Pa. test scores drop; state officials blame past cheating
by Dale Mezzacappa on Sep 21 2012 Posted in Latest news
By Benjamin Herold and Dale Mezzacappa
for Notebook/NewsWorks
Standardized test scores have dropped slightly across the state – and dramatically in Philadelphia and other Pennsylvania schools suspected of cheating between 2009 and 2011.
The disappointing results on Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) exams are the product of less cheating and tight new test security measures, according to state Secretary of Education Ronald Tomalis.
“This is the first year the department can confidently report that PSSA scores are a true reflection of student achievement and academic progress,” Tomalis said.
He said that even though the state’s probe of possible cheating covers only 2009, 2010, and 2011, it’s “highly probable” that test tampering took place earlier than that.
“The 2011-12 PSSA scores should be viewed as a reset point for student achievement in Pennsylvania."
Statewide, the percent of students scoring proficient or above in math and reading both dropped about one-and-a-half points. Seventy-five percent of students were proficient in math, and 72 percent were proficient in reading.
In Philadelphia, math scores dropped 8.7 percentage points and reading scores dropped 7.1 percentage points.
“These results are clearly disappointing,” said new Superintendent William Hite in a statement. “They simply remind us of the work we have ahead in developing a strong system of schools in Philadelphia and in supporting our students’ learning.”
PSSA exams are administered each spring to students in grades 3-8 and 11. In 2011-12, more than 930,000 Pennsylvania schoolchildren took the exams.
In July 2011, the Notebook/NewsWorks reported on a study showing widespread test score irregularities at dozens of Pennsylvania schools in 2009. In response, the Pennsylvania Department of Education commissioned an analysis of PSSA results from 2009 to 2011, then launched an investigation into 10 charters and 38 traditional school districts across the state.
Nine districts, including Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and three charter schools, all in Philadelphia, are still under investigation.
Tomalis revealed Friday that the education department has already taken unspecified “personnel actions” against a “small number” of educators who “participated in tampering of student answer sheets.”
The department will also soon file complaints against more than 100 additional educators, he said.
“When a few individuals act inappropriately, everyone, including students, is negatively impacted,” said Tomalis.
Fifty-three District schools and three area charters remain under investigation. Last month, NewsWorks and the Notebook reported that suspicious patterns of “wrong-to-right” erasures had been found across multiple grades, subjects, and years at the vast majority of those schools, including many determined by the state to be “lower priority.”
PDE is still investigating 11 District schools and at least one of the charters. A District-led investigation of 20 so-called “Tier 2” schools started last May and is expected to conclude by the end of December. The District is also now responsible for investigating 22 “Tier 3” schools that had previously been subjected only to further “analytic review.”
NewsWorks and the Notebook had previously reported sharp declines in the District schools that were under investigation.
Proficiency rates also dropped precipitously in the three city charters still under investigation. At Imhotep Institute, they plunged 30 points in reading and 38 points in math. At Philadelphia Electrical and Technology Charter, they went down about 30 points in both subjects at the high school level. At Walter Palmer Leadership Learning Partners, they went down 38 points in reading, and 46 points in math among high schoolers, with smaller declines in the lower grades.
State officials also said that 30 districts and charters have been cleared of any wrongdoing. Investigations have been closed in six others, including Chester Community Charter School, but the department will “continue to monitor” the involved schools.
Chester Community’s proficiency rates plummeted about 30 points in both reading and math, and the declines were fairly uniform across all grade levels and demographic subgroups.
The school, with more than 2,500 students on two campuses, is the state’s largest brick-and-mortar charter and is operated for-profit by Gov. Corbett’s single largest campaign contributor, Vahan Gureghian. Its CEO sent a letter to parents blaming the sharp drops on severe state funding cutbacks that caused “sharp declines in services.”
Chester Community also sent out a release declaring that no disciplinary action will be taken against it and saying it will implement more stringent testing protocols, including special teacher training.
PSSA results are used for a variety of accountability purposes, including as a measure of whether schools and districts have met their federally mandated Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) targets.
All told, just under half of Pennsylvania’s 1,439 charters and traditional public schools met AYP targets in 2012. That number is down dramatically from last year. The targets were raised this year.
In Philadelphia, just 33 schools made AYP in 2011-12, down from 110 last year.
Although state officials argued that test score declines were attributable solely to anti-cheating measures, district and charter officials said other factors, including deep cuts in state funding and corresponding cuts to school budgets and support staff, played a role.
