville School Board
From: Melissa Hammann
Subject: GAT Position
Yes, I’m back again to petition you for yet another “special interest.” This time it’s the gifted and talented program on the line. As weary as you are to see me here again, I am even wearier to be here again, feeling antagonism for the entity entrusted with our children’s education as their first priority. The source of this feeling is the nature of many of the superintendent’s proposed cuts to meet the imposed revenue caps combined with the administration’s defense against community suggested cuts as “unacceptable” with no further discussion.
As with any battle, I had to first arm myself. An excellent source of monetary flow data is available at the DPI School Finance Data webpage (www2.dpi.state.wi.us/sfsdw/). This shows comparative cost and revenue data for the 2003-2004 budget year. Then I went to the 2004-2005 spreadsheets (dpi.wi.gov/sfs/cmprvcst.html), and performed the necessary calculations to arrive at the per capita data as summarized in the first webpage. According to the website, the formulas used for the calculations changed between the two fiscal years and may account for some fluctuations. However, several interesting items stood out during my brief survey of the information. Please refer to the attached table for clarity.
First let’s discuss revenue. While our 2004-2005 State Revenue per child exceeded the state average by 16% and our property tax allocation per child was 17.5% lower than the state average; our Federal Revenue was less than half of the state average Federal Revenue. This is a good place to begin a build up of revenue, I think. For fiscal year 2004-2005, revenue from all sources for Evansville is 1.5% lower than the state average, for a total of $10,879 per Full Time Equivalent student in 2004-2005.
For the same fiscal year, on the cost side, we were 3% below the state average Educational costs, 16% lower on Transportation and 26% lower on Food Services costs. However, Evansville’s facility costs per student exceeded the state average by 53%, or in concrete terms, $378.00 per student, for a total of $637,686.00. This would have a big red target on it if it were my personal budget being scrutinized. That was a revelation to me. The bigger revelation to me was the direct comparison of revenue and cost totals. In both budget years for which I did the calculations, total revenue exceeded total costs. In fiscal year 2004-2005, this was $345.00 per student, or $572,015.00. WOW! All this time, I thought the school district was flat broke. Granted, this is only 3.1% of the total budget, and I admit that I am steeply immersed in the learning curve of school finance lore. However, I didn’t think schools were supposed to make any profit, and no matter how you cut it, over half a million dollars is a lot of extra money. This baffles me in the extreme and leads me to a largely cynical “harumph” when such incredible programs as the half-day kindergarten program and the gifted and talented coordinator position are even considered for elimination.
Our daughters have each qualified for, and participated in, accelerated learning programs offered in Evansville. We hope the program lasts long enough for our son to participate as well, should he demonstrate the need. Maybe our dedication to providing the best kindergarten choice for their needs, the half-day kindergarten class, has something to do with their thirst for knowledge.
Our older daughter was “discovered” for the program when her 4th grade WKCE results identified high verbal/reading scores. I was pretty sure all along that a 2nd grader reading Harry Potter was a little unusual. But once she was identified, all the doors have been opened for her and she has flourished in the program. Our 3rd grade daughter has followed in her sister’s footsteps. She was identified earlier due to earlier testing protocols (probably due to the No Child Left Behind Act). She had the privilege of working with Mrs. Kress in Elementary School and now meets in literature circle twice a week with Mrs. Ellison. I am so pleased that these literature circles are available for the Intermediate School students now. This can only further improve the reading scores in our district, which according to the DPI website have been improving continually over the last few years.
The identification and placement of our children into the GAT program was a direct result of the well-designed program run by a dedicated program coordinator in our district. Our family has always modeled a love for learning in general and reading in particular. However, we are unprepared to effectively challenge our children to expand their horizons. The program coordinators guide our way and explain how to best engineer their education to help them meet their goals. This help will be crucial as they grow older and more challenges are available to them.
Evansville is ahead of the curve in providing a haven for our special needs students. Gifted students are often perceived as the best students who will thrive regardless of the environment. I’m here to tell you that they too have special needs. Along with accelerated intellect comes a host of challenges that students and parents are unequipped to face alone. The Gifted and Talented program coordinator provides this interface. These are the students who will use their gifts to solve the overwhelming problems our world will face in the years to come. But we must first provide for them the appropriate incentive to nurture those gifts to fruition. The Gifted and Talented Program provides that setting and the coordinator makes sure the program is run effectively and efficiently. Please maintain this wonderful program for Evansville youth and fill Mrs. Kress’s position when she retires.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Melissa M. Hammann
To: Evansville School Board
From: Melissa Hammann
Subject: GAT Position
Yes, I’m back again to petition you for yet another “special interest.” This time it’s the gifted and talented program on the line. As weary as you are to see me here again, I am even wearier to be here again, feeling antagonism for the entity entrusted with our children’s education as their first priority. The source of this feeling is the nature of many of the superintendent’s proposed cuts to meet the imposed revenue caps combined with the administration’s defense against community suggested cuts as “unacceptable” with no further discussion.
As with any battle, I had to first arm myself. An excellent source of monetary flow data is available at the DPI School Finance Data webpage (www2.dpi.state.wi.us/sfsdw/). This shows comparative cost and revenue data for the 2003-2004 budget year. Then I went to the 2004-2005 spreadsheets (dpi.wi.gov/sfs/cmprvcst.html), and performed the necessary calculations to arrive at the per capita data as summarized in the first webpage. According to the website, the formulas used for the calculations changed between the two fiscal years and may account for some fluctuations. However, several interesting items stood out during my brief survey of the information. Please refer to the attached table for clarity.
First let’s discuss revenue. While our 2004-2005 State Revenue per child exceeded the state average by 16% and our property tax allocation per child was 17.5% lower than the state average; our Federal Revenue was less than half of the state average Federal Revenue. This is a good place to begin a build up of revenue, I think. For fiscal year 2004-2005, revenue from all sources for Evansville is 1.5% lower than the state average, for a total of $10,879 per Full Time Equivalent student in 2004-2005.
For the same fiscal year, on the cost side, we were 3% below the state average Educational costs, 16% lower on Transportation and 26% lower on Food Services costs. However, Evansville’s facility costs per student exceeded the state average by 53%, or in concrete terms, $378.00 per student, for a total of $637,686.00. This would have a big red target on it if it were my personal budget being scrutinized. That was a revelation to me. The bigger revelation to me was the direct comparison of revenue and cost totals. In both budget years for which I did the calculations, total revenue exceeded total costs. In fiscal year 2004-2005, this was $345.00 per student, or $572,015.00. WOW! All this time, I thought the school district was flat broke. Granted, this is only 3.1% of the total budget, and I admit that I am steeply immersed in the learning curve of school finance lore. However, I didn’t think schools were supposed to make any profit, and no matter how you cut it, over half a million dollars is a lot of extra money. This baffles me in the extreme and leads me to a largely cynical “harumph” when such incredible programs as the half-day kindergarten program and the gifted and talented coordinator position are even considered for elimination.
Our daughters have each qualified for, and participated in, accelerated learning programs offered in Evansville. We hope the program lasts long enough for our son to participate as well, should he demonstrate the need. Maybe our dedication to providing the best kindergarten choice for their needs, the half-day kindergarten class, has something to do with their thirst for knowledge.
Our older daughter was “discovered” for the program when her 4th grade WKCE results identified high verbal/reading scores. I was pretty sure all along that a 2nd grader reading Harry Potter was a little unusual. But once she was identified, all the doors have been opened for her and she has flourished in the program. Our 3rd grade daughter has followed in her sister’s footsteps. She was identified earlier due to earlier testing protocols (probably due to the No Child Left Behind Act). She had the privilege of working with Mrs. Kress in Elementary School and now meets in literature circle twice a week with Mrs. Ellison. I am so pleased that these literature circles are available for the Intermediate School students now. This can only further improve the reading scores in our district, which according to the DPI website have been improving continually over the last few years.
The identification and placement of our children into the GAT program was a direct result of the well-designed program run by a dedicated program coordinator in our district. Our family has always modeled a love for learning in general and reading in particular. However, we are unprepared to effectively challenge our children to expand their horizons. The program coordinators guide our way and explain how to best engineer their education to help them meet their goals. This help will be crucial as they grow older and more challenges are available to them.
Evansville is ahead of the curve in providing a haven for our special needs students. Gifted students are often perceived as the best students who will thrive regardless of the environment. I’m here to tell you that they too have special needs. Along with accelerated intellect comes a host of challenges that students and parents are unequipped to face alone. The Gifted and Talented program coordinator provides this interface. These are the students who will use their gifts to solve the overwhelming problems our world will face in the years to come. But we must first provide for them the appropriate incentive to nurture those gifts to fruition. The Gifted and Talented Program provides that setting and the coordinator makes sure the program is run effectively and efficiently. Please maintain this wonderful program for Evansville youth and fill Mrs. Kress’s position when she retires.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Melissa M. Hammann
Hammann Speaks on 1/2 Day
Melissa Hammann speaks on half day Kindergarten to Evansville Community School District
Melissa Hammann Speaks on 4K---
Hammann declares all the assumptions of 4k Proposal have been shown to be debunked
School: Classic Melissa Hammann
New Evansville School Board Member Melissa Hammann: School Forum Feb 2007---Discusses School Finances and Facilities Cost for Evansville School District
Melissa Hammann asks the Question
School Board: 6-25-2007---The sudden change of plan from self funding to taking from the fund balance raises a question from Melissa Hammann. What about the other projects that have been talked of from the Fund Balance excess this years?
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Mailbag: Hammann Speaks on Half Day Kindergarten
--- Melissa Hammann
wrote:
> It has been brought to my attention that, due to
> budget constraints, the Evansville School District
> plans to discontinue offering the half-day
> kindergarten option. Furthermore, it is my
> understanding that even Mr. Hoffenberg was kept out
> of the discussions until Ms. Carvin had made the
> decision and offered him a full-time position next
> fall. Numerous reasons were cited, including the
> SAGE grant restrictions, reduced/free lunch program,
> bus transportation etc. Nobody seems to agree on
> the amount to be saved by this action. The amount
> seems to change depending on to whom you speak and
> at what time of day you speak to them. One parent
> even received 2 different quotes from the same
> person. There are numerous arguments against this
> move. Mine are four-fold: child based need,
> budgetary, the duplicitous approach used by the
> school district and the despicable treatment of an
> outstanding teacher.
>
> My first objection to eliminating the half-day
> kindergarten class is based on the need of the
> child. Some five-year-old children are not ready
> for a full day of school every day, but are eager to
> learn in a more challenging environment that that
> provided by pre-school. Of our three children, only
> one would have done well in a full day class.
> Fortunately, all three of our children have had the
> priviledge of enrolling in Mr. Hoffenberg's
> kindergarten class. Last fall we enrolled our
> youngest child. Will is a rambunctious boy whose
> educational needs have been met and exceeded by Mr.
> Steve's firm but fun guidance. I know that more
> than one family had to seek other options for their
> children because the demand for the half-day class
> exceeded the supply of openings. We feel especially
> fortunate that Will was able to benefit from Mr.
> Hoffenberg's vast experience.
>
> My second argument against dropping the half-day
> program at this time is budgetary. A mere 4 years
> after its inception, kindergarten "choice" is on the
> budgetary chopping block. Let us review the last 6
> years or so of school board fiscal decisions, shall
> we? Our oldest child had Mr. Steve in the pre-SAGE
> days when kindergarten was only half-day for
> everyone in Evansville. We were ecstatic with Mr.
> Hoffenberg's teaching skills. He paved the way for
> her very successful school career thus far. Our
> second child had Mr. Hoffenberg for Kindergarten in
> 2002. This was the first year that a choice between
> full day and half-day kindergarten was offered. I'd
> like to add that this was also the first year summer
> school was cancelled due to budget overruns on the
> new high school. I could NOT understand why the
> school district effectively doubled their
> kindergarten teacher salary and benefits costs at a
> time of budget crisis. How can it be fiscally sound
> to double your kindergarten staff salary and
> benefits during tight financial times? Apparently
> the SAGE grant and the free/reduced meal program
> with their almighty government funding carrot was
> the primary impetus for this move. Parents eager to
> reduce their daycare costs fell right into lock step
> with the school district on that decision.
>
> Next..... Nowhere in the entire discourse of expanding
> the grade school into the old high school, did
> anybody mention a second set of administrators being
> hired and suddenly, VOILA, there they were.
>
> This litany of fiscally ambiguous decisions is to
> illustrate to you how completely skeptical one
> remains when you begin to quote audacious figures
> for cost savings by expanding the half-day
> kindergarten class-room to a full day class-room.
> It is my understanding that the SAGE grant as it
> currently exists is in jeopardy. It seems that
> pinning budgetary hopes for monetary gain on an
> amorphous SAGE grant is like hitting a moving target
> at best and poor decision-making at worst. When
> the SAGE grant monies are no longer flowing, what
> will the school district be left with? An
> unmanageable kindergarten program and
> worse-than-ever blood between the school district
> and the community. I would be interested in the
> results of a simple budget exercise. Calculate the
> costs of all half-day kindergarten and compare them
> with the costs of all full day kindergarten. I'm
> just curious.
>
> My third issue with this.... incident is the
> sneaky, underhanded way ..... (it was) attempted to railroad it
> through the budget without citizen knowledge or
> input.
>
> Finally, and most importantly, I must speak out
> against (the) .... treatment of Steve Hoffenberg
> throughout this incident. It is despicable that you
> would treat an award-winning, incredibly talented
> and enthusiastic kindergarten teacher with such
> disrespect. ...... A pessimist would say that
> by treating him so callously, you force his hand to
> retire so you can hire some hot-out-of-school
> teacher on the cheap.............
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Melissa M. Hammann
> It has been brought to my attention that, due to
> budget constraints, the Evansville School District
> plans to discontinue offering the half-day
> kindergarten option. Furthermore, it is my
> understanding that even Mr. Hoffenberg was kept out
> of the discussions until Ms. Carvin had made the
> decision and offered him a full-time position next
> fall. Numerous reasons were cited, including the
> SAGE grant restrictions, reduced/free lunch program,
> bus transportation etc. Nobody seems to agree on
> the amount to be saved by this action. The amount
> seems to change depending on to whom you speak and
> at what time of day you speak to them. One parent
> even received 2 different quotes from the same
> person. There are numerous arguments against this
> move. Mine are four-fold: child based need,
> budgetary, the duplicitous approach used by the
> school district and the despicable treatment of an
> outstanding teacher.
>
> My first objection to eliminating the half-day
> kindergarten class is based on the need of the
> child. Some five-year-old children are not ready
> for a full day of school every day, but are eager to
> learn in a more challenging environment that that
> provided by pre-school. Of our three children, only
> one would have done well in a full day class.
> Fortunately, all three of our children have had the
> priviledge of enrolling in Mr. Hoffenberg's
> kindergarten class. Last fall we enrolled our
> youngest child. Will is a rambunctious boy whose
> educational needs have been met and exceeded by Mr.
> Steve's firm but fun guidance. I know that more
> than one family had to seek other options for their
> children because the demand for the half-day class
> exceeded the supply of openings. We feel especially
> fortunate that Will was able to benefit from Mr.
> Hoffenberg's vast experience.
>
> My second argument against dropping the half-day
> program at this time is budgetary. A mere 4 years
> after its inception, kindergarten "choice" is on the
> budgetary chopping block. Let us review the last 6
> years or so of school board fiscal decisions, shall
> we? Our oldest child had Mr. Steve in the pre-SAGE
> days when kindergarten was only half-day for
> everyone in Evansville. We were ecstatic with Mr.
