I admit, it was a trick question, for several reasons.
(1) I noticed this morning that I had accidentally inverted the NCE and percentile ranks in several places, which made some bars taller or shorter than they should have been. They are now fixed below, and I apologize, because it made the entire guessing game extremely difficult.
(2) If you believe Michelle Rhee’s boasts about how she achieved educational test gains, then, if you look at all of those graphs, there is NOT A SINGLE ONE of those schools that shows CTBS reading scores going from the 13th percentile in the 2nd grade in 1994 to over the 90th percentile in the third grade in 1995. And there is no school in the list that shows students going from the very bottom in 2nd grade from 1993 to the very top in 1994, either.
Which is not surprising to me. I would bet a large sum of money that nobody can document that sort of thing ever happening before. (Even though I would love to LOSE the bet!)
(3) Apparently, the only conclusion is that this part of Michelle Rhee’s official resume is purely fictional. At least concerning the CTBS reading scores.
Rhee’s school was school C, where reading scores went steadily down for Rhee’s first two years, and then went up a bit during the third year, but not even to the 50th percentile in reading.
Here are the graphs, again, with the schools named*.
*”C-GroupA” means an average for seven regular Baltimore public elementary schools that were designated by the makers of the study as sort of an experimental control group. They are Madison, Park Heights, Pimlico, M. Brent, Cecil, Liberty, and Washington.
“C-Group B” was a second control group of regular Baltimore public schools: Templeton, Park Heights, Pimlico, Rosemont, A. Hamilton, Liberty, and Washington.
(I can only guess as to why some schools are in both regular-school comparison groups.)
All of the other named schools were in the Edison Tesseract/EAI program.
I know essentially nothing about Baltimore or its school system. Some of my readers might.