ACPS - Will someone hold Hutchings accountable for the terrible SOL score

[Anonymous]

Also only 60% of students took the SOL, compared to 98% in previous years.


How do you think that would impact the numbers? Do you think it could actually be worse...or would it balance out?


It would balance out most likely. Many of the student that were prioritized for SOL were the ones that returned to hybrid, so ELs, students receiving sped services, and low income families (statistically disadvantage groups) were the primary takers of the tests.


What? What do you mean by "prioritized for SOL?"

General education students had the option to return to school in hybrid. My son has a learning disability and an IEP, but is in all general education classes and even some honors classes at GW. He did not get to return early with the students with more significant disabilities, and the majority of the kids that returns were not ELL or disabled.


Students who were hybrid tested first because they were in school. And yes, the prioritization matrix that acps used prioritized English language learners and students with IEPs that had said that they wanted to return. Students who needed more intervention were pushed as higher priority.

I work at GW and I can promise you that this is how it worked. Low income students with disabilities that struggled were pushed higher than those that weren't. Students who were newer to the country or had arrived during the school year were also prioritized.

I highly doubt you work at GW.

Virtual students were SOL tested on different days than hybrid, yes, but it was a matter of staggering by several days, not weeks and weeks. And since the virtual students were concurrently taught with hybrid, the exact same material was covered by the exact same teachers. Even breakout groups were a mix of kids that were there, and kids that were home.

There was a prioritization matrix for return to school in hybrid, rather than SOLs that let some students come in before others (and NO, it did NOT include all students with IEPs going in earlier, irrespective of whether they were in special education classes).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:]

I highly doubt you work at GW.

Virtual students were SOL tested on different days than hybrid, yes, but it was a matter of staggering by several days, not weeks and weeks. And since the virtual students were concurrently taught with hybrid, the exact same material was covered by the exact same teachers. Even breakout groups were a mix of kids that were there, and kids that were home.

There was a prioritization matrix for return to school in hybrid, rather than SOLs that let some students come in before others (and NO, it did NOT include all students with IEPs going in earlier, irrespective of whether they were in special education classes).

Students that remained virtual were given the option to not take the SOLs by default while those who returned to school for hybrid instruction were automatically opted in to take the exam.

You had a prioritization matrix that prioritized statistically disadvantaged students to return to in person learning because of the difficulties they experienced with virtual learning and then made them take the SOL unless their parents wanted to opt them out (unlike virtual whose parents had to OPT IN).

I'm not sure what's difficult for your to understand. Vastly different percentages of students took the test this year. Disadvantaged students did not have the opportunities to learn virtually the same way that others did, despite what you saw happening in breakout rooms.

I'm telling you this because I work at GW and can tell you that in a normal school year that the SOL passing scores are off-set by white, upper middle class students (the very same who did not get prioritized to return and whose parents did not have them sit for SOLs) and if that is hard for you to understand then you're living in a fantasy world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:]

I highly doubt you work at GW.

Virtual students were SOL tested on different days than hybrid, yes, but it was a matter of staggering by several days, not weeks and weeks. And since the virtual students were concurrently taught with hybrid, the exact same material was covered by the exact same teachers. Even breakout groups were a mix of kids that were there, and kids that were home.

There was a prioritization matrix for return to school in hybrid, rather than SOLs that let some students come in before others (and NO, it did NOT include all students with IEPs going in earlier, irrespective of whether they were in special education classes).

Students that remained virtual were given the option to not take the SOLs by default while those who returned to school for hybrid instruction were automatically opted in to take the exam.

You had a prioritization matrix that prioritized statistically disadvantaged students to return to in person learning because of the difficulties they experienced with virtual learning and then made them take the SOL unless their parents wanted to opt them out (unlike virtual whose parents had to OPT IN).

I'm not sure what's difficult for your to understand. Vastly different percentages of students took the test this year. Disadvantaged students did not have the opportunities to learn virtually the same way that others did, despite what you saw happening in breakout rooms.

I'm telling you this because I work at GW and can tell you that in a normal school year that the SOL passing scores are off-set by white, upper middle class students (the very same who did not get prioritized to return and whose parents did not have them sit for SOLs) and if that is hard for you to understand then you're living in a fantasy world.

Probably, but not certainly, wrong with respect to percentage of disdvantaged kids taking the test this year v. previous year. Maybe Alexandria was somehow different. https://www.baconsrebellion.com/wp/sorry-educrats-the-sol-numbers-are-truly-dismal/

[Anonymous]

Key quote:

"It is possible to drill deeper into the numbers than I have done, and I would love to see anyone else’s findings. But if disabled and/or disadvantaged kids were no more or less likely to participate in the SOLs, it looks like a comparison of the 2018-19 and 2020-21 school years is all apples to apples. The VDOE warning that results are not comparable is just a rhetorical ploy to avoid accountability for spectacular, mind-numbing failure."

