Chicago Near Bottom On Nat'l Comparison National tests show little of the dramatic improvements reported on state exams:
National data show Chicago students lagging Tribune
"Chicago public school students made little progress on the most recent national math and reading exams, leaving the city near the bottom when compared with other large urban areas, according to data released Thursday.
Poor marks for Chicago schools Sun Times
After a lifetime of reforms under Mayor Daley, how do Chicago public school students stack up against their big-city peers? Anywhere from the near-bottom to the middle of the pack, according to fourth- and eighth-grade reading and math scores released Thursday for 11 big-city districts.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 10:57 AM
Looking at CPS 2007 NAEP data for students with disabilities
I spent some time looking at the National Assessment of Educational Progress data from Chicago for reading for students with disabilities. As usual none of the press reports discuss this data. If people using district 299 what to see the actual data it is easily available through the DOE website, in fact you can get additional data related to Chicago if you agree to confidentiality restrictions and have research needs. This NAEP data is only for grades 4 and 8.
I looked only at reading data for the subgroup of students with disabilities for Chicago from 2003 to 2007. Just as CPS staff indicated in the newspapers some of the subgroup data, for the white subgroup for example, is very small and hence its statistical validity can be questioned. But in reviewing this data found I even in this small data set achievement consistency between years which leads us to believe the data clearly has some validity.
In a snapshot here is what I saw in relation to the performance of students with disabilities in reading at grades 4 and 8 which are tested in the NAEP. From 2003 to 2007 Chicago has shown no significant progress in improving the reading skills of its students with disabilities at these two grade levels based on the NAEP.
Because the NAEP uses a different measuring system than the state level IGAP it is difficult to compare the scores. But it appears that the 2007 reading scores for CPS students with disabilities at the 4th grade level were comparable to those of the 2007 NAEP. It also appears that 2007 reading CPS scores for students with disabilities at the 8th grade level using the IGAP were considerably higher than those for the 2007 NAEP. I am not going to speculate as to what that means, because I really do not know.
As readers of District 299 know Access Living is very concerned about the learning gap between students with and without disabilities in CPS. Using the NAEP data we can say that between 2003 and 2007 there was no closing of the reading achievement gap between CPS students with and without disabilities at the fourth grade level. Only 8% of CPS fourth students with disabilities were able to read at what is called the proficient level on the 2007 NAEP.
The situation gets considerably worse at grade 8. Only 4% of CPS 8th graders with disabilities were able to read at the proficient level on the NAEP. From 2003 to 2007 the gap between the percentage of CPS students without disabilities and those with disabilities reading at the proficient level grew. In 2003, 15% of CPS students without disabilities were reading on the NAEP at the proficient level and only 2% of CPS students with disabilities were able to read at a proficient level resulting in a gap of 13%. In 2007, 4% of CPS students with disabilities were able to read at a proficient level and 20% of CPS students without disabilities were reading on the NAEP at the proficient level resulting in a gap of 16%.
Chicago is doing equally as poorly in teaching students with disabilities how to read at the 8th grade level as are most other large urban school districts according to the 2007 NAEP report, but behind the nation as a whole. CPS scores are about the same as those of the District of Columbia which historically is has been considered to have the worse special education services in the United States. Amazingly, the CPS scores for its 8th grade students with disabilities were 1% better than those of New York City. But I guess in this contest for the bottom of the heap beating NYC is not much of an achievement.
I looked only at reading data for the subgroup of students with disabilities for Chicago from 2003 to 2007. Just as CPS staff indicated in the newspapers some of the subgroup data, for the white subgroup for example, is very small and hence its statistical validity can be questioned. But in reviewing this data found I even in this small data set achievement consistency between years which leads us to believe the data clearly has some validity.
In a snapshot here is what I saw in relation to the performance of students with disabilities in reading at grades 4 and 8 which are tested in the NAEP. From 2003 to 2007 Chicago has shown no significant progress in improving the reading skills of its students with disabilities at these two grade levels based on the NAEP.
