Sunday Commentary: District Fumbles AIM Testing Snafu

AIM

Earlier this week, a parent sent in a letter to the Vanguard.  The parent was clearly unhappy that a large number of students had their OLSAT tests invalidated, it appeared, because of inconsistent handling of tests.

As the parent notes, “DJUSD gave schools incorrect instructions by handing out scan-tron answer-sheets, which are inconsistent with testbooks and should not be used. For unknown reasons, some teachers gave students the scantron sheets, while others did not. Consequently, students of 12 classes had their answers invalidated because they filled the bubbles on scantron.”

After receiving this letter, the Vanguard asked DJUSD Public Information Officer Maria Clayton for the district response.  She called the problem “unfortunate.”  But she added that the resolution was “immediate, comprehensive and well-communicated to employees and parents.”

The district made the determination that “a retest was necessary for some classrooms.”

However the way the district chose to handle the retest was to administer the CogAT (Cognitive Abilities Test), “a test previously approved and used for AIM-identification, to provide a testing option for any student whose scores were found to be invalid.  Families with students who take the CogAT will receive results by mail at the same time as families receive OLSAT-8 results.”

But the remedy itself has problems.  The OLSAT (Otis-Lennon School Ability Test) contains 65 questions and is a 40-minute test.  The CogAT, on the other hand, is much longer – a 170-question, 3-hour long, computer-based test that is going to be given to 300 third grade students.

That is a huge burden to put on an eight- to nine-year-old third grade student, particularly when it was a district error.

We understand that the district is in the midst of a major change to the long-time program, and that with change comes some bumps in the road.  However, it is our view that the burden of these changes has fallen each time on the students.

When it comes to AIM reform, change has not come at the “speed of trust,” but rather it seems we are moving forward faster than we can accommodate those changes.  It is one thing if change occurs in a bureaucratic system, but these are changes that seem to have negative consequences for children and families.

This week, a number of commentators have pointed out that, had the district retained Deanne Quinn, this problem would have been avoided.  Longer-term readers will recall that former Superintendent Winfred Roberson and his staff, in the spring of 2015, recommended that the board renew the part-time contract of Ms. Quinn.

However, the board majority, by a 3-2 vote with Alan Fernandes and Madhavi Sunder dissenting, voted to overrule the superintendent and terminate Ms. Quinn’s contract.  That move has consequences and one of them is the burden that will be placed on 300-plus third graders.

Were this the only bump in the road, we might be more forgiving.  However, something similar happened with the three AIM strands.

As a reader notes, “3rd graders who met the testing threshold of 96 percentile received a letter telling them that they were to be placed in one of 3 AIM classrooms, Willett, North Davis or Pioneer.”

However, despite parents being told that there would be three classrooms and being directed to give their preference at some point, the board made the determination that 66 students did not merit three classrooms and that one would be eliminated.

As the reader points out: “The counter argument AIM parents gave to the board was (a) since you told us there would be 3 classrooms, just make 3 classrooms.  (b) since the criteria changed a lot from last year, simply open up the classrooms to other kids who didn’t get the 96 percentile, but would have liked to be there anyway  – you just had to find 9 more kids to be there (c) everyone acknowledges that testing isn’t perfect, so let’s be flexible this year.”

Again it was Alan Fernandes and Madhavi Sunder who attempted to implement the compromise, only to be overruled by the board majority.

There have been other problems as well – even before changing the qualification threshold, the number of AIM students in the self-contained program has been dwindling.  Many have expressed concern about the very low levels of identification of Latino and African-American students.

However, instead of pausing further changes to evaluate whether the new evaluation system is working, the district has pushed through changes that resulted in an OCR (Office for Civil Rights) investigation into the program. While OCR closed their investigation without taking action, that investigation cost the district more than $20,000.

As Madhavi Sunder has pointed out, the new testing procedures are problematic.

She believes that the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test, and other new tests they used, have “failed.”  She said we need to make sure we are giving fair access to English-Language Learners, low income students, learning disabled students, and racial minorities “that we know are often unfairly disadvantaged on the OLSAT [Otis-Lennon School Ability Test].”  She said they retested these groups “and we failed to identify almost any.”

Madhavi Sunder said they already have some numbers and “we are three percent African American in this district and the number that is identified is zero percent.”  She pointed out that there was only a three percent success rate on the Naglieri and a 32 percent success rate for the CogAT.

“That was the test (CogAT) that we gave to more advantaged students,” she argued.  “What upsets me is that we gave the disadvantaged students a much harder to succeed on test.”  In the past, they were given the TONI (Test of Nonverbal Intelligence) which had a 14.6 percent success rate.  “We didn’t give the TONI to a single low income student this year.”

While Tom Adams and Barbara Archer argued that TONI was to be used only for English-learners, Ms. Sunder pointed out that the makers of the test disagree and believe TONI should be used more generally for disadvantaged children who often lack the language skills of their more advantaged counterparts.

