West Contra Costa schools fail to improve on annual test, but leaders say student success is measured in a variety of ways

West Contra Costa district schools failed to improve in California’s annual test according to results released last month. District leaders and education expert said the standardized test is not the only way to measure student performance.

Less than 35 percent of students in West Contra Costa district schools managed to meet the standard for English as 52 percent of students failed math, according to SBAC test results released last month.

West Contra Costa district schools failed to improve in California’s annual test, with half of the students failing math and more than 40 percent in English language arts, according to new results.

First implemented in 2015, the Smarter Balanced Assessment, or SBAC, is a computerized test measuring student performance in English and math, using standards set by the California Board of Education.

Less than 35 percent of students in West Contra Costa district schools managed to meet that standard for English, roughly one percentage point lower than the 2016 counterpart, according to results released last month. The percentage of students failing math also increased from 49 percent to about 52 percent.

Now, some parents are concerned about instruction offered by district schools.

Lucero Garcia, a social worker at El Cerrito High School, graduated from Kennedy High School in Richmond in 2003 and has worked as a pre-school teacher’s assistant for the district for about seven years. Her child studies at Caliber: Beta Academy, a charter school in Richmond.

Garcia has been vocal about the lack of progress toward improving students’ academic performance and keeping parents informed about future plans to address the crisis.

“I just really feel upset that they’re bringing new topics in, and this is just going to get glossed over. Nothing is going to happen, and next year we will just be disappointed again,” Garcia said. “I really feel it’s important to step up and say “what are we going to do.”

Garcia pointed out that the results are worse if you break them down into subcategories, a claim supported by the newly released data.

Approximately 56 percent of African-American students failed English in 2017, followed by Hispanic students, with a failure rate of almost 50 percent. Results in math are worse, with about 68 percent of African-American and 60 percent of Hispanic students not meeting the standard.

Failure rates in English and math among non-native English learners both almost reached 80 percent for 2017.

Source: California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress


Garcia became more involved with the school system after participating in the Family Leaders Program offered by Go Public Schools West Contra Costa, an education advocacy nonprofit based in Richmond. It is a 14-week development program that helps parents become decision-makers for their students through training on advocacy skills and how to read and understand data.

According to Maribel Lopez, director of community leadership at Go Public Schools West Contra Costa, Garcia’s frustration is shared by other parents in the program.

“A lot of the families whom we work with from the family leaders program have said that they want their children to get to college and through college,” Lopez said. “We know that right now we’re just not preparing our students for that opportunity.”

Apart from providing the program, Lopez said the nonprofit keeps parents updated by releasing an annual data report. It explains a variety of indicators for students’ performance, from Smarter Balanced Assessment results to college eligibility data. The report for 2017 was released on Thursday, November 9, and contains data on student achievements and policy recommendations for the district.

The district itself is also taking deeper data dive. Alicia Bowman, executive director of research, accountability and data at the district, said very little analysis has been put into the Smarter Balanced Assessment results, because it’s a summative assessment reflecting performance from only the last school year.

“[The Smarter Balanced Assessment] is like a flashlight. It shines a light on the areas that we need to focus on, but in terms of our work that we’re measuring our progress through the year, we’re using our local assessments,” she said.

According to Bowman, the district uses selections from the Smarter Balanced Assessment and other tests to monitor student performance in areas including reading, literacy development and mathematics.

Associate Superintendent Nia Rashidchi has been working for the district for 17 years. She said that it uses a variety of assessments to identify areas of need for students to make sure they are ready for college or career.

“We’re looking at our local assessment because that’s going to give us a better insight into what’s happening on a daily basis so that we can pinpoint those needs,” Rashidchi said.

She also said that the district is taking new measures by collaborating with third-party organizations, such as Partners in School Innovation and the National Equity Project, to make sure the district has an equity lens to address achievement gap. According to Rashidchi, parents can get access to data from different schools at monthly meetings.

Despite concerns raised among parents and board members, the Smarter Balanced Assessment is not the only way to look at student achievement.

David Pearson, an education researcher at UC Berkeley, was an early advisor to the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium before the test was implemented in 2013. He said that people should never “put all their eggs in one basket” when it comes to indicators of progress made by students.

“You want to look at different indices of progress. You want to look at things like graduation rates, what percentage of kids are leaving high school, ready to enter UC or ready to enter the CSU system,” Pearson said. “I would never make any judgment based upon a single piece of evidence.”

The local stagnation of test results actually mirrors the state of California overall, as very little change is seen in the percentage of students meeting standards compared to last year’s results.

The Smarter Balanced Assessment uses multiple types of questions such as matching items and short answers to test students, whereas its predecessor, California’s STAR assessment system, is a multiple-choice, paper-based test.

