School Writing Tests Cheer Educators

If one of the goals of regular testing is to help shape what goes on in the classroom, then state and local education officials have reason to be cheered by results of a statewide survey that looks at the newly revised California Assessment Program’s writing exam.

“To show continued success on the CAP writing test, schools must develop a multi-year approach to writing instruction that crosses all grade levels and subject areas,” state Supt. of Public Instruction Bill Honig said when the test results were made public in February. And that is apparently what is happening.

The statewide survey by two college professors showed that the writing exam is having an effect on the English curriculum in junior high and middle schools.

Professors Sandra Murphy of San Francisco State University and Charles Cooper of UC San Diego sent their survey to eighth-grade teachers at 600 randomly selected schools, and more than 90% of English teachers responding said the test will strengthen the curriculum at their schools.

The annual test, administered to 308,000 eighth-graders last spring, covers eight types of writing. All essays must be completed in 45 minutes, and each is scored to measure thinking and writing process skills as well as such mechanics of writing as spelling and grammar.

More than 90% of the survey respondents also said they have already changed the way they teach writing because of the test, and 78% said they now make more writing assignments.

Four types of writing--autobiographical incident, evaluation, problem solution and report of information--were introduced when the writing assessment program was launched in 1987. First-hand biography and story were added in 1988, followed last year by the addition of observational writing and speculation about causes or effects.

A writing exam for 12th-graders was begun in the fall of 1988 and will be fully implemented with eight tests this November. State officials are considering whether to add writing tests for sixth-graders and possibly even for third-graders.

HOW TO READ THE SCORES

Here are the school-by-school results of the California Assessment Program’s writing exam that was administered to eighth-graders throughout the state last spring.

The exam consists of eight tests of writing ability and represents the state’s biggest step to date away from the much-criticized multiple-choice method of testing academic achievement.

Results are listed by school district and by individual school so that parents can compare the performance of youngsters in their community with that of students in the rest of Los Angeles County and throughout California. (Schools are listed alphabetically by district.)

Because the exam was changed substantially last year with the addition of two more writing tests, only the latest round of scores is listed.

The scaled score is a combination of results on each of the eight separate writing tests. The statewide average score was 255 for eighth-graders, and the average in Los Angeles County was 230.

State rank shows the school or district’s rank (on a scale of 1 to 99), comparing its scores to scores of every other school or district in the state.

Relative rank is a way to compare a district or school with another that is similar to it in terms of student ethnic and socioeconomic makeup and students’ ability to speak English fluently, as well as how often those students move from school to school. The value listed is the school’s percentile rank within its comparison group.

Burbank Unified DISTRICT AVERAGE

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 271 66 68

JORDAN

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 231 29 35

LUTHER BURBANK

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 280 71 88

MUIR

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 290 78 63

Castaic Union DISTRICT AVERAGE

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 278 72 74

CASTAIC MIDDLE

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 278 69 74

Eastside Union DISTRICT AVERAGE

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 240 38 46

EASTSIDE

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 240 38 46

Glendale Unified DISTRICT AVERAGE

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 269 63 78

ROOSEVELT

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 211 17 49

ROSEMONT

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 292 80 64

TOLL

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 270 64 83

WILSON

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 287 76 91

Hughes-Elizabeth Lakes DISTICT AVERAGE

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 274 69 51

HUGHES-ELIZABETH LAKES

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 274 66 51

Keppel Union DISTRICT AVERAGE

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 242 40 31

ALMONDALE

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 237 35 28

LAKE LOS ANGELES

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 263 59 47

Lancaster DISTRICT AVERAGE

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 258 52 26

PARK VIEW

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 272 65 33

PIUTE

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 240 38 17

Las Virgenes Unified DISTRICT AVERAGE

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 335 95 75

LINDERO CANYON

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 331 94 72

WRIGHT

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 340 95 79

Los Angeles Unified DISTRICT AVERAGE

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 202 16 21

BYRD

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 186 9 6

BYRD JR HIGH FUND.

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 238 36 32

COLUMBUS

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 218 21 26

PORTOLA MAGNET

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 382 99 97

FROST

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 224 25 8

FULTON

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 190 10 26

HALE

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 262 57 16

HENRY

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 245 42 22

HOLMES

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 240 38 13

IRVING

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 204 15 34

LAWRENCE

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 241 39 47

MACLAY

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 165 3 9

MADISON

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 218 21 29

MILLIKAN

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 234 32 25

MT. GLEASON

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 223 24 23

MULHOLLAND

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 197 12 5

NOBEL

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 233 32 4

NOBEL FUND JR. HIGH

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 255 50 6

NORTHRIDGE JUNIOR

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 223 24 44

OLIVE VISTA JUNIOR

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 206 15 32

PACOIMA JR COM.

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 238 36 11

PACOIMA JUNIOR HIGH

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 173 5 10

PACOIMA S/M

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 212 18 3

PARKMAN

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 244 41 11

PORTER

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 232 31 29

PORTER MAGNET

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 337 95 91

PORTOLA

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 240 38 6

REED

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 241 39 22

SAN FERNANDO JUNIOR

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 171 4 11

SEPULVEDA

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 198 12 8

SEPULVEDA MAGNET

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 406 99 99

SHERMAN OAKS CES

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 258 54 6

SUTTER

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 213 19 7

VALLEY ALTERNATIVE

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 286 75 48

VAN NUYS JR. HIGH

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 195 10 14

Palmdale DISTRICT AVERAGE

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 243 40 36

JUNIPER

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 240 38 42

SAGE

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 245 42 31

Soledad-Agua Dulce Union DISTRICT AVERAGE

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 261 57 32

HIGH DESERT

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 261 56 32

Westside Union DISTRICT AVERAGE

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 270 65 40

DEL SUR

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 237 35 32

WALKER

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 277 69 42

William S. Hart Union DISTRICT AVERAGE

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 291 81 42

ARROYO SECO

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 287 76 36

PLACERITA

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 297 83 37

SIERRA VISTA

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 288 77 52

Wilsona DISTRICT AVERAGE

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 259 55 55

CHALLENGER

Scaled State Relative Year Score Rank Rank 88-89 259 55 55