We need a new “Wire” that focuses solely on the racket of urban public education, the egos, fear, paranoia, and gamesmanship involved. David Simon go so much right about local politics and law enforcement, but glossed over how public education fits into the racket with mere mention of “juking the stats.”

There just wasn’t enough time or space.

In other words, to be blunt, credits awarded pursuant to credit recovery schemes (a/k/a scams) prior to October 2009, when credit recovery was specifically authorized by the Regents, were awarded without legal authority and were – and should be – deemed void. Similarly, high school diplomas awarded which were based in any way on credits granted pursuant to credit recovery schemes prior to October 2009 were not properly awarded and should, at a minimum, be ignored when official graduation and dropout statistics are calculated and reported. I can’t see punishing individual students who were granted “recovered” credits, but it is appalling that the NYCDOE’s officials would claim that they should get credit for having done so unlawfully.

Recognizing this, the State Education Department took steps to formulate a policy on make-up credit, which became effective July 1, 2010.

For the April 2009 memo: http://www.regents.nysed.gov/meetings/2009Meetings/April2009/0409emscd2.htm

For October 2009 memo: http://www.regents.nysed.gov/meetings/2009Meetings/October2009/1009emsca5.htm

For April 2010 memo: http://www.regents.nysed.gov/meetings/2010Meetings/April2010/0410brca1.pdf

Matt Mittenthal
Deputy Press Secretary
NYC Department of Education

I asked for this back when you wrote attempting to refute Ms. Haimson’s position back in November 2009 … and am still waiting. You cannot expect people, including journalists, to simply rely on your recitation regarding available State Ed. “guidance” when the underlying documentation is not made available for analysis.

If you don’t provide the links or titles, etc., I’ll FOIL them and then distribute the NYCDOE’s responses widely. I realize that this would result in delay after delay, but I have a long memory and have no intention of dropping this issue.

Shael – Perhaps you’d be kind enough to give me a link to the “state’s guidelines for awarding” credit recovery credits – those which were in effect before the Bd. of Regents formally approved this process in October 2009. Frankly, I’d never heard of them and never been given the chance to analyze them.

Of course, if I’m wrong in stating that diplomas granted to NYC DOE students on the basis, in whole or in part, of “credit recovery” before October 2009 were illegitimate, I’d be more than happy to publicly say so. I review State Ed.’s web site frequently, but never came across any such “guidelines.” And frankly, the “credit recovery” schemes described to me by various NYC DOE high school staff in the past few years have appeared to be arbitrary, at best. But I realize that these are mere, albeit numerous, anecdotals which may not be representative of what NYC DOE high schools were doing overall. On the other hand, maybe they were.

So, again, if you could just give me a link to the “guidelines” which existed prior to October 2009, I’ll be prepared to read and digest them – and if necessary, eat my hat as well if I’ve been wrongly thinking that something substantial stinks in Denmark.

Dee Alpert, Publisher
SpecialEducationMuckraker.com

1. Prioritizing student progress – As many readers have noted, we put significant weight on year-to-year student progress. While some on this page have expressed a preference for putting additional weight on student performance, we believe that schools should be judged, in most part, on the progress their kids are making. The current progress report weighting policy reflects that belief.

2. How schools scored outside of the range relative to peer and city horizons – A fair question has arisen about how a school could score outside of the range relative to the school’s peer and city horizons. The answer is relatively simple. The maximum and minimum values on the range are not absolute values, but derived from the distribution of achievement results. To calculate the range, we find the mean score using the previous three years of achievement data. The maximum and minimum values on the range represent two standard deviations above and below the mean. By definition, roughly 2.5 percent of schools should then fall outside of the range on both sides. Undoubtedly, we saw more schools falling above the range this year because of the unprecedented gains on state exams our students made relative to the prior three years.

3. Multiple years of data – The range of scores that determine each school’s peer group are based on three years of achievement data. Peer groups for the 2008-2009 progress reports were calculated based on data from the 2005-2006, 2006-2007, and 2007-2008 school years. While it’s true that in past years we have used current year achievement data to set peer horizons, it is a priority of the Department to give principals clear targets to meet prior to a given school year. Using current year data precludes us from achieving that objective.