“I don’t buy that excuse,” said Tomalis.
Comments (34)
Submitted by Linda K. (not verified) on Fri, 09/21/2012 - 17:55.
"This is the first year the department can confidently report that PSSA scores are a true reflection of student achievement and academic progress,” Tomalis said.
He said that even though the state’s probe of possible cheating covers only 2009, 2010, and 2011, it’s “highly probable” that test tampering took place earlier than that."
Well were'nt "They" confident before? "They" assessed and based decisions on what and how teachers were to teach.
Will they be confident later with the decisions made now?
"They" are not teachers in classrooms with students. "They" are at best educated business folks who make sure that their kids have the best education has to offer.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 09/21/2012 - 21:59.
Bravo.
Submitted by Poogie (not verified) on Fri, 09/21/2012 - 18:27.
Yet the district continues to reward the 'BRAINS" behind the cheating debacle.
Submitted by Rich Migliore (not verified) on Fri, 09/21/2012 - 19:01.
The validity and reliability of the PSSA's is open to much debate even without the cheating scandal. I think we need more scrutiny and honest collegial discussion about that issue.
It is up to the Department of Education to prove their validity and reliability with credible research and comparative studies.
I think, as a reading specialist with a Masters degree in Psychology of Reading with 20 years of actual classroom experience in using such tests to measure the reading ability of students, that there is much misunderstanding of what standardized tests can actually measure and what their flaws are.
As it stands now, and what we know about those who choose to game the system, it is hard to believe that the data is credible to make any judgments about the achievement of our children.
You can't have a valid post test unless your pretest data is valid. You can't compare this year's scores to previous year's scores unless those scores have credibility.
Submitted by Timothy Boyle on Fri, 09/21/2012 - 19:23.
Great cover for the massive defunding of our Schools. It's shameful that the DOE of PA jumps down on this with two feet, after The Notebook is the only reason the story even broke. Did nothing for years except take money out of the system and have the nerve to make this the thesis of poor performance
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 09/21/2012 - 20:03.
A slightly longer Tomalis quote posted on philly.com:
"Some educators and education advocates blamed the drop in student performance on budget cuts made over the last two years by the Corbett administration. In 2010-11, about $850 million less went to school districts than the year before.
Tomalis said that a state Technical Advisory Committee looked at that and found that the only factor it could identify was the heightened test security measures. "I don't buy the excuse the numbers went down because of budget cuts," Tomalis said."
So Corbett's lackey doesn't think $850 million worth of cuts has any relevance at all in analyzing scores? That sounds logical. Guess it wasn't on the talking points sheet they gave him.
Submitted by Joe (not verified) on Fri, 09/21/2012 - 22:06.
Hey, what's 850 million between friends. Ignore the facts, those pesky little devils and the disgrace continues. 2010 is when these cretins got into power and we all hopefully shall have learned a hard lesson about The Tea Party Agenda for the poor especially--keep building those prisons and setting up our kids in urban and rural areas.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 09/21/2012 - 22:36.
The evidence seems to suggest that cheating played a key role in the decline of PSSA scores across the city. However, I am just wondering what role (if any) did the new testing security measures play in the decline of scores. I really think that having students test in an environment where they were uncomfortable had to play some role in this decline....especially in Elementary schools where students tend to be very attached to their OWN teacher. I know of students who totally shut down or didn't take the test as seriously simply because at the last minute their teachers were snatched away and they were left in a classroom to test for hours with an adult that they had little if any relationship with at all.....
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 09/22/2012 - 08:06.
You could argue the movement of teachers had an impact, but not the 15-50 percent drops in some schools. These drops are due to unadulterated cheating. No question.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 09/22/2012 - 10:02.
Guess you've never seen how kids behave with a substitute.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 09/22/2012 - 10:30.
I would like to think that a certified teacher would hold more gravity than a substitute. This comparison does not work, but your point is understood. We would have to look at each individual school to see if there is an impact at all and than determine if it is statistically significant. My hypothesis is that it is not statistically significant as there are schools that improved.
Submitted by Linda K. (not verified) on Sat, 09/22/2012 - 08:34.
Now that I am in a k-8 school I can totally see the connection between those little people and the teacher......I have not had any child cry for his or mommy or the teacher in almost 18 years of teaching middle school......I can only image what happened during test time.
Linda K.
Submitted by tom-104 on Fri, 09/21/2012 - 22:49.