[Anonymous]

60% participation in SOLs vs 98% in previous years. If the 38% that did not take the SOLs is evenly distributed between various subgroups of students, you can make a case that the numbers are comparable. But I don't think we were provided with the data to know this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
]

I highly doubt you work at GW.

Virtual students were SOL tested on different days than hybrid, yes, but it was a matter of staggering by several days, not weeks and weeks. And since the virtual students were concurrently taught with hybrid, the exact same material was covered by the exact same teachers. Even breakout groups were a mix of kids that were there, and kids that were home.

There was a prioritization matrix for return to school in hybrid, rather than SOLs that let some students come in before others (and NO, it did NOT include all students with IEPs going in earlier, irrespective of whether they were in special education classes).


Students that remained virtual were given the option to not take the SOLs by default while those who returned to school for hybrid instruction were automatically opted in to take the exam.

You had a prioritization matrix that prioritized statistically disadvantaged students to return to in person learning because of the difficulties they experienced with virtual learning and then made them take the SOL unless their parents wanted to opt them out (unlike virtual whose parents had to OPT IN).

I'm not sure what's difficult for your to understand. Vastly different percentages of students took the test this year. Disadvantaged students did not have the opportunities to learn virtually the same way that others did, despite what you saw happening in breakout rooms.

I'm telling you this because I work at GW and can tell you that in a normal school year that the SOL passing scores are off-set by white, upper middle class students (the very same who did not get prioritized to return and whose parents did not have them sit for SOLs) and if that is hard for you to understand then you're living in a fantasy world.


Probably, but not certainly, wrong with respect to percentage of disdvantaged kids taking the test this year v. previous year. Maybe Alexandria was somehow different. https://www.baconsrebellion.com/wp/sorry-educrats-...-sol-numbers-are-truly-dismal/

Also, many more upper middle class white parents opted their kids into hybird than other demographics, unless you have something to show to that ACPS was different than basically every single other school district in the country in that regard. Stop being an apologist for ACPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Also, many more upper middle class white parents opted their kids into hybird than other demographics, unless you have something to show to that ACPS was different than basically every single other school district in the country in that regard. Stop being an apologist for ACPS.

I'm not being an apologist. Last school year ultimately failed those disadvantaged students. The only reason that more student of color or students with disabilities were present in the hybrid model was that they were specifically invited back a week early because of their unique needs. The smartest parents didn't even bother to have their kids sit in a gym for four hours to take a test that they wouldn't even be allowed to retake despite being eligible

But acps CONSTANTLY fails these disadvantaged students when it comes to SOL testing. They hybrid model came too little too late. The learning gap between income levels is just more prevalent this year. If the whole school had returned, then maybe you'd have an argument. However right now you're seeing the disruption that they faced was even more detrimental than those of higher ses when everyone struggled. But not all struggles are equal. That's not apologetics. It's just the honest truth of education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:]

I highly doubt you work at GW.

Virtual students were SOL tested on different days than hybrid, yes, but it was a matter of staggering by several days, not weeks and weeks. And since the virtual students were concurrently taught with hybrid, the exact same material was covered by the exact same teachers. Even breakout groups were a mix of kids that were there, and kids that were home.

There was a prioritization matrix for return to school in hybrid, rather than SOLs that let some students come in before others (and NO, it did NOT include all students with IEPs going in earlier, irrespective of whether they were in special education classes).

Students that remained virtual were given the option to not take the SOLs by default while those who returned to school for hybrid instruction were automatically opted in to take the exam.

You had a prioritization matrix that prioritized statistically disadvantaged students to return to in person learning because of the difficulties they experienced with virtual learning and then made them take the SOL unless their parents wanted to opt them out (unlike virtual whose parents had to OPT IN).

I'm not sure what's difficult for your to understand. Vastly different percentages of students took the test this year. Disadvantaged students did not have the opportunities to learn virtually the same way that others did, despite what you saw happening in breakout rooms.

I'm telling you this because I work at GW and can tell you that in a normal school year that the SOL passing scores are off-set by white, upper middle class students (the very same who did not get prioritized to return and whose parents did not have them sit for SOLs) and if that is hard for you to understand then you're living in a fantasy world.

Probably, but not certainly, wrong with respect to percentage of disdvantaged kids taking the test this year v. previous year. Maybe Alexandria was somehow different. https://www.baconsrebellion.com/wp/sorry-educrats-the-sol-numbers-are-truly-dismal/

For example, ELs went from a pass rate of 30% to 16% on the reading test and 48% to 10% on the Reading SOL test. White students, on the same tests went from 88% to 83% and 89% to 68%.