4. Attendance as a factor in peer index methodology – We have previously considered using attendance in the high school peer index methodology. Certainly, attendance is highly correlated with student-level outcomes in high school. In the absence of eighth grade proficiency scores, attendance would work very well in helping us to develop peer groups. However, a student’s proficiency is an even better predictor of student-level outcomes in high school. And because attendance is so highly correlated (~80%) with eighth grade proficiency, it does not provide us with any additional benefit in “peering” schools (i.e., proficiency essentially controls for both attendance and academic ability). Special Education and over-age (on entry) are far more important to control for in the peer index than a variable that has such a high degree of correlation with another factor we’re fundamentally controlling for already.

5. Credit accumulation and graduation – The progress reports are designed to reward schools that are successful in helping their students make progress toward graduation and in measuring the graduation outcomes themselves. If students are not passing their courses or passing Regents exams, they will not be in a position to graduate following their senior year. The correlation between credit accumulation in years 1 and 2 (and year 3 for that matter) and graduation is over 70 percent, so schools where students are earning more credits in the early years are also graduating more students. Students who fall behind in credits often find it difficult to catch up and are less likely to graduate.

6. Admissions processes for small schools – Several readers have suggested that small schools are more likely to screen, and are therefore more likely to succeed on progress reports. However, this is not true. In fact, over 80% of the small high schools opened under Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein since 2003 are unscreened, compared to approximately 50% of HS’s citywide.

At the end of this calendar year, I will respond to any additional questions that remain unanswered. Until then, happy holidays!

Yet UHgain, irony, not to mention doublespeak, is alive and well at Tweed!

DING! Can we call it a TKO yet?

Elizabeth, how about some ground rules for guest bloggers? Shouldn’t they have to respond to legitimate questions?

Helloooo Shael?

Multiple Years’ Data?
Peer Groups?
Progress Weighting?

Irony re “accountability?”

Thank you for dedicating a column to responding to readers’ comments. A few more, if I may:

1) My (and others’) previous comments about multiple years’ data STILL STAND. Your response above is in contrast to a number of schools having their scores along a spectrum fall OUTSIDE the nominal min-max range. It would seem that if the current year (and two priors) is included in establishing the bounds of a range, that simply could not happen. That it DOES happen suggests something that, at best, still needs explainifying.

2) My previous comments about the problems with peer groups STILL STAND, and are not addressed above. (An “A” school amongst a weak peer group vs. a “B” school amongst strong schools, etc.)

3) My previous comments about the double-benefit of too much weight on “progress” (which was increased DESPITE parent requests that it be REDUCED), plus state score inflation… STILL STAND.

These points remain unaddressed — some for years. I look forward to your reply.

Insofar as schools are evaluated based on graduation data, and graduation requires students’ passing Regents exams, the evaluations are similarly unreliable. NYC Comptroller Thompson issued an audit this past July which raised the most substantial questions regarding the validity of graduation numbers, http://www.comptroller.nyc.gov/bureaus/audit/PDF_FILES/ME09_065A.pdf.

While the NYC DOE claims – repeatedly – to be transitioning to a lean, data-based organization, and claims to expect its employees to do the same, the fact remains that the vast majority of data used in its various, highly-touted evaluations, calculations and reports to parents and the public is both unverified and open to significant, legitimate, and very pressing question. As long as such verifications are not performed, and their results made promptly and fully available to the public, one must seek data which the NYC DOE does not control in order to assess its functioning and claimed improvements. To date, while the Tweed and City Hall press releases would make one think that things have gotten substantially better, the fact is that both the NAEP and SAT scores are flatlined. If individual schools’ performance was improving at the rate the recent Progress Reports would indicate, SAT scores would have risen significantly. They did not. Period. End of story.

The whole student, teacher, school and program evaluation system the NYC DOE operates is nothing short of a house of cards. One real audit, done by auditors over whom the NYC DOE has no control, and it simply falls of its own weight. One can only hope that the Independent Budget Office, or the US Dept. of Education’s Inspector General, will do it. Soon. Please.

If two black, incoming 9th graders have identical reading and math scores, both receive free lunch, and are the same age, yet one accumulated 40 absences and 3 superintendent’s suspensions in 8th grade while the other had perfect attendance and no record of behavior problems, would the DOE consider them “similar” when determing their schools’ peer groups for the progress reports?