Issue #8: There is a constant shifting of reference points. The BOE (with the exception of the two members who voted “No” on the budget) and the Administration seem to regularly shift reference points without providing clear explanation as to why one reference point is more relevant than another for the topic they’re discussing.
There should ALWAYS be justification for reference points, size of data set, type of data set, etc., as well as some clarification of any potential flaws in the statistical comparison being explained.
So… where are we going with all this talk about the importance of “reference points?”
From http://www.ctkidslink.org/publications/ece06drgerg.pdf: “Seven data indicators are used to classify similar districts into a DRG: three indicators of socioeconomic status (median family income, parental education and parental occupation), three indicators of need (percentage of children living in families with a single parent, the percentage of public school children eligible to receive free or reduced-price meals and percentage of children whose families speak a language other than English at home) and enrollment (the number of students attending schools in that district.)”
- For example, why is State data used for % of Full K? Is this simply because it is higher than Hebron’s DRG, or is there a reason why state data is more valid than DRG data for this topic? State data seems to be used when it supports all-day Kindergarten; DRG C data is largely ignored, although occasionally used to support the argument for all-day Kindergarten.
- As stated in an earlier topic, in 2007 only 10.9% of Kindergartners in DRG C attended all-day public Kindergarten. The State as a whole had 47.5% full-day public Kindergarten attendance. In this case the statewide numbers would more likely suggest that this is a very common trend (as reported by the Superintendent), and not actually a rather uncommonly practiced non-mandated service as the DRG C data indicates.
- On the Superintendent’s blog: “The number of charter schools and magnets schools that offer All-Day Kindergarten programs has tripled since 2005-2006. At the end of the day, 71% of school districts in Connecticut now offer either All-Day kindergarten or a variation thereof such as extended day programs, and only 29% of districts offer half-day programs only. Andover Public Schools fully implemented All-Day Kindergarten two years ago.”
- This statement is full of strange reference points, from a statistical analysis viewpoint. The use of the word “strange” is meant to encourage civil debate, but civil debate is compounded when “strange” and totally unrelated data is used to support programs that will cost taxpayers a lot of money. To wit:
- Hebron is not a charter school, nor is it a magnet school. Therefore, using statistics from charter/magnet schools to justify an unfunded, non-required program at the Hebron schools – all at taxpayer expense – is irrelevant data. It is a particularly irrelevant comparison in today’s economy.
- It would seem that the logistical realities of busing kids from all over the state would support ALL charter and magnet schools to offer all-day Kindergarten. Unless, that is, you own a bus company…. $$$$ !!!!
- Coupled with a very long list of possible reasons parents might want all-day Kindergarten (see Issue #7 in this series), and knowing that taxpayers are forced to pay magnet school tuitions, it would seem the justification for all-day Kindergarten at charter/magnet schools are quite different than the justifications for a similar program in a small rural town facing significant budget challenges.
- Why does the Superintendent’s state that 71% of schools offer some variation of full-day or extended day Kindergarten? The report the Superintendent refers to ALSO says the following towns have the following percentages of full-day Kindergartners:
Avon – 3%
Colchester – 10%
East Haddam – 5%
East Lyme – 1%
Guilford – 4%
Lebanon – 1%
Marlborough – 1%
Monroe – 6%
New Milford – 9%
Plainfield – 5%
Simsbury – 2%
Tolland – 2%
Regional District 16 – 2%
* Please note that these towns are all considered part of the 71% cited by the Superintendent offering extended or all-day Kindergarten! But in fact, of the 30 districts in CT that offer SOME students all-day Kindergarten, ONLY 6 of those offer it to more than 50% of the students. The same trends appear with the extended day programs, with towns at 1% in extended day (Cheshire, Glastonbury, New Milford) being counted in the 71% figure.
- Why is % of schools offering some type of all-day or extended-day Kindergarten the most relevant statistic for this information? Why not % in the DRG? Why not # in the state? Why not # in the DRG?
- Why not point out that Andover has approximately only 42 Kindergarten students in their full implementation?
- Why is the DRG always used when discussing per pupil spending? Where do we fall within the state (if statewide data is relevant, as is suggested by using it for Kindergarten program types)?
- If we are just looking at per pupil spending in the DRG, then should we also consider the relative tax burden in Hebron compared to the other towns in the DRG?
- Which grouping should we use when looking at CMT scores? Do we try to compete with the state? Do we try to compete with the DRG? Do we set our own goals and try to meet those regardless of what is happening in other reference groups? How would the Administration respond to this VERY important question?
- Why do we just look at class sizes across the grades in Hebron? The Administration likes to compare Hebron in per pupil spending to Mansfield, but why don’t we compare our class sizes? Mansfield’s class size recommendations are lower than Hebron’s, but we do not appear to look outside our district for this data. Why is that?
- Why do we just survey the outgoing all-day Kindergarten families for satisfaction with the lottery-based, unmandated service they are (or are not) receiving? Why aren’t all parents in Hebron’s K-6 polled for satisfaction?
- Why doesn’t the BOE ask the 6th grade parents if they feel their kids missed out on educational readiness opportunities because they were only offered half-day Kindergarten? Remember the statewide CMT rankings from last year? 6th Grade: Math – 12th; Reading – 5th; Writing – 8th (All out of 151 schools reporting)
- Why does the BOE just survey Kindergarten teachers about their satisfaction with the program? These are Kindergarten teachers (who were doing a great job before all-day Kindergarten) who have been given twice as much time and half as many kids.
- It is a very rare individual who seeks less time and more responsibility to increase their job satisfaction, with unchanged compensation. Doesn’t anyone wonder if the Hebron Elementary teachers are a bit bothered that they may be asked to make concessions during budget season even though they have to produce results on the CMTs? Their students’ abilities are measured in a very public forum with considerable pressure put on the teachers. Maybe they would like more time and fewer students for the same pay as well?
Again, this is just a sampling of inconsistent or ill-conceived reference points and selective data presentation.
Any Graduate Teaching Assistant (GTA) in the field of Statistics could and should use the Hebron BOE presentations as an opening day lecture on what bad, unfounded statistics look like. And what, you may ask, is a GTA? From experience, it’s a student with a BA or BS, working toward the next higher level in their educational field. Even they could easily recognize – from simple undergraduate studies – the flaws which currently prevail in the Board of Education’s arguments for all-day Kindergarten.
If it weren’t so humorous, it’s sad to know that Hebron could and should be used as a “Worst Case Example of Really Dumb Thinking.”