Comments on: IBO: Students stood pat on tests during years of touted growth

By: Ari

Ari — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 23:51:00 +0000

You’re actually wrong about that. The way the DOE calculates growth is based on scale scores, not proficiency levels. That’s what scale scores are for. Statistical regressions are performed on the tests to see how students fare from test to test. It’s amazing that the IBO can be that incompetent.

Aside from that, considering there are only four levels, one should expect that most students stay within the same level, but move within them. If everything were stagnant, then a small proportion would move up and a small proportion would move down. The fact that 30% moved up and only 8% moved down is actually a fairly strong sign of growth.

By: Zeno

Zeno — Fri, 13 Jul 2012 17:51:00 +0000

I agree that the IBO results are reflecting of troubling circumstances, but let’s not put all our stock in their report. Domanico of the IBO acknowledges the limitations of looking at proficiency scores alone (see above). The DOE actually makes a decent point about needing to look at growth percentiles rather than raw scores or proficiency scores. That being said, it’s hard to make reasonable statistical conclusions about a test and scoring system that is far from reasonable.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:50:00 +0000

Interesting take. I totally agree with the lead sentence as stated, though I presume it is understatement with respect to you.

Must say for the record that the central fallacy of the deforms has nothing to do with money, and much of the fighting does have to do with that. You don’t put silly metrics on child development and intellectual growth and educational talent, and then micromanage according to them and hold everyone constantly accountable for said silliness plus a whole slew of other things they have no involvement in.
Okay. Yes I’m sure the cuts have something to do with the severity of the situation. I’m surprised Bloomberg doesn’t note this every time his stats come out.
I think the DOE started playing fast and loose with their buildings very early on, like 2004 or so. The Dept of Buildings didn’t help much. Palpable changes for the worse could be felt about as early as then. Ballooning incoming freshman classes to high schools started around 2006, I think. But to be honest, I was very ignorant of the general state of things and the players and all the policies before 2009, when many of the apolitical became political and everything really started hitting the fan and central air. So, you definitely have a point there.

By: Guest

Guest — Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:26:00 +0000

The word on the street is results come out Tuesday, July 17

By: Peterphillips34

Peterphillips34 — Fri, 13 Jul 2012 13:31:00 +0000

Ironic that the DOE cites as a “fundamental flaw” the fact that the tests used in each grade are different. This difference is not taken into consideration when measuring the progress of schools and teachers. Student progress is rightfully considered to be the important indicator of good teaching. But progress or lack thereof is absolutely meaningless with these terribly flawed measures. DOE Central wants everyone judged by these measures, EXCEPT THEM.

By: Larry Littlefield

Larry Littlefield — Fri, 13 Jul 2012 10:46:00 +0000

I suspect that the financial situation has something to do with all the battles going on today. While many of the pension deals that have led to the shift in resources pre-dated Bloomberg, he had gone along with the early 2008 enhancement — eight years after the end of the stock market bubble.

Up until that point, there was supposed cooperation between the union and the administration in improving the schools, or at least that is how it was presented to those of us outside. Then the cost of the deals hit, in recession (when it always happens) and Bloomberg was forced to make all these cuts. What had he been thinking?

I get the feeling Bloomberg feels the union duped him, although how a guy with a background in finance could have failed to understand exactly what the consequences would be is beyond my understanding. He should have known better than I did. And the union, now that it had the only thing it wanted all along — earlier retirement — adopted a “to hell with the schools and those who attend them” attitude.

Bloomberg, perhaps deciding he had to fix things (which he can’t), launched this war as a solution that would (he believes or has to hope) make up for the 15,000 fewer teachers, and the future reductions as well. The alternative was to stand up and say that city residents face another generation of inferior schools. Perhaps the next Mayor will be in a better position to admit this.

Akademos, how much of what you think of is “devastating” dates back before the end of 2009? What changed? This isn’t the past. It has an ongoing effect.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 13 Jul 2012 01:53:00 +0000

I don’t think the public at large has any sense of the severity of the devastation wrought by the current deforms. It is palpable at every level and these comments are not the grumblings of a disgruntled few. It is across the board, across all stations, and it is utter outrage and disbelief, nothing less.

See Larry’s comment below that completely ignores this issue, the issue at hand, first and foremost, at least here.

Larry L: And now? It looks like we didn’t get much for our vastly increased in spending in the 2000s, did we? And the reason? All that is proven is that New York City schools will not improve no matter how much is spent on the retired and others not working.

By: old teach

old teach — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 23:24:00 +0000

The data produced by the Bloomberg administration is once again being questioned. Whether it is response time for the FDNY or EMS, the crime statistics of the NYPD, or the school data regarding test achievement,graduation rates, or the gap among minority and non minority students, the administration always denies or refutes those questioning their data. Where there is smoke there is fire, but maybe no fire truck for awhile longer under the Bloomberg regime. I believe the IBO results.!!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 21:04:00 +0000

“experts” (lower case ‘e’) looking at the same data can’t agree if student performance went up or down. How can data be used to definitively evaluate teachers? Then, there are so many other influences besides teachers in these students’ lives. This is a very slippery slope…

By: Guest

Guest — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 20:22:00 +0000

And when do the test scores for math and ELA come out for this year? How can it possibly take this long to norm the data? It’s been since April.

