Submitted by John Arbeeny.
During the CPSD Board workshop on 22 June 2022, Brian Gabele, Director Assessment and Program Evaluation, gave a presentation on Student Growth Potential (SGP) which is used by OSPI and CPSD to assess student improvement and thus school and district improvement relative to other peers in math and English Language Arts (ELA).
The SGP is measured across tests at each grade level and then the relative improvement between like scoring students, schools and districts gauged between tests on a scale of 1 and 99 percentile with 50 percentile the median score. This is quite different than an assessment of actual student academic achievement when measured against objective standards set by OSPI.
Mr. Gabele’s briefing was excellent in explaining SGP in its specifics. However, it also raised several questions about the OSPI generally and CPSD specifically with respect to how well they determine school and district educational status overall.
Mr. Gabele stated that SGP was a “fairer” method of determining educational status based upon relative improvement which would encourage teachers and students that otherwise had not met OSPI standards but were making progress in doing so. In essence this is an evaluation of relative “effort” rather than actual objective academic achievement. The end result of SGP is an “equitable” leveling of high and low performing schools and districts so they all come out looking the same or nearly so.
An extreme example first.
Clara Barton Elementary School (Redmond) is ranked 34/1107 of State elementary schools (top 3%) and rose 194 rankings 2019-2021. The 2021 average standard test score was 98%. ELA scored 82% and math 77% of students meeting OSPI standards. Clearly this school is high performing and has improved significantly as the statistics show.
Image Elementary School (Evergreen) on the other hand is ranked 1078/1107 of State elementary schools (bottom 3%) and dropped 555 rankings 2019-2021. The 2021 average standard test score was 8%. ELA scored 19% and math 9%. Clearly this school is at the very bottom of all elementary schools and has suffered a significant drop in overall ranking with significantly lower ELA and math scores.
These two schools are at opposite ends of the spectrum based upon their ranking, movement in the rankings, average test scores, and meeting OSPI ELA and math standards. The disparities could not be starker.
Enter the magic of SGP, equity’s answer to leveling the good, bad and ugly!
Clara Barton Elementary has a “high ELA growth” (OSPI terminology) score of 34% and “high math growth” score of 31%. Image Elementary on the other hand has a “high ELA growth” score of 24% and “high math growth” score of 31%. Incredibly both schools have exactly the same growth scores for math although there is an enormous difference in actual academic achievement. Without objective data they would seem to be equivalent when it comes to SGP when they are in fact worlds apart in academic achievement.
Now let’s look closer to home in CPSD at a pair of schools headed in different directions: Meriwether and Lake Louise Elementary schools.
Meriwether Elementary School is ranked 420/1107 (top 38%) and rose 150 rankings 2019-2021. The 2021 average standard test score was 57.3%. ELA scored 50% and math 39%.
Lake Louise Elementary School is ranked 926/1107 (bottom 16%) and dropped 169 rankings 2019-2021. The 2021 average standard test score was 18%. ELA scored 30% and math 17%.
Meriwether Elementary has a “high ELA growth” score of 28% and “high math growth” score of 39%. Lake Louise Elementary on the other hand has a “high ELA growth” score of 30% and “high math growth” score of 43%. Incredibly Lake Louise Elementary has higher potential growth scores for ELA and math than Meriwether Elementary although there is an enormous difference in ranking, movement in rankings and actual OSPI standards for academic achievement compared to Meriwether. So which counts more: potential growth or actual academic achievement? This begs the question: “Which school would you send your child to?” My choice would be Meriwether without question.
The other take away is also not so obvious. A student, school or district scoring less than a median 50 percentile for SGP means that despite their apparent positive “growth potential” they are actually falling further behind those ranked at 50 percentile or above. Over time this trend can compound their difficulty in catching up and their ability to meet OSPI academic standards. Thus SGP can hide the reality of academic failure behind the façade of “growth potential”.
That is nothing to crow about.
Yet there has always been an objective measure of academic achievement judged against OSPI standards. If OSPI standards mean anything then those standards should be the bases for measuring actual academic achievement, not relative growth potential. Students, schools and districts that improved towards OSPI standards could be easily identified with positive growth scores based upon how successful they were approaching those standards even if falling short.
Those that fell further behind would have negative scores, something that doesn’t exist in the SGP 1-99 percentile rating range. Negative achievement scores might make some feel uneasy about their “progress” in the wrong direction. However at least they and everyone else would know there was a problem that had to be turned around. Maybe that’s the reason SGP was chosen as an evaluation tool. It conveniently hides the truth about actual academic achievement while allowing Boards, administrators and schools to bask in the glow of relative growth potential!
