Submitted by John Arbeeny.
You probably received the April 2024 issue of Clover Park School District’s (CPSD) “premier monthly community newsletter…Inside Schools” in the mail (click here for PDF version). This issue entitled “Helping Students Grow” features articles on Student Growth Percentile (SGP) as a measure of student growth academically. But what does SGP mean and how successful has CPSD been in “cultivating success through student growth”?
SGP measures the RELATIVE academic GROWTH across state-wide peer groups (all school elementary and middle school grades) year to year compared to OBJECTIVE test RESULTS with respect to schools meeting Office of the Superintendent for Public Education (OSPI) academic standards. SGP uses a percentile scale from 1 to 100. OSPI categorizes 1-34 percentile as low growth; 35-65 percentile as average growth; and 66-100 percentile as high growth. “Percentile” is here represented by the symbol “%”.
Despite OSPI characterization of low, average and high growth, 50 percentile is the mid-point on this scale and signifies that those below 50 percentile are losing academic ground to those above 50 percentile. It takes 50 percentile growth just to stay even academically year to year. Yet every SGP provided by OSPI on their “Report Card” is shown as “high growth” when in fact it may only be average or low growth as shown below for CPSD. Perhaps OSPI should practice “truth in labeling” SGP scores to dispel some of the misconceptions about SGP.
So how did CPSD “grow” relative to SGP? Very poorly as the SGP from OSPI below indicate.
Student Growth Percentile (SGP) Math% English%
Clover Park School District 26.4 29.7
Middle Schools
Harrison Prep (middle school) 24.6 25
Hudtloff 31.7 30.8
Thomas 21.9 27.1
Lochburn 18.9 25
Elementary Schools
Beachwood 43.5 35
Carter Lake 31.9 38.3
Custer 23.8 23.8
Dower 23.3 32.2
Evergreen 29 51.4
Four Heroes 28.9 33.9
Hillside 36.7 27.5
Idlewild 12.9 18
Lake Louise 46 41.6
Meriwether 37.1 48.4
Oakbrook 26.7 28
Park Lodge 19.8 17.9
Rainier 36 50.9
Tillicum 24.6 27.3
Tyee Park 22.1 32.3
A statistical summary IS below.
CPSD overall SGP is low, significantly below average and almost 50% below the median (50 percentile) needed just to keep up academically with other school districts. In other words CPSD is falling further and further behind other school districts year to year at quite a rapid rate.
All CPSD middle schools have low SGP scores with many far less than the 50% median just to stay even academically. They all are falling behind in both math and English.
There are only 4 CPSD schools (Beachwood, Lake Louise, Meriwether and Rainier) that meet the OSPI definition of “average” growth (34% – 65%) across both math and English. Carter Lake and Evergreen meet the OSPI definition of “average” growth only in English and Hillside only in math.
Out of the 19 schools’ 38 SGP rankings, 27 are low and only 11 average. None are high SGP. Only 2 SGP scores out of 38 break the 50% median. This means that CPSD is seriously losing academic ground to other school districts with average or high SGP. This is not a good sign for future academic success. Indeed it is an indicator of continued academic failure in the District.
The claim that a SGP of higher than 50% represents more than a year’s growth is somewhat misleading in that it actually represents the average or above academic growth for a year relative to all other schools and districts. It means staying even or growing academically while the vast majority of CPSD SGP ratings indicate far less academic growth. CPSD students aren’t getting a year’s worth of growth in the District and this deficit likely is compounded year after year.
Is CPSD growing academically or falling behind?
The statistics are stark and revealing.
Perhaps that’s why you can’t find them mentioned in “Inside Schools” or elsewhere on the CPSD website.
Now what does the CPSD Board plan to do about it?
Excellent article!
Truth and honesty can be brutal and eye-opening but it is always for the “best”.
Where is Lakeview?
Inadvertent omission!
Here are the stats:
Students meeting state standards: ELA 30.8%; math 27.0%; science 29.8%
Student growth percentile: ELA 27.6 (low); math 30.2 (low)
This article reveals a coverup of the true facts. Such deceit ishould not be allowed to go unchallenged. This attempt to hide a lack of institutional performance does not serve the students but, is an attempt to mask very poor performance.