> Hoffenberg's teaching skills. He paved the way for
> her very successful school career thus far. Our
> second child had Mr. Hoffenberg for Kindergarten in
> 2002. This was the first year that a choice between
> full day and half-day kindergarten was offered. I'd
> like to add that this was also the first year summer
> school was cancelled due to budget overruns on the
> new high school. I could NOT understand why the
> school district effectively doubled their
> kindergarten teacher salary and benefits costs at a
> time of budget crisis. How can it be fiscally sound
> to double your kindergarten staff salary and
> benefits during tight financial times? Apparently
> the SAGE grant and the free/reduced meal program
> with their almighty government funding carrot was
> the primary impetus for this move. Parents eager to
> reduce their daycare costs fell right into lock step
> with the school district on that decision.
>
> Next..... Nowhere in the entire discourse of expanding
> the grade school into the old high school, did
> anybody mention a second set of administrators being
> hired and suddenly, VOILA, there they were.
>
> This litany of fiscally ambiguous decisions is to
> illustrate to you how completely skeptical one
> remains when you begin to quote audacious figures
> for cost savings by expanding the half-day
> kindergarten class-room to a full day class-room.
> It is my understanding that the SAGE grant as it
> currently exists is in jeopardy. It seems that
> pinning budgetary hopes for monetary gain on an
> amorphous SAGE grant is like hitting a moving target
> at best and poor decision-making at worst. When
> the SAGE grant monies are no longer flowing, what
> will the school district be left with? An
> unmanageable kindergarten program and
> worse-than-ever blood between the school district
> and the community. I would be interested in the
> results of a simple budget exercise. Calculate the
> costs of all half-day kindergarten and compare them
> with the costs of all full day kindergarten. I'm
> just curious.
>
> My third issue with this.... incident is the
> sneaky, underhanded way ..... (it was) attempted to railroad it
> through the budget without citizen knowledge or
> input.
>
> Finally, and most importantly, I must speak out
> against (the) .... treatment of Steve Hoffenberg
> throughout this incident. It is despicable that you
> would treat an award-winning, incredibly talented
> and enthusiastic kindergarten teacher with such
> disrespect. ...... A pessimist would say that
> by treating him so callously, you force his hand to
> retire so you can hire some hot-out-of-school
> teacher on the cheap.............
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Melissa M. Hammann
Mailbag: April 2006: Classic Hammann: "School Board Needs to Function as A Board."
Board needs to function as a board.
My recent, brief interaction with the school district regarding half-day kindergarten in specific and budgets in general has changed my attitude from healthy skepticism to cold cynicism. I hope the School Board and the Superintendent realize that we all should want the same things for our children: the best education possible within the budgetary constraints. I do not believe there is a good sense for Evansville and, in that vacuum, the superintendent proposes to do “what’s typical” for districts of our size. Information is presented to the board that is incomplete, but they are expected to make decisions and trust her judgment. My own past interactions do not support the requisite leaps of faith. The board depends on the superintendent to bring all of the data to them to make decisions, not just the data that supports her agenda. I trust that the school board members have been diligent in their own research on the issues our district faces and formed their own conclusions. If my letters have reinforced the importance of this activity on their part, I feel like I have accomplished something.
I know our district faces some hard decisions this year and in years to come. I hope some new and innovative ways of doing the same work are considered to make the dollars go further. I trust they will not throw out the baby with the bath water.
Sincerely,
My recent, brief interaction with the school district regarding half-day kindergarten in specific and budgets in general has changed my attitude from healthy skepticism to cold cynicism. I hope the School Board and the Superintendent realize that we all should want the same things for our children: the best education possible within the budgetary constraints. I do not believe there is a good sense for Evansville and, in that vacuum, the superintendent proposes to do “what’s typical” for districts of our size. Information is presented to the board that is incomplete, but they are expected to make decisions and trust her judgment. My own past interactions do not support the requisite leaps of faith. The board depends on the superintendent to bring all of the data to them to make decisions, not just the data that supports her agenda. I trust that the school board members have been diligent in their own research on the issues our district faces and formed their own conclusions. If my letters have reinforced the importance of this activity on their part, I feel like I have accomplished something.
I know our district faces some hard decisions this year and in years to come. I hope some new and innovative ways of doing the same work are considered to make the dollars go further. I trust they will not throw out the baby with the bath water.
Sincerely,
Melissa Speaks: "Death by 1000 Cuts Does NOT Cut it."
(Ed. note: In preparation for the Monday night School board meeting, the following mailbag letter addresses the famous "Death by 1000 cuts" article. "
Death by a Thousand Cuts Does Not Cut It. 3/31/06
I recently received a copy of “Death by a Thousand Cuts” by the Institute for Wisconsin’s Future. It was included in my children’s copies of the April Newsletters and also available on the Internet. I have read it cover to cover, which is why I am so unimpressed. Initially, I was struck by the sentence, “Most of Wisconsin’s 426 districts have declining enrollment, which holds down revenue limits.” The word “most” connotes “almost all” (Cambridge Dictionary). I envisioned a secret mass exodus from Wisconsin. I questioned the author about his word usage and the actual values involved. “The word “most” means greater than 51%,” was his reply. No, the word “majority” means greater than 51%. It’s this type of verbal repartee that loses your supporters. The actual percentage of Wisconsin school districts experiencing a decline in enrollment is from 56% to 60%, depending on which of his sources you read. Under normal circumstances, I would expect 50% gaining and 50% losing enrollment. If 40% of the districts are gaining and 60% are losing, are the 40% that are gaining students absorbing all of the students from the 60% that are losing? Where, I asked the author, are all of these students going? Mass exodus from failing school districts account for some of it. Flattened birth rates were cited since other school options have experienced similar downward trends. Wouldn’t that imply that the percentage of school districts experiencing a decline in enrollment should be closer to 100%? Surely, the whole story is missing.
Next, I scrutinized the chart of gaps between revenue limits and cost-to-continue. Only 129 school districts (30%) responded to the survey from which the chart was constructed. That’s an abysmal response to a survey for a report that’s supposed to aid you in the battle against revenue caps. I noticed that Evansville was not on the list of respondents. By the author’s own admission, school districts were given options on what methodology to use. "The answers are estimates, using different time frames and different methods. But…they are a reliable measure of the impact of caps.” Can’t you see how spurious a use of data this is? My 6th grade daughter knows the value of controls in reporting data. Why should any deductive person just take them at their word? It’s exactly this misuse of data that infuriates people.
Let’s return to the chart. One can see from the chart that 6 schools have a positive gap and 3 or 4 have “0” gap. It’s hard to tell exact values from my miniature, blurry copy in the school newsletter. If, as the author contends, this is a representative sample of Wisconsin school districts, we should be able to extrapolate that 30-33 school districts in Wisconsin have “0” or positive gaps. Has anybody investigated them? What are they doing differently? Are the positive gaps indicative of a healthy system? If so, can their strategies be successfully implemented elsewhere? Does anybody care, or shall we all just whine about revenue caps?
I do not deny that the revenue caps create problems. However, the Department of Public Instruction is not furthering its cause by endorsing such a flawed report.
Sincerely,
Melissa M. Hammann
Death by a Thousand Cuts Does Not Cut It. 3/31/06
I recently received a copy of “Death by a Thousand Cuts” by the Institute for Wisconsin’s Future. It was included in my children’s copies of the April Newsletters and also available on the Internet. I have read it cover to cover, which is why I am so unimpressed. Initially, I was struck by the sentence, “Most of Wisconsin’s 426 districts have declining enrollment, which holds down revenue limits.” The word “most” connotes “almost all” (Cambridge Dictionary). I envisioned a secret mass exodus from Wisconsin. I questioned the author about his word usage and the actual values involved. “The word “most” means greater than 51%,” was his reply. No, the word “majority” means greater than 51%. It’s this type of verbal repartee that loses your supporters. The actual percentage of Wisconsin school districts experiencing a decline in enrollment is from 56% to 60%, depending on which of his sources you read. Under normal circumstances, I would expect 50% gaining and 50% losing enrollment. If 40% of the districts are gaining and 60% are losing, are the 40% that are gaining students absorbing all of the students from the 60% that are losing? Where, I asked the author, are all of these students going? Mass exodus from failing school districts account for some of it. Flattened birth rates were cited since other school options have experienced similar downward trends. Wouldn’t that imply that the percentage of school districts experiencing a decline in enrollment should be closer to 100%? Surely, the whole story is missing.
Next, I scrutinized the chart of gaps between revenue limits and cost-to-continue. Only 129 school districts (30%) responded to the survey from which the chart was constructed. That’s an abysmal response to a survey for a report that’s supposed to aid you in the battle against revenue caps. I noticed that Evansville was not on the list of respondents. By the author’s own admission, school districts were given options on what methodology to use. "The answers are estimates, using different time frames and different methods. But…they are a reliable measure of the impact of caps.” Can’t you see how spurious a use of data this is? My 6th grade daughter knows the value of controls in reporting data. Why should any deductive person just take them at their word? It’s exactly this misuse of data that infuriates people.
Let’s return to the chart. One can see from the chart that 6 schools have a positive gap and 3 or 4 have “0” gap. It’s hard to tell exact values from my miniature, blurry copy in the school newsletter. If, as the author contends, this is a representative sample of Wisconsin school districts, we should be able to extrapolate that 30-33 school districts in Wisconsin have “0” or positive gaps. Has anybody investigated them? What are they doing differently? Are the positive gaps indicative of a healthy system? If so, can their strategies be successfully implemented elsewhere? Does anybody care, or shall we all just whine about revenue caps?
I do not deny that the revenue caps create problems. However, the Department of Public Instruction is not furthering its cause by endorsing such a flawed report.
Sincerely,
Melissa M. Hammann
Melissa Hammann Writes: DPI stats for Evansville: What they mean for us.
(Ed. note. The following is a portion of the comments made by Melissa Hammann on Monday night at the Evansville School Board.)
"An excellent source of monetary flow data is available at the DPI School Finance Data webpage (www2.dpi.state.wi.us/sfsdw/). This shows comparative cost and revenue data for the 2003-2004 budget year. Then I went to the 2004-2005 spreadsheets (dpi.wi.gov/sfs/cmprvcst.html), and performed the necessary calculations to arrive at the per capita data as summarized in the first webpage. According to the website, the formulas used for the calculations changed between the two fiscal years and may account for some fluctuations. However, several interesting items stood out during my brief survey of the information. Please refer to the attached table for clarity.
First let’s discuss revenue. While our 2004-2005 State Revenue per child exceeded the state average by 16% and our property tax allocation per child was 17.5% lower than the state average; our Federal Revenue was less than half of the state average Federal Revenue. This is a good place to begin a build up of revenue, I think. For fiscal year 2004-2005, revenue from all sources for Evansville is 1.5% lower than the state average, for a total of $10,879 per Full Time Equivalent student in 2004-2005.
For the same fiscal year, on the cost side, we were 3% below the state average Educational costs, 16% lower on Transportation and 26% lower on Food Services costs. However, Evansville’s facility costs per student exceeded the state average by 53%, or in concrete terms, $378.00 per student, for a total of $637,686.00. This would have a big red target on it if it were my personal budget being scrutinized. That was a revelation to me."
The Observer was a little shocked by the "53%" figure for facility costs that Evansville exceeds the state average. However, on reflection, we are at 82% capacity in the EHS and have 522 students. The projection for enrollment dated 12/5/2005 for the school year of 2010-11 is 538 students.
Another way of saying that our costs are high is to say we need to better utilize the facilities we have. This might mean realigning some grades and their location.
In her monthly report, Supr. Carvin noted that a study of enrollment is proposed shortly. This may provide a framework for a discussion of how to better to utilize and plan. With energy costs a premium, excess facility is painful. Stay tuned.
"An excellent source of monetary flow data is available at the DPI School Finance Data webpage (www2.dpi.state.wi.us/sfsdw/). This shows comparative cost and revenue data for the 2003-2004 budget year. Then I went to the 2004-2005 spreadsheets (dpi.wi.gov/sfs/cmprvcst.html), and performed the necessary calculations to arrive at the per capita data as summarized in the first webpage. According to the website, the formulas used for the calculations changed between the two fiscal years and may account for some fluctuations. However, several interesting items stood out during my brief survey of the information. Please refer to the attached table for clarity.
First let’s discuss revenue. While our 2004-2005 State Revenue per child exceeded the state average by 16% and our property tax allocation per child was 17.5% lower than the state average; our Federal Revenue was less than half of the state average Federal Revenue. This is a good place to begin a build up of revenue, I think. For fiscal year 2004-2005, revenue from all sources for Evansville is 1.5% lower than the state average, for a total of $10,879 per Full Time Equivalent student in 2004-2005.
For the same fiscal year, on the cost side, we were 3% below the state average Educational costs, 16% lower on Transportation and 26% lower on Food Services costs. However, Evansville’s facility costs per student exceeded the state average by 53%, or in concrete terms, $378.00 per student, for a total of $637,686.00. This would have a big red target on it if it were my personal budget being scrutinized. That was a revelation to me."
The Observer was a little shocked by the "53%" figure for facility costs that Evansville exceeds the state average. However, on reflection, we are at 82% capacity in the EHS and have 522 students. The projection for enrollment dated 12/5/2005 for the school year of 2010-11 is 538 students.
Another way of saying that our costs are high is to say we need to better utilize the facilities we have. This might mean realigning some grades and their location.
In her monthly report, Supr. Carvin noted that a study of enrollment is proposed shortly. This may provide a framework for a discussion of how to better to utilize and plan. With energy costs a premium, excess facility is painful. Stay tuned.
Melissa Writes: 4K: The Analysis (1 of 3)
(Ed. note. This research information of Melissa Hammann is published unedited. The issue of the 4Yr. Old Kindergarten is scheduled to be in the July 10th Evansville School Board Meeting. Plan on attending to hear the debate. The Observer)
To: Evansville School Board June 25, 2006
Cc: Heidi Carvin, superintendent
Lou Havlik, LLE Principal
Dick Woulfe, Evansville Observer
From: Melissa Hammann
Subject: Four-year-old kindergarten (4K)
I patiently waited for the results of the study from the four-year-old kindergarten (4K) committee, hoping to see if sanity reigned. I see from the June LLE newsletter that my optimism got the best of me. The committee plans to recommend implementation of 4K in the Evansville school district after a pilot study in 2007-2008. I am completely dumbfounded. The school district has managed to accomplish what 17 years of marriage to a staunch Republican has not. You made me agree with the republicans on something. And I am aghast. Soon, I predict that new parents will get school registration paperwork at the hospital, along with SSN and birth certificate applications. Then they can just drop off the newborns at school on the way back to work. There will be no more childcare costs at ALL! The DPI continues to support abdication of parental responsibility. The money would be better spent on educating parents to respect education and the opportunities it can open for their children in the future. If there is no support for education at home, or, worse yet, an environment of disdain for education, the rare child will overcome such an obstacle to reach his or her full potential.
According to their report, the 4K committee was formed to “investigate the feasibility of implementing 4K in the Evansville School District.” To me, this begins with the most fundamental question of whether Evansville could or should support 4K at all. The report from the committee is more of a “how do we implement 4K in the district” study. There is no data presented in the report to confirm that Evansville supports implementing 4K, nor are there studies cited for one to confirm the dramatic claims of 4K students’ superiority. From what I understand, the majority of people surveyed who indicated a desire for 4K did so to “save money.” Just whose money are they saving? The statement that no additional local taxes will be collected is disingenuous because state law requires a local revenue match to all state funding. I have done a great deal of research since March, when I found out that our school district was still pursuing implementation of 4K. I urge the school board to review the plethora of online information about 4K at length before making any decisions on this issue. There are numerous arguments for and against 4K. I have tried to limit my remarks to quality and cost issues, while noting websites to support the remarks I make here.