Because the NAEP uses a different measuring system than the state level IGAP it is difficult to compare the scores. But it appears that the 2007 reading scores for CPS students with disabilities at the 4th grade level were comparable to those of the 2007 NAEP. It also appears that 2007 reading CPS scores for students with disabilities at the 8th grade level using the IGAP were considerably higher than those for the 2007 NAEP. I am not going to speculate as to what that means, because I really do not know.
As readers of District 299 know Access Living is very concerned about the learning gap between students with and without disabilities in CPS. Using the NAEP data we can say that between 2003 and 2007 there was no closing of the reading achievement gap between CPS students with and without disabilities at the fourth grade level. Only 8% of CPS fourth students with disabilities were able to read at what is called the proficient level on the 2007 NAEP.
The situation gets considerably worse at grade 8. Only 4% of CPS 8th graders with disabilities were able to read at the proficient level on the NAEP. From 2003 to 2007 the gap between the percentage of CPS students without disabilities and those with disabilities reading at the proficient level grew. In 2003, 15% of CPS students without disabilities were reading on the NAEP at the proficient level and only 2% of CPS students with disabilities were able to read at a proficient level resulting in a gap of 13%. In 2007, 4% of CPS students with disabilities were able to read at a proficient level and 20% of CPS students without disabilities were reading on the NAEP at the proficient level resulting in a gap of 16%.
Chicago is doing equally as poorly in teaching students with disabilities how to read at the 8th grade level as are most other large urban school districts according to the 2007 NAEP report, but behind the nation as a whole. CPS scores are about the same as those of the District of Columbia which historically is has been considered to have the worse special education services in the United States. Amazingly, the CPS scores for its 8th grade students with disabilities were 1% better than those of New York City. But I guess in this contest for the bottom of the heap beating NYC is not much of an achievement.
Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 10:18 PM
Chicago Near Bottom On Nat'l Comparison
Rod,
Do you know if accommodations are made for special ed students when taking the NAEP?
Do you know if accommodations are made for special ed students when taking the NAEP?
Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 9:36 AM
Chicago Near Bottom On Nat'l Comparison
one local, the other in DC, a couple of other folks have taken close looks at the urban NAEP data:
-- Kevin Carey from the Ed Sector in DC points out that other districts seem to get much better results educating poor children than Chicago
Percent of low-income 4th graders proficient in math:
New York City: 31%
Boston: 24%
Charlotte: 23%
Austin: 22%
Houston: 22%
San Diego: 22%
Los Angeles: 15%
Chicago: 12%
Cleveland: 10%
DC: 7%
There are similarly big gaps between how Chicago and other cities do at getting these kids to basic.
For the full post, click here
-- on its blog, PURE points out that "once again Chicago is near the bottom of the heap of the eleven largest urban school districts in the U.S. on most NAEP tests."
"While Chicago does have a higher poverty rate than several of the 11 large urban districts, that does not explain away the lack of progress since 2005."
• Overall, Chicago’s outcomes remain near the bottom with the districts in Cleveland and Washington, D.C.
• Unlike several other large urban districts, Chicago’s results have not improved significantly since 2005.
• Chicago scores below the national average and the average of large central cities.
To read the full analysis, go here
-- Kevin Carey from the Ed Sector in DC points out that other districts seem to get much better results educating poor children than Chicago
Percent of low-income 4th graders proficient in math:
New York City: 31%
Boston: 24%
Charlotte: 23%
Austin: 22%
Houston: 22%
San Diego: 22%
Los Angeles: 15%
Chicago: 12%
Cleveland: 10%
DC: 7%
There are similarly big gaps between how Chicago and other cities do at getting these kids to basic.
For the full post, click here
-- on its blog, PURE points out that "once again Chicago is near the bottom of the heap of the eleven largest urban school districts in the U.S. on most NAEP tests."
"While Chicago does have a higher poverty rate than several of the 11 large urban districts, that does not explain away the lack of progress since 2005."