You certainly do your research. I enjoy reading all the numbers you obviously have spent hours checking into. Yet I can’t help detect a bit of criticism for the low percentages of growth in our students. You seem to imply that our teachers aren’t doing their job. I wonder if you’ve ever researched some other numbers. For example, how many of our students (and their parents) do not speak English…or how many students have learning disabilities…or how many students don’t show up for class. To quote your own previous research regarding Custer Elementary students, “Almost one-half do not attend at least 90% of school days. You can’t learn if you don’t show up.” Indeed!!!
Do you know that at conference time, the district pays to have translators come to schools to meet with teachers so that these parents can learn how their children are doing in class? And do you know that after scheduling these conferences, many parents do not show up?
Do you know that some of our teachers deal with a 100% turnover in students during the school year? These kids transfer in from schools across the entire world! This is not surprising since we’re a military community!
It’s not surprising to me that our test scores need improving. But to imply that it’s the fault of our teachers is. Walk a mile in their shoes one of these days and then maybe you’ll try to be part of the solution instead of pointing out all their faults.
Thanks for the compliment! I take our children’s education seriously. I am a trained behavioral scientist and systems analyst.
It is a poor workman that blames his tools! CPSD may have challenges but that doesn’t excuse poor performance. Develop a system that makes it work! It is not the teachers by in large that are the problem but rather the District that has created a system designed to fail and fail it does despite the best of intentions by teachers. Heroic effort is the price you pay for poor planning. Don’t even get started blaming military students: the stats prove you wrong. Despite the myth of military turnover’s impact it is indeed the 6 elementary schools on JBLM that have lifted CPSD’s SGP and academic achievement far above what would otherwise be the case. Perhaps the District should look at their success and the reasons for it before using them as an excuse. Truancy? What are CPSD and City of Lakewood doing about it? If there are no consequences to skipping students will skip. Rather than finding excuses for poor performance how about we deal with the systemic issues that are causing that failure? There are many. A forthcoming article will address many of them: look for it!
The CPSD schools are dysfunctional, but the problem is from district offices. The top people aren’t focusing on core academics but rather throwing more to do at each school- schools aren’t meant to be daycare, a doctor’s office, your grocery store, your mental health counselor, or your substitute for parenting!
The facilities are old, the teachers are not paid well enough to put up with the poorly run system and no consequences for students policies.
It’s a mess.
CPSD’s problems are systemic: it is a system designed to fail academically and fail it does on several levels. Add to this that it is also run incompetently and you have an academic disaster in the making. Top management seems to think it doesn’t have to live with its policies but it is they who are ultimately responsible for the academic results. In any other business the CEO and board of governors would have been fired and the system redesigned to assure success.
LakewoodCARES.org
Your explanation of Student Growth Profile (SGP) and analysis of Clover Park School District”s results is a valuable contribution to community understanding of the shortcomings of the District. In an article published by the Clover Park School District in the 2 May issue of the Suburban Times, the District was ranked by U.S. News and World Report as the 16th highest ranking high school in Pierce County. A fellow community member responded that 16th out of 34 Pierce County high schools is not anything to bragg about. The District’s SGP scores and ranking in Pierce County are two indicators of mediocre performance.
This is the kind of propaganda CPSD puts out for public consumption when reality is quite different. Expand the search beyond just Pierce County and you get a better picture academically. Here are some academic rankings statewide.
https://www.schooldigger.com/go/WA/district/01410/search.aspx
CPSD: ranked 178 out of 249 districts (28.5 percentile…71.5% of state districts are better academically).
Clover Park High School: ranked 412 out of 442 high schools (6.8 percentile…93.2% of state high schools are better academically).
Lochburn Middle School: ranked 525 out of 539 middle schools (2.6 percentile…97.4% of state middle schools are better academically).
Park Lodge Elementary School: ranked 1143 out of 1169 elementary schools (2.2 percentile…97.8% of state elementary schools are better academically).
These are some of the worst cases in the District but all too often representative of many District schools. This is an academic disaster for those attending these schools. Yet the District remains mute on the subject.