I first began debating the usefulness of 4K with the administration during the half-day (5-year-old) kindergarten standoff. I was told that study after study proves vast reductions in societal pathologies attributable to the participation of at-risk students in a quality 4-year-old kindergarten. At that time, no references were provided so I searched for and found several articles and studies.
One article with a sound scientific method is available at www.preknow.org/documents/WIEconImpactReport_Sept2005.pdf. It highlights savings for one 4K cohort over its 14 years in public school. The calculations were done several ways with various assumptions and the savings seem microscopic (0.0017%), with other non-direct savings projected at about 70% recoup of investment. But the study seemed skewed toward theoretical scenarios or was so condensed the essence of the data was lost to the casual observer. This was frustrating for me since 4K programs have been available long enough to do specific side-by-side comparisons. At the time, I was looking for, but could not find, a study based on this premise: Here is a population of at-risk students with 4K; Here is one without the benefits of 4K; This is what they look like at age 6, 8, 10, 12 and so on. Ms. Carvin supplied me with the name of the most cited study, the High/Scope Perry Preschool Study. This study does follow a theoretical scenario similar to that stated above. However, it is not a 4K study.
To: Evansville School Board June 25, 2006
Cc: Heidi Carvin, superintendent
Lou Havlik, LLE Principal
Dick Woulfe, Evansville Observer
From: Melissa Hammann
Subject: Four-year-old kindergarten (4K)
I patiently waited for the results of the study from the four-year-old kindergarten (4K) committee, hoping to see if sanity reigned. I see from the June LLE newsletter that my optimism got the best of me. The committee plans to recommend implementation of 4K in the Evansville school district after a pilot study in 2007-2008. I am completely dumbfounded. The school district has managed to accomplish what 17 years of marriage to a staunch Republican has not. You made me agree with the republicans on something. And I am aghast. Soon, I predict that new parents will get school registration paperwork at the hospital, along with SSN and birth certificate applications. Then they can just drop off the newborns at school on the way back to work. There will be no more childcare costs at ALL! The DPI continues to support abdication of parental responsibility. The money would be better spent on educating parents to respect education and the opportunities it can open for their children in the future. If there is no support for education at home, or, worse yet, an environment of disdain for education, the rare child will overcome such an obstacle to reach his or her full potential.
According to their report, the 4K committee was formed to “investigate the feasibility of implementing 4K in the Evansville School District.” To me, this begins with the most fundamental question of whether Evansville could or should support 4K at all. The report from the committee is more of a “how do we implement 4K in the district” study. There is no data presented in the report to confirm that Evansville supports implementing 4K, nor are there studies cited for one to confirm the dramatic claims of 4K students’ superiority. From what I understand, the majority of people surveyed who indicated a desire for 4K did so to “save money.” Just whose money are they saving? The statement that no additional local taxes will be collected is disingenuous because state law requires a local revenue match to all state funding. I have done a great deal of research since March, when I found out that our school district was still pursuing implementation of 4K. I urge the school board to review the plethora of online information about 4K at length before making any decisions on this issue. There are numerous arguments for and against 4K. I have tried to limit my remarks to quality and cost issues, while noting websites to support the remarks I make here.
I first began debating the usefulness of 4K with the administration during the half-day (5-year-old) kindergarten standoff. I was told that study after study proves vast reductions in societal pathologies attributable to the participation of at-risk students in a quality 4-year-old kindergarten. At that time, no references were provided so I searched for and found several articles and studies.
One article with a sound scientific method is available at www.preknow.org/documents/WIEconImpactReport_Sept2005.pdf. It highlights savings for one 4K cohort over its 14 years in public school. The calculations were done several ways with various assumptions and the savings seem microscopic (0.0017%), with other non-direct savings projected at about 70% recoup of investment. But the study seemed skewed toward theoretical scenarios or was so condensed the essence of the data was lost to the casual observer. This was frustrating for me since 4K programs have been available long enough to do specific side-by-side comparisons. At the time, I was looking for, but could not find, a study based on this premise: Here is a population of at-risk students with 4K; Here is one without the benefits of 4K; This is what they look like at age 6, 8, 10, 12 and so on. Ms. Carvin supplied me with the name of the most cited study, the High/Scope Perry Preschool Study. This study does follow a theoretical scenario similar to that stated above. However, it is not a 4K study.
4K The Analysis
Now I’d like to briefly review the financial aspect of the 4K-committee report. Please refer to the attached Excel file (4K Committee Financial Data). For the sake of clarity, I’ll restrict my discussion to the half-day options requiring additional bus service. In the pilot year, if you factor in the standard local revenue match of 33% ($25,200) the school district will have to provide about $40,000 in 2007-2008 to fund the 4K pilot study, thereby denying some other program. It finally dawned on me why there was such an unexplained urgency to cut off the half-day (five-year-old) kindergarten program, one of the bastions of reason in our school district. I have included the local revenue in my analysis because I want to re-emphasize that there will be additional local revenue commitments required to provide 4K in Evansville. The calculation for full implementation in 2008-2009 was predicted on a conservative estimate of 100 participants. The current kindergarten enrollment is 130. This level of enrollment would require another teacher, another assistant, more physical plant and possibly another bus. For purposes of discussion, I will only consider the 100-student scenario. The 4K report I have from the committee showed the sum of expenditures to be $214,000. Perhaps I have a preliminary version. When I started to figure in the local matches to calculate shortfalls, it was clear there was a math error. I double-checked the figures and came up with $289,000 in projected expenditures. Subtracting the state revenue of $140,000 and the local match of $70,000, it will cost the district $79,000 to fully implement 4K in 2008-2009. The administration told the board that the school district “can’t afford” to keep a half-day kindergarten option, placed Gifted and Talented services on the chopping block and scaled back the AP program. I submit to you that the school district also doesn’t have a spare $119,000 to pilot and implement a program that “has no proven societal or educational benefits.” The administration’s concern that the state will soon require 4K is unfounded in light of the recent political climate. The legislature just established the task force to “study” the issue. These things are notoriously slow to complete. The prudent approach is to wait to see if and when the DPI states “by the year 2XYZ, all Wisconsin schools will have 4K.” Then the program can be phased in thoughtfully, with full endorsement of the legislature, factoring in standardized 4K facilities with the next building cycle. There have been too many battles robbing Peter to pay Paul in the recent budget cycle to consider the boondoggle of 4K. I strongly urge the board, in light of this information, to deny 4K implementation in Evansville.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you for your time.
Melissa Hammann: Half Day, Universal 4k: What's the Point
To: The Evansville School Board October 4, 2006
Cc: Heidi Carvin, Superintendent
Lou Havlik, 4K Committee Chair
The Evansville Observer
From: Melissa Hammann
Subject: Half-Day 5K, Universal 4K, What’s the point?
In 2002, full-day kindergarten was first offered in Evansville, with promises to continue offering a half-day program dependent on sufficient community demand. It was a baffling time for many of us parents bound by our naïve world of everyday financial management. We could not comprehend why the district doubled kindergarten staff salaries and benefits at a time of budget crisis, when even kindergarten round up was canceled. We were woefully ignorant of school funding formulas. On cat’s feet, our school district reached a crossroads between educationally sound decisions and those based on “show-me-the-revenue” mentality. I leave it to you to decide which path we continue on.
A record demand for the half-day kindergarten program in 2005 found the district turning away some students. In spite of the high enrollment in 2005, the administration reneged on the promise to the community. In March of this year, they recommended that the board eliminate the half-day kindergarten option in order to collect more state and local property tax revenue. A concerted effort by an outraged community citing educational and child-specific benefits convinced the board to save the half-day class this fall.
In a colossal show of hubris, prior to the board’s input, the administration told parents during kindergarten registration last spring; “Half-day kindergarten probably won’t be offered this fall.” Phone inquiries were similarly discouraged. It is no wonder that the current enrollment for the half-day class is only 12 after the record enrollment in 2005. I believe that lower community demand was artificially induced this year by these manipulations.
At the recent finance committee meeting it was decided once again to urge the Board to discontinue offering half-day kindergarten; “There is just a small number of parents who want this program and it is not wanted by the larger community.” Community members who have not chosen the half-day option for their child(ren) have said they support the choice and shouldn’t be characterized as “not wanting” it. It is almost amusing that the administration wishes to eradicate one program that “only a small number of parents want” while promoting another that is similarly disadvantaged (4-year-old kindergarten). The chuckling ends when I remember the common source of these apparently contradictory stances: tax revenue on the backs of our youngest, most vulnerable citizens.
I have done volumes of sound research to convince the administration that their plans for preschoolers in Evansville do not meet our community needs and expectations. I have extracted information from various sources, written reports, collated data and sent it all to the Board. I have encouraged the Board to seek out information, providing sources and data. The administration has not provided convincing evidence of the educational superiority of its planned program changes. Instead, it has provided the Board with the revenue incentives for following this course of action, as if that is the sole criteria in the Board’s decision making process. The Board is given incomplete data to support an agenda. The administration’s words and actions exacerbate ill will between working parents and homemakers when they characterize the champions of half-day kindergarten as an elite few. We simply want a kindergarten program that is flexible enough to meet a full spectrum of learning styles without ostracizing students for going home at lunch time.
The administration will have us believe that the timing of their planned half-day (5-year-old) kindergarten demise was completely coincidental with their promotion of 4-year-old kindergarten in our district. Had the Board been convinced to discontinue offering half-day kindergarten this fall, the increase in revenue from this action would have dovetailed perfectly with the 4K committee’s plan of full implementation in 2008-2009. The start-up costs to pilot and implement 4K would have been greatly reduced, perhaps even eliminated, at the cost of the half-day kindergarten program. However, if the state revenue contribution is doubled for the students switching to full-day kindergarten, the local property tax revenue contribution also must double for those 12 students. It’s a “double” whammy. The plain truth is that a 4K program would be self-supporting by the third full year due to the enormous potential revenue involved. Full funding projections for the program extrapolate to $630,000 in revenue, $210,000 from local property taxes. This is a lot of money for a program with low independent quality audit results and one which does not meet the expectations of the community for quality pre-school, per the 4K committee survey responses.
I can’t help but wonder if this is the same train of thought the previous administration used to rationalize the switch to full-day kindergarten during the 2002 budget crisis. “Think of all the extra revenue we will realize by this simple change!” That gravy train is gone and now they’re eyeing the 4-year-olds. Does anyone else see that there is a natural limit to this method of revenue enhancement?
There is a truth that came to light during these last 6 months of wrangling with the administration that I believe all parties can agree upon and should be addressed. There is a small group of students in our community who do not qualify for Head Start but whose parents cannot afford quality preschool for them. I would consider it a much more compassionate and efficient use of the district’s time and money to identify and meet the needs of these students.
Finally, to quote Mr. Woulfe, it’s a zero-sum game. When you add something over here, you have to get rid of something over there. Anybody who has endured any one of the excruciating School Board budget meetings knows this to be true. The message from the administration is loud and clear. “What program will be gutted next? If less than 15 students are enrolled, consider it targeted.” We are a growing, healthy school district. There is no reason to purchase a legacy for our children at the expense of educationally sound programming such as half-day kindergarten. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Melissa Hammann
Cc: Heidi Carvin, Superintendent
Lou Havlik, 4K Committee Chair
The Evansville Observer
From: Melissa Hammann
Subject: Half-Day 5K, Universal 4K, What’s the point?
In 2002, full-day kindergarten was first offered in Evansville, with promises to continue offering a half-day program dependent on sufficient community demand. It was a baffling time for many of us parents bound by our naïve world of everyday financial management. We could not comprehend why the district doubled kindergarten staff salaries and benefits at a time of budget crisis, when even kindergarten round up was canceled. We were woefully ignorant of school funding formulas. On cat’s feet, our school district reached a crossroads between educationally sound decisions and those based on “show-me-the-revenue” mentality. I leave it to you to decide which path we continue on.
A record demand for the half-day kindergarten program in 2005 found the district turning away some students. In spite of the high enrollment in 2005, the administration reneged on the promise to the community. In March of this year, they recommended that the board eliminate the half-day kindergarten option in order to collect more state and local property tax revenue. A concerted effort by an outraged community citing educational and child-specific benefits convinced the board to save the half-day class this fall.
In a colossal show of hubris, prior to the board’s input, the administration told parents during kindergarten registration last spring; “Half-day kindergarten probably won’t be offered this fall.” Phone inquiries were similarly discouraged. It is no wonder that the current enrollment for the half-day class is only 12 after the record enrollment in 2005. I believe that lower community demand was artificially induced this year by these manipulations.
At the recent finance committee meeting it was decided once again to urge the Board to discontinue offering half-day kindergarten; “There is just a small number of parents who want this program and it is not wanted by the larger community.” Community members who have not chosen the half-day option for their child(ren) have said they support the choice and shouldn’t be characterized as “not wanting” it. It is almost amusing that the administration wishes to eradicate one program that “only a small number of parents want” while promoting another that is similarly disadvantaged (4-year-old kindergarten). The chuckling ends when I remember the common source of these apparently contradictory stances: tax revenue on the backs of our youngest, most vulnerable citizens.
I have done volumes of sound research to convince the administration that their plans for preschoolers in Evansville do not meet our community needs and expectations. I have extracted information from various sources, written reports, collated data and sent it all to the Board. I have encouraged the Board to seek out information, providing sources and data. The administration has not provided convincing evidence of the educational superiority of its planned program changes. Instead, it has provided the Board with the revenue incentives for following this course of action, as if that is the sole criteria in the Board’s decision making process. The Board is given incomplete data to support an agenda. The administration’s words and actions exacerbate ill will between working parents and homemakers when they characterize the champions of half-day kindergarten as an elite few. We simply want a kindergarten program that is flexible enough to meet a full spectrum of learning styles without ostracizing students for going home at lunch time.
The administration will have us believe that the timing of their planned half-day (5-year-old) kindergarten demise was completely coincidental with their promotion of 4-year-old kindergarten in our district. Had the Board been convinced to discontinue offering half-day kindergarten this fall, the increase in revenue from this action would have dovetailed perfectly with the 4K committee’s plan of full implementation in 2008-2009. The start-up costs to pilot and implement 4K would have been greatly reduced, perhaps even eliminated, at the cost of the half-day kindergarten program. However, if the state revenue contribution is doubled for the students switching to full-day kindergarten, the local property tax revenue contribution also must double for those 12 students. It’s a “double” whammy. The plain truth is that a 4K program would be self-supporting by the third full year due to the enormous potential revenue involved. Full funding projections for the program extrapolate to $630,000 in revenue, $210,000 from local property taxes. This is a lot of money for a program with low independent quality audit results and one which does not meet the expectations of the community for quality pre-school, per the 4K committee survey responses.
I can’t help but wonder if this is the same train of thought the previous administration used to rationalize the switch to full-day kindergarten during the 2002 budget crisis. “Think of all the extra revenue we will realize by this simple change!” That gravy train is gone and now they’re eyeing the 4-year-olds. Does anyone else see that there is a natural limit to this method of revenue enhancement?
There is a truth that came to light during these last 6 months of wrangling with the administration that I believe all parties can agree upon and should be addressed. There is a small group of students in our community who do not qualify for Head Start but whose parents cannot afford quality preschool for them. I would consider it a much more compassionate and efficient use of the district’s time and money to identify and meet the needs of these students.
Finally, to quote Mr. Woulfe, it’s a zero-sum game. When you add something over here, you have to get rid of something over there. Anybody who has endured any one of the excruciating School Board budget meetings knows this to be true. The message from the administration is loud and clear. “What program will be gutted next? If less than 15 students are enrolled, consider it targeted.” We are a growing, healthy school district. There is no reason to purchase a legacy for our children at the expense of educationally sound programming such as half-day kindergarten. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Melissa Hammann
Mailbag: Melissa Writes: Half-Day 5K, Universal 4k: What's the Point?