• Overall, Chicago’s outcomes remain near the bottom with the districts in Cleveland and Washington, D.C.
• Unlike several other large urban districts, Chicago’s results have not improved significantly since 2005.
• Chicago scores below the national average and the average of large central cities.
To read the full analysis, go here
Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 6:34 AM
Chicago Near Bottom On Nat'l Comparison
What NAEP is really showing is that both of the corporat Stalinists' Five-Year Plans since the Daley Dictatorship began in 1995 have "failed" if the objective were to improve the public schooling of the poorest children in Chicago (the least of our brethren, to quote the verse quoted by parent James Tucker -- South Side Occupational -- at the October 24 Board meeting).
Corporate Stalinism has failed, if its goal was to improve public schooling in Chicago for the children who needed the best schools the most.
As everyone here who works in the hard core areas knows, the 150 - 300 CPS schools serving the children who come from homes that share racial racial segregation and serious poverty have been getting "worse" during the past 12 years (since the beginning of the Daley Dictatorship), not better. As the resources have been sucked away from the classrooms, teachers, and children in those schools (while the rhetoric of "reform" and spending on supplemental programs -- beginning with "probation managers" and external partners" -- escalated), the results have become appalling. This is all the more scandalous in the context of the fact that since Mayor Daley took over, total revenues available for public schooling in Chicago have increased at the greatest rate as well as at the greatest amount in the history of the city. Only by forcing a dysfunctional market model (as opposed to an improved public services model) on CPS could that much money have been wasted over that long a period of time (12 years now and counting). Now that the economic boom is finally dragging to an ugly close, it will be important to document just how terribly the lives of children were harmed here during this vast experiment in racism, classism, hubris and corporate dictatorship.
What we've proved is that the Brown decision was right. Separate is unequal, and once a city has radically segregated its children, these results follows. What needed to be seen a bit more clearly in the years after Brown were the impacts of class and how easily privilege can be bought off, even in the leadership of the so-called oppressed communities.
It has never been nor will it ever be about eliminating the "achievement gap", despite all of the rhetoric. It's actually been about expanding inequities under the banner of "choice." (If choice as we practice it in Chicago -- along with charters and smalls and militaries -- is such an option, why isn't it the prescription for the wealthier children in the public schools of Chicago's wealthiest suburbs?)
The whole Daley Public Schools project has always been about deregulation and privatization, masked behind the "achievement gap" rhetoric. That's corporate "school reform". During the past six years (since Arne Duncan became the second grotesquely unqualified white guy to become CEO of CPS), the Chicago Board of Education has been able to eliminate the remnants of desegregation oversight (the consent decree, the annual reports of the Desegregaton Monitoring Commission, and the Desegregatioin Monitoring Commission itself), the last remnants of any public scrutiny of policy and testing (the Academic Accontability Council) and effective enforcement of the law forbidding segregation of people with disabilities. The agenda has been very clear and precise.
At the same time, Chicago has created and expanded a vast infrastructure of often ridiculous experimental replacement schools (mostly, the charters, but also the "new schools" under the military, small schools, and other boutique schools) that are directly aimed at undermining rather than improving existing and traditional public schools in Chicago (generally, this goes by the name locally of "Renaissance 2010"; nationally it is called "No Child Left Behind").
Because these schools are failing in their jobs by every measure except the most basic marketing survey ("Do you like it here?" "Well, compared to Crance last week, it's sure quieter and safer"; that kind of nonsense), secondary industries (propaganda; the Chicago Schools Fund -- whatever its name at this point in history; "research" subdsidized to prove the "success" of the experiments; the ubiquitous EMOs with their profit margins of between ten and 20 percent; etc.) grow alongside. Then a further internal industry has to grow up, within the budget and propaganda departments, to mask the actuual costs of these experiments to the public (the charter schools' exemptions from being itemized in the annual CPS Budget; the refusal of CPS to include charters in the Position Files; the complete lack of accountability for charter school spending are just a few).