The missing pieces of the academic puzzle which are seldom mentioned are the OBJECTIVE test RESULTS with respect the percentage of students meeting Office of the Superintendent for Public Education (OSPI) academic standards. It’s not just how much you allegedly grew academically as per SGP but rather where you started and ended up academically with respect to standards. Just a few examples of percentages of students meeting OSPI standards in English (ELA), math and science:
https://washingtonstatereportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/ReportCard/ViewSchoolOrDistrict/102219
CPSD: ELA 39.4%; math 26.5%; science 32.3%…..2/3rds of students failing to meet standards
Clover Park High School: ELA 41.0%; math 9.9%; science 16.6%….88.6% graduation rate (!)
Lochburn Middle School: ELA 19.7%; math 10.6%; science 22.3%
Park Lodge Elementary School: ELA 17.7%; math 16.5%; science 22.8%
In a very real sense SGP is something of a “smoke screen” which suggests growth, even alleged “high” growth, while obfuscating actual academic achievement.
LakewoodCARES.org
CPSD is bussing many students into the district from beyond Lakewood city limits. Take a drive out 84th to Steele St and see all the CPSD school buses picking up/dropping off. Isn’t that area Tacoma, or Parkland?
Wow, more uninformed people being totally duped by Arbeeny!… or, could you be members of the Lakewood Cares group? Whatever, if you’re too busy to do your own homework, better not comment on the state of our students. Arbeeny’s need to misuse SBA scores has been an on-going embarrassment to not only himself, but to the political organization he leads that he calls a “mega brain”. That ego centered claim alone should raise flags! I can see why few of those who belong to Arbeeny’s organization want to be publically identified.
I encourage Richard, Pat, Jim, Beth, and Kar to show up at the school board meetings to hear about all the different assessments used to measure progress and how testing data informs instruction. Where have you been if you are so concerned?This is on-going data in real time and not based on a once a year score that arrives too late.
I have little respect for those who treat children as if they were only as good as a test score on one day in a school year. Evidently, the voters in Lakewood trusted the school district and our nonpartisan school board members more than a political group that operates in the dark.
You’ve failed to refute the message (OSPI statistical data) but as usual try to “kill” the messenger.
That’s all you have.
If SGP is so misleading, why a full two pages in “Inside Schools” on the subject? Perhaps it is you who is “uninformed…and totally duped.”
Your comments, as usual, are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
LakewoodCARES.org
Simple question: are CPSD and its schools’ SGP high, average or low.
That’s the discussion at hand.
LakewoodCARES.org
My concern is for the safety, education quality, and equitable use of our tax payer monies to fund Clover Park School District. No one has responded to the mention of hundreds of children being bussed into CPSD from outside Lakewood city limits.
I invite residents to observe the numerous CPSD buses that run pick ups and drop offs in the area around the intersection of S. Hosmer St and S. 84th IN TACOMA!
Looking for explanation.
“..hundreds of children..”? Out of 12000? Where did you get that data? If an explanation is requested try CPSD. I’m sure they’ll respond.
I noticed you didn’t reply to the very real fact CPSD transports into the district hundreds of students from the areas I stated, well outside of district boundaries.
A reply here mentioned Spanish speaking, the need for translators, the poor attendance, and the lack of conference participation, even when CPSD has provided a paid for translator.
Much of the academic low performance scores – ask to see STAR testing data- and discipline and poor attendance issues directly result from these bussed into district children.
Someone else here look/the bus routings for schools mentioned in the above post and replies and see the correlation. Also, ASK why CPSD is bussing in so many children from beyond the district boundary.
I am not aware that students outside the District are being bussed into the District. That is a question to ask of the District. I vaguely remember a deal struck between Bethel and CPSD to incorporate an outlying sliver of Bethel into CPSD a couple of years back. Could that be what you’re talking about?
You assert “Much of the academic low performance scores – ask to see STAR testing data- and discipline and poor attendance issues directly result from these bussed into district children.” In a District with 12000 students it would not seem that a relatively small number “out of District” students would have the academic, behavioral and attendance impact you state. Which schools are they attending? When did the bussing begin? If you have hard data to back up your assertion please provide it.