Here's a note I and other news staff received from the Rochester school district's communications director Thursday morning, in advance of print publication of our MCA-II story and editorial, though after the editorial already was online...I know the editorial was already posted because a helpful online reader pointed out a name misspelling, which were able to correct before print publication.
In this note, Rachel Hicks, the district's spokesperson, cautions us that our editorial would be misguided if it called for faster "interpretation" of the test data. (Which is exactly what the editorial says.)
The amount of research and "interpretation" that went into this note is interesting.
I understand that the P-B may print an article today that includes criticism of the District for not being transparent (i.e. not releasing the MCA-II data to the public in a timely fashion.) Since the beginning of the MCA-IIs, the District has released the data publicly at the first Board meeting after the data comes into the District, with the exception of the 05-06 results, and this year is no different.
In 2006, the data was presented on November, 28, 2006
In 2007, the data was presented on August 7, 2007
In 2008, the data was presented on August 5, 2008
In 2009, the data was presented on July 14, 2009
It is premature to respond to specific questions about certain subgroups or schools (i.e. why some students and some schools are doing very well and why others need more opportunities for improvement). We are in the process of analyzing our data further in an attempt to provide the School Board, teachers, principals, and the community with information that is meaningful and instructive. Preparing data in this way will take time. The data is available to the public, however, itβs the interpretation of the data that is not readily available or easily discernable. I will be disappointed if the Post Bulletin confuses a lack of transparency with interpretation. Thank you in advance for considering this perspective in the article.
Sincerely,
Rachel HIcks
I'll just say it didn't take a lot of time and number-crunching by a few P-B reporters to come up with the data we published this week. It was fairly simple math. For that reason, and because this has become an issue of such overriding importance to the district, it seems reasonable that the district would have a timely response.
I let Rachel know that I was planning to post her note to my blog and she followed up with more detail:
Thanks, Jay. I do believe the P-B readers will want to know that information. To be clear, the District presents MCA-II twice to the board, the first being a brief overview, as was done last Tuesday and a second presentation with further analysis comes after. As I stated in the first e-mail, the process this year isn't any different than it's been done in past years. Feel free to share this as well:
2006 presentation dates:
Preliminary data: 5/2/06 β BST/MCA Grade 10 Writing Test.
Further analysis: November 28 (This presentation talked about MCA vs. MCA II and math and reading at elementary, middle and high school levels)
2007 presentation dates:
Preliminary data: August 7, 2007 (Complete MCA results)
2008 presentation dates:
Preliminary data: August 5, 2008
Further analysis: August 19, 2008 β Further Analysis of 2007-2008 MCA II Results; October 21, 2008 β District MCA-II Science Results/ACT Test Results.
2009 presentation dates:
Preliminary data: July 14, 2009
Further analysis: TBD
Recent Comments