To: The Evansville School Board October 4, 2006
Cc: Heidi Carvin, Superintendent
Lou Havlik, 4K Committee Chair
The Evansville Observer
From: Melissa Hammann
Subject: Half-Day 5K, Universal 4K, What’s the point?
In 2002, full-day kindergarten was first offered in Evansville, with promises to continue offering a half-day program dependent on sufficient community demand. It was a baffling time for many of us parents bound by our naïve world of everyday financial management. We could not comprehend why the district doubled kindergarten staff salaries and benefits at a time of budget crisis, when even kindergarten round up was canceled. We were woefully ignorant of school funding formulas. On cat’s feet, our school district reached a crossroads between educationally sound decisions and those based on “show-me-the-revenue” mentality. I leave it to you to decide which path we continue on.
A record demand for the half-day kindergarten program in 2005 found the district turning away some students. In spite of the high enrollment in 2005, the administration reneged on the promise to the community. In March of this year, they recommended that the board eliminate the half-day kindergarten option in order to collect more state and local property tax revenue. A concerted effort by an outraged community citing educational and child-specific benefits convinced the board to save the half-day class this fall.
In a colossal show of hubris, prior to the board’s input, the administration told parents during kindergarten registration last spring; “Half-day kindergarten probably won’t be offered this fall.” Phone inquiries were similarly discouraged. It is no wonder that the current enrollment for the half-day class is only 12 after the record enrollment in 2005. I believe that lower community demand was artificially induced this year by these manipulations.
At the recent finance committee meeting it was decided once again to urge the Board to discontinue offering half-day kindergarten; “There is just a small number of parents who want this program and it is not wanted by the larger community.” Community members who have not chosen the half-day option for their child(ren) have said they support the choice and shouldn’t be characterized as “not wanting” it. It is almost amusing that the administration wishes to eradicate one program that “only a small number of parents want” while promoting another that is similarly disadvantaged (4-year-old kindergarten). The chuckling ends when I remember the common source of these apparently contradictory stances: tax revenue on the backs of our youngest, most vulnerable citizens.
I have done volumes of sound research to convince the administration that their plans for preschoolers in Evansville do not meet our community needs and expectations. I have extracted information from various sources, written reports, collated data and sent it all to the Board. I have encouraged the Board to seek out information, providing sources and data. The administration has not provided convincing evidence of the educational superiority of its planned program changes. Instead, it has provided the Board with the revenue incentives for following this course of action, as if that is the sole criteria in the Board’s decision making process. The Board is given incomplete data to support an agenda. The administration’s words and actions exacerbate ill will between working parents and homemakers when they characterize the champions of half-day kindergarten as an elite few. We simply want a kindergarten program that is flexible enough to meet a full spectrum of learning styles without ostracizing students for going home at lunch time.
The administration will have us believe that the timing of their planned half-day (5-year-old) kindergarten demise was completely coincidental with their promotion of 4-year-old kindergarten in our district. Had the Board been convinced to discontinue offering half-day kindergarten this fall, the increase in revenue from this action would have dovetailed perfectly with the 4K committee’s plan of full implementation in 2008-2009. The start-up costs to pilot and implement 4K would have been greatly reduced, perhaps even eliminated, at the cost of the half-day kindergarten program. However, if the state revenue contribution is doubled for the students switching to full-day kindergarten, the local property tax revenue contribution also must double for those 12 students. It’s a “double” whammy. The plain truth is that a 4K program would be self-supporting by the third full year due to the enormous potential revenue involved. Full funding projections for the program extrapolate to $630,000 in revenue, $210,000 from local property taxes. This is a lot of money for a program with low independent quality audit results and one which does not meet the expectations of the community for quality pre-school, per the 4K committee survey responses.
I can’t help but wonder if this is the same train of thought the previous administration used to rationalize the switch to full-day kindergarten during the 2002 budget crisis. “Think of all the extra revenue we will realize by this simple change!” That gravy train is gone and now they’re eyeing the 4-year-olds. Does anyone else see that there is a natural limit to this method of revenue enhancement?
There is a truth that came to light during these last 6 months of wrangling with the administration that I believe all parties can agree upon and should be addressed. There is a small group of students in our community who do not qualify for Head Start but whose parents cannot afford quality preschool for them. I would consider it a much more compassionate and efficient use of the district’s time and money to identify and meet the needs of these students.
Finally, to quote Mr. Woulfe, it’s a zero-sum game. When you add something over here, you have to get rid of something over there. Anybody who has endured any one of the excruciating School Board budget meetings knows this to be true. The message from the administration is loud and clear. “What program will be gutted next? If less than 15 students are enrolled, consider it targeted.” We are a growing, healthy school district. There is no reason to purchase a legacy for our children at the expense of educationally sound programming such as half-day kindergarten. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Melissa Hammann
882-9993
Cc: Heidi Carvin, Superintendent
Lou Havlik, 4K Committee Chair
The Evansville Observer
From: Melissa Hammann
Subject: Half-Day 5K, Universal 4K, What’s the point?
In 2002, full-day kindergarten was first offered in Evansville, with promises to continue offering a half-day program dependent on sufficient community demand. It was a baffling time for many of us parents bound by our naïve world of everyday financial management. We could not comprehend why the district doubled kindergarten staff salaries and benefits at a time of budget crisis, when even kindergarten round up was canceled. We were woefully ignorant of school funding formulas. On cat’s feet, our school district reached a crossroads between educationally sound decisions and those based on “show-me-the-revenue” mentality. I leave it to you to decide which path we continue on.
A record demand for the half-day kindergarten program in 2005 found the district turning away some students. In spite of the high enrollment in 2005, the administration reneged on the promise to the community. In March of this year, they recommended that the board eliminate the half-day kindergarten option in order to collect more state and local property tax revenue. A concerted effort by an outraged community citing educational and child-specific benefits convinced the board to save the half-day class this fall.
In a colossal show of hubris, prior to the board’s input, the administration told parents during kindergarten registration last spring; “Half-day kindergarten probably won’t be offered this fall.” Phone inquiries were similarly discouraged. It is no wonder that the current enrollment for the half-day class is only 12 after the record enrollment in 2005. I believe that lower community demand was artificially induced this year by these manipulations.
At the recent finance committee meeting it was decided once again to urge the Board to discontinue offering half-day kindergarten; “There is just a small number of parents who want this program and it is not wanted by the larger community.” Community members who have not chosen the half-day option for their child(ren) have said they support the choice and shouldn’t be characterized as “not wanting” it. It is almost amusing that the administration wishes to eradicate one program that “only a small number of parents want” while promoting another that is similarly disadvantaged (4-year-old kindergarten). The chuckling ends when I remember the common source of these apparently contradictory stances: tax revenue on the backs of our youngest, most vulnerable citizens.
I have done volumes of sound research to convince the administration that their plans for preschoolers in Evansville do not meet our community needs and expectations. I have extracted information from various sources, written reports, collated data and sent it all to the Board. I have encouraged the Board to seek out information, providing sources and data. The administration has not provided convincing evidence of the educational superiority of its planned program changes. Instead, it has provided the Board with the revenue incentives for following this course of action, as if that is the sole criteria in the Board’s decision making process. The Board is given incomplete data to support an agenda. The administration’s words and actions exacerbate ill will between working parents and homemakers when they characterize the champions of half-day kindergarten as an elite few. We simply want a kindergarten program that is flexible enough to meet a full spectrum of learning styles without ostracizing students for going home at lunch time.
The administration will have us believe that the timing of their planned half-day (5-year-old) kindergarten demise was completely coincidental with their promotion of 4-year-old kindergarten in our district. Had the Board been convinced to discontinue offering half-day kindergarten this fall, the increase in revenue from this action would have dovetailed perfectly with the 4K committee’s plan of full implementation in 2008-2009. The start-up costs to pilot and implement 4K would have been greatly reduced, perhaps even eliminated, at the cost of the half-day kindergarten program. However, if the state revenue contribution is doubled for the students switching to full-day kindergarten, the local property tax revenue contribution also must double for those 12 students. It’s a “double” whammy. The plain truth is that a 4K program would be self-supporting by the third full year due to the enormous potential revenue involved. Full funding projections for the program extrapolate to $630,000 in revenue, $210,000 from local property taxes. This is a lot of money for a program with low independent quality audit results and one which does not meet the expectations of the community for quality pre-school, per the 4K committee survey responses.
I can’t help but wonder if this is the same train of thought the previous administration used to rationalize the switch to full-day kindergarten during the 2002 budget crisis. “Think of all the extra revenue we will realize by this simple change!” That gravy train is gone and now they’re eyeing the 4-year-olds. Does anyone else see that there is a natural limit to this method of revenue enhancement?
There is a truth that came to light during these last 6 months of wrangling with the administration that I believe all parties can agree upon and should be addressed. There is a small group of students in our community who do not qualify for Head Start but whose parents cannot afford quality preschool for them. I would consider it a much more compassionate and efficient use of the district’s time and money to identify and meet the needs of these students.
Finally, to quote Mr. Woulfe, it’s a zero-sum game. When you add something over here, you have to get rid of something over there. Anybody who has endured any one of the excruciating School Board budget meetings knows this to be true. The message from the administration is loud and clear. “What program will be gutted next? If less than 15 students are enrolled, consider it targeted.” We are a growing, healthy school district. There is no reason to purchase a legacy for our children at the expense of educationally sound programming such as half-day kindergarten. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Melissa Hammann
882-9993
Mailbag; Melissa Writes on Proposed Aid Formula
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Mailbag: Hammann writes RE: New Wis. Aids Proposal: Impact on Evansville
I too was cautiously optimistic when I saw this article. However, when I researched the Committee reports online yesterday, I was somewhat exasperated. The transportation aid proposal is to bolster aid to the schools whose transportation costs (standard, not including special education costs) exceed 4% of their total costs. This often happens with widely spread districts. Evansville's current transportation costs are equal to 2.58% of total spending (total aid received $37,973 based on most recently audited 04-05 data). Under this reallocation, since we have been thrifty in this area, we would lose $28,129 in aid for a total proposed transportation aid package of $9843.
The second arm of the proposed change in legislation includes an option for School Boards to vote to increase their Revenue Limits by 1% of the statewide average allowable Revenue per pupil. For 2006-07, that would have given Boards the authority to increase their Revenue Limits by $88 per pupil above and beyond the allowable Revenue Increase based on the 3 year rolling average enrollment. That would have meant an additional $153,296 in allowable revenue in Evansville. But it would have also meant an increase in the mil rate to fund the increase.
The third proposal alluded to in the article in the paper would not affect Evansville at this point. It has to do with bolstering aid to those districts that have per pupil allocation that is below state average.
Melissa Hammann
Mailbag: Hammann writes RE: New Wis. Aids Proposal: Impact on Evansville
I too was cautiously optimistic when I saw this article. However, when I researched the Committee reports online yesterday, I was somewhat exasperated. The transportation aid proposal is to bolster aid to the schools whose transportation costs (standard, not including special education costs) exceed 4% of their total costs. This often happens with widely spread districts. Evansville's current transportation costs are equal to 2.58% of total spending (total aid received $37,973 based on most recently audited 04-05 data). Under this reallocation, since we have been thrifty in this area, we would lose $28,129 in aid for a total proposed transportation aid package of $9843.
The second arm of the proposed change in legislation includes an option for School Boards to vote to increase their Revenue Limits by 1% of the statewide average allowable Revenue per pupil. For 2006-07, that would have given Boards the authority to increase their Revenue Limits by $88 per pupil above and beyond the allowable Revenue Increase based on the 3 year rolling average enrollment. That would have meant an additional $153,296 in allowable revenue in Evansville. But it would have also meant an increase in the mil rate to fund the increase.
The third proposal alluded to in the article in the paper would not affect Evansville at this point. It has to do with bolstering aid to those districts that have per pupil allocation that is below state average.
Melissa Hammann
When Is Full Full?
Predicting School Enrollment. What model is best? OR When is full really full?
One of my friends recently explained to me the seemingly inexplicable difference between our school capacity in 2002 (2100 students) and the recent PRA reports reduced capacity of 1874. This is based on an industry “90 percent standard” which is often called the “optimal standard.” OK, now we know that full is really full when it’s two entire grades short of being full. WHEN full is full seems to be the biggest question facing our district now.
Superintendent Carvin stated at the recent Planning Commission meeting that they typically see a three-year lag in school enrollment increases based on permit applications. The school district uses a statistic in their analyses called “Enrollment Increase per Building Permit”, but they use current year permit data for this statistic that seems to render it meaningless.
I ran a quick and dirty regression analysis of building permits versus the ratio of enrollment increase to building permits factoring in a three-year lag-time. This approach dampens the fluctuations in that statistic, shows moderate linearity (with the mere 4 points I had) and supports using the three year delay in predicting school enrollment. We can expect one more year of “boom” building permits (2004-119) followed by precipitous reductions in 2005 (90) and 2006 (49). 2007 looks to be substantially lower than those. Only 4 permits had been requested as of March 5. According to my source, typical permit requests by March in recent years fell in the 30 to 40 range. The charts and graphs extrapolating enrollment based on 5-year history do not appear to take this into account, growing merrily at a steady rate, predicting overcrowded schools by 2011 (using the 90% -is-full standard). This is a full ten years before our debt load on the high school is retired. Restraint should be the word of the day in approaching this issue at this time.
One of my friends recently explained to me the seemingly inexplicable difference between our school capacity in 2002 (2100 students) and the recent PRA reports reduced capacity of 1874. This is based on an industry “90 percent standard” which is often called the “optimal standard.” OK, now we know that full is really full when it’s two entire grades short of being full. WHEN full is full seems to be the biggest question facing our district now.
Superintendent Carvin stated at the recent Planning Commission meeting that they typically see a three-year lag in school enrollment increases based on permit applications. The school district uses a statistic in their analyses called “Enrollment Increase per Building Permit”, but they use current year permit data for this statistic that seems to render it meaningless.
I ran a quick and dirty regression analysis of building permits versus the ratio of enrollment increase to building permits factoring in a three-year lag-time. This approach dampens the fluctuations in that statistic, shows moderate linearity (with the mere 4 points I had) and supports using the three year delay in predicting school enrollment. We can expect one more year of “boom” building permits (2004-119) followed by precipitous reductions in 2005 (90) and 2006 (49). 2007 looks to be substantially lower than those. Only 4 permits had been requested as of March 5. According to my source, typical permit requests by March in recent years fell in the 30 to 40 range. The charts and graphs extrapolating enrollment based on 5-year history do not appear to take this into account, growing merrily at a steady rate, predicting overcrowded schools by 2011 (using the 90% -is-full standard). This is a full ten years before our debt load on the high school is retired. Restraint should be the word of the day in approaching this issue at this time.
Melissa Hammann: Gender Comparison of Performance: ACT Test Score Analysis
(Ed.note: This text document was discussed in general at the July and September Evansville School Board meeting. I have selected a portion that addresses specifically the ACT portion of the comparison at Evansville High School. The report written by Melissa Hammann was part of an overall Board self examination of school performance that each board member contributed comments to. This was her analysis of the data.
I must caution readers that the data as well as what it means is still in discussion and this report is the beginning of the discussion, not the conclusion. Variation of performance can be the result of normal variation of ability between class years, curriculum "mismatch", possible effects of 4 period or 8 period day, and other factors. A special committee has been formed and a consultant has been hired to review the data and help determine what it might mean. Some data has been misaligned in translation to the web. If you seek all the data excel files, they are available from the School District. Thanks. Stay tuned to The Evansville Observer. )
-----------------------------------------------------------
ACT Trend Data, 2000-2007 (ACTTRENDS)
Please refer to Excel workbook ACTTRENDS while reading this part of the report. The raw data sheet is included for your review. Each ACT subject (Reading, English, Math and Science, plus the composite score) has been charted separately for Evansville boys and girls, with state data included for comparison. These graphs are entitled ACTBOYSREAD, ACTGIRLSREAD, etc. There are also 5 charts with all students graphed separately with color-coded trend lines included. The tabs for these graphs are labeled Ev vs State Reading Trends, Ev vs State English Trends, etc. The time domain began with the 2000-2001 school year and ends with the 2006-2007 school year.