"The targets were raised this year."
Isn't that a significant factor in what is portrayed as a decline? Doesn't No Child Left Behind say all schools are supposed to be 100% proficient by 2014? Does that mean no one will make AYP?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 09/22/2012 - 03:56.
There are many ways for a school to make AYP without meeting the score requirements. Very few schools make "straight" AYP or based on level of proficiency for all students. The following is a list of ways schools may make AYP even if more than 70% of students are not proficient/advanced:
" Group met measure": indicates that the AYP goal was met for the school or LEA overall, or that a group met the measure by reaching the state goal.
" Group met goal using Confidence Interval": indicates that a group met the performance measure by the state goal criteria only when using a 95% Confidence Interval.
" Group met target using Safe Harbor": indicates that a group met the performance measure by the Safe Harbor improvement criteria, which requires a reduction of 10% from the previous year in the percentage of students who scored below Proficient.
" Group met target using Safe Harbor with Confidence Interval": indicates that a group met the performance measure by the Safe Harbor improvement criteria only when using a 75% Confidence Interval.
" Group met measure using Growth Model": indicates that a group or individuals met the performance measure through the use of projections to proficiency through the use of PVAAS data. This criteria is set by United States Department of Education.
" Group met goal or target using an Appeal": indicates that a group met AYP by appeal. This is generally based on extenuating circumstances, as outlined below.
(from http://paayp.emetric.net/Home/About#q14)
Submitted by Philly Parent and Teacher (not verified) on Sat, 09/22/2012 - 09:48.
Ben and Dale - I'd appreciate clarification on why charter schools only have to have one grade configuration (3 - 5, 6 - 8 or 9 - 12) make targets to make AYP while School District schools have to have all grades in the building (K-8) meet all targets to make AYP? This is on the emetrics site. There are many K-8 charter schools (e.g. Hardy Williams, KIPP West, etc.) that "Made AYP" but did not make all targets.
This is also evident in Mastery schools. Most Mastery Renaissance schools are 6 or 7-12. If you look at Mastery Shoemaker, they did not make AYP for 6 -8 (special ed). In 9-12 they do not have a special ed subgroup so for 9-12 they made targets. Therefore, the school made AYP because they only have to make AYP in one grade configuration.
The convoluted way AYP may or may not be achieved may depend on the grade configuration in charter schools. Obviously, without an IEP (special education) sub group, the chance of making AYP increases. The modified tests for special education are not going to be continued. Will this encourage more schools - charter and special admit schools in the District - to try to keep their special education numbers low (under 40 students) to ensure they have a better change of AYP? Lab Charter under June Brown apparently ensured they had nearly no students with an IEP.
I would appreciate any information on why charters are allowed to make AYP in one grade configuration but school district schools are not given this "privileged." Far fewer charter schools would have made AYP if they didn't have this advantage.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 09/22/2012 - 10:06.
And your point is? Surely you're not suggesting that they should level the playing field.
Submitted by Philly Parent and Teacher (not verified) on Sat, 09/22/2012 - 12:54.
How, for example, did Math, Civics and Science Charter make AYP?
This is from emetrics: This only applies to charters -
"District measures are assessed in three grade spans: Grades 3–5, 6–8, and 9–12. To meet AYP goals and targets in Academic Performance or Test Participation, the district needs to achieve all measures for both subjects in one grade span only. Currently, test results from Grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11 will determine AYP results.
This year, charter schools are assessed in three grade spans: Grades 3-5, 6-8, and 9-12."
Math, Civics and Science Charter -
http://paayp.emetric.net/District/DataTable/c51/126513230
The do not have one grade "span" where both reading and math targets were met. Yet, they are listed as "Made AYP." Why?
Most charters did not make AYP K-8, they made one grade "span." Look at Universal Institute Charter - bombed 3 -5th grade and barely made 6 - 8. The same is true at Christopher Columbus Charter - bombed 3 - 5 but passed on 6 - 8. Now, if they were a School District of Philadelphia school, they would not have made AYP.
