300 Batting Averages & the Quest for Meaningful Numbers

Growing up, baseball was a thing. We listened to the Cubs and White Sox in the car. We had bats, balls and mitts at home. Every couple of weeks during the summer we would have something going on in the neighborhood involving baseball. Whether it was running bases, a makeshift game, 500, or simply catch. Growing up, I believed good ball players had a 0.300 batting average, or hit the ball 3 out of every 10 at-bats. The best of the best, Ted Williams had hit 0.400 but good players hit 0.300.  So the other day, I looked up who was hitting 0.300 in Major League Baseball this year. Twenty position players were currently hitting 0.300 or above within a minimum 338 plate appearances. Figure each baseball team has 7 regular starters and 12 -13 total position players on the roster, 20 players out of a possible 210 regular starters and 375 rostered players were hitting 0.300 or less than 10% of regular starters were hitting my mental level of being "good."

Well, maybe it's just this season. So I took a trip down to Baseball-Reference.com and discovered that the average Hall of Fame player had a batting average of 0.303, the acknowledged best of the best only on average barely made it over my "good" standard. Ty Cobb was the career leader at 0.366, Mr. 400, Ted Williams hit 0.344 and ranked 6th, the best hitter I ever saw Tony Gwynn is 15th at 0.338. In fact only 79 hitters in the Hall of Fame have a career average above 0.300. It seems 300 is not something every hitter does, but only the best of the best do.

This week I had the chance to listen to a webinar from the Illinois State Board of Education. In the webinar, they use words like "New Illinois Learning Standards," "College and Career Readiness," and meaningful assessment. They shared about a group of teachers and State leaders going to Denver to set cut scores for the PARCC assessment and how this test and these scores are going to provide an indication to parents, educators, and government leaders on how "college and career ready" our students are. The reality is we don't know if this test or any of the new assessments have any correlation with college success and won't know that for over a decade until this 1st group of students who took the test actually graduates from college. We won't know if it indicates they were career ready until this 1st group of students who took the assessment actually has careers. We do know that two years ago when they re-normed the ISAT, that they set the line that approximately 60% of the students would meet or exceed standards and then when the students took the test, approximately 60% of the students met or exceeded standards.

In the webinar, the state explained it's new calculations for at-risk schools/districts and for improvement. Essentially, schools/districts will use a combination 2015 PARCC and other assessment factors as their baseline number for % meets and exceeds standards. Schools/districts will need to cut the distance between this number and 100% meeting and exceeding standards in half within 6 years. Here are some examples:
     School A:
                         75% of Students Meet and Exceed State Standards in 2015
                         25% more need to get 100%%
                         half of this is 12.5%
                         by the 2021 PARCC, 87.5% of students need to Meet or Exceed State Standards

    School B:
                         54% of Students Meet and Exceed State Standards in 2015
                         46% more need to get 100%%
                         half of this is 23%
                         by the 2021 PARCC, 77% of students need to Meet or Exceed State Standards

Now, lets remember that the State set the statistical bar for 60% of kids to meet the criterion line the last time around. This is like the 0.300 batting average. It seems mentally good, mentally reasonable, but in reality only 79 Hall of Famers have hit that for their career.

SMART goals talk about the idea of Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Reasonable, and Time-bound goals. Yes, we should be working to improve. Yes, we should be giving parents, students, educators, and government officials quality accurate information. Yes, we should be preparing students for colleges and careers. However, none of these indicators provide this. In fact, they make the transmission of information more convoluted.

The National Football League has not changed the NFL combine assessment activities in nearly 20 years. Yes, each year, the average player is slightly bigger, stronger, and faster. By keeping the events the same, it allows for year to year comparisons of each athlete. Results are at least comparable. When we talk receivers, we think 4.4 speed is a solid result. Well, since electronic timing was instituted in 1999, only 17 players have ever run 4.3 or faster at the combine. Only 7 of those players were receivers.

As educators we want to improve, grow, and make a difference. Each day we have the opportunity to make a difference in a child's life and change the future. We seek to be measured and share our successes. Like all professions, we wish to be measured against an achievable bar and so do our students.

The Difference Between .250 and .300

What Does That Word Mean?