Woodbridge District SOLs & Achievement Gap

Mrs Ramirez, the Woodbridge district representative on the school board,  has stated that test scores in her district have increased since Investigations was implemented. Examination of the SOL data for her district, however, paints a slightly different picture.

Below are school by school and achievement gap data, as obtained from the VA DOE, for schools in Woodbridge District, since Investigations was implemented.

Overall pass rates are up in 22% of schools and down in 78%.  Pass Advanced rates are up in 33% of schools and down in 67%.

Among the AYP Subgroups ; pass rates were up in  11%, unchanged in 17%, and down in 72%. Pass rates for each group were as follows:

  • Whites – up in 40%, unchanged in 40%, down in 20%
  • Blacks – up in 17%, unchanged in 17%, down in 67%
  • Hispanics – up in 13%, down in 88%
  • Disadvantaged – unchanged in 11%, down in 89%
  • LEP – up in 25%, down in 75%

The achievement gap has improved in 28% of schools,  shown no change in 22%, and gotten more pronounced in 50%.

Clearly, based on the SOL data, Mrs. Ramirez’s assertion that test scores for minority and disadvantaged students in her district have improved since Investigations was implemented, is not supported.  In fact, the exact opposite seems to have occurred.

You can contact Mrs Ramirez at DRAMIREZ@pwcs.edu.

Click below to view the details for each school in Woodbridge District

Overall pass and pass advanced rate, pass rates for the AYP groups, and increases or decreases in the achievement gap are listed.  The achievement gap is the difference between pass rates achieved by the AYP groups and white students – the goal is for this gap to decrease.

Vaughan

Overall

  • Pass rates – down 4
  • Advanced rates – down 8

AYP Group Pass Rates

  • White – up 1
  • Black – up 1
  • Hispanic – down 12
  • Disadvantaged – down 2
  • LEP – down 6

Change in Achievement Gap (want the gap to get smaller)

  • Blacks – No Change
  • Hispanic – 13 points larger
  • Disadvantaged – 3 points larger
  • LEP – 7 points larger

FeatherStone

Overall

  • Pass rates – down 2
  • Advanced rates – down 4

AYP Group Pass Rates

  • White – N/A
  • Black – down 10
  • Hispanic – down 4
  • Disadvantaged – down 3
  • LEP – up 1

Achievement Gap

The increase or decrease in the Achievement Gap can not be calculated because scores for white students in 2007 are not available. However, in 2008 each AYP group pass rates were the following points above or below white students:

  • Black – 16 points below
  • Hispanic – 6 points below
  • Disadvantaged – 7 points below
  • LEP – 8 points below

Leesylvania

Overall

  • Pass rates – down 3
  • Advanced rates – down 8

AYP Group Pass Rates

  • White – up 1
  • Black – down 3
  • Hispanic – down 9
  • Disadvantaged – down 5
  • LEP – down 10

Change in the Achievement Gap (want the gap to get smaller)

  • Blacks – 4 points larger
  • Hispanic – 10 points larger
  • Disadvantaged – 6 points larger
  • LEP – 11 points larger

Marumcso Hills

Overall

  • Pass rates – down 4
  • Advanced rates – down 8

AYP Group Pass Rates

  • White – N/A
  • Black – N/A
  • Hispanic – down 3
  • Disadvantaged – down 2
  • LEP – down 6

Achievement Gap

The increase or decrease in the Achievement Gap can not be calculated because scores for white students in 2007 and 2008 are not available.

Porter

Overall

  • Pass rates – up 2
  • Advanced rates – up 3

AYP Group Pass Rates

  • White – No Change
  • Black – No Change
  • Hispanic – N/A
  • Disadvantaged – No Change
  • LEP – N/A

Change in the Achievement Gap (want the gap to get smaller)

  • Blacks – No Change
  • Hispanic – N/A
  • Disadvantaged – No Change
  • LEP – N/A

Potomac View

Overall

  • Pass rates – down 2
  • Advanced rates – up 4

AYP Group Pass Rates

  • White – No Change
  • Black – down 17
  • Hispanic – up 4
  • Disadvantaged – down 2
  • LEP – up 5

Change in the Achievement Gap (want the gap to get smaller)

  • Blacks – 17 points larger
  • Hispanic – 4 points  smaller
  • Disadvantaged – 2 points larger
  • LEP – 5 points smaller

Kilby

Overall

  • Pass rates – down 11
  • Advanced rates – down 15

AYP Group Pass Rates

  • White – N/A
  • Black – N/A
  • Hispanic – down 19
  • Disadvantaged – down 16
  • LEP – down 17

Achievement Gap

The increase or decrease in the Achievement Gap can not be calculated because scores for white students in 2007 and 2008 are not available.

River Oaks

Overall

  • Pass rates – down 10
  • Advanced rates – down 6

AYP Group Pass Rates

  • White – N/A
  • Black – down 8
  • Hispanic – down 18
  • Disadvantaged – down 13
  • LEP – down 24

Achievement Gap

The increase or decrease in the Achievement Gap can not be calculated because scores for white students in 2008 are not available.

Belmont

Overall

  • Pass rates – up 1
  • Advanced rates – up 22

AYP Group Pass Rates

  • White – down 12
  • Black – N/A
  • Hispanic – down 1
  • Disadvantaged – down 2
  • LEP – down 1

Change in the Achievement Gap (want the gap to get smaller)

  • Blacks – N/A
  • Hispanic – 11 points  smaller
  • Disadvantaged – 10 points smaller
  • LEP – 11 points smaller
Advertisements

One Response to “Woodbridge District SOLs & Achievement Gap”

  1. Obadiah Says:

    It’s bad enough that Mrs Ramirez does not accurately understand the numbers in her own district (by accurately, I mean the data prior to the Math Dept’s scrubbing to further their agenda) but worse is her lack of understanding of the motion Mr. Trenum presented — the very issue that’s been on the table for what, over a year now?

    That night, she made the argument that by voting in favor of the option, it would somehow harm her district’s numbers. That was the most bizarre line of reasoning I’ve heard in some time. Isn’t an option a choice? As in, you can choose this one or that one. If her district is doing so well what would be the incentive for them to choose anything other than what they already have?

    That being the case, the opt-in option would not even have been on the radar in her district — affect on her district = zero.

    The bottom line is that she voted against something that wouldn’t have affected her constituents one way or the other but could have been very beneficial to those parents and their children that were requesting it. It simply makes no sense whatsoever ….. Unless, of course, there was some other, hidden, agenda behind the decision…..


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: