Archives for category: Graduation rates

Robert Pondiscio raises an issue that casts doubt on the “higher-than-ever” graduation rate. How much of the increase is due to fraudulent “credit recovery” courses?

Credit recovery is undefined, but it generally means any course that enables students to gain credit for a course they failed or never completed.

Some phony courses enable students to gain credit for a semester or a full year by taking classes for a few weeks and then submitting a paper that they may or may not have written.

Some phony courses are offered online. Such courses may be dumbed down. I have heard of tests with true-false questions and tests where students could retake them until they got a passing score.

Not long ago, the the NCAA withdrew accreditation from a score of K12, Inc. high schools because their tests were so simple. An official told me that in some online courses, the students skipped the instruction and went right to the tests, which required only the skill of test-taking.

Raising the graduation rate in such ways cheats students. It should be monitored and banned.

This is a paradox. New federal data show that the four-year high school graduation rate is up to 82%. But at the same time, college-going rates are down.

The high school graduation rate is at a historic high. The state with the highest graduation rate is Iowa, at 91%. The jurisdiction with the lowest graduation rate is the District of Columbia, at 61%.

The 82% rate understates the proportion of students who receive a high school diploma. Reformers decided a few years ago to pay attention only to the four-year rate, without exception. This, students who graduate in August instead of May or June are not counted. Students who took five or even six years to get their degree are not counted. When the U.S. Census Bureau counts the percentage of high school graduates in the age range of 18-24, the numbers are much higher for every group because the U.S. Department of Education’s methodology excludes anyone who required more than four years to graduate.

Jon Marcus writes in “The Hechinger Report” about the decline in college-going rates, especially in community colleges and for-profit “universities.”

He writes:

“Enrollments at colleges and universities dropped for the eighth semester in a row this fall, down nearly 2 percent below what they were last fall, new figures show.

“The number of students over 24 continued to decline sharply—more than 4 percent—according to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, which tracks this. Enrollment at four-year for-profit institutions plunged by nearly 14 percent.

“U.S. university and college enrollment has fallen 6 percent in the last four years….

“In all, U.S. university and college enrollment has fallen 6 percent in the last four years, even as policymakers push to increase the proportion of the population with degrees.”

Gail Robinson writes in the HECHINGER Report about the success of the New York Performance Sttandards Consortium. The Consortium has operated for more than 20 years,flying under the radar of the test zealots.

Robinson writes:

“While most New York students must pass state exams in five subjects to graduate, the consortium’s 38 schools have a state waiver allowing their students to earn a diploma by passing just one exam: comprehensive English. (An additional nine schools have a partial waiver.) Instead, in all subjects including English, the students must demonstrate skill mastery in practical terms. They design experiments, make presentations, write reports and defend their work to outside experts.
Getting a waiver is not easy. The number the state grants is limited, and the alternative methods of assessing students can mean far more work for teachers. The schools’ funding is not affected.

“Proponents say the alternative system is worth the effort because it engages students and encourages them to think creatively. They also point to data. According to the consortium, 77 percent of its students who started high school in the fall of 2010 graduated in four years, versus 68 percent for all New York City students.

“Of consortium students who were high school freshmen in 2008, 82 percent graduated by 2014, compared with 73 percent citywide. (All but two of the consortium schools are in the city, versus elsewhere in New York state. One in Rochester brings up the consortium’s rate slightly.)

“The schools have done particularly well getting English language learners and special needs students to graduation. Last year, 71 percent of students learning English at consortium schools graduated on time, versus 37 percent of English learners citywide. The six-year graduation rate for English learners was 75 percent, versus 50 percent for New York City.”

When someone asks you if you have an alternative to our current test-and-punish regime, point to the Consortium.

To learn more about the work of the Consortium, read this and follow the links.

After a lengthy investigation, NYC Chancellor Carmen Farina fired the principal of John Dewey High School for faking graduation rates.

Teachers at the school had complained about the principal for years. They had also reported the fakery.

The Bloomberg administration had selected the principal Kathleen Elvin to lead the “turnaround” of 33 schools but the courts blocked the closures. She then became principal of John Dewey, where teachers frequently complained about her harsh methods.

Geoffrey Decker of NY Chalkbeat writes:

“When Kathleen Elvin took over troubled John Dewey High School in March 2012, she had a mandate to turn it around. And by at least one measure, she pulled off the job in barely two years.

“But Dewey’s soaring graduation rates, which increased 13 points under Elvin, were bolstered by an illicit credit recovery program, a city investigation has found. A long-awaited report on the probe, released Wednesday by the city’s Office of Special Investigations, concluded that Elvin supervised the set-up, in which students received credits toward graduation with no instruction from teachers.”

One of the boasts of the Bloomberg-era “reformers” was the city’s rising graduation rates. To what extent was that due to similar tactics?

Campbell’s Law rules again. When test scores or graduation rates become the basis for rewards and punishments, people go to extraordinary and sometimes unethical lengths to reach the target.

Hurricane Katrina devastated the city of New Orleans in September 2005. That means we will see much celebrating or bemoaning the transformation of the New Orleans public schools. The sponsors of the district from a public school district to an all-charter district celebrate the amazing progress that followed the elimination of public schools and the teachers’ union. Because so many hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent to “prove” that privatization works, we will see many more such declarations of success.

 

On the other hand, critics say that none of the data is trustworthy. They say the state department of education and the Recovery School District (the all-charter district) manipulate statistics.

 

Mercedes Schneider, a Louisiana high school teacher with a doctorate in research methods and statistics, has been relentless in dissecting the narrative produced by apologists for the RSD. In her latest post, she looks at the tale of graduation rates.

 

She writes:

 

The Louisiana Department of Education (LDOE) hides information and releases delayed or partial information in an effort to keep the public ill-informed regarding the state of education in Louisiana and especially as concerns the now-all-charter Recovery School District (RSD) in New Orleans, which White and other well-positioned, well-financed privatizing reform cronies actively endeavor to market as a national model.

 

What the RSD is best at, she says, is marketing and sales.

Adam Hubbard Johnson was trying to verify the claims of a miraculous transformation in Néw Orleans, and he went in search of the pre-Katrina data. Reformers said the graduation rate had grown from 54.4% before Katrina to 77% in 2012. That’s huge. But was it accurate?

He corresponded with a reporter. She used those numbers but didn’t know the source. He kept digging. Eventually he realized that the source was not city or state or federal data, but a charter advocacy group.

He writes:

“A thought experiment:

Imagine, for a moment, that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had said five years after 9/11:

“I think the best thing that happened to the defense system in New York and Washington was 9/11. That defense system was a disaster, and it took 9/11 to wake up the community to say that ‘we have to do better’.”

We would rightfully find this crude and opportunistic. But in 2010 when Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said

“I think the best thing that happened to the education system in New Orleans was Hurricane Katrina. That education system was a disaster, and it took Hurricane Katrina to wake up the community to say that ‘we have to do better’.”

the media either shrugged it off or embraced its thesis. The political and moral rot of the New Orleans education system pre-Katrina wasn’t just taken for granted – our political classes saw it as so manifestly depraved and corrupt that it validated the deaths of 1,833 people. Such is the hysteria with which conventional wisdom cements itself.

Like a tale out of an Ayn Rand variation of Genesis, the story of Katrina wasn’t one of nature’s caprice or racism’s legacy, it was instead the fortunate and righteous correction of liberal excess. And though graduation rates are not the only point of comparison used to prop up this perception (I will explore others later), they are the most accessible and finite.”

Why the missing pre-Katrina grad rate?

“The answer to this question illuminates, in a limited but potent way, what a corporate coup looks like up close. When education becomes charity rather than a right, an investment instrument rather than a civic good, the ability to distinguish between substance and marketing becomes by design, overwhelming. Like a refund department with a six hour wait time, the frustration in attempting to navigate this neoliberal maze of “private/public” responsibilities is precisely the point. Even the most basic of acts – hosting a website – turns out to be one of the primary reasons finding data is so difficult. The LDOE has had, inexplicably, five differnt primary domains in the past decade – from doe.louisiana.gov to doe.state.la.us to louisianaschools.net to louisianabelieves.net to its current, full-flown corporate iteration louisianabelieves.com”

He writes about the framing of the reform narrative:

“The story of Katrina and how it justified charter schools can best be summed up by Arthur Miller’s observation that “the structure of a play is always the story of how the birds came home to roost.”

“So went the Katrina reform school narrative in all its moral clarity. Circa 2005 charter school leaders, largely funded by the Walton, Gates, Koch families and given cover by neoliberal corporatists whose primary purpose appeared to be the act of looking busy, sought a PR coup. Though they were making incremental headway, there was little urgency to their cause. Two weeks after Katrina however, while 96% of corpses still remained unidentified and the Superdome had been reduced to a “toxic biosphere”, the story of how the birds had come home to roost was too good to pass up. Koch-funded and proto-Tea Party outfit FreedomWorks was the first to float this narrative on September 15th, both in the pages of the National Review and on their website, in an op-ed by Chris Kinnan.

[Kinnan wrote:] “There is a second rescue urgently needed in the terrible aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and one that is long overdue: saving New Orleans school kids from their broken public-school system. The tragedy of the storm provides America with a golden opportunity”

This idea of a “golden opportunity” to perform a dramatic experiment in New Orleans became conventional wisdom.

Johnson writes:

“All of this is to say nothing of the core fallacy at the heart of the “choice movement”: the presumption of dichotomy. Schools going bad? Poverty’s not the problem, abject racism’s not at fault, underfunding is irrelevant (Louisiana spent $1,636 more in real dollars per pupil in 2012 than it did pre-Katrina). No, it has to be teachers’ unions and local school boards. Get rid of those and let slick PR firms, Ivy League idealists, and hedge fund real estate interest come in and do it right. A third option, or a fourth option or any cost-benefit was never discussed. Within 10 weeks of Katrina, while the state’s largely poor and African American diaspora were scattered throughout the Gulf states simply trying to stay alive – the Louisiana State Legislature called an emergency session, passing ACT 35 which, as even Tulane’s pro-school reform Cowen Institute acknowledged, radically changed the defintion of “failing school” from the flawed but objective criteria of having a state score of less than 60 to include any school that was below the state score median, which, at the time was 86.2. Put another way: the state assured itself that their own Recovery School Board would control, by definition, at least 50% of the state’s schools no matter what.

“Overnight, 102 of the 119 locally control New Orleans schools, all primarily poor, all primarily black, were put under the pro-charter, primarily white state control. Not because they were “failing” – a school cannot “fail” to meet retroactive standards – but rather because they were vulnerable. No study issued. No ballot measure campaigned for. No discussion had.

“The corporate forces were too overwhelming, the liberal class too monied and distracted. The official history of a broken school system that was simply washed to sea, too convenient. And the truth – like the shiny new charter school system that emerged at its expense – was simply torn down and built again from scratch.”

NPR did an excellent analysis of the nation’s rising high school graduation rates.

 

In some states and districts, the rates are rising because of successful programs that have been put in place to support students as they progress in school (or don’t).

 

In some states, the numbers are fudged and gamed. The students are given worthless diplomas.

 

Read the story to see the complexity of the statistics.

 

Well done.

Jay Mathews read Caleb Rossiter’s newly published book (Ain’t Nobody Be Learnin’ Nothin’: The Fraud and the Fix for High-Poverty Schools”) and called it “the best account of public education in the nation’s capital I have ever read.”

 

Rossiter taught in both public schools and charter schools and found that grade inflation was rampant. Mathews writes:

 

Caleb Stewart Rossiter, a college professor and policy analyst, decided to try teaching math in the D.C. schools. He was given a pre-calculus class with 38 seniors at H.D. Woodson High School. When he discovered that half of them could not handle even second-grade problems, he sought out the teachers who had awarded the passing grades of D in Algebra II, a course that they needed to take his high-level class.

 

Teachers will tell you it is a no-no to ask other teachers why they committed grading malpractice. Rossiter didn’t care. Three of the five teachers he sought had left the high-turnover D.C. system, but the two he found were so candid I still can’t get their words out of my mind.

 

The first, an African immigrant who had taught special education, was stunned to see one student’s name on Rossiter’s list. “Huh!” Rossiter quoted the teacher as saying. “That boy can’t add two plus two and doesn’t care! What’s he doing in pre-calculus? Yes of course I passed him — that’s a gentleman’s D. Everybody knows that a D for a special education student means nothing but that he came in once in a while.”