Pearson said it usually takes a test several years to iron out the kinks. “I think that we need at least one, maybe two more years before we can determine whether kids are really not able to do these new and different and more challenging tasks very well,” Pearson said.

3 Comments

  1. David Reinertson

    Micromanaging curriculum standards. Segregation by charter choice. Testing status instead of improvement.
    What these reforms all have in common is weakening teachers.
    These reforms aren’t inevitable. They are public policy.

  2. Commenter I

    Let’s be real clear about the advocacy that GO does. They are a 510(c)(4). That is a nonprofit that is allowed to lobby, and they lobby for and give money to school board candidates and other charter-related causes.

    They are funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies. And if that name sounds familiar, that is billionaire and former NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is thigh deep into the charter school movement.

    Do you think Mr. Bloomberg really cares about what happens to Richmond parents and children? Is that why he is here? Or is it something else? How many parents that are enrolled in charter schools take GO’s class? How come the article doesn’t include comments from them and their schools?

    Leadership Public Schools, the darling of the bunch had only 18% of students meet or exceed the standard in math. That’s a -11% drop from the previous year. 91% of their students with a disability did not achieve standards in math.

    At Caliber Beta, 73% of their students with a disability did not achieve standards in math and 80% of their economically disadvantaged African-Americans did not meet or exceed standard. If we find it acceptable that 20% of economically disadvantaged African-Americans meet a math standard (not one exceeded), then we need to do some serious rethinking.

    Where’s GO activating parents to protest that score?

    You need to take a look at who these charter schools enroll. If they enroll special ed students, what’s the ratio, and what are the nature of those disabilities? Is it a speech disability or a severely handicapped child that needs an aid at all times? They take the SBAC too.

    What kind of English Language Learners do the charter schools enroll? Are they predominantly first time English learners, or do they have more proficiency in English. You are at a severe disadvantage if you are not proficient in English.

    Finally students did not meet standards on one test. They are not, as you describe it, “failing.” Such a broad brush definition does not do them justice and actually hurts them. This test is biased. Scores that meet or exceed the standard strongly correlate to a parent’s education level and English fluency. To say that these children are failing equates poverty, disabilities and english fluency to failure.

  3. Commenter 2

    Commenter I, several of your comments are worth addressing.

    Overall, thanks for asking for accountability. We should be holding charters to the same standards that we hold the District. Every charter advocate worth their salt agrees that charters that continue to chronically under perform should be closed; however, neither Leadership or Caliber fall into that category. Not even close. You have correctly identified a serious drop in Leadership’s Math scores. It would be fair to add though that their performance in ELA where nearly 73% met standard suggests that they can find solutions to their Math crisis. Probably safe to assume they share your concern and urgency. Still, in the context of last year, a very fair criticism.

    Your criticism of Caliber academic performance is slightly off base. With respect to students with disabilities, Caliber performs at nearly 2X the statewide average in Math. That said, you are absolutely correct to identify that they are struggling to recruit and/or struggling to attract a special education population of equal proportion to the District or the state. They are the second lowest in the District at 3%. The lowest, A Method Benito Juarez, is also a charter school.

    With regard to Math achievement among economically disadvantaged Black students, Caliber handily outperformed the Statewide average.

    Finally, seems to me there is a bigger, more important question to ask. Chronic under performance throughout the District has not changed for decades. If we are to be hopeful that change is coming and coming fast for this generation of West County kids who face all the life altering risks of being poorly educated by a dysfunctional system, we must ask. . .What has changed that can make us hopeful?

    I would suggest that GO’s report and their work with parents is one noticeable change that should make the top of anyone’s list. Transparent data reported accurately has the power to change things dramatically. A legion of well informed and active charter and District parents who have found their voice and join you in demanding accountability will lead to change, too.

    The focus of GO’s report was District performance and stands on its merits. There is no need to discredit those findings or their work in sharing them anymore than there is a need to discredit you because you asked merited probing questions and brought to light important deficiencies in the charter sector.

    Please, by all means, keep up the cries for accountability and know they stand on their own merits if they are correctly rooted in data. They don’t become stronger when you attempt to tear down GO’s important contribution. In fact, they are weakened by it.

Post a comment

Richmond Confidential welcomes comments from our readers, but we ask users to keep all discussion civil and on-topic. Comments post automatically without review from our staff, but we reserve the right to delete material that is libelous, a personal attack, or spam. We request that commenters consistently use the same login name. Comments from the same user posted under multiple aliases may be deleted. Richmond Confidential assumes no liability for comments posted to the site and no endorsement is implied; commenters are solely responsible for their own content. For concerns about comments posted to this site, please contact us at news@richmondconfidential.org

Your email is never shared. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook

*
*