As the Times reports, richer districts tend to have higher scores. Here, for instance, are the third grade data for 2,000 large districts; the graph plots relative scores vs. district wealth:
The eighth grade numbers show some a similar pattern but some different rankings:
And here is the pattern of changes from third to eighth grades:
As the graphs suggest, the story focuses on Chicago.
Overall, the study reports a poor correlation between growth rates and average third grade scores.
At the bottom of the Times story is a link that will produce score change data for a specified district and nearby systems. So of course I had to put in Richmond.
As you see, Richmond is at the bottom of the barrel.
The first surprise here is how much better Petersburg does on this measure.
We also might wonder whether the relatively low growth reported for some excellent systems, e.g., Hanover, reflects weakness at the eighth grade level or strength at the third.
In the other direction, Richmond’s [lack of] progress from 3d to 8th grades derives from the awful performance of our middle schools relative to the elementary schools.
The Stanford data also are consistent with the notion that poverty does not excuse the appalling performance of Richmond’s public schools.