Director David Anderson: “Yet in Clover Park High School only 5% are able to compete and compute applied math….Now they can grow but if they’re not adequately competent to apply that math in whatever field they choose after high school, we can’t say that growth is satisfactory when we’re still falling short.”
Brian Gabele: “I agree with you in the importance of that.”
Clover Park spends over $200,000.00 providing an education for our students. What is the best measure of success? Most of us who are paying for services prefer an objective measurement not a subjective assessment of effort. The founders of our state documented in our constitution the importance of education for our children. We the citizen of our community get to see these students working part time jobs, getting college degrees, working full time jobs in our local businesses and also some of the objectionable behaviors that our local law enforcement has to deal with. So as you evaluate our public schools what are your measurements of success? Hold your school board accountable for meeting your definition of success.
But the truth is so mean and insensitive.
It’s better to lie and feel good about it until reality bites.
But reality is mean and insensitive so we should encourage the use of drugs that can take us to an altered reality until the real reality bites even harder.
But those drugs cause unintended consequences to include violent and irrational behavior.
Then we can systematically start forfeiting our God-given rights because we are no longer capable of respecting them.
In the first article of today’s Suburban Times, Tacoma Mayor Woodard is aligning herself even further with “Washington cease fire”, a rabid anti 2nd amendment group, rather than take responsibility for her own failed policies.
When we are no longer free to live prosperous lives, our enemies, foreign and domestic, will have us right where they want us.
I fear, in western Washington, we are already there.
If the public school system isn’t designed to put our kids on a good path to independence, then what is its actual purpose?
Is it better that they linger in our basements plotting revolution and mayhem?
This confused thought has led to a government that can only grow and perpetuate itself, rather than humbly serve the people.
The “Shining city on a hill” is being over-run with garbage, crime, and filth, and our “leaders” think that’s “fair”.
Thank you, Mr. Arbeeny, for the analysis and clarification of the subject of Student Growth Potential, which is helpful for all who are concerned about academic achievement in the Clover Park School District. The last two quotes in your analysis by School Board Director David Anderson and Brian Gabele, Director of Assessment and Program Evaluation, summarize your point superbly.
The additional comment of School Board Director Paul Wagemann is a concern he has expressed during his many years of service on the board. Yet, when he voiced it again at the June 22 meeting, the School Board President Alyssa Pearson admonished him for often expressing it yet having no solutions. When Directors Anderson and Wagemann have made suggestions in the form of motions, they have been reminded by Director Jacobs that the function of the board is to tell the superintendent what they want, not how to accomplish the task. Director Pearson criticized Director Wagemann for not offering solutions; Director Jacobs has, often in past meetings, said it is not the prerogative for board members to offer solutions. Then, frequently, Anderson’s and Wagemann’s motions are voted down by the other three directors. It appears to be futile for Wagemann and Anderson to suggest steps toward potential improvement, yet Wagemann was publicly criticized by Pearson for not doing so. How will the District’s academic achievement rating ever improve from the bottom third of Washington State public schools if this board doesn’t strive to work together?
My position: I do not want my child’s academic excellence measured by a single test score at the end of a school year.
I do not want my child’s teacher, school or school district measured by a single test score given at the end of the year.
I want multiple ways to measure a child’s proficiency and not a “one size fits all” high stakes test that is used to grade or “pass/fail” students.
My understanding: Clover Park School District has some of the highest requirements for a meaningful diploma. The State requires multiple pathways to a diploma. Clover Park has provided those pathways. A student who is a poor test taker has other options to meet the requirements. Vocational/tech programs, Running Start, AP classes and 5 other pathways are offered with extensive career counseling from 9th grade through 12th.
My observation:
Sadly, these endless letters from Arbeeny about the importance of a single test score to evaluate all of our students and schools is idiocy at its finest. Those who attend the school board meetings have witnessed nonstop attacks on our schools by Arbeeny, David Anderson, Paul Wagemann and members of their political group named LakewoodCARES. The graduation requirements have had to be explained to them so many times it is embarrassing. Paul Wagemann’s inability to understand how credits are earned after all his years on the board and then calling our district a “diploma mill” is reason enough to have him retired from duty. What has he been doing for all these years? He would have you believe he was the smartest board member, a victim and just out-numbered. He has a poor grasp of reality and a convenient memory loss.