By: Leonie

Leonie — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 20:08:00 +0000

Generally speaking experts say that proficiency levels are determined by cut scores that are even more arbitrary and unreliable than the exams themselves; which during these years were notoriously unreliable. Only test scores that can tell you anything during this era about trends are the NAEPs.

By: Mr. Flerporillo

Mr. Flerporillo — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 20:02:00 +0000

Wow, a link to a list of brief talking point responses to “5 Myths.” Littlefield, consider yourself destroyed!

By: Larry Littlefield

Larry Littlefield — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 19:55:00 +0000

“The methods used to calculate a pension system’s funding level are quite complicated and convoluted, which has enabled detractors to point to the funds in a few states — Illinois, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Kentucky — where funding shortfalls are notably higher.”
Unfortunately, New York City’s pensions are as poorly funded as the worst off states.

“The concept of an ‘unfunded liability’ is misleading because pension benefits are paid out over decades. A mortgage represents a good analogy.”

There will be plenty of money to cover the bill for existing retirees, as long as current and future retirees don’t get pensions. But if they do, what we owe them will be going up as well, as fast as the unfunded liability for current workers goes down.

“Where pensions are underfunded, it’s overwhelmingly because of the recession and because states took “pension holidays,” which means politicians declined to make their state or locality’s annual contribution — breaking a promise to the public servants of that state and in a bad faith effort as the fiscal stewards of taxpayer dollars.”

That’s true in places like New Jersey. New York City taxpayers paid more than anybody else, but we’re in the same hole, due to retroactive pension deals. As for low investment returns, over 30 years returns have been higher than predicted. Ask John Liu. It isn’t “overwhelmingly” because of underfunding in NYC. It’s because of retroaction pension deals. The only NYC pension holiday was the deal Giuliani cut for the elimination of the 3 percent contribution into the pension after ten years. An obscene deal — the taxpayer puts less into the pensions for a couple of years and the employees do forever — all while the state increased benefits.

“The story that isn’t told is that the pensions public employees receive, in most cases, are the only source of income those workers receive in retirement since most are not allowed to collect Social Security.”

But they are in New York State, over and above their pensions.

“And the median benefit of those receiving a pension paid by a public employer is $23,407, according to the National Institute for Retirement Security.”

That average includes part time workers, and those who retired before earning their full retirement benefits. Up until a couple of years ago, working for the city for five years and then retiring – with full retiree health benefits – was a great scam even though the pension would be low.

“CEO pay provides a better example of overly generous pay.”

Both were justified by the early 1990s stock market bubble, but are still there even though that bubble has deflated.

“There is a well-financed effort to force 401(k) plans as the solution because Wall Street firms stand to earn billions of dollars in fees if pensions are converted to 401(k)s.”

Well that’s true, and it’s true of Social Security too.

I’ll see your four false myths and raise you eight real ones, from an honest, neutral analyst.

http://www.governing.com/columns/public-money/col-pension-puffery.html

By: Turnaround Teacher

Turnaround Teacher — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 19:31:00 +0000

Here you go Larry. This one is for you : “5 Myths About Public Employee Pensions” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harold-schaitberger/public-employee-pensions_b_1665029.html

By: Lisa Donlan

Lisa Donlan — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 19:22:00 +0000

Sounds like more circular logic, data cherry picking and book cooking enrobed in rhetoric to achieve political goals that is the hallmark of mayor control.

How can all the potential mayoral candidates justify continuing such a broken system of governance that allows for no transparency; no parent, student, teacher or community participation or shared decision making; no checks and balances and requires legal challenges to stop the total disregard for the law (while we pay for THEIR legion of lawyers w/ our tax dollars)?

Beyond that, who would want to take complete accountability for inheriting this mess the creative destruction, re-org a minute, total 180, kick the anthill corporate reformers have left?

By: Larry Littlefield

Larry Littlefield — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 19:11:00 +0000

You know what this reminds me of? In the 1990s average per child student spending in New York State soared, but the schools in New York City got even worse. Conservatives claimed that was proof that money was not the problem.

The 1990s, however, were the years of the greatest inequities in New York State school funding. School spending was soaring everywhere in the state except New York City. All that was proven is that New York City schools will not improve no matter how much was spent in Scarsdale and Manlius. Spent, in part, with the state tax dollars NYC residents paid.

And now? It looks like we didn’t get much for our vastly increased in spending in the 2000s, did we? And the reason? All that is proven is that New York City schools will not improve no matter how much is spent on the retired and others not working.

We did get some school capital spending (with borrowed money) and an increase in teacher pay earlier in the Bloomberg Administration. But by today that increase in pay has been offset by a reduction in the number of teachers, as pension costs soar. I’ll bet FY 2002 to FY 2012 will show little increase in classroom spending, when adjusted for inflation.

By: michael

michael — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:44:00 +0000

If the city states that student performance levels vary from grade to grade, how can they then say that teacher evaluations are based on the same student performance levels.