On August 21, the School District published an Assessment Brief regarding its Cambridge advanced testing scores for students. (click here). The Assessment Brief “highlights” those subjects where district students performed well, but fails to mention the low scoring subjects. In follow-up, Steve Bracci sent the below e-mail to Superintendent Patton:
From: Steve Bracci
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 9:27 AM
To: ‘Kamela Patton’ <email@example.com>
Cc: ‘Roy Terry’, ‘Erika Donalds’, ‘Kelly Lichter’, ‘Erick Carter’, ‘Stephanie Lucarelli’
Subject: Cambridge test results
Superintendent Patton –
Why do you repeatedly insist on propagandizing the district’s scores? The Cambridge AICE scores you posted on the website are an example. You cherry-picked the “highlights” showing the top scoring categories, but overlook the categories where the District does poorly. (25% in Biology, 36% in History, 29% in English literature, 0% in Chemistry, 0% in Math).
In fact, in each of these non-highlighted categories, the district’s test performance dramatically decreased year-over-year in these core subjects:
Biology dropped from 33% to 25%
History dropped from 38% to 36%
English Lit dropped from 56% to 29%
Chemistry dropped from 30% to 0 %
Math dropped from 29% to 0%
By your strategy, it seems you think the public is either (i) too stupid or (ii) too lazy to read the data that follows the highlights. It also seems you are more interested in “marketing” the school district than real classroom success. Sad!
Sincerely, Steve Bracci
This is posted not to criticize the performance of students or teachers, but rather, to demonstrate the dysfunctionality of a behemoth school district administration that is so hell-bent on aggrandizing its own image, that it distorts the truth about school-based performance. If Superintendent Patton feels the need to twist statistics to show constant success, without recognizing areas where there needs to be improvement, then Patton is the problem, not the solution.
Those who support the Superintendent without calling out such falsehoods are engaging in politics of an unhealthy sort, with an agenda of protecting the Superintendent at all costs, at the sake of student performance.