More attention should have been paid to Arne Duncan's breathtakingly dishonest report to the October 24, 2007, Board of Education meeting on "Renaissance 2010." But most of our colleagues in the media weren't even aware of it, and even when they were their job has been defined as quoting Arne (or some other expert) and ignoring the underlying facts. What Arne reported was that "Renaissance 2010" will have replaced about 20 percent of the city's public schools's "seats" with boutique, charter, and other non-traditional schools by 2010. In order to "prove" that was a good thing, a lot of history is going to be ignored, a lot of lies are going to be repeated, and a lot of money is going to be spread around to shut down critics and criticism.
Because these attacks on public education ignore most of the public schools in Chicago (and virtually all of the public schools serving the "middle class" -- white, black, and Latino), the only people facing the brunt of this are the very poor, the very segregated, and the very "at risk."
This is racial and class segregation at its worst (and most hypocritical). Chicago has proved that segregation creates (for the majority of children in the segregated schools) these results, but that had been proven 50 years ago in "Brown"). Chicago has also proven the failure of the "market" model, although the coverup of that massive failure will continue for a few more years, leaving behind thousands of additional victims.
Corporate Stalinism has failed, if its goal was to improve public schooling in Chicago for the children who needed the best schools the most.
As everyone here who works in the hard core areas knows, the 150 - 300 CPS schools serving the children who come from homes that share racial racial segregation and serious poverty have been getting "worse" during the past 12 years (since the beginning of the Daley Dictatorship), not better. As the resources have been sucked away from the classrooms, teachers, and children in those schools (while the rhetoric of "reform" and spending on supplemental programs -- beginning with "probation managers" and external partners" -- escalated), the results have become appalling. This is all the more scandalous in the context of the fact that since Mayor Daley took over, total revenues available for public schooling in Chicago have increased at the greatest rate as well as at the greatest amount in the history of the city. Only by forcing a dysfunctional market model (as opposed to an improved public services model) on CPS could that much money have been wasted over that long a period of time (12 years now and counting). Now that the economic boom is finally dragging to an ugly close, it will be important to document just how terribly the lives of children were harmed here during this vast experiment in racism, classism, hubris and corporate dictatorship.
What we've proved is that the Brown decision was right. Separate is unequal, and once a city has radically segregated its children, these results follows. What needed to be seen a bit more clearly in the years after Brown were the impacts of class and how easily privilege can be bought off, even in the leadership of the so-called oppressed communities.
It has never been nor will it ever be about eliminating the "achievement gap", despite all of the rhetoric. It's actually been about expanding inequities under the banner of "choice." (If choice as we practice it in Chicago -- along with charters and smalls and militaries -- is such an option, why isn't it the prescription for the wealthier children in the public schools of Chicago's wealthiest suburbs?)
The whole Daley Public Schools project has always been about deregulation and privatization, masked behind the "achievement gap" rhetoric. That's corporate "school reform". During the past six years (since Arne Duncan became the second grotesquely unqualified white guy to become CEO of CPS), the Chicago Board of Education has been able to eliminate the remnants of desegregation oversight (the consent decree, the annual reports of the Desegregaton Monitoring Commission, and the Desegregatioin Monitoring Commission itself), the last remnants of any public scrutiny of policy and testing (the Academic Accontability Council) and effective enforcement of the law forbidding segregation of people with disabilities. The agenda has been very clear and precise.
At the same time, Chicago has created and expanded a vast infrastructure of often ridiculous experimental replacement schools (mostly, the charters, but also the "new schools" under the military, small schools, and other boutique schools) that are directly aimed at undermining rather than improving existing and traditional public schools in Chicago (generally, this goes by the name locally of "Renaissance 2010"; nationally it is called "No Child Left Behind").
