3 ms·
Why? Because they used the phrase “grade level” to describe their threshold? This metric appears to be defined as “greater than the median scoring when the me
by fnordpiglet 4y ago
Why? Because they used the phrase “grade level” to describe their threshold? This metric appears to be defined as “greater than the median scoring when the metric was first established.” This years results are a little less than before the pandemic but greater than when the metric was established. It appears you can’t compare this to any other state or region, so by what measure is it “not good?”
The term grade level was picked to induce a sense of “not good,” because presumably the goal is 100%. But it was picked to be in the first sample less than 50%. We will never shift a metric on a presumably normal distribution that far to the right. So it’ll always look “not good.” The fact that it’s relatively stable over time means “it’s better than it was 8 years ago” and that’s about all you can really say. Given it’s seen improvement over time, albeit with slippage after the pandemic, that seems pretty excellent.
- RHSeeger 4y agoI think your point is fairly solid. If you rephrase this to "just less than half the students in CA read or do math at the average level for their grade, in their state", the response should be "well, duh?".
- red-iron-pine 4y agoThis just in: half of a population are below average.
- troupe 4y agoI think you are bringing up a key point. Probably the most important thing is whether we are getting better or worse. If kids 20 years ago were better able to do math in 8th grade than kids this year, it may indicate a very real problem. If we are are basically saying that not every kid is in the top 20% of what we want them to achieve, that will probably always be true. Not everyone is going to always make an A.