As one surveys the historical data represented on the graphs, there is no denying that Evansville girls were on the short end of the educational stick as recently as the 2000-2001 school year, as gauged by their ACT performances. The boys outperformed the girls in all four subjects (Reading, English, Math and Science) and, of course, the composite score. This combined with the fact that our district scores were perennially lower than the state scores exacerbated the magnitude of the problem of the low girls’ ACT scores. For this reason (it is presumed), the Academic Excellence Committee was formed in 2002 to address this issue. Apparently, they designed a plan of some sort to raise the girls’ scores. And they were successful beyond anyone’s wildest dreams. However, it seems that now the plan needs to be to raise ALL of the students’ scores. A quick look through the graphs will verify the gender bias in the ACT scores in our district. If one quickly toggles through the tabs of each subject graph, one gets the distinct feeling of being on a teeter-totter: flat boys to high slope girls to flat boys to high slope girls. One gets a sense of vertigo.
Reading and English
Evansville girls overtook Evansville boys in Reading and English by 2002 and the scores just keep soaring. Evansville boy’s trend lines in Reading and English show a lackluster performance, ending up lower than state boys, state girls and Evansville girls. In terms of actual scores, they performed most poorly of the 4 groups in English and only outperformed the state boys in Reading.
Science and Math
The girls caught up with the Evansville boys in Science last year and, based on the trend line, are on the fast track to catch up with the state boys soon given a continuation of this pattern. Evansville’s girls beat Evansville’s boys in Math for the first time this year. The Math trend line predicts an even quicker overtaking of the state boys than the science trend line does. Our girls are awesome. This laudable accomplishment IS something to celebrate. But while the girls have caught up to the boys in the traditionally male dominated subjects of math and science, the boys have not done the same in the traditionally female dominated subjects of Reading and English. Worse yet, while the girls’ scores for their forte subjects have skyrocketed, the boys’ scores in their historically dominant subjects have either stagnated (math) or fallen (science). This is not acceptable.
In an egalitarian school, there is an expectation that all students are expected to improve in historically flat areas. We have empowered our girls to do just that in science and math and to soar in English and reading. Our boys’ math and science scores remain tepid (which hastened the interception by the girls’ trend lines), while their reading and English scores are at the bottom of the heap.
I reject the hypothesis that the ACT and WKCE tests do not measure the boys’ traditional learning style. They don’t measure anyone’s learning style. Theoretically, they measure what one has learned up to that point in time. If student A is hamstrung by a learning environment that suppresses his or her traditional method of processing information, that student will naturally have learned less than student B whose learning environment perfectly matches his or her learning style. By the time the ACT tests are administered, the students are on the same college-bound track, competing for the same goal: entrance to the colleges of their choice. They need to score well, regardless of their gender. The intimation that Ag students, scientists and mathematicians do not need to know how to compose a cogent sentence or critically evaluate literature is absurd. These significant ACT trends over time indicate a problem that needs to be addressed. The solution is not going to be simple. If Evansville realizes similar success in engaging our boys in their historically sluggish areas of reading and English as illustrated by a surge in the boys’ ACT scores, we will have met the needs of ALL of our students.
8 Period Day vs. Block Schedule
(Or does the Block Schedule exacerbate the differences?)
Please reference ACTREADING, ACTSCIENCE and ACTCOMPOSITE Excel files for this section of the report.
I was quoted in the paper as attributing the gender bias in Evansville’s ACT performance to the block schedule. Mr. Beedle emailed challenging that statement. The key theme in the email was “Flat boy’s performance is a nationwide problem and is present with both block schedule and the 8 period day.” I did qualify my remarks at the meeting (which wasn’t reported) that I could not unequivocally state the cause of our girls’ phenomenal improvement and our boys’ lack of same. The Block Schedule connection was just an idea that occurred to me in an AHA! moment. I generated the report at the same time the block schedule report was completed and it seemed like a plausible explanation. But Mr. Beedle’s comments challenged me to test my own hypothesis.
First, it was necessary to decide which districts to use as comparison. Often we are asked to compare our performance to like-sized districts. Querying the DPI website for districts with enrollments between 1500 and 2000 (in 2005-2006) resulted in a list of 32 similarly sized districts. This seemed a bit unwieldy, so the list was further limited to districts with enrollments between 1700 and 1900. This yielded a list of 10 schools (including Evansville), a reasonably representative and much more manageable group of schools with which to work. Each school is identified as having a block schedule (BS, N=4) or 8 period day (8PD, N=6). The schools selected were Amery(BS), Black River Falls(BS), East Troy Community (8PD), Edgerton(8PD), Ellsworth(BS), Evansville(BS), Jefferson(8PD), Osceola(8PD), Ripon (8PD) and West Salem (8PD). The ACT data for all 10 schools were tabulated by subject and separated by gender. One traditionally female dominated subject was surveyed (reading) (Excel filename ACTREADING), one traditionally male-dominated subject was assessed (science)(Excel filename ACTSCIENCE) and the composite scores were studied (Excel filename ACTCOMPOSITE) in an effort to determine how or if the block schedule contributes to gender bias in ACT performance.
Each Excel file has individual graphs comparing the boys and girls ACT performance for that subject for each school district (10 graphs) generated from a raw data sheet for that subject. These graphs are entitled Amery (BS) Boys vs. Girls, BR Falls (BS) Boys vs. Girls, and the like. In addition, there are 4 graphs, one each separating the girls’ performance in the block schedule, girls’ performance in the 8 period day, boys’ performance in the block schedule and boys’ performance in the 8PD. These graphs are called Girls Block, Girls 8 Period Day, etc. The 8PD graphs get a bit hairy looking since there are 6 trend lines for each 8PD graph, but with color coding, it’s decipherable.
Reading (ACTREADING)
The individual school graphs comparing girls to boys for each school have been grouped by schedule. First let’s address the Block Schedule data. Amery and Black River Falls trend lines indicate a traditional scenario in which girls slightly edge the boys. The slopes between the genders are similar and both schools show a decrease in ACT reading performance. Boys and girls in Ellsworth also show similar performances, but with each steadily improving with the trend lines overlapping and the boys indicating a slight advantage over the girls. Within the block schedule schools, only Evansville demonstrates the slow growth of the boys’ ACT scores and the soaring girls’ scores which started out below the boys, met then surpassed the boys. In terms of the ACT score values, most of the trend lines hover in the range of 21-22, with the notable exception of our girls data, the trend line of which ranges from 20 to 24.
In comparison, schools with the 8 period day (8PD) are less inclined to follow the traditional gender bias for Reading. Only East Troy and Ripon ACT data indicate the girls having the advantage over the boys in reading. East Troy’s trend lines are parallel and decreasing over time. The Ripon data result in a chart shape that is eerily similar to Evansville’s chart shape, but at much higher values. Ripon girls have scored at or above 23.6 on the ACT reading for the last 5 years. They are a bit of an anomaly in the overall scheme of this group of schools. Defying gender stereotypes, West Salem and Osceola boys scores are higher than the girls scores, with the Osceola girls’ trend line beginning to catch up to the boys’. The West Salem trend lines are parallel and demonstrate an increase in both male and female performance. Jefferson shows the girls starting out with the advantage, but a flat ACT performance by the girls over the years and a steady gain by their boys resulted in intersecting trend lines last year. Finally, Edgerton boys have posted a slight steady increase in ACT Reading scores while their girls’ scores have plummeted. It is of note that only the 8PD schools demonstrate the boys breaking the mold in a traditionally female dominated subject.
After charting all of the schools individually, it followed that one should compare the performance of each gender for each schedule separately. These are tabbed Girls Block, Girls 8 Period Day, etc. One gets a sense of Evansville’s performance against their peers in this way and can also toggle between the charts to see any general trends. When this was done, differences in the average ACT scores became clear between the schedules. The “Raw Data” spreadsheet has the averages and standard deviations indicated on them.
The Reading scores showed an unexpected pecking order. Highest among the averages here were the girls in the 8 Period Day schedule at 22.5, followed by the boys in the 8PD at 22.3, then the girls on the Block Schedule (21.9) and finally the boys in the block schedule (21.6). The average Evansville girls’ score over time was 22.2; the average boys’ score was 21.6.
Science (ACTSCIENCE)
Traditional gender biases are alive and well in all ten of the schools surveyed for science. There are three notable exceptions to this. Black River Falls girls science ACT scores are gradually increasing and, due to a plunge in their boys’ scores, the trend lines are set to intersect in a few years given similar circumstances continuing. The West Salem girls’ scores are increasing at about the same rate their boys’ scores are decreasing and the trend lines intersected last year. Evansville is at the other extreme of this set of trends, with the girls’ scores dramatically increasing while the boys’ scores slightly decrease over time. Our trend lines intersected in 2005.
Breaking the average scores down by schedule and gender, the average science ACT scores ranked as follows: boys 8PD(23.2), boys BS (22.6), girls 8PD(21.9) and finally girls BS(21.5). Evansville boys scored an average score of 22.4 over the years and the girls demonstrated an average of 21.5 over the years.
Composite (ACTCOMPOSITE)
The ACT composite scores for the selected school districts illustrate the stereotypical gender bias favoring boys across the board with two notable exceptions. Evansville and Ripon each demonstrate a scenario in which the boys’ scores were historically superior to the girls. The girls in both district have shown steady improvement while the boys performance has stagnated, resulting in a superior girls’ ACT composite score. The main difference between these districts is that the Ripon scores are more consistently higher than the Evansville scores. Being stagnant at 23.2 is better than being stagnant at 22. The recent surge in the Evansville girls’ scores has brought them on par with the Ripon girls’ scores! It is hoped that the girls performance can be sustained and is not a “smart class” phenomena alluded to in a previous report. We can inspire our boys to do better as well.
The ranking of averages by gender and schedule for the composite ACT scores follows: boys 8PD (22.6), girls 8PD (22.0), boys BS (21.9) and girls BS (21.5). In Evansville, the boys’ average composite ACT is 22.0 and the girls’ average composite score is 21.9.
The representative data for schedule and gender across all three ACT categories surveyed are tabulated below with rank in parentheses. Evansville data are ranked for comparison purposes.
Subject Boys 8PD Girls 8PD Boys BS Girls BS Ev Boys Ev Girls
Reading 22.3(2) 22.5 (1) 21.6 (5)
(tie)
21.9 (4) 21.6 (5)
(tie)
22.2 (3)
Science 23.2(1) 21.9 (4) 22.6(2) 21.5 (5)
(tie)
22.4 (3) 21.5 (5)
(tie)
Composite 22.6(1) 22.0(2)
tie
21.9(3)
tie
21.4(4) 22.0(2)
tie
21.9(3)
tie
Conclusions:
A survey of this small subset of Wisconsin schools illustrates that the Block Schedule has not given girls some natural advantage based on learning style. In fact, this brief study illustrates that gender bias in test results to the detriment of the girls in our state is very much alive. It is extremely disappointing to discover this via personal research. This study clarified why it is so difficult to find data regarding gender bias against boys in the literature. On the other hand, it is encouraging to discover that Evansville was not satisfied with the status quo, made and implemented a plan in 2002-2003, which is just now coming to fruition. With diligence, this will continue. Our district can also engage our boys in reading and English to help them soar.
In a surprise twist, when the ACT scores were categorized by schedule, gender and then ranked, the 8 Period Day did show a clear advantage for this randomly chosen group of districts. All three of the first ranked categories occurred in the 8 Period Day and two of the three second ranked categories occurred in the 8 Period Day. In all, 5/6 of the top average ACT scores for the subjects scrutinized here occurred in the 8 Period Day schedule. There may be many reasons for this, but the data are pretty clear. It does not seem plausible that this result is by chance. It would be interesting to survey the other 22 schools in the district size 1500-2000 originally queried at the start of the project to further address this subject. No stone should be left unturned in the quest to empower all of our students to excel.
Another conclusion gleaned from this study is that we should stop comparing ourselves to Edgerton, no matter how similar we are. Their ACT performance is abysmal and their girls’ scores are plummeting. Since our graph profiles already match the shape of Ripon’s graphs, I propose we aspire to their higher ACT scores as well.
There are bigger picture issues that follow from this data review, which our district can not, on it’s own, address. WKCE performance is a poor general predictor for ACT performance. Evansville as a district is rightly proud of our generally high WKCE performance. However, we get lulled into a false sense of security from high WKCE scores and are disappointed by low ACT performance. Ours can’t be the only district that experiences this phenomenon. That seems to indicate that there is a mismatch in curriculum, content and subject matter between Wisconsin WKCE requirements and National ACT standards. Perhaps the state needs to move the curriculum contents of the tests closer together to better capture a true picture of the educational status of Wisconsin students. Perhaps the WKCE can be made into a true educational tool instead of a hammer to beat districts into NCLB submission.
Possible Action Plan
There are some actions that Evansville as a district can take based on this overview of test scores by gender.
1. Shore up our WKCE performance to avoid NCLB penalties.
2. Address our boys’ stagnant ACT performance while remaining vigilant to maintain our girls’ awesome improvement.
3. Increase the database of ACT results and categorize them by schedule and gender to verify or disprove schedule contribution to ACT results.
Respectfully submitted,
Melissa Hammann, Evansville School Board.
I must caution readers that the data as well as what it means is still in discussion and this report is the beginning of the discussion, not the conclusion. Variation of performance can be the result of normal variation of ability between class years, curriculum "mismatch", possible effects of 4 period or 8 period day, and other factors. A special committee has been formed and a consultant has been hired to review the data and help determine what it might mean. Some data has been misaligned in translation to the web. If you seek all the data excel files, they are available from the School District. Thanks. Stay tuned to The Evansville Observer. )
-----------------------------------------------------------
ACT Trend Data, 2000-2007 (ACTTRENDS)
Please refer to Excel workbook ACTTRENDS while reading this part of the report. The raw data sheet is included for your review. Each ACT subject (Reading, English, Math and Science, plus the composite score) has been charted separately for Evansville boys and girls, with state data included for comparison. These graphs are entitled ACTBOYSREAD, ACTGIRLSREAD, etc. There are also 5 charts with all students graphed separately with color-coded trend lines included. The tabs for these graphs are labeled Ev vs State Reading Trends, Ev vs State English Trends, etc. The time domain began with the 2000-2001 school year and ends with the 2006-2007 school year.
As one surveys the historical data represented on the graphs, there is no denying that Evansville girls were on the short end of the educational stick as recently as the 2000-2001 school year, as gauged by their ACT performances. The boys outperformed the girls in all four subjects (Reading, English, Math and Science) and, of course, the composite score. This combined with the fact that our district scores were perennially lower than the state scores exacerbated the magnitude of the problem of the low girls’ ACT scores. For this reason (it is presumed), the Academic Excellence Committee was formed in 2002 to address this issue. Apparently, they designed a plan of some sort to raise the girls’ scores. And they were successful beyond anyone’s wildest dreams. However, it seems that now the plan needs to be to raise ALL of the students’ scores. A quick look through the graphs will verify the gender bias in the ACT scores in our district. If one quickly toggles through the tabs of each subject graph, one gets the distinct feeling of being on a teeter-totter: flat boys to high slope girls to flat boys to high slope girls. One gets a sense of vertigo.