Because these schools are failing in their jobs by every measure except the most basic marketing survey ("Do you like it here?" "Well, compared to Crance last week, it's sure quieter and safer"; that kind of nonsense), secondary industries (propaganda; the Chicago Schools Fund -- whatever its name at this point in history; "research" subdsidized to prove the "success" of the experiments; the ubiquitous EMOs with their profit margins of between ten and 20 percent; etc.) grow alongside. Then a further internal industry has to grow up, within the budget and propaganda departments, to mask the actuual costs of these experiments to the public (the charter schools' exemptions from being itemized in the annual CPS Budget; the refusal of CPS to include charters in the Position Files; the complete lack of accountability for charter school spending are just a few).
More attention should have been paid to Arne Duncan's breathtakingly dishonest report to the October 24, 2007, Board of Education meeting on "Renaissance 2010." But most of our colleagues in the media weren't even aware of it, and even when they were their job has been defined as quoting Arne (or some other expert) and ignoring the underlying facts. What Arne reported was that "Renaissance 2010" will have replaced about 20 percent of the city's public schools's "seats" with boutique, charter, and other non-traditional schools by 2010. In order to "prove" that was a good thing, a lot of history is going to be ignored, a lot of lies are going to be repeated, and a lot of money is going to be spread around to shut down critics and criticism.
Because these attacks on public education ignore most of the public schools in Chicago (and virtually all of the public schools serving the "middle class" -- white, black, and Latino), the only people facing the brunt of this are the very poor, the very segregated, and the very "at risk."
This is racial and class segregation at its worst (and most hypocritical). Chicago has proved that segregation creates (for the majority of children in the segregated schools) these results, but that had been proven 50 years ago in "Brown"). Chicago has also proven the failure of the "market" model, although the coverup of that massive failure will continue for a few more years, leaving behind thousands of additional victims.
Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 9:31 AM
responding to Curious
According to the DOE accomodations are providing to students with disabilities for the NAEP. Students are also exempted based on decisions of the IEP team. So as long as the IEP was written correctly for these students and accomodations were listed on it, my understanding was that the accomodations were provided on the NAEP. The data was however, not reported three ways. like the ITBS and TAP used to be. By this I mean, we do not get an average for students with disabilities who take the test with minor or no accomodations, an average for major accomodations, and an overall average for all students with disabilities. The NAEP only provides the overall average for all students with disabilities from what I could see in the files that I downloaded last week.
Rod Estvan
Access Living
Rod Estvan
Access Living
Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 10:04 AM
Chicago Near Bottom On Nat'l Comparison
about accommodations, the report notes that different cities have different rates and practices --i'm not sure if chicago gives more accommodations to more kids or not. or whether NAEP accommodations are any different from ISAT/AYP ones.
Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 11:38 AM
Chicago Near Bottom On Nat'l Comparison
This is very discouraging. While these scores don't affect my family personally, as a liberal minded person I find it appalling that CPS cannot do a better job. That said, it is not entirely CPS's fault, in my opinion. You simply cannot just extract poverty and the problems it creates out of the education equation. I do not know what the solution is, for I am no economist. But in order to raise our students (disabled or not) achievements we (as a city) must find a way to address the problem of poverty as well as the quality of our educators.
Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 12:56 PM
agree with Wendy
There is no question that social economic status impacts all children. Even within the world of students with disabilities, we see higher scores on standardized tests in schools that have fewer low income students. The long term outcomes for students with disabilities are radically impacted by poverty.
Because most students with disabilities do not graduate from college (nationally just under 15% every do, in the CPS it is probably less than 1%) with BAs, including a many from higher income families, the role of families in helping young adults with disabilities to obtain employment and independence is very big. When families are are at the margins they can not do much to help these young people and the results are often very disturbing.
Rod Estvan
Access Living
Because most students with disabilities do not graduate from college (nationally just under 15% every do, in the CPS it is probably less than 1%) with BAs, including a many from higher income families, the role of families in helping young adults with disabilities to obtain employment and independence is very big. When families are are at the margins they can not do much to help these young people and the results are often very disturbing.
Rod Estvan
Access Living