From our perspective, I think most people agreed that the private testing component was problematic and unfair.  However, the district could have buffered the other changes to program.

Here again, it seems that pushing forward change is more important than getting the program correct.  Each time the district has miscalculated – whether it has been on testing protocol, the three strands or now the misapplication of testing – the people who have paid the price have been the students and their families.

I think there were good reasons to make changes to the program, but unless parents are correct that the real aim is to end AIM as we know it, the district needs to do more to make sure each change is applied correctly and does not result in disproportionate impact.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

21 thoughts on “Sunday Commentary: District Fumbles AIM Testing Snafu”

  1. Robin W.

    It is unfair to blame “the district” as a whole.  The blame for every single one of these expensive and destructive “miscalculations” clearly belongs to the 3-person majority on the School Board — Susan Lovenberg, Barbara Archer and Tom Adams.

    1. Chamber Fan

      It’s important to distinguish policy from implementation and it seems both are bad.  Still I’m left with the question to Lovenburg – what was the rush?

  2. Napoleon Pig IV

    David, excellent historical summary and analysis.

    Robin W., important point about the district as a whole versus Lovenburg, Archer, and Adams. The district has many dedicated staff who are blameless in all of this and are dedicated to quality education. However, the board majority is not. May the majority become the minority after our rapidly-approaching election!

      1. ryankelly

        Because of distasteful comments by desperate people.  Because of last minute desperate attempts to sway voters where there is no time to investigate or vet “breaking news.”

        Take it personally, if it fits, but I do this every election.

        1. quielo

          Your deeply held opinion is that other people should stop commenting but it doesn’t keep you from commenting.

          Maybe a little less hypocrisy would help?

        2. ryankelly

          A story about an error by test administrators in the District is used as campaign fodder for the election.  Too similar to tactics at a national level.  I usually black out media starting a week before elections, but I’m thinking that this election warrants an earlier date, esp. at the national level.   This is the 2nd story on the error by GATE test administration in the last week, so I’m not going to miss much here.  People can continue to read and comment all they want.   Again, this is a personal preference to turn off media as the election nears.

        3. Marina Kalugin

          and not only that, but your attempts to censor and sway are all to obvious…and it appears that since you have the correct “ins” your long winded words stand while others are chopped…oh well

    1. Napoleon Pig IV

      What is the logic in arbitrarily cutting off information, facts, and analysis several days before an election? Important input on critical decisions sometimes doesn’t come with plenty of advance warning and lots of time for relaxed contemplation.

      I suppose if you have a hard time distinguishing propaganda from news and editorials from reporting – and there is plenty of deliberate overlap among those these days – then feeling confident about an election choice might be easier. But, feeling confident isn’t the same as being right.

      I’ll welcome new information, surprising revelations, and iconoclastic input right up until I arrive at the polling place.

      1. Marina Kalugin

        unfortunately, many have already voted so they are no longer caring about facts…and others, like RK, would rather no-one hear the facts if they do not jive with his view of reality…oh well

      2. quielo

        Some people place great value on rumours which is what you would get if all news outlets were prohibited from discussing before the election. At the risk of the mods ire this is the single dumbest, and most poorly thought out suggestion, I have seen yet on the DV. Perhaps RK really is SL?

  3. Marina Kalugin

    And, did anyone expect any different from the current group of DJUSD trustees…and the person they hired …a “differentialization (sp?) specialist?”  whatever that means…

    for those who know, please tell me wtf that means and what kind of degrees the person needs to have to be doing that..

    So far, that person hasn’t even been able to administer a simple assessment test, which most teachers administer way too many times in this district throughout each school year.

    If that “specialist” couldn’t even bother to read and understand simple (hopefully likely) instructions…,…and that person is now “in charge” or something….what?

    The incompetent majority of the three women, one of whom is now running again,needs to head elsewhere…They have been running amuk way too long.

     

    they canned the only remaining expert on the DJUSD staff?

     

  4. Marina Kalugin

    PS>.. why doesn’t the new super rehire the only person around who can explain all of the tests and their appropriate usage way better than all the folks who are interjecting their opinions…though I would listen to a UCD professor who may or may not have read and understood the guidelines, over someone whose only claim to anything is they had enough friends in town to get elected…

  5. Marina Kalugin

    hypocrisy, good call….. far be it for the most highly hypocritical folks on this DV to ever notice any fault if they would ever look in an mirror……

     

  6. lotaspark

    Marina-I totally agree with what you are saying. One thing to note though is “the incompetent majority of three women” is, in fact, the incompetent majority of two women (Lovenburg and Archer) and one man (Adams).

  7. Marina Kalugin

    oops….oh well…I knew I was missing something, right?   as a man he seems to stay awfully quiet ….is he just getting led by the nose by the others?   or is there even more to this story that I have missed.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for