I don't know where that site got those numbers but these are the percentages from the SOL Division Subject Area data.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone have any confidence that ACPS will be able to remedy the math deficiencies reflected in the SOL scores in light Mozingo’s comments in last night’s work session when asked about the remedial math instruction. I thought her answer was non sensical. I also thought it was shameful how the horrible SOL scores were pretty much dismissed last night because only 60 percent of the students took the test.

Overall, I thought last nights work session involved a lot of superficial comments and no real details.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone have any confidence that ACPS will be able to remedy the math deficiencies reflected in the SOL scores in light Mozingo’s comments in last night’s work session when asked about the remedial math instruction. I thought her answer was non sensical. I also thought it was shameful how the horrible SOL scores were pretty much dismissed last night because only 60 percent of the students took the test.

Overall, I thought last nights work session involved a lot of superficial comments and no real details.

I don't have any confidence that ACPS will be able to remedy the SOL deficiencies, because they'd have to acknowledge there is an issue, like the superintendent of PWCS did right on the district's website. With all due respect, Dr. Mozingo's comments often seem nonsensical to me, both in public meetings and in private conversations I've had with her.

And to the PP who keeps harping on the deficiencies only or primarily affecting low-income students, my kids are white and middle class and their scores dropped precipitously. My older elementary child went from nearly 90 percent to in the 40s. Awful. The families I know with more means than ours did not send their kids back to hybrid, they pulled them from ACPS and enrolled them in private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
]

I highly doubt you work at GW.

Virtual students were SOL tested on different days than hybrid, yes, but it was a matter of staggering by several days, not weeks and weeks. And since the virtual students were concurrently taught with hybrid, the exact same material was covered by the exact same teachers. Even breakout groups were a mix of kids that were there, and kids that were home.

There was a prioritization matrix for return to school in hybrid, rather than SOLs that let some students come in before others (and NO, it did NOT include all students with IEPs going in earlier, irrespective of whether they were in special education classes).


Students that remained virtual were given the option to not take the SOLs by default while those who returned to school for hybrid instruction were automatically opted in to take the exam.

You had a prioritization matrix that prioritized statistically disadvantaged students to return to in person learning because of the difficulties they experienced with virtual learning and then made them take the SOL unless their parents wanted to opt them out (unlike virtual whose parents had to OPT IN).

I'm not sure what's difficult for your to understand. Vastly different percentages of students took the test this year. Disadvantaged students did not have the opportunities to learn virtually the same way that others did, despite what you saw happening in breakout rooms.

I'm telling you this because I work at GW and can tell you that in a normal school year that the SOL passing scores are off-set by white, upper middle class students (the very same who did not get prioritized to return and whose parents did not have them sit for SOLs) and if that is hard for you to understand then you're living in a fantasy world.


Probably, but not certainly, wrong with respect to percentage of disdvantaged kids taking the test this year v. previous year. Maybe Alexandria was somehow different. https://www.baconsrebellion.com/wp/sorry-educrats-...-sol-numbers-are-truly-dismal/

Also, many more upper middle class white parents opted their kids into hybird than other demographics, unless you have something to show to that ACPS was different than basically every single other school district in the country in that regard. Stop being an apologist for ACPS.

DP. I agree with you that "many more upper middle class white parents opted their kids into hybrid than other demographics" although it is with the caveat that your statement is true only for some of the elementary schools. Your statement is quite untrue for the middle schools.

In the middle schools, low SES children who had low DL attendance and were on the D & F lists for the first 3 quarters were disproportionately represented during hybrid and the SOLs because they were prioritized by the school system to return to school. The early numbers of returns to school were so low that counselors, social workers, school psychologists and principals had to reach out to parents and guardians to practically demand that those students return to school. One teacher I spoke with said that even in May they had a teacher/staff ratio of 2 or 3 to 1.

Regardless since a high percentage of the school system's low SES children are children of color that means that black and Hispanic children were disproportionately represented for the SOL results. As we all know, family SES is a strong influence on a student's performance on standardized tests such that students from low SES families perform significantly worse on standardized tests than their middle- to high-SES family peers.

I agree with the GW teacher and I most certainly am not an apologist for ACPS. I am, however, not willing to let you hoodwink people into believing something that isn't true. The data for SOLs is significantly skewed and cannot be used for anything other than a participation (attendance may be the right word here?) level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
]

I highly doubt you work at GW.

Virtual students were SOL tested on different days than hybrid, yes, but it was a matter of staggering by several days, not weeks and weeks. And since the virtual students were concurrently taught with hybrid, the exact same material was covered by the exact same teachers. Even breakout groups were a mix of kids that were there, and kids that were home.