Here are charters which would NOT have made AYP without this "exception" that is NOT given to SDP schools: http://paayp.emetric.net/District/SchoolList/c51/4
Belmont Charter, Alliance for Progress, Antonia Pantoja community CS, Discovery Charter School, Eugenio Maria de Hostos Charter, First Charter School for Literacy, Global Leadership Academy Charter, Hardy Williams CS (run by Mastery), Khepera Charter, KIPP Philadelphia, KIPP West Philadelphia, Mariana Barcetti Charter, MAST Community Charter, Mastery Shoemaker, Math, Civics and Science Charter, Northwood Academy Charter, Pan American Academy Charter, People for People Charter, Phila. Academy Charter School, Richard Allen Prep Charter, Russell Byers Charter, Truebright Charter, West Oak Lane Charter, Wissahickon Charter, Young Scholars Frederick Douglass
Now add these schools to the other charters than did not make AYP and the percentage of charters that made AYP is very close to the SDP - about 15%.
The SRC needs to be made aware of this "gimmick" for determining AYP in charters. It gives them a huge advantage.
Submitted by Joe (not verified) on Sat, 09/22/2012 - 13:19.
Please stop deluding yourself. The SRC FULLY understands the "Gimic" you demonstrated. They don't CARE about the inequity and that's the point !! Their marching orders are to dismantle the real schools while propping up the frauds. That's all there is, there ain't no more.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 09/23/2012 - 06:54.
This year, charters are being measured in the same manner as districts. For years, school districts have had the ability to not make AYP in some categories, but still make AYP overall. This is the first year charters are being measured on the same basis across grade spans. Two points. First, for years, districts have compared the number of charters making AYP to the number of districts making AYP on an unfair basis. Especially, considering that there are several charters with greater enrollments than many small districts across the state. Second, realize that charters are measured and held accountable as an LEA in all other regards. Title I audits, Special Education audits, fiscal audits, PIMS submissions, etc... are all areas where charters report and are treated as LEA's. Measuring AYP as an LEA for charters is simply the most fair and accurate manner.
Also, if making AYP outright is the standard, only 7 SDP schools made AYP in that manner, all were special admissions schools. Of the 80 charters in the city, 49 made AYP. This continues the trend of a greater percentage of charters making AYP than district schools, even considering past years used the less accurate means of measurement.
Finally, all of the excuses for obvious cheating is deplorable. Whether district or charter school, the evidence is clear that there was massive cheating in past years. If a school is erroneously lumped named, that school should be cleared. However, real educators who care about children would never seek to find excuses for blatant cheating.
Submitted by tom-104 on Sun, 09/23/2012 - 07:35.
There is no excuse for cheating. However, as a diagnosis of why this is happening all over the country, given the choice between losing their jobs and cheating, too many gave into the pressure.
If tests were used for diagnosis and then resources provided to fix the problems there would be no cheating. Instead, they are used punitively to punish schools and teachers. Most of those being singled out are schools in low income areas where schools have no control over the environment their students are coming from and must do their best to overcome the struggles their students bring with them into the classroom in order to teach them.
When are the corrupt and greedy politicians going to be held to account for the inequitable funding and starvation of public schools? Instead, teachers who dare to take on the difficult task of educating children who are struggling with the consequences of poverty and neglect are being penalized by the government just like their students.
Also, your claim that this year "charters are being measured in the same manner as districts" is bogus. Look at the discussion on The Notebook to the article "The hard data: Scores down at every level". Saturday Philly Parent and Teacher posted this at 9:30:
"Paul - I'd appreciate clarification on why charter schools only have to have one grade configuration (3 - 5, 6 - 8 or 9 - 12) make targets to make AYP while School District schools have to have all grades in the building (K-8) meet all targets to make AYP? This is on the emetrics site. There are many K-8 charter schools (e.g. Hardy Williams, KIPP West, etc.) that "Made AYP" but did not make all targets."
In a follow up comment she says, "Now add these schools to the other charters that did not make AYP and the percentage of charters that made AYP is very close to the SDP - about 15%."
This entire thread of comments should be read. It looks like there is more cheating going on than in some schools.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 09/23/2012 - 09:06.
Fact check, correct me if I am wrong, teachers being pressured to cheat or be fired is not part of the Philadelphia discussion. I have not seen one Philadelphia teacher's comment regarding this. Please direct me to where I can read this.
Submitted by Philly Parent and Teacher (not verified) on Sun, 09/23/2012 - 07:40.
There is NO equity in the use of "grade spans." A charter which is K-8 or 7-12, etc. is able to have a whole "grade span" not make targets and still make AYP. NO district K-8 school can do the same thing. (Notice how many charters are expanding their grade "spans" - Boys Latin is going 5-12, Freire 5-12, etc. - this will enable them to have a much easier chance of making AYP.)
