The school board gave Dr. Culver his annual performance review recently...to which his raise is tied. He ended up with a score of 8.0 out of 10...or a B-...and a 4.4% increase, much larger than the teachers (SPEA) or support staff (Local 60) received.
In the final scoring against 5 goals, Culver received 7.4 out of 10 points....which is clearly a "C" grade. But then under the guise of ,"Adjustment to points(+/-)[Yeah...right...like the board would ever subtract points!] by the School Board based on job description evaluation and other factors explained in the summary of that tool.", the Board added 0.6 points to Culver's evaluation to get him to 8.0 out of 10, and also pushing him up into the next tier of salary increases. This is how Culver got his 4.4%.
But...instead of accepting their "assessment" of Culver, let's look a little more closely. Yes, you would have to have taken the time to read through the whole package to obtain this perspective, but it serves to show how far the board goes to paint Dr. Culver in a positive light.
Fuzzy Math Part I: Subtract 1 from the total # of benchmarks.
Notice how the scoring for each "goal" subtracts one from the total number of benchmarks. Ancient math rule #1, kids: When you divide by a smaller number, the decimal percentage INCREASES. Nice fuzzy math way to improve the score. Why not just a simple, "# of benchmarks met divided by # of benchmarks not met"?
Here's a great example from Goal 3- Prepared & Inspired: 8 "benchmarks. 1 "S", 3 "I", 3 "D", and 1 "U". The school board added the S+ I (4) and used 7 instead of 8 for the total. That lead to a score of 0.67, rather than a score of 0.57.
Fuzzy Math Part II: Don't count performance benchmarks that show no change (U) from the previous year.
When you reduce the denominator by removing things that are unchanged...especially when the benchmark is not met in either year(!), you INCREASE the goal score. Refer to ancient math rule #1.
Here's a great example of a benchmark from Goal 1- Improve Reading Achievement: 90% or more of SPASD 3rd-5th graders score as proficient or advanced on the WKCE. Last year: 87%. This year: 87%. Didn't meet the goal either year. Let's not count it.
Fuzzy Math Part III: Even marginal improvement (I) over last year on a benchmark is scored the same as a "success" (S), or actually meeting/exceeding the benchmark.
Note that the numerator always weights any increase over last year the same as meeting a benchmark. We could maybe see giving "half credit"...but giving full credit when the gioal isn't met doesn't make much sense, does it? Perhaps this logic is at the root of grader inflation within the school district.
Here's a great example from Goal 3- Prepared & Inspired.: The benchmark is that 90% or more of SPASD graduating seniors respond positively to the exit survey statement, " I feel fully prepared to pursue any option after high school". In 2007, 72% responded "Yes"; in 2008, 75% responded "Yes". Yet, this was scored as a "Success" because it increased by 3%.
Fuzzy Math Part IV: Regardless of how many benchmarks per goal, average all goal scores.
This has to do with weighting certain criteria...or NOT weighting, in this case. Basically this review says that improvement in Reading and Math--the top 2 goals of the school district-- are weighted as being equally important as having "Prepared & Inspired" students? "Connectedness"? How about classroom space, which Culver has NO ABILITY to impact. It's the ELECTORS who approve building referenda that should be reviewed here...not Culver.
Fuzzy Math Part V: Add a "Booster" adjustment score to improve Culver's final grade.
Last, and perhaps the most important, is the "fudge factor" applied by the school board to boost Culver's overall grade. What kind of hooey is involved with adding 0.6 "points" to raise Culver's score from an average "74" to a more proper looking "80"? This is clearly a number that the board pulled out of its collective buttocks (with proper decorum, of course!). One school board member admitted, off the record, that the adjustment was exactly what it looks like on paper...a fictitious adjustment, made arbitrarily and capriciously, with the sole purposes of looking good for appearances sake AND ensuring that Culver would reach the "80" mark, which provided him with a sweeter raise.
SP-EYE: If this is the kind of fuzzy logic and math that we're teaching our children, no wonder why they don't view themselves as being properly prepared for post-high school life. The lesson that the school board is presenting to the children of Sun Prairie is that the ends--regardless of how ludicrous or improper-- justify the means. Nice. How does THAT affect student achievement?
Posts
