The Webster County Citizen Wednesday August 22 2007 edition has reported some interesting educational results. Enrollment figures are tallied since 1990 and an attempt has been made to compare last year's figures with this year's. The results from No Child Left Behind testing has found most of the schools around here, including Seymour, below standard. This means that all Title I money that was going to go to teachers and materials now has to go to professional development and you can bet that development chosen has already been determined by federal and state officials. The graduation rates were also given for the two years and they were below the standard this past year.
The format of reporting was such a mish mash that it took me quite a while to figure it out. But I did and it follows below the fold in the form of a letter to the editor of Seymour's newspaper.
First let me say that I have taught statistics at Drury University which is a required course for all graduate students. Anyone with an advanced degree has taken a graduate level statistics course. This includes superintendents, principals,teachers and administrators with graduate degrees.
So I was astonished to view the numbers reporting enrollment from K-12. The format reported was a raw data tabulation. There was no attempt to make those numbers meaningful. As any investor knows, you do not choose a mutual fund to put your money in on the basis of last year's performance compared to this year's performance. You look at five, ten , twenty and more years before you make your decision.
Yearly ups and downs mean very little and to draw a conclusion from them is lacking in any kind of mathematical sophistication. So bear with me while I perform some very simple attempts at presenting this data.
2007 enrollment is:247 for 9-12;214 for 6-8 and 321 for K-5
2006 enrollment was:256 for 9-12; 219 for 6-8 and 319 for K-5
So immediately this is confusing. There are six grades to consider for the total numbers in K-5, three grades making up 6-8 and four grades composing 9-12. These numbers cannot be understood and compared and contrasted in any reasonable way. So let's transform them. I shall take the average which means I shall divide the total for the high school by 4, the total for the middle school by 3 and the total for the elementary school by 6.
Results:2007: 61.75 for the high school; 71.33 for the middle school;53.50 for the elementary school.
Results 2006:64.00 for the high school; 76.33 for the middle school; 53.17 for the elementary school.
Now something can be seen. There is in both years an increase from the elementary school to the middle school that would likely prove significant to at least the .05 level if the proper test of significance were performed. That means that these results would be gotten .05 % of the time by chance so we can assume other factors led to this increase. And now we get to the comparison of the middle school with the high school. There is a bulge in the middle school and a drop in the high school which reflects the drop out rate of high school students. 2006 had a 90.1 graduation rate while 2007 students had a graduation rate of 78.7 a rather large drop.
How does one interpret these numbers? I would say that the drop out rate is definitely significant without performing a test of significance. The question for both years is a great big why? What is it about the high school that discourages students from staying until graduation. It is not enough to blame the quality of students. The adults are in charge and must accept the responsibility. What are they doing? And can they change their behavior as it is costing the school district around $30,000 much needed dollars. Has anyone asked the students why they dropped out?
Now the 90.1 graduation rate versus the 78.7 2007 graduation rate is another major problem. In interpreting the numerical results I would say that this year the more academically successful students were dropping out as opposed to 2006 when the less successful students were leaving. Now what has happened between last year and this year. I venture to suggest it may be the No Child Left Behind emphasis on test results rather than learning material that has backfired.
To turn my attention to the dismal math scores I find them totally understandable. For a school district to report such important numerical information to its parents and the community on its students in so disorganized and incomprehensible a form indicates that those administrators involved in the information to be reported to the newspaper are math challenged themselves. So how can one expect the students to be proficient when the educators are not, or at least the ones compiling this report.
I heard Professor Dienes, a French top tier mathematician, speak at Temple University in the mid 1970's. He had developed a math program at the Lab School at the University of Cherbourg in Canada starting with three year olds on the topics of algebra, geometry, and logic. When these students were 10 years old they were scoring perfect 800's in the SAT's for university. Clearly he was doing something right. All math was presented using play materials and teachers were trained to stand back and let the children explore and discover. Axioms were then taught in a few days to the children who had covered the material. Much as a child playing chess who becomes proficient can be taught permutations and combinations very easily, a math topic accompanying probability theory.
Dienes's approach requires no outlay of textbooks at all. His few books are available on the used book market and all that is required is a functioning xerox machine for materials. This is well within Seymour's range for excellence in mathematics. The question is, "Is there any administrator that will be courageous enough to instrument it?"