 

The second teacher had transferred from a private school in a Southern city so his wife could get her dream job in the Washington area. He explained that he gave a D to one disruptive girl on Rossiter’s list because, Rossiter said, “he didn’t want to have her in class ever again.” Her not-quite-failing grade was enough to get the all-important check mark for one of the four years of math required for graduation.

 

Rossiter moved to Tech Prep, a D.C. charter school, where he says he discovered the same aversion to giving F’s. The school told him to raise to D’s the first-quarter failing grades he had given to 30 percent of his ninth-grade algebra students. He quit instead.

 

There are many ways to view this sad story. One is that we have a national education policy that demands lying by crowing about rising graduation rates, no matter how little they signify. Another is that the pressure to “raise expectations,” to set “rigorous standards” and to “raise the bar” has created a massive fraud. We demand results, and we get them, no matter that they are fraudulent. What we don’t do is address the underlying problems that students have by reducing class sizes, providing intensive tutoring, and intervening to help them. Doing that would require acknowledgement that expectations and high standards are not enough.

 

So the reformers prefer to crow about their victories then to do anything that helps the kids who are stuck and falling farther behind. That might be an admission of failure, and admissions of failure can get your school closed. Rewards go to those who reach their goals, by hook or by crook. Punishments are meted out to those who deal honestly with the kids who are failing. There are no miracle fixes. Caleb Rossiter knows it. Not in public schools, not in charter schools. The people who believe in magical incantations about “raising the bar higher” and expecting every child to clear it should find another field of activity. Certainly not sports, where a few teams win and most lose; where not every batter hits over .300 and not every pitcher can pitch a no-hitter every time.

 

Until we get away from magical thinking (remember Professor Howard Hill in “The Music Man” who taught music by the “think method”?), we will continue to hurtle towards fraudulence as our national education policy. The irony is that Secretary Duncan’t favorite mantra is that “we have been lying to our kids.” Who is lying to our kids now, after 15 years of test-based accountability?

After years of setting “rigorous” requirements, Los Angeles finds that nearly 75% won’t be qualified to graduate. Superintendent Ramon Cortines says it is time to be realistic.

“This has prompted some in the L.A. Unified School District, including Supt. Ramon C. Cortines, to suggest reconsidering the requirements, which were approved a decade ago to better prepare students for college. The plan came after years of complaints that the nation’s second-largest school system was failing to help underprivileged students become eligible for and succeed in college.

“In an interview, Cortines said the effort is laudable, but that it would be unfair to penalize students who otherwise could graduate.

“I do believe the goal is a good one, but we need to be realistic,” Cortines said. Enforcing the plan is “not practical, realistic or fair to the students of 2017. I don’t think we’ve provided the supports to the schools.”

“But the college prep requirements still have significant backing within the district and among community activists, who say L.A. Unified must do a better job helping students pass the challenging classes.”

Many “reformers” think that high expectations are self-fulfilling. The evidence says they are not. Without a host of supports, both in school and outside, students are not able to overcome high hurdles.

Read this article in the Boston Globe and ask yourself: “What’s the point of a college degree?”

The article assumes that one gets a degree to get a better job and make more money. It describes a program that is cheap and enables low-income students to get a degree, in large extent through online learning.

A couple of liberal arts professors complain that this bargain basement approach is not really a college education. Because they are poor, the students have no exposure to real education.

““The whole premise of College for America is bargain education,” says Amy Slaton, a Drexel University history professor who has been a vocal critic of the model. “Instead of saying, ‘We’re going to help everyone reach the best of the best,’ we’re saying, ‘Here’s the generic, no-frills version for you.’ It pegs the value of the education to what you’re able to pay, instead of helping everyone to achieve the richest, most varied education they can. Why aren’t we asking about how we can bring more classroom time, more expert teaching to everyone?”

Or another question:

Why aren’t we bringing down the cost of higher education with greater student aid? Why trick poor and minority students with a cheap substitute for a real college education? If having a degree matters most, just give out a generic degree that means nothing except you can say you have one. That’s cheaper still. There are so many fake universities these days, who will know the difference?

If we really cared about students and education, higher education would be free, at least in the public sector.