Reading and English
Evansville girls overtook Evansville boys in Reading and English by 2002 and the scores just keep soaring. Evansville boy’s trend lines in Reading and English show a lackluster performance, ending up lower than state boys, state girls and Evansville girls. In terms of actual scores, they performed most poorly of the 4 groups in English and only outperformed the state boys in Reading.
Science and Math
The girls caught up with the Evansville boys in Science last year and, based on the trend line, are on the fast track to catch up with the state boys soon given a continuation of this pattern. Evansville’s girls beat Evansville’s boys in Math for the first time this year. The Math trend line predicts an even quicker overtaking of the state boys than the science trend line does. Our girls are awesome. This laudable accomplishment IS something to celebrate. But while the girls have caught up to the boys in the traditionally male dominated subjects of math and science, the boys have not done the same in the traditionally female dominated subjects of Reading and English. Worse yet, while the girls’ scores for their forte subjects have skyrocketed, the boys’ scores in their historically dominant subjects have either stagnated (math) or fallen (science). This is not acceptable.
In an egalitarian school, there is an expectation that all students are expected to improve in historically flat areas. We have empowered our girls to do just that in science and math and to soar in English and reading. Our boys’ math and science scores remain tepid (which hastened the interception by the girls’ trend lines), while their reading and English scores are at the bottom of the heap.
I reject the hypothesis that the ACT and WKCE tests do not measure the boys’ traditional learning style. They don’t measure anyone’s learning style. Theoretically, they measure what one has learned up to that point in time. If student A is hamstrung by a learning environment that suppresses his or her traditional method of processing information, that student will naturally have learned less than student B whose learning environment perfectly matches his or her learning style. By the time the ACT tests are administered, the students are on the same college-bound track, competing for the same goal: entrance to the colleges of their choice. They need to score well, regardless of their gender. The intimation that Ag students, scientists and mathematicians do not need to know how to compose a cogent sentence or critically evaluate literature is absurd. These significant ACT trends over time indicate a problem that needs to be addressed. The solution is not going to be simple. If Evansville realizes similar success in engaging our boys in their historically sluggish areas of reading and English as illustrated by a surge in the boys’ ACT scores, we will have met the needs of ALL of our students.
8 Period Day vs. Block Schedule
(Or does the Block Schedule exacerbate the differences?)
Please reference ACTREADING, ACTSCIENCE and ACTCOMPOSITE Excel files for this section of the report.
I was quoted in the paper as attributing the gender bias in Evansville’s ACT performance to the block schedule. Mr. Beedle emailed challenging that statement. The key theme in the email was “Flat boy’s performance is a nationwide problem and is present with both block schedule and the 8 period day.” I did qualify my remarks at the meeting (which wasn’t reported) that I could not unequivocally state the cause of our girls’ phenomenal improvement and our boys’ lack of same. The Block Schedule connection was just an idea that occurred to me in an AHA! moment. I generated the report at the same time the block schedule report was completed and it seemed like a plausible explanation. But Mr. Beedle’s comments challenged me to test my own hypothesis.
First, it was necessary to decide which districts to use as comparison. Often we are asked to compare our performance to like-sized districts. Querying the DPI website for districts with enrollments between 1500 and 2000 (in 2005-2006) resulted in a list of 32 similarly sized districts. This seemed a bit unwieldy, so the list was further limited to districts with enrollments between 1700 and 1900. This yielded a list of 10 schools (including Evansville), a reasonably representative and much more manageable group of schools with which to work. Each school is identified as having a block schedule (BS, N=4) or 8 period day (8PD, N=6). The schools selected were Amery(BS), Black River Falls(BS), East Troy Community (8PD), Edgerton(8PD), Ellsworth(BS), Evansville(BS), Jefferson(8PD), Osceola(8PD), Ripon (8PD) and West Salem (8PD). The ACT data for all 10 schools were tabulated by subject and separated by gender. One traditionally female dominated subject was surveyed (reading) (Excel filename ACTREADING), one traditionally male-dominated subject was assessed (science)(Excel filename ACTSCIENCE) and the composite scores were studied (Excel filename ACTCOMPOSITE) in an effort to determine how or if the block schedule contributes to gender bias in ACT performance.
Each Excel file has individual graphs comparing the boys and girls ACT performance for that subject for each school district (10 graphs) generated from a raw data sheet for that subject. These graphs are entitled Amery (BS) Boys vs. Girls, BR Falls (BS) Boys vs. Girls, and the like. In addition, there are 4 graphs, one each separating the girls’ performance in the block schedule, girls’ performance in the 8 period day, boys’ performance in the block schedule and boys’ performance in the 8PD. These graphs are called Girls Block, Girls 8 Period Day, etc. The 8PD graphs get a bit hairy looking since there are 6 trend lines for each 8PD graph, but with color coding, it’s decipherable.
Reading (ACTREADING)
The individual school graphs comparing girls to boys for each school have been grouped by schedule. First let’s address the Block Schedule data. Amery and Black River Falls trend lines indicate a traditional scenario in which girls slightly edge the boys. The slopes between the genders are similar and both schools show a decrease in ACT reading performance. Boys and girls in Ellsworth also show similar performances, but with each steadily improving with the trend lines overlapping and the boys indicating a slight advantage over the girls. Within the block schedule schools, only Evansville demonstrates the slow growth of the boys’ ACT scores and the soaring girls’ scores which started out below the boys, met then surpassed the boys. In terms of the ACT score values, most of the trend lines hover in the range of 21-22, with the notable exception of our girls data, the trend line of which ranges from 20 to 24.
In comparison, schools with the 8 period day (8PD) are less inclined to follow the traditional gender bias for Reading. Only East Troy and Ripon ACT data indicate the girls having the advantage over the boys in reading. East Troy’s trend lines are parallel and decreasing over time. The Ripon data result in a chart shape that is eerily similar to Evansville’s chart shape, but at much higher values. Ripon girls have scored at or above 23.6 on the ACT reading for the last 5 years. They are a bit of an anomaly in the overall scheme of this group of schools. Defying gender stereotypes, West Salem and Osceola boys scores are higher than the girls scores, with the Osceola girls’ trend line beginning to catch up to the boys’. The West Salem trend lines are parallel and demonstrate an increase in both male and female performance. Jefferson shows the girls starting out with the advantage, but a flat ACT performance by the girls over the years and a steady gain by their boys resulted in intersecting trend lines last year. Finally, Edgerton boys have posted a slight steady increase in ACT Reading scores while their girls’ scores have plummeted. It is of note that only the 8PD schools demonstrate the boys breaking the mold in a traditionally female dominated subject.
After charting all of the schools individually, it followed that one should compare the performance of each gender for each schedule separately. These are tabbed Girls Block, Girls 8 Period Day, etc. One gets a sense of Evansville’s performance against their peers in this way and can also toggle between the charts to see any general trends. When this was done, differences in the average ACT scores became clear between the schedules. The “Raw Data” spreadsheet has the averages and standard deviations indicated on them.
The Reading scores showed an unexpected pecking order. Highest among the averages here were the girls in the 8 Period Day schedule at 22.5, followed by the boys in the 8PD at 22.3, then the girls on the Block Schedule (21.9) and finally the boys in the block schedule (21.6). The average Evansville girls’ score over time was 22.2; the average boys’ score was 21.6.
Science (ACTSCIENCE)
Traditional gender biases are alive and well in all ten of the schools surveyed for science. There are three notable exceptions to this. Black River Falls girls science ACT scores are gradually increasing and, due to a plunge in their boys’ scores, the trend lines are set to intersect in a few years given similar circumstances continuing. The West Salem girls’ scores are increasing at about the same rate their boys’ scores are decreasing and the trend lines intersected last year. Evansville is at the other extreme of this set of trends, with the girls’ scores dramatically increasing while the boys’ scores slightly decrease over time. Our trend lines intersected in 2005.
Breaking the average scores down by schedule and gender, the average science ACT scores ranked as follows: boys 8PD(23.2), boys BS (22.6), girls 8PD(21.9) and finally girls BS(21.5). Evansville boys scored an average score of 22.4 over the years and the girls demonstrated an average of 21.5 over the years.
Composite (ACTCOMPOSITE)
The ACT composite scores for the selected school districts illustrate the stereotypical gender bias favoring boys across the board with two notable exceptions. Evansville and Ripon each demonstrate a scenario in which the boys’ scores were historically superior to the girls. The girls in both district have shown steady improvement while the boys performance has stagnated, resulting in a superior girls’ ACT composite score. The main difference between these districts is that the Ripon scores are more consistently higher than the Evansville scores. Being stagnant at 23.2 is better than being stagnant at 22. The recent surge in the Evansville girls’ scores has brought them on par with the Ripon girls’ scores! It is hoped that the girls performance can be sustained and is not a “smart class” phenomena alluded to in a previous report. We can inspire our boys to do better as well.
The ranking of averages by gender and schedule for the composite ACT scores follows: boys 8PD (22.6), girls 8PD (22.0), boys BS (21.9) and girls BS (21.5). In Evansville, the boys’ average composite ACT is 22.0 and the girls’ average composite score is 21.9.
The representative data for schedule and gender across all three ACT categories surveyed are tabulated below with rank in parentheses. Evansville data are ranked for comparison purposes.
Subject Boys 8PD Girls 8PD Boys BS Girls BS Ev Boys Ev Girls
Reading 22.3(2) 22.5 (1) 21.6 (5)
(tie)
21.9 (4) 21.6 (5)
(tie)
22.2 (3)
Science 23.2(1) 21.9 (4) 22.6(2) 21.5 (5)
(tie)
22.4 (3) 21.5 (5)
(tie)
Composite 22.6(1) 22.0(2)
tie
21.9(3)
tie
21.4(4) 22.0(2)
tie
21.9(3)
tie
Conclusions:
A survey of this small subset of Wisconsin schools illustrates that the Block Schedule has not given girls some natural advantage based on learning style. In fact, this brief study illustrates that gender bias in test results to the detriment of the girls in our state is very much alive. It is extremely disappointing to discover this via personal research. This study clarified why it is so difficult to find data regarding gender bias against boys in the literature. On the other hand, it is encouraging to discover that Evansville was not satisfied with the status quo, made and implemented a plan in 2002-2003, which is just now coming to fruition. With diligence, this will continue. Our district can also engage our boys in reading and English to help them soar.
In a surprise twist, when the ACT scores were categorized by schedule, gender and then ranked, the 8 Period Day did show a clear advantage for this randomly chosen group of districts. All three of the first ranked categories occurred in the 8 Period Day and two of the three second ranked categories occurred in the 8 Period Day. In all, 5/6 of the top average ACT scores for the subjects scrutinized here occurred in the 8 Period Day schedule. There may be many reasons for this, but the data are pretty clear. It does not seem plausible that this result is by chance. It would be interesting to survey the other 22 schools in the district size 1500-2000 originally queried at the start of the project to further address this subject. No stone should be left unturned in the quest to empower all of our students to excel.
Another conclusion gleaned from this study is that we should stop comparing ourselves to Edgerton, no matter how similar we are. Their ACT performance is abysmal and their girls’ scores are plummeting. Since our graph profiles already match the shape of Ripon’s graphs, I propose we aspire to their higher ACT scores as well.
There are bigger picture issues that follow from this data review, which our district can not, on it’s own, address. WKCE performance is a poor general predictor for ACT performance. Evansville as a district is rightly proud of our generally high WKCE performance. However, we get lulled into a false sense of security from high WKCE scores and are disappointed by low ACT performance. Ours can’t be the only district that experiences this phenomenon. That seems to indicate that there is a mismatch in curriculum, content and subject matter between Wisconsin WKCE requirements and National ACT standards. Perhaps the state needs to move the curriculum contents of the tests closer together to better capture a true picture of the educational status of Wisconsin students. Perhaps the WKCE can be made into a true educational tool instead of a hammer to beat districts into NCLB submission.
Possible Action Plan
There are some actions that Evansville as a district can take based on this overview of test scores by gender.
1. Shore up our WKCE performance to avoid NCLB penalties.
2. Address our boys’ stagnant ACT performance while remaining vigilant to maintain our girls’ awesome improvement.
3. Increase the database of ACT results and categorize them by schedule and gender to verify or disprove schedule contribution to ACT results.
Respectfully submitted,
Melissa Hammann, Evansville School Board.
Gender Bias: Block Schedule; The Analysis
Ed.note: This memo has been published so the public can see the ongoing disucssion of the School board on this issue. The data, and what it means, is under discussion. The full data files in excel format can be obtained from the Evansville School District. Stay tuned to the Evansville Observer.)
September 7, 2007
To: Heidi Carvin, Brian Cashore, Leslie Ferrell, Lou Havlik, Randy Keister, Vicki Lecy-Luebke, (remaining staff members of 2003 Academic Excellence Team), , Deb Arnold, Marilyn Brink, Bob Flaherty, Krista Jones, Marissa Morstad, Linda Rehfeldt, (non-discrimination self-evaluation report team), Dennis Hatfield, Jeff Herbers, Mike Larson, Art Phillips, Michael Pierick, Tina Rossmiller (Evansville School Board).
Cc: Butch Beedle, Sarah Champeau, Teresa Ellison, Deb Fritz, Jamie Gillespie, Kitty Verkuilen
From: Melissa Hammann
Subject: Supplemental Information for Gender Bias Report/Possible Block Schedule Contribution to this Phenomenon.
Excel file attachments: WKCETRENDS, ACTTRENDS, ACTREADING, ACTSCIENCE, and ACTCOMPOSITE
There was a lengthy discussion of the block schedule at the August 13th Board meeting as a follow-up to the consultant presentation in July. I asked whether our girls’ skyrocketing ACT performance could be attributed to the block schedule better matching a traditional female learning style of cooperation and interaction while inadvertently suppressing a traditional male learning style of competition, constant motion and hands-on activities. We discussed and disagreed at length and eventually agreed to place “Gender education issues” on our September agenda. To that end, please find another report specifically focusing on the WKCE and ACT trends in recent years, categorizing the data by gender.
Attached with the report, please find Excel spreadsheets with accompanying sets of charts. WKCE trend data and charts are found in the Excel file entitled WKCETRENDS; the ACT trend data and charts can be found in ACTTRENDS, which focuses only on Evansville vs. State Data. Finally, spreadsheets and linked trend charts for the ten districts in Wisconsin with enrollments between 1700 and 1900 are available in Excel files ACTREADING, ACTSCIENCE and ACTCOMPOSITE.
WKCE Trends 2002-2006 (WKCETRENDS)
The sex bias concern for the WKCE testing pertained more to the predominance of our girls’ losses in WKCE performance from grade 8 to grade 10. However, a review of the WKCE data verifies the concern that we are losing ground vs. the state on WKCE test results. In addition to the Raw Data spreadsheet, there are 20 charts in the Excel file WKCETRENDS tabbed with names such as WKCEBOYSGR8READ, WKCEGIRLSGR8READ, etc. Each chart compares one Evansville gender to the same state gender for each category tested (Reading, Language Arts, Math, Science and Social Studies) at either Grade 8 or Grade 10, covering the time frame from 2002 to 2006. The statistic being measured is the percentage of students scoring proficient plus advanced on the WKCE test. Trend lines have been included for both Evansville and statewide data.
Only three subjects showed both Evansville and State increases in the percentage of students scoring proficient plus advanced on the WKCE. Girls Grade 10 Reading showed a minimally perceptible increase in Evansville girls results with a slightly greater increase from the state girls. A steady increase in Grade 8 Boys math performance was also seen, with approximately equivalent slopes to the trend lines, indicating equivalent increases. A similar result was seen with the Girls Grade 10 Social Studies performance improvement, with less overall magnitude of improvement and at a slightly lower rate of improvement than the state girls.