There was a prioritization matrix for return to school in hybrid, rather than SOLs that let some students come in before others (and NO, it did NOT include all students with IEPs going in earlier, irrespective of whether they were in special education classes).


Students that remained virtual were given the option to not take the SOLs by default while those who returned to school for hybrid instruction were automatically opted in to take the exam.

You had a prioritization matrix that prioritized statistically disadvantaged students to return to in person learning because of the difficulties they experienced with virtual learning and then made them take the SOL unless their parents wanted to opt them out (unlike virtual whose parents had to OPT IN).

I'm not sure what's difficult for your to understand. Vastly different percentages of students took the test this year. Disadvantaged students did not have the opportunities to learn virtually the same way that others did, despite what you saw happening in breakout rooms.

I'm telling you this because I work at GW and can tell you that in a normal school year that the SOL passing scores are off-set by white, upper middle class students (the very same who did not get prioritized to return and whose parents did not have them sit for SOLs) and if that is hard for you to understand then you're living in a fantasy world.


Probably, but not certainly, wrong with respect to percentage of disdvantaged kids taking the test this year v. previous year. Maybe Alexandria was somehow different. https://www.baconsrebellion.com/wp/sorry-educrats-...-sol-numbers-are-truly-dismal/

Also, many more upper middle class white parents opted their kids into hybird than other demographics, unless you have something to show to that ACPS was different than basically every single other school district in the country in that regard. Stop being an apologist for ACPS.

DP. I agree with you that "many more upper middle class white parents opted their kids into hybrid than other demographics" although it is with the caveat that your statement is true only for some of the elementary schools. Your statement is quite untrue for the middle schools.

In the middle schools, low SES children who had low DL attendance and were on the D & F lists for the first 3 quarters were disproportionately represented during hybrid and the SOLs because they were prioritized by the school system to return to school. The early numbers of returns to school were so low that counselors, social workers, school psychologists and principals had to reach out to parents and guardians to practically demand that those students return to school. One teacher I spoke with said that even in May they had a teacher/staff ** ratio of 2 or 3 to 1.

Regardless since a high percentage of the school system's low SES children are children of color that means that black and Hispanic children were disproportionately represented for the SOL results. As we all know, family SES is a strong influence on a student's performance on standardized tests such that students from low SES families perform significantly worse on standardized tests than their middle- to high-SES family peers.

I agree with the GW teacher and I most certainly am not an apologist for ACPS. I am, however, not willing to let you hoodwink people into believing something that isn't true. The data for SOLs is significantly skewed and cannot be used for anything other than a participation (attendance may be the right word here?) level.

**teacher/staff to student ratio of 2 or 3 to 1

[Anonymous]

DP. I agree with you that "many more upper middle class white parents opted their kids into hybrid than other demographics" although it is with the caveat that your statement is true only for some of the elementary schools. Your statement is quite untrue for the middle schools.

In the middle schools, low SES children who had low DL attendance and were on the D & F lists for the first 3 quarters were disproportionately represented during hybrid and the SOLs because they were prioritized by the school system to return to school. The early numbers of returns to school were so low that counselors, social workers, school psychologists and principals had to reach out to parents and guardians to practically demand that those students return to school. One teacher I spoke with said that even in May they had a teacher/staff ratio of 2 or 3 to 1.

Regardless since a high percentage of the school system's low SES children are children of color that means that black and Hispanic children were disproportionately represented for the SOL results. As we all know, family SES is a strong influence on a student's performance on standardized tests such that students from low SES families perform significantly worse on standardized tests than their middle- to high-SES family peers.

I agree with the GW teacher and I most certainly am not an apologist for ACPS. I am, however, not willing to let you hoodwink people into believing something that isn't true. The data for SOLs is significantly skewed and cannot be used for anything other than a participation (attendance may be the right word here?) level.

Wow. I am the parent of a mixed race (white and black) disabled student on an IEP. That you would try to make it appear that the failure of ACPS in giving adequate instruction to all students, including students like my son, is actually just disabled, minority, and lower income students dragging SOLs down, is appalling. Did we cause ACPS to offer no meaningful services in virtual? I don't think so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Wow. I am the parent of a mixed race (white and black) disabled student on an IEP. That you would try to make it appear that the failure of ACPS in giving adequate instruction to all students, including students like my son, is actually just disabled, minority, and lower income students dragging SOLs down, is appalling. Did we cause ACPS to offer no meaningful services in virtual? I don't think so.

You're not responding to anything that anyone has said.

Distance learning was tough for many kids. But don't pretend that it was equally rough in the same way for all. For many students, ACPS couldn't fix the issues that were present. But in times when they could, they still missed the mark for some students.