There are VERY few charters - other than Lab Charter which we know is under investigation - which made "outright" targets - most made confidence intervals, safe harbor, etc. So, your number of charters making AYP is a NOT truthful or honest.
While the unequal standard for determining AYP between charters and SDP schools needs to be challenged, we also need to challenge how the Commonwealth has rigged a system for what determines AYP. We also need to examine why so many high school charters have admission requirements and why schools like Mastery can require parents/guardians to sign "by any means necessary" contracts. As a parent, I am well aware of the charter and SDP high school application process - it isn't a lottery at most charter schools. Some charters have as many hoops to go through as magnet schools (require scores, grades, recommendations, essays, etc.) As a teacher, I also have students who have been kicked out - "counseled out" - of charters. No neighborhood school can "counsel out" a student for attendance, minor behavior infractions, IEP, etc. PET, Prep Charter, Boys Latin, KIPP, Mastery, etc. all are well known for "counseling out" students.
Post November, I hope there is an effort to change the direction of the Dept. of Ed. since 2001. High stakes testing has produced little more than huge profits for book/testing companies, cheating scandals across the US, and extremely stressed students, teachers and parents. There is a long tradition of standardized testing, SAT to AP to Regents, but using one test to determine the worth of a student, teacher or school is inhumane.
Submitted by Philly Parent and Teacher (not verified) on Sun, 09/23/2012 - 08:18.
In Philadelphia, claiming a charter school is a "district" is disingenuous. School District schools are judged as individual schools - not as a district. If a school is "turned" into a Renaissance school or closed, the school is evaluated individually. Charter companies have been given schools - not a district. The mantra of the Charter/Private school advocacy group - Philadelphia School Partnership - is more "high performing seats." Charters who made AYP - but NOT all targets - will claim "high performing seats" even though their 3 -5 or 6 - 8 "grade strands" are not "high performing." (Private schools - including parochial schools - do not take the PSSA / Keystone so who knows what is going on in those schools.) This so-called "Partnership" is giving substantial grants to charter and parochial schools supposedly for "high performing seats." (Note: Grants given for Sept. went to schools which were either new to the charter, a new grade "strand" for the charter, a new school or not even a school.)
As the SDP considers closing its own schools, we are told the school will be targeted because of AYP, building age, enrollment, etc. A charter is suppose to be evaluated by similar criteria. (Building age is unique to SDP schools - the condition of the school is the responsibility of the School District but that often gets lost in the discussion). Some charters will be able to claim "we made AYP" when in reality, they missed some to many targets. A SDP school will not be able to claim "we made AYP' because the school had to make ALL targets. This is inequitable.
Based on Renaissance results for high schools, Universal Audenreid bombed - scores were much lower and Audenreid's previous scores have not been labeled suspect. Mastery Gratz performed worse or no better than many other neighborhood high schools. Gratz previous scores also have not been labeled suspect. Apira Olney also didn't show much improvement. So, the SDP will now consider how many schools to "renaissance" without a proven track record of much improvement at charterized high schools. (Note Mastery's press conference in early Sept. never mentioned Gratz test scores - nothing to brag about so...)
The playing field for high schools will change this year with the Keystone tests. Students will be able to take the tests multiple times before it counts for AYP. This year juniors will have at least two changes. So, scores should go up in high schools. But, that also means in some schools, from Jan. to May, many students will experience intensive test prep versus much holistic (and humane) learning. As a parent and teacher, this is another reason to get rid of NCLB legislation which is punitive rather than supportive.
(Note, I've posted before my concern about what might happen with Keystones. Students will take the Alg. 1 and Biology after the course. That makes sense since this is a "final" exam. English will be taken after English II. Fine. Individual student scores do not count until their junior year for AYP. This could lead to magnets / charters dropping students who, after 2 - 3 tries, do not score proficient/advanced before their junior year. Where will those students be sent? Neighborhood schools. Then, the neighborhood school inherits students in their junior year who have not scores proficient/advanced and are suppose to "re- mediate" students.)
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 09/23/2012 - 07:49.
The Inquirer finally has an article about the cheating scandal which says: "An Inquirer analysis shows that scores in reading and math dropped - sometimes dramatically - in virtually all of the schools under investigation." Not a word about the months that The Notebook has been reporting on this story. It borders on plagiarism. What a dog eat dog world we now live in!
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 09/23/2012 - 10:47.
We need more money! Oh, for 8 years funding increased and scores in Philly increased at a mediocre pace. The increases were celebrated by all and schools that made AYP were pointed to as reasons to validate the massive increase in funding. Uh oh, schools have been cheating and scores drop. We need more money, AYP doesn't make sense, the world isn't fair, blah, blah, blah. What about kids and not adult excuses? If funding is the issue, then schools being funded at 75% of the per pupil rate should all fail. If admissions requirements guarantee top results, every special admission school in the district should make AYP (after all, they get to choose kids and get 100% funding).
Maybe, just maybe the whole system is screwed up. Instead of moaning and complaining, find a new way.
Submitted by tom-104 on Sun, 09/23/2012 - 11:38.
Karl Rove has talking points. Here are our talking points!
PA test scores drop – teachers beatings will continue
from Keystone State Education Coalition
“Ten years ago when NCLB was passed we talked about unrealistic targets of 100% proficiency that would one day cause all public schools to be labeled “failing”. We are reaching that point. Lower Merion High School, one of the top high schools in the state, in one of the wealthiest school districts in the state, did not make AYP this year.
No matter that the AYP targets have increased.
No matter that funding has decreased by a billion dollars.
For public school teachers, the beatings will continue.
But this year Pennsylvania’s “failing public schools” narrative has been updated: the lazy, greedy, pension-bloodsucking, incompetent union hacks who don’t care about kids are now also cheaters.”
http://keystonestateeducationcoalition.blogspot.com/2012/09/pa-test-scor...
PA education secretary blames 100 teachers for 665 fewer schools meeting education targets
Education Secretary Ron Tomalis says PSSA test score drop caused by 100 cheating teachers and more enhanced security; not loss of $1 billion in state funding or higher proficiency targets.
from the The Morning Call of the Lehigh Valley
“Fewer schools in the Lehigh Valley and across the state hit benchmarks on the math and reading Pennsylvania System of School Assessment tests, according to data released Friday.
Of the Valley's 134 schools, 66 (or 30 percent fewer) are performing on grade level compared to last year. That closely mirrors statewide numbers, where 31 percent fewer (or 1,478 schools) hit testing targets, which went up under the federal No Child Left Behind Act.
But don't blame higher testing targets or education spending cuts for the drop in PSSA test scores among more than 930,000 students, said Pennsylvania Education Secretary Ron Tomalis.”
http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/pennsylvania/mc-pa-pssa-results-20...
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 09/23/2012 - 18:20.
Chester Community Charter school cleared in the cheating scandal.
Submitted by Concerned Phila. (not verified) on Sun, 09/23/2012 - 19:06.
Read the Inquirer - "Test scores raise new doubt at Chester charter" = http://www.philly.com/philly/education/20120923_Test_scores_raise_new_do...
Bruce Crawley (yes, the Phila. lawyer) is their spokesperson. Spins a good lie.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 09/24/2012 - 08:47.
Budget cuts are not to blame! Teachers sitll teach the same! It's becaue they were all afaird of cheating and the new rules and security that were implemented this year.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 09/25/2012 - 05:00.
Interesting article. He blames the drop in scores because of staff layoffs. Duh...isn't that what SDP teachers have been saying all along about why PSD schools are struggling. All I can say is, "HOW DOES IT FEEL" . When PSD teachers voice this concern, we get bashed and labeled as money hungry union goers. What a farce.
Submitted by Philly Parent and Teacher (not verified) on Tue, 09/25/2012 - 18:02.
Ben and Dale - I'd appreciate clarification on why charter schools only have to have one grade configuration (3 - 5, 6 - 8 or 9 - 12) make targets to make AYP while School District schools have to have all grades in the building (K-8) meet all targets to make AYP? This is on the emetrics site. There are many K-8 charter schools (e.g. Hardy Williams, KIPP West, etc.) that "Made AYP" but did not make all targets.
This is also evident in Mastery schools. Most Mastery Renaissance schools are 6 or 7-12. If you look at Mastery Shoemaker, they did not make AYP for 6 -8 (special ed). In 9-12 they do not have a special ed subgroup so for 9-12 they made targets. Therefore, the school made AYP because they only have to make AYP in one grade configuration.
The convoluted way AYP may or may not be achieved may depend on the grade configuration in charter schools. Obviously, without an IEP (special education) sub group, the chance of making AYP increases. The modified tests for special education are not going to be continued. Will this encourage more schools - charter and special admit schools in the District - to try to keep their special education numbers low (under 40 students) to ensure they have a better change of AYP? Lab Charter under June Brown apparently ensured they had nearly no students with an IEP.
I would appreciate any information on why charters are allowed to make AYP in one grade configuration but school district schools are not given this "privileged." Far fewer charter schools would have made AYP if they didn't have this advantage.
---------------------------------------
How, for example, did Math, Civics and Science Charter make AYP?
This is from emetrics: This only applies to charters -
"District measures are assessed in three grade spans: Grades 3–5, 6–8, and 9–12. To meet AYP goals and targets in Academic Performance or Test Participation, the district needs to achieve all measures for both subjects in one grade span only. Currently, test results from Grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11 will determine AYP results.
This year, charter schools are assessed in three grade spans: Grades 3-5, 6-8, and 9-12."
Math, Civics and Science Charter -
http://paayp.emetric.net/District/DataTable/c51/126513230
The do not have one grade "span" where both reading and math targets were met. Yet, they are listed as "Made AYP." Why?
Most charters did not make AYP K-8, they made one grade "span." Look at Universal Institute Charter - bombed 3 -5th grade and barely made 6 - 8. The same is true at Christopher Columbus Charter - bombed 3 - 5 but passed on 6 - 8. Now, if they were a School District of Philadelphia school, they would not have made AYP.
Here are charters which would NOT have made AYP without this "exception" that is NOT given to SDP schools: http://paayp.emetric.net/District/SchoolList/c51/4
Belmont Charter, Alliance for Progress, Antonia Pantoja community CS, Discovery Charter School, Eugenio Maria de Hostos Charter, First Charter School for Literacy, Global Leadership Academy Charter, Hardy Williams CS (run by Mastery), Khepera Charter, KIPP Philadelphia, KIPP West Philadelphia, Mariana Barcetti Charter, MAST Community Charter, Mastery Shoemaker, Math, Civics and Science Charter, Northwood Academy Charter, Pan American Academy Charter, People for People Charter, Phila. Academy Charter School, Richard Allen Prep Charter, Russell Byers Charter, Truebright Charter, West Oak Lane Charter, Wissahickon Charter, Young Scholars Frederick Douglass
Now add these schools to the other charters than did not make AYP and the percentage of charters that made AYP is very close to the SDP - about 15%.
The SRC needs to be made aware of this "gimmick" for determining AYP in charters. It gives them a huge advantage.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 10/07/2012 - 15:20.
The rule change to make it easier for charters to make AYP is the only reason the lone cyber charter supposedly making AYP this year managed to do so. Under the last year's rules, which are still applied to traditional public schools, 21st Century Cyber's students overall fell far short of AYP proficiency percentage targets. In fact, if you look at 21st's school report card, you can see that in every grade except 7th, their proficiency percentages actually decreased from the previous year in both reading and math. See:
http://paayp.emetric.net/Content/reportcards/RC12D124150002.PDF
That hasn't stopped 21st from loudly bragging about making AYP.
Oh yes---PDE implemented the rule change without getting required approval from the US Department of Ed. The administration seems desperate to make charters look good so they can sell the charter school expansion legislation.
Submitted by tom-104 on Sun, 10/07/2012 - 16:18.
Here are the details of how the Pa. Dept of Ed apparently manipulated data from last years PSSA to put charters in a favorable light.
Just two weeks ago Sec. Tomalis was claiming the drop in PSSA test scores was due to increased security to prevent cheating and insisted lower test scores had nothing to do with Corbett's $1 billion cut in education funding for the state last year. So has the fox guarding the hen house been found cheating too?
Rules change appears to have inflated success rate of some charter schools.
from the Lehigh Valley’s The Morning Call
“Gov. Tom Corbett's education chief changed the PSSA testing rules in a way that makes it easier for charter schools to meet federal benchmarks than traditional public schools.
Education Secretary Ron Tomalis' change, made without federal approval, might have skewed the results of the 2011-12 PSSA scores to make it appear charter schools were outperforming traditional public schools, according to a Morning Call review of publicly available test score data.”
http://www.mcall.com/news/breaking/mc-pa-charter-tomalis-ayp-20121005,0,...
Submitted by anthonydavis (not verified) on Thu, 10/04/2012 - 08:47.
One thing I did manage to find was the school inspection reports for all the schools concerned. I
Post new comment