Only two subjects showed a loss of proficiency in both Evansville and state students: Boys and Girls Grade 8 Language Arts. The Evansville students’ rates of decrease are much more precipitous than the decreases posted by the state students. These trend lines will eventually cross at these continued rates of decline, plunging the Evansville performances below the state performances.
The remaining 15 subjects show State students increasing proficiency over time and Evansville students decreasing proficiency over time. Five of these charts show minimal decreases or flat Evansville performance (Grade 10 Boys Reading, Grade 10 Boys Math, Grade 10 Girls Math, Grade 8 Girls Science (flat) and Grade 10 Boys Social Studies). Eight charts show very steady Evansville decreases in the face of perceptible to steady State increases in this statistic. Over time, at this pace, these trend lines will also cross given their opposite slope signs. Finally, the trend lines for two subjects have already crossed slopes, placing the Evansville performance below that of the state students: Grade 8 Girls Math and Grade 8 Boys Social Studies.
There is no sex bias point to these charts, just a clearer picture of the decrease in Evansville WKCE performance over time. Given the importance placed on these test scores in the federal NCLB Act, it’s important for us to address the issues and determine underlying causes to mitigate the decline in WKCE performance. It is curious, however, that of the three subjects that showed Evansville improvement over time, our girls posted two.
September 7, 2007
To: Heidi Carvin, Brian Cashore, Leslie Ferrell, Lou Havlik, Randy Keister, Vicki Lecy-Luebke, (remaining staff members of 2003 Academic Excellence Team), , Deb Arnold, Marilyn Brink, Bob Flaherty, Krista Jones, Marissa Morstad, Linda Rehfeldt, (non-discrimination self-evaluation report team), Dennis Hatfield, Jeff Herbers, Mike Larson, Art Phillips, Michael Pierick, Tina Rossmiller (Evansville School Board).
Cc: Butch Beedle, Sarah Champeau, Teresa Ellison, Deb Fritz, Jamie Gillespie, Kitty Verkuilen
From: Melissa Hammann
Subject: Supplemental Information for Gender Bias Report/Possible Block Schedule Contribution to this Phenomenon.
Excel file attachments: WKCETRENDS, ACTTRENDS, ACTREADING, ACTSCIENCE, and ACTCOMPOSITE
There was a lengthy discussion of the block schedule at the August 13th Board meeting as a follow-up to the consultant presentation in July. I asked whether our girls’ skyrocketing ACT performance could be attributed to the block schedule better matching a traditional female learning style of cooperation and interaction while inadvertently suppressing a traditional male learning style of competition, constant motion and hands-on activities. We discussed and disagreed at length and eventually agreed to place “Gender education issues” on our September agenda. To that end, please find another report specifically focusing on the WKCE and ACT trends in recent years, categorizing the data by gender.
Attached with the report, please find Excel spreadsheets with accompanying sets of charts. WKCE trend data and charts are found in the Excel file entitled WKCETRENDS; the ACT trend data and charts can be found in ACTTRENDS, which focuses only on Evansville vs. State Data. Finally, spreadsheets and linked trend charts for the ten districts in Wisconsin with enrollments between 1700 and 1900 are available in Excel files ACTREADING, ACTSCIENCE and ACTCOMPOSITE.
WKCE Trends 2002-2006 (WKCETRENDS)
The sex bias concern for the WKCE testing pertained more to the predominance of our girls’ losses in WKCE performance from grade 8 to grade 10. However, a review of the WKCE data verifies the concern that we are losing ground vs. the state on WKCE test results. In addition to the Raw Data spreadsheet, there are 20 charts in the Excel file WKCETRENDS tabbed with names such as WKCEBOYSGR8READ, WKCEGIRLSGR8READ, etc. Each chart compares one Evansville gender to the same state gender for each category tested (Reading, Language Arts, Math, Science and Social Studies) at either Grade 8 or Grade 10, covering the time frame from 2002 to 2006. The statistic being measured is the percentage of students scoring proficient plus advanced on the WKCE test. Trend lines have been included for both Evansville and statewide data.
Only three subjects showed both Evansville and State increases in the percentage of students scoring proficient plus advanced on the WKCE. Girls Grade 10 Reading showed a minimally perceptible increase in Evansville girls results with a slightly greater increase from the state girls. A steady increase in Grade 8 Boys math performance was also seen, with approximately equivalent slopes to the trend lines, indicating equivalent increases. A similar result was seen with the Girls Grade 10 Social Studies performance improvement, with less overall magnitude of improvement and at a slightly lower rate of improvement than the state girls.
Only two subjects showed a loss of proficiency in both Evansville and state students: Boys and Girls Grade 8 Language Arts. The Evansville students’ rates of decrease are much more precipitous than the decreases posted by the state students. These trend lines will eventually cross at these continued rates of decline, plunging the Evansville performances below the state performances.
The remaining 15 subjects show State students increasing proficiency over time and Evansville students decreasing proficiency over time. Five of these charts show minimal decreases or flat Evansville performance (Grade 10 Boys Reading, Grade 10 Boys Math, Grade 10 Girls Math, Grade 8 Girls Science (flat) and Grade 10 Boys Social Studies). Eight charts show very steady Evansville decreases in the face of perceptible to steady State increases in this statistic. Over time, at this pace, these trend lines will also cross given their opposite slope signs. Finally, the trend lines for two subjects have already crossed slopes, placing the Evansville performance below that of the state students: Grade 8 Girls Math and Grade 8 Boys Social Studies.
There is no sex bias point to these charts, just a clearer picture of the decrease in Evansville WKCE performance over time. Given the importance placed on these test scores in the federal NCLB Act, it’s important for us to address the issues and determine underlying causes to mitigate the decline in WKCE performance. It is curious, however, that of the three subjects that showed Evansville improvement over time, our girls posted two.
Comparative Performance: Boys vs. Girls; What needs to be Improved
To: Heidi Carvin, Brian Cashore, Leslie Ferrell, Lou Havlik, Randy Keister, Vicki Lecy-Luebke, (remaining staff members of 2003 Academic Excellence Team), Marissa Morstad, Krista Jones, Linda Rehfeldt, Marilyn Brink, Deb Arnold, Bob Flaherty (non-discrimination self-evaluation report team), Michael Pierick, Dennis Hatfield, Mike Larson, Tina Rossmiller, Art Phillips, Jeff Herbers (Evansville School Board).
Cc: Jamie Gillespie, Kitty Verkuilen, Deb Fritz, Sarah Champeau, Teresa Ellison.
From: Melissa Hammann
Subject: Comments regarding: Pupil Nondiscrimination Self-Evaluation Report, March 2007
Excel File Attachments: wkcedata, wkcehist and actvwkce
I agree that self-evaluation regarding non-discrimination in district policy and action is an important ongoing process. However, I am concerned about the emphasis placed on superficial policy compliance and statistical evaluations. It is of marginal value to use such statistics without proper context and little careful application toward determining root causes where apparent inequity exists. Furthermore, I feel our focus should be centered on the nearly universal loss in proficiency between Grade 8 and Grade 10 WKCE results, as well as the gender inequities in these scores. Downward trends in the WKCE data since 2002 are also a cause for concern. In addition, Evansville’s consistently low ACT results compared to the Statewide results are particularly troubling since our small district has to help our students outperform the state average to be considered competitive. These data illustrate a problem in our district which, for the nine years we have resided here, has yet to be adequately addressed. This problem continues in spite of this specific issue being addressed beginning in the fall of 2001 by the Academic Excellence Committee.
Let’s first address scholarship award distributions by gender, an item of concern in the report. On page 10, on first blush, it appears that scholarship awards are highly skewed toward young women, who accounted for 66% of the awards in 2006, reduced from 82% in 2004. The first question that leaps to mind is “What percentage of college bound seniors from Evansville are girls and what percentage are boys?” The evaluation of these statistics is moot without that piece of information. Should the scholarship award gender distribution reflect the class demographics or the college bound student demographics? The latter, to be sure. Also, the selection criteria for the scholarships are not expounded on in this report. If grades are the only criteria, and the girls are outperforming the boys on grades by 2:1, then this too needs to be factored into the discussion and your 66/34 distribution makes sense. The gender ratio of the senior class also bears on the statistics. For example, in 2004-2005, the overall student body was comprised of 52.3% boys and 47.7% girls while the scholarship distribution for college bound seniors was 18% male and 82% female. Based on demographics, your scholarship award ratio is even more skewed than represented. The gender breakdown for seniors only was not provided for that year, so that’s as far as the analysis can go at this point. The percent of each gender in the class who took the ACT factors into this discussion somehow. Beginning at a dismal 29% of the boys and a whopping 81% of the girls in 99-00 graduating class, we have improved the boys’ statistic to 53% of the boys taking the ACT in 05-06. However, the girls’ participation rate has plunged from 81% to 65% of the girls in the class of 05-06. Probably more important than numbers of scholarships is the value breakdown of the scholarship. How does the money distribute by gender when corrected for the college bound gender ratio? Are the scholarships distributed over a fairly large number of students, or are a select few students cleaning up on the scholarships? Finally, shouldn’t we be most concerned that scholarships should go to those students who most deserve and need them, regardless of gender?
There is another section described on page 10 of the report entitled “Other Forms of Recognition.” There seems to exude from the report pride that these data are more balanced toward “equal” gender distribution. However, the middle school 2005-2006 data is unbalanced from the perspective of extracurricular activity demographics. How can it be egalitarian if you award 51% of the recognition awards to boys when only 41% of the extracurricular participants are boys? The expected award distribution would be 41% boys and 59% girls. The high school award distribution for the same year (45% male/55% female) is much closer to the extracurricular activity participant distribution (43% male/57% female). Once again, of greater concern is the distribution of the funds used to support the extracurricular activities of boys and girls. It’s doubtful that 57% of the funds allocated for extracurricular activities at the high school are funneled to activities with predominantly female participants.
Now let’s focus on the WKCE results. The 3 years of data provided in the Self-Evaluation report illustrated my concern for loss of proficiency between grades 8 and 10. One immediately wonders if this is a persistent problem in our district or related to one class. The DPI web site lists data going back to 2002 for WKCE results with data parsed by gender and year. Statewide results are available for comparison purposes. Using these data, one is able to expand to 3 sets of results in which Grade 8 data in year x can be directly compared to Grade 10 data in year x+2, wherein essentially the same students are being evaluated. Attached with this document are the tables generated using DPI data (filename: wkcedata). Per a DPI disclaimer, WKCE data prior to 2002 are not comparable to 2002 and later, nor is it available on the DPI website.
Please review this Excel file with the attached bar charts while reading this part of the report. Tabs labeled reading, language arts, math, science and social studies contain the raw data spreadsheets. There are bar charts entitled reading0204all, reading0305all, reading0406all, and so on for each subject that nicely illustrates the “corrected loss” I discuss below (total of 15 charts). There are also 10 charts describing the proficiency loss for each subject by gender entitled mathlossboys and the like. Finally, there is a complete table of WKCE Historical data in this file for reference purposes entitled HistoricWKCE. I have matched scales on the graphs where feasible for better comparison purposes.
There are many ways to interpret this type of data. First, one can make a simple comparison between grade 8 and grade 10 results for Evansville students in the same class (for example, 2002 grade 8 results compared to 2004 grade 10 results). Using this technique, 22 of the 30 sets of Evansville data represented in the tables show loss of proficiency with magnitudes ranging from –1% to –16% (“prof. loss” on the charts). This made me consider that the sensitive timing of these grades may require some correction for overall reduction in scholastic performance due to general adolescent influences. Hence the inclusion of the state data on the charts, on which one may note that 20/30 of the measures of advanced plus proficient students showed decreasing proficiency. If one then “corrects” the Evansville data by offsetting the decreases with the same magnitude of decreases seen at the state level, the news is still not so good for Evansville. I did the calculations both as direct offsets and offsets calculated as a percent of the starting value, since Evansville scores are typically higher than state averages. There were tweaks to the data that way, but no big differences in the magnitude of the losses I refer to, so the charts you see represent direct offset data. Half of the measurements (15/30) still show loss of proficiency even after the corrections. 5 of those measurements indicate boys’ loss of proficiency (2005 grade 10 language arts, 2005 grade 10 math, 2005 grade 10 science, and 2004 and 2006 grade 10 social studies). 10 of the measurements indicate girls’ loss of proficiency (2004-2006 grade 10 reading, 2004-2006 grade 10 language arts, 2005 grade 10 math, 2005 and 2006 grade 10 science and 2004 grade 10 social studies).
This exercise led me to another way of looking at the data in a more historical overview. As useful as the bar charts were, I could only look at one snapshot 2-year period at a time. Excel file wkcehist contains a spreadsheet of the historical data (HistoricWKCE) and bar charts (READHISTGR8, READHISTGR10, etc.) that illustrate my concern with a general, somewhat alarming pattern of reduced proficiency over time, in addition to the Grade 8 to Grade 10 loss. Each chart shows results for one subject over the 2002-2006 time period, broken down by gender and with state results for comparison. The Grade 8 data is more precipitous in the reduction of the percent of students scoring proficient plus advanced over time, but since there is already a loss from grade 8 to grade 10, it’s a relief that equivalent degradation wasn’t evident in the grade 10 data too.
Both ways of evaluating the data illustrate gender gaps that are disheartening in this day and age. Of particular concern was the 31% gap in Grade 8 male and female language arts score in 2002 (favoring girls). There is also the usual gender bias for math and science: an 11% Grade 10 math gap in 2006 (favoring boys) and the consistent 5-17% science gap in all years (favoring boys). There were a few notable data sets that defied the traditional gender biases. But overall, Evansville data reflect these traditional biases.
One could argue that Evansville WKCE data are universally higher than the state data, sometimes by more than 30%. Why are you making such a big deal about this, Melissa? It’s frustrating that Evansville’s superior performance on WKCE does not predict superior ACT performance at all. One could say that the ACT test IS the gold standard of measure. If our superior WKCE performance translated to 30% higher ACT scores, all would be well and this report would not have seen the light of day. It seems that we sit on our laurels and bask in the glory of WKCE superiority while ACT mediocrity descends around us. We are failing our students when the rubber hits the road and they are counting on us to help them get into the colleges of their choice.
Please refer to the Excel file actvwkce while reading this section of the report. Tab ACT vs. WKCE contains the raw data spreadsheet that collates three sets of year x Grade 10 WKCE data with year x+1 ACT results. It was originally thought that year x+2 ACT results should be the comparison data, but it was determined that students are counseled to take the ACT in their junior year for early admission, and most do. There are 4 charts for each year: Evansville boys, Evansville girls, State boys and State girls (entitled Ev Boys 2002, Ev Girls 2002, St Boys 2002, St Girls 2002, etc.). One can get a sense of trends with these charts, but it’s clear that high WKCE results do not predict good ACT performance. It appears that the improvement referred to in the 2003 Academic Excellence Committee Report has not been sustained. Widely disparate WKCE scores often result in the same ACT score. And high WKCE scores do not predict excellent performance in that subject on the ACT. The most striking example of this was the 2004 WKCE Reading score/2005-2006 ACT comparison. 92% of the Grade 10 boys scored proficient or advanced and 92% of the girls did too. But while the ACT Reading score the following year showed an impressive 24.8 for the girls (reference 22.5 State Girls), the boys only scored 22.1, exactly the same as the State Boys, who had only 72% scoring Proficient + Advanced on their grade 10 WKCE.
