Home > Uncategorized > Two-week Reports

Two-week Reports

June 1, 2013

Yesterday, school districts received this email:

Dear Superintendent or DTC,

It has come to our attention that the two-week reports posted by CTB this week do not contain all of the tests returned to the company. To correct this, new reports will be posted on June 6.

The new postings will include

  • All scores for grades 3 through 8 assessments
  • All EOI scores except for English II and English III Equivalent tests. As soon as we know when all English II and English III scores will be posted, we will immediately send another communication to you.

All senior OMAAP retest scores will be posted on June 7.

We also have been made aware that a small number of raw scores posted to student records and received by districts in the 48-hour report were incorrect. If your district was affected and there is a discrepancy between the raw score report and the two-week roster, we will send the student names and their scores; however, the scores on the two-week roster are correct.

Please let my office know of decisions made based on any incorrect scores. We will do our best to help address the problems resulting from the incorrect information.

Please know that we are also working to extend the date for the data correction window. This will allow for a total of 30 days to review and update the files.

Maridyth McBee, PhD
Assistant State Superintendent
Accountability and Assessment

In most districts, principals and counselors will be off-contract and on vacation (or working summer jobs) during the time that will be available to make corrections. However, this is not just an inconvenience for schools. Summer remediation planning is also delayed. Additionally, many students will be left wondering if they have the test scores to graduate. This loss of time impacts students.

Hopefully this additional problem will come into consideration when whoever it is at the SDE actually reviewing the contract with CTB/McGraw-Hill decides whether or not they should be retained as the testing vendor.

  1. Kate
    June 2, 2013 at 11:04 pm

    Well, we know that it is not Superintendent of Public Instruction Janet Barresi who is involved in reviewing the contract since she personally had nothing to do with choosing the testing company. An open records request should be made regarding a copy of the contract to see just who signed off on the contract. In most cases contracts have the State Superintendent’s signature. If the testing contract does have her signature, then that just might mean she was aware and at least for the three seconds it would have taken to sign, she WAS personally involved. ANOTHER disconnect—the agency head isn’t involved in the running and decision making of the agency—especially when millions of taxpayer dollars are involved.


  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: