My paternal grandmother was Angie Lynch, said to be a relative of John Lynch. Angie was the second woman in the Oklahoma territory with an advanced degree.
I’ve maintained an affection for Lynchburg, especially in celebration of the US 460 bypass that makes travel to Roanoke a much lighter task. So it was a particular sorrow when my earlier Lynchburg post got wiped.
In light of VDOE’s third data release (that includes data by teacher, but not by school), I thought I’d redo the post.
First, as a reminder, here are the statewide distributions of teacher average SGPs in reading and math.
Next the Lynchburg distributions.
Need I say it: These are not good numbers.
We have three years’ data so let’s look at the trends, restricting the graphs to those teachers who taught the subject for all three years.
There are too many reading teachers to make much sense of the graph (the table on the right is too small to even list them all). Let’s take out all but the top and bottom few.
Here we see some average and below average teachers improving nicely (No. 66197 presents a happy picture) and others deteriorating severely (No. 69532 is an unfortunate counterbalance to No. 66197). The citywide average by teacher (that includes all the teachers, including those who taught reading for only one or two years) is low and the lack of a trend does not suggest improvement.
Going directly to the bowdlerized dataset, the math data are more lively.
Of interest, we again see low-performing teachers whose performance deteriorated. We also see a citywide average that bounced but then dropped back to subpar.
Only three Lynchburg teachers taught Algebra I all three years so the graph is much simpler.
None of the three improved over the period; quite the contrary. The average is pulled down by the teachers, not shown, who taught fewer than all three years. It starts above the state average but deteriorates into the unacceptable range populated by Lynchburg’s reading and math averages.
We also have detailed data by teacher, albeit VDOE won’t tell us who they are. The high-performing teacher in this collection is No. 71485, who had only one 4th grade math student scoring below the statewide average.
In contrast, the best math SGP in the 4th grade class of Teacher No. 71819 was 23.
This teacher also had a 4th grade reading class.
The 25.7 average in that reading class is far from acceptable but it is far less dismal that the 4.4 average in this teacher’s math class.
For any reader inclined to overlook the fundamental notion that the SGP measures teacher performance, a glance at the eight students that took both reading and math from this teacher is instructive.
One student scored in the same Student Growth Percentile in both subjects; the other seven scored higher, some much higher, in reading. Note especially student No. 7B89048849408, who scored in the first percentile with the benefit of this teacher’s math instruction but in the 70th on the reading test.
Unfortunately, this teacher is getting worse.
I could go on but I think these data make my points. I’ll suggest five things:
- Lynchburg has a problem with its school system.
- No. 71819 is an awful math teacher.
- No. 71819 is a very bad reading teacher.
- Any principal who subjected schoolchildren to No. 71819 in 2015 should be fired.
- The bureaucrats at VDOE who refuse to identify No. 71819, as well as that teacher’s principal, to the parents of Lynchburg are misusing the public funds that pay them and pay for the statewide testing.