Again, one is curious to put into context the ACT results with prior year data. The spreadsheet of historic ACT data from 2000 to 2006 is entitled Historical ACT Data. There are some generalizations that can be made looking at the last 5 charts which follows the ACT results for each subject and the composite data by year and gender, state and local. They are entitled ACTREAD, ACTENGILSH, etc. The good news is that there has been an increase in the girls’ scores across the board, especially in reading and language arts. The girls’ improvement in math and science is particularly encouraging. However, Evansville girls’ highest math score is still lower than our boys’ lowest math score, but for the last 2 years, the girls have finally exceeded the average state girls’ ACT score. The girls’ highest science score has finally caught up with the boys’ score but the boys continue to stay flat at less than the state boys’ science score. The flat male ACT performance is widespread, especially in the areas where they could use some bolstering, reading and language arts. It also appears that our boys are losing ground in science, very slightly. Their math scores still nudge just under the state boys’ average math ACT. The girls’ incredible ACT performance last year brought our composite score above the state average for the first time ever. This is good news to be celebrated, but with caution. These are ACT results for this year’s graduating class. By every measure, this class has outperformed all classes above and below them. As one reviews all of this data, one gets a feel for “class ability” that factors into the standardized test results. One could classify the class of 06-07 as downright brainiacs, evident from their grade 8 testing results forward. It may be unrealistic to expect continued ACT performance improvement of this magnitude in coming years.
What seems evident is that we need to academically engage our boys the way we have engaged our girls. We need to be realistic in our assessment of the coming grades whose grade 8 and grade 10 WKCE scores were far lower than those of this year’s graduating class to whom the excellent ACT scores can be attributed. While one can’t really predict ACT performance with the WKCE results, general trends can be inferred. If the students who scored 24 and 25 on Reading and English (language arts) in last years ACT had 100% scoring proficient + advanced on the Grade 8 WKCE and subsequent classes have performed at 75-90%, chances are that ACT scores will jump back down to more historically expected values. The trick is to stop this trend and continue the improvement.
While I reviewed all of this data to generate a report, the block schedule report was released which surveyed all the stakeholders regarding the relatively recently implemented block schedule. There was a claim in the report that our WKCE and ACT scores have improved since its implementation. This claim is disputable. The girls’ ACT performance has improved, impressively so in Reading and English, but the last impressive data point may be indicative of a very smart graduating class. The girls’ Math and Science scores are still below Evansville boys’ scores, which are a smidgen below the state boys. Evansville Boy’s ACT scores have not improved with the block schedule. The bar charts in wkcehist speak for themselves as to the WKCE trends, and they are not in the upward direction. We may perform better than the state average, but our scores over time are not improving.
It occurred to me after reading the report that perhaps block schedules dovetail better with the average female learning style (ability to sit for longer periods, more often given to the interactive styles and cooperative environment fostered in a block schedule as outlined by the overview report). This in turn has resulted in a steady improvement in the girls’ historically poor ACT areas of Math and Science and brought their Reading and English scores to impressive heights. Alternatively, it’s possible that the male learning style has not meshed as well with the block schedule. Their performance on their “problem” areas of Reading and English has remained unremarkable, and their strength areas of Math and Science remain flat. Some tweaks to the block schedule may be necessary to bring up the boys’ reading and language arts scores and help them soar in Math and Science. Speaking to their passions and harnessing the same strengths they exhibit in Math and Science for Reading and English could foster a veritable explosion in Evansville ACT scores.
Respectfully Submitted,
Melissa Hammann
Evansville School Board
Cc: Jamie Gillespie, Kitty Verkuilen, Deb Fritz, Sarah Champeau, Teresa Ellison.
From: Melissa Hammann
Subject: Comments regarding: Pupil Nondiscrimination Self-Evaluation Report, March 2007
Excel File Attachments: wkcedata, wkcehist and actvwkce
I agree that self-evaluation regarding non-discrimination in district policy and action is an important ongoing process. However, I am concerned about the emphasis placed on superficial policy compliance and statistical evaluations. It is of marginal value to use such statistics without proper context and little careful application toward determining root causes where apparent inequity exists. Furthermore, I feel our focus should be centered on the nearly universal loss in proficiency between Grade 8 and Grade 10 WKCE results, as well as the gender inequities in these scores. Downward trends in the WKCE data since 2002 are also a cause for concern. In addition, Evansville’s consistently low ACT results compared to the Statewide results are particularly troubling since our small district has to help our students outperform the state average to be considered competitive. These data illustrate a problem in our district which, for the nine years we have resided here, has yet to be adequately addressed. This problem continues in spite of this specific issue being addressed beginning in the fall of 2001 by the Academic Excellence Committee.
Let’s first address scholarship award distributions by gender, an item of concern in the report. On page 10, on first blush, it appears that scholarship awards are highly skewed toward young women, who accounted for 66% of the awards in 2006, reduced from 82% in 2004. The first question that leaps to mind is “What percentage of college bound seniors from Evansville are girls and what percentage are boys?” The evaluation of these statistics is moot without that piece of information. Should the scholarship award gender distribution reflect the class demographics or the college bound student demographics? The latter, to be sure. Also, the selection criteria for the scholarships are not expounded on in this report. If grades are the only criteria, and the girls are outperforming the boys on grades by 2:1, then this too needs to be factored into the discussion and your 66/34 distribution makes sense. The gender ratio of the senior class also bears on the statistics. For example, in 2004-2005, the overall student body was comprised of 52.3% boys and 47.7% girls while the scholarship distribution for college bound seniors was 18% male and 82% female. Based on demographics, your scholarship award ratio is even more skewed than represented. The gender breakdown for seniors only was not provided for that year, so that’s as far as the analysis can go at this point. The percent of each gender in the class who took the ACT factors into this discussion somehow. Beginning at a dismal 29% of the boys and a whopping 81% of the girls in 99-00 graduating class, we have improved the boys’ statistic to 53% of the boys taking the ACT in 05-06. However, the girls’ participation rate has plunged from 81% to 65% of the girls in the class of 05-06. Probably more important than numbers of scholarships is the value breakdown of the scholarship. How does the money distribute by gender when corrected for the college bound gender ratio? Are the scholarships distributed over a fairly large number of students, or are a select few students cleaning up on the scholarships? Finally, shouldn’t we be most concerned that scholarships should go to those students who most deserve and need them, regardless of gender?
There is another section described on page 10 of the report entitled “Other Forms of Recognition.” There seems to exude from the report pride that these data are more balanced toward “equal” gender distribution. However, the middle school 2005-2006 data is unbalanced from the perspective of extracurricular activity demographics. How can it be egalitarian if you award 51% of the recognition awards to boys when only 41% of the extracurricular participants are boys? The expected award distribution would be 41% boys and 59% girls. The high school award distribution for the same year (45% male/55% female) is much closer to the extracurricular activity participant distribution (43% male/57% female). Once again, of greater concern is the distribution of the funds used to support the extracurricular activities of boys and girls. It’s doubtful that 57% of the funds allocated for extracurricular activities at the high school are funneled to activities with predominantly female participants.
Now let’s focus on the WKCE results. The 3 years of data provided in the Self-Evaluation report illustrated my concern for loss of proficiency between grades 8 and 10. One immediately wonders if this is a persistent problem in our district or related to one class. The DPI web site lists data going back to 2002 for WKCE results with data parsed by gender and year. Statewide results are available for comparison purposes. Using these data, one is able to expand to 3 sets of results in which Grade 8 data in year x can be directly compared to Grade 10 data in year x+2, wherein essentially the same students are being evaluated. Attached with this document are the tables generated using DPI data (filename: wkcedata). Per a DPI disclaimer, WKCE data prior to 2002 are not comparable to 2002 and later, nor is it available on the DPI website.
Please review this Excel file with the attached bar charts while reading this part of the report. Tabs labeled reading, language arts, math, science and social studies contain the raw data spreadsheets. There are bar charts entitled reading0204all, reading0305all, reading0406all, and so on for each subject that nicely illustrates the “corrected loss” I discuss below (total of 15 charts). There are also 10 charts describing the proficiency loss for each subject by gender entitled mathlossboys and the like. Finally, there is a complete table of WKCE Historical data in this file for reference purposes entitled HistoricWKCE. I have matched scales on the graphs where feasible for better comparison purposes.
There are many ways to interpret this type of data. First, one can make a simple comparison between grade 8 and grade 10 results for Evansville students in the same class (for example, 2002 grade 8 results compared to 2004 grade 10 results). Using this technique, 22 of the 30 sets of Evansville data represented in the tables show loss of proficiency with magnitudes ranging from –1% to –16% (“prof. loss” on the charts). This made me consider that the sensitive timing of these grades may require some correction for overall reduction in scholastic performance due to general adolescent influences. Hence the inclusion of the state data on the charts, on which one may note that 20/30 of the measures of advanced plus proficient students showed decreasing proficiency. If one then “corrects” the Evansville data by offsetting the decreases with the same magnitude of decreases seen at the state level, the news is still not so good for Evansville. I did the calculations both as direct offsets and offsets calculated as a percent of the starting value, since Evansville scores are typically higher than state averages. There were tweaks to the data that way, but no big differences in the magnitude of the losses I refer to, so the charts you see represent direct offset data. Half of the measurements (15/30) still show loss of proficiency even after the corrections. 5 of those measurements indicate boys’ loss of proficiency (2005 grade 10 language arts, 2005 grade 10 math, 2005 grade 10 science, and 2004 and 2006 grade 10 social studies). 10 of the measurements indicate girls’ loss of proficiency (2004-2006 grade 10 reading, 2004-2006 grade 10 language arts, 2005 grade 10 math, 2005 and 2006 grade 10 science and 2004 grade 10 social studies).
This exercise led me to another way of looking at the data in a more historical overview. As useful as the bar charts were, I could only look at one snapshot 2-year period at a time. Excel file wkcehist contains a spreadsheet of the historical data (HistoricWKCE) and bar charts (READHISTGR8, READHISTGR10, etc.) that illustrate my concern with a general, somewhat alarming pattern of reduced proficiency over time, in addition to the Grade 8 to Grade 10 loss. Each chart shows results for one subject over the 2002-2006 time period, broken down by gender and with state results for comparison. The Grade 8 data is more precipitous in the reduction of the percent of students scoring proficient plus advanced over time, but since there is already a loss from grade 8 to grade 10, it’s a relief that equivalent degradation wasn’t evident in the grade 10 data too.
Both ways of evaluating the data illustrate gender gaps that are disheartening in this day and age. Of particular concern was the 31% gap in Grade 8 male and female language arts score in 2002 (favoring girls). There is also the usual gender bias for math and science: an 11% Grade 10 math gap in 2006 (favoring boys) and the consistent 5-17% science gap in all years (favoring boys). There were a few notable data sets that defied the traditional gender biases. But overall, Evansville data reflect these traditional biases.
One could argue that Evansville WKCE data are universally higher than the state data, sometimes by more than 30%. Why are you making such a big deal about this, Melissa? It’s frustrating that Evansville’s superior performance on WKCE does not predict superior ACT performance at all. One could say that the ACT test IS the gold standard of measure. If our superior WKCE performance translated to 30% higher ACT scores, all would be well and this report would not have seen the light of day. It seems that we sit on our laurels and bask in the glory of WKCE superiority while ACT mediocrity descends around us. We are failing our students when the rubber hits the road and they are counting on us to help them get into the colleges of their choice.
Please refer to the Excel file actvwkce while reading this section of the report. Tab ACT vs. WKCE contains the raw data spreadsheet that collates three sets of year x Grade 10 WKCE data with year x+1 ACT results. It was originally thought that year x+2 ACT results should be the comparison data, but it was determined that students are counseled to take the ACT in their junior year for early admission, and most do. There are 4 charts for each year: Evansville boys, Evansville girls, State boys and State girls (entitled Ev Boys 2002, Ev Girls 2002, St Boys 2002, St Girls 2002, etc.). One can get a sense of trends with these charts, but it’s clear that high WKCE results do not predict good ACT performance. It appears that the improvement referred to in the 2003 Academic Excellence Committee Report has not been sustained. Widely disparate WKCE scores often result in the same ACT score. And high WKCE scores do not predict excellent performance in that subject on the ACT. The most striking example of this was the 2004 WKCE Reading score/2005-2006 ACT comparison. 92% of the Grade 10 boys scored proficient or advanced and 92% of the girls did too. But while the ACT Reading score the following year showed an impressive 24.8 for the girls (reference 22.5 State Girls), the boys only scored 22.1, exactly the same as the State Boys, who had only 72% scoring Proficient + Advanced on their grade 10 WKCE.
Again, one is curious to put into context the ACT results with prior year data. The spreadsheet of historic ACT data from 2000 to 2006 is entitled Historical ACT Data. There are some generalizations that can be made looking at the last 5 charts which follows the ACT results for each subject and the composite data by year and gender, state and local. They are entitled ACTREAD, ACTENGILSH, etc. The good news is that there has been an increase in the girls’ scores across the board, especially in reading and language arts. The girls’ improvement in math and science is particularly encouraging. However, Evansville girls’ highest math score is still lower than our boys’ lowest math score, but for the last 2 years, the girls have finally exceeded the average state girls’ ACT score. The girls’ highest science score has finally caught up with the boys’ score but the boys continue to stay flat at less than the state boys’ science score. The flat male ACT performance is widespread, especially in the areas where they could use some bolstering, reading and language arts. It also appears that our boys are losing ground in science, very slightly. Their math scores still nudge just under the state boys’ average math ACT. The girls’ incredible ACT performance last year brought our composite score above the state average for the first time ever. This is good news to be celebrated, but with caution. These are ACT results for this year’s graduating class. By every measure, this class has outperformed all classes above and below them. As one reviews all of this data, one gets a feel for “class ability” that factors into the standardized test results. One could classify the class of 06-07 as downright brainiacs, evident from their grade 8 testing results forward. It may be unrealistic to expect continued ACT performance improvement of this magnitude in coming years.
What seems evident is that we need to academically engage our boys the way we have engaged our girls. We need to be realistic in our assessment of the coming grades whose grade 8 and grade 10 WKCE scores were far lower than those of this year’s graduating class to whom the excellent ACT scores can be attributed. While one can’t really predict ACT performance with the WKCE results, general trends can be inferred. If the students who scored 24 and 25 on Reading and English (language arts) in last years ACT had 100% scoring proficient + advanced on the Grade 8 WKCE and subsequent classes have performed at 75-90%, chances are that ACT scores will jump back down to more historically expected values. The trick is to stop this trend and continue the improvement.
While I reviewed all of this data to generate a report, the block schedule report was released which surveyed all the stakeholders regarding the relatively recently implemented block schedule. There was a claim in the report that our WKCE and ACT scores have improved since its implementation. This claim is disputable. The girls’ ACT performance has improved, impressively so in Reading and English, but the last impressive data point may be indicative of a very smart graduating class. The girls’ Math and Science scores are still below Evansville boys’ scores, which are a smidgen below the state boys. Evansville Boy’s ACT scores have not improved with the block schedule. The bar charts in wkcehist speak for themselves as to the WKCE trends, and they are not in the upward direction. We may perform better than the state average, but our scores over time are not improving.
It occurred to me after reading the report that perhaps block schedules dovetail better with the average female learning style (ability to sit for longer periods, more often given to the interactive styles and cooperative environment fostered in a block schedule as outlined by the overview report). This in turn has resulted in a steady improvement in the girls’ historically poor ACT areas of Math and Science and brought their Reading and English scores to impressive heights. Alternatively, it’s possible that the male learning style has not meshed as well with the block schedule. Their performance on their “problem” areas of Reading and English has remained unremarkable, and their strength areas of Math and Science remain flat. Some tweaks to the block schedule may be necessary to bring up the boys’ reading and language arts scores and help them soar in Math and Science. Speaking to their passions and harnessing the same strengths they exhibit in Math and Science for Reading and English could foster a veritable explosion in Evansville ACT scores.
Respectfully Submitted,
Melissa Hammann
Evansville School Board
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