Any presentation that actually addresses the individual academic needs of students is brushed aside by Arbeeny. If it does not fit the LakewoodCARES political narrative and goals, then it has no value. These people have no clue about the actual learning needs of our students and do not seem interested in addressing them. They see every student as a test score. They want to use test scores as a club to punish students, teachers, administration and especially our superintendent. It is pathetic to hear them call our district “failing” when they show zero interest in understanding the different pathways to a meaningful diploma for our students. I have heard people from this same group laugh at the millions of dollars worth of scholarships our students are receiving; more than ever before. Evidentally, excellence recognized by colleges counters the “failure” story they are trying to create. Did you know that some people within this same political group are telling people not to fund public schools and to get rid of public libraries? I stop trusting school board members who meet regularly with people who have made it a mission to politically or religiously control our public schools.
Children are not factory widgets being produced! We have 8,000+ students on free and reduced lunch and this community needs to come together to address the needs of the children we are educating; only one group seems intent on trying to divide us. They waste valuable time trying to chip away at the reputation of our city and school system. These same individuals have no business being in charge of the education of any child other than their own.
Let’s investigate why when Arbeeny writes or speaks, Anderson and Wagemann copy, cut and paste. This community needs to start asking serious questions about LakewoodCARES and its involvement in our schools. Who are these people in this political group wanting control of our school district? Why? What demographics do they represent? Do they really represent the City of Lakewood and our Clover Park School District?
Student Growth Potential (SGP) is not an invention of your oft cited “boogieman” Lakewood CARES, Directors Anderson, Wagemann or this author. It is the OSPI standard for addressing alleged academic growth potential through TESTING from elementary to high school that has been adopted by Washington school districts to include CPSD. OSPI sets the standards for ELA, math and science and tracks academic performance by TESTING. If you have a problem with that (the subject of my article) then your gripe is with OSPI.
Blaming 8000 children on “free lunch” is a commonly used excuse by school districts for failing academics. In essence “it is a poor workman who blames his tools.” It’s the District’s job to motivate these children to succeed as a condition of educating them instead of consigning them to academic mediocrity due to their socio-economic status. There are too many examples of children succeeding who come from very challenging situations. It can be done: it must be done or find yourself another occupation.
If any investigation needs to be done it is of those who seem to emotionally feel rather than objectively reason that everything about CPSD is “hunky dory”. How would you characterize the FACT that for instance Tyee Park is ranked in the bottom 1.4% of all elementary schools in the State or that the District’s ranking has slide inexorably down to 29% among all State districts? Success or failure?
If these numbers don’t wake you up to the problems CPSD faces then you have your head buried in the sand. CPSD doesn’t need more apologists: they do that quite well themselves without your help. The first step in solving any problem is to admit you have one.
John,
No one believes everything is “hunky dory”. That is why many informational presentations have been provided at board meetings addressing the on-going needs of our students. You choose to focus only the issues that serve your political agenda and you know it. It is all planned with the help of Anderson and Wagemann and others inside and outside the Lakewood community who share your political views.
It is a shame that rather than work cooperatively to solve problems, LakewoodCARES only sees political opportunities. You have declined many requests to publically share information about your group, but have left plenty of breadcrumbs to follow. Your personal attacks on our schools, board members and employees brought attention to who you are, your motives and those within your group. You own all of it. As David Anderson said in a post he wrote, ” You can judge a person by the company they keep”. I 100% agree. You actually coordinated with Anderson and other LakewoodCARES members about you being the “bad cop” so that Anderson could look like the “good cop” to the public….priceless!
I’ve provided many suggestions as solutions over the year+, yes even in this article, to accurately assess academic progress meeting OSPI standards rather than “growth potential” which is nothing but a smoke screen that levels those that succeed and those that don’t: an example of equity in action. It’s your problem if you don’t recognize those suggestions and address them specifically in your response which you haven’t done here.
Yes there are people in Lakewood who agree with CARES’ positions on issues which we make no secret about. We put our ideas out to the public and welcome informed debate. Your side seldom does that and when it does often stoops to personal ad hominem attacks as you’ve done here. Hate the message; attempt to kill the messenger!
Indeed the people of Lakewood elected both Anderson and Wagemann (several times) to the Board based upon what they have publicly supported at Board meetings and in print. What have you had to offer? How about for starters you write a Suburban Times article on what’s not “hunky dory” about the District? I’d be all ears……especially for your solutions!
John Arbeeny,
Please supply the citizens of Lakewood the information about LakewoodCARES that you say you have volunteered to this community.
Exactly, who is the “we” who you claim have put out the Lakewood Cares ideas? Are we to believe that everything Anderson speaks as a school board member is actually the LakewoodCARES beliefs that you, Jim Cooper and the rest of your far right group prepare? Wow, good information coming directly from the head of the group! I don’t remember Anderson ever claiming that, but if you say it is so, then it must be true. Thank you, John!