Nonpartisan Education Review /
Articles
Access this
article in .pdf format
Erich
Martel
Washington, D.C. 20015
Ward 3
December
5, 2016
Mr.
Karl Racine, Esq. via email karl.racine@dc.gov
Attorney-General of the District of Columbia
Washington,
DC
cc: Ms. Muriel Bowser, Mayor; Ms. Jennifer
Niles, Deputy Mayor for Education (DME); Ms. Hanseul Kang, State Supt. of
Education; Mr. David Grosso, Chair, Education Comm., Council; Mr. Phil
Mendelson, Chair, Council; Members, DCPS Rising Leadership Comm.; President,
State Board of Education
RE:
INVESTIGATION REQUEST: Into the process of selecting a Chancellor
nominee
Dear
Attorney-General Racine,
I am requesting that you investigate the failure of the
Mayor of the District of Columbia to follow the prescribed procedure of the
2007 Public Education Reform Amendment Act (PERAA) for selecting a nominee for
Chancellor of the DC Public Schools (DCPS); and the failure of the Mayor to
ensure that only complete and accurate DCPS performance indicators are
posted on the DCPS, OSSE websites, especially the results of the federal
NAEP-TUDA (National
Assessment of Educational Progress-Trial Urban District Assessment) are announced and promptly
posted on appropriate websites. Specifically, the Mayor:
A. Failed to comply with the unambiguous meaning and intent of PERAA,
Title I, Section 105, Subsection (b) by not following the prescribed sequence
or procedure that the "Mayor shall" follow "prior to the selection of a nominee for
Chancellor"; and by excluding prescribed categories of "review panel" members, but adding
non-prescribed categories, including two foundation board members and a
foundation president, whose non-profit foundations have used donor grants to
fund adoption of personnel management theories whose continuing costs, after
adoption, were shifted to the appropriated, tax-payer funded DCPS budget;
B. Allowed the ex-Chancellor and DME to misuse their authority over
the DC Government's official reports, public announcements and website
postings, insofar as they describe the measurable or quantitative performance
of students by:
- posting test averages, identified as
NAEP-TUDA, on the DCPS website (and cross-linked from DME's DCPS Rising
website), but that had been altered, i.e. are not the same as NCES reports;
- misrepresenting the 2015 NAEP-TUDA test
results and score changes since 2007 by claiming that "DCPS continues to be the fastest improving urban school district in the
country," but failing to report that
- the 2015 averages posted on the DCPS website
(even when corrected) are aggregate score averages that include a greater
percentage of higher scoring white students (gr4: +16%; gr8: +9%) and the
largest drop of all TUDA school districts decline in the number of black
students (gr4: -20%; gr8: -16%), whose average scores on the four NAEP-TUDA
tests were much lower than those of white students and other not-disadvantaged
students;
- 20% of ELL 4th graders and 44% of ELL 8th graders were excluded
from 2015 NAEP testing.
- suppressing black, Hispanic and
disadvantaged students' group averages and gains, including their pre-2007
results whose 1998 to 2007 gains were twice as fast for black and disadvantaged
students; and four times greater for Hispanic students than they have been from
2007 to 2015;
- allowing the State Superintendent of
Education to delay posting a user-friendly link to the 2015 NAEP-TUDA District
Snapshot Reports on the OSSE website for 11� months until Oct 7, 2016), after
the former Chancellor had departed and the DCPS Rising website had been closed
to further public input.
Details, tables and graphs with supporting narratives and
links to official data sources follow.
A. Failure to comply with the 2007 PERAA, Title I, Section 105,
Subsection (b).
1. This
subsection of the PERAA reads:
(b) (1) Prior
to the selection of a nominee for Chancellor, the Mayor shall:
(A) Establish a review panel of teachers, including
representatives of the Washington Teachers Union, parents, and students
("panel") to aid the Mayor in his or her selection of Chancellor;
(B) Provide the resumes and other pertinent
information pertaining to the individuals under consideration, if any, to the
panel; and
(C) Convene a meeting of the panel to hear the
opinions and recommendations of the panel.
(2) The Mayor shall consider the opinions and
recommendations of the panel in making his or her nomination and shall give
great weight to any recommendation of the Washington Teachers Union.
2. Background
to PERAA, Section 105 (b)
When the Council transferred governance of DCPS to the Mayor
and Chancellor designee with an enlarged grant of authority over DCPS and
greatly reduced stakeholder's points of access, it listed the stakeholder
categories and gave them a preliminary check over the Mayor's potential nominee
by creating a statutory obligation that the mayor is required to follow to
ensure the right person is selected. As
the only check available to stakeholders, its importance is magnified. It also magnifies the compliance or
non-compliance of the Mayor, an early indicator of the Mayor's future
willingness to hold the Chancellor accountable for knowing and addressing
students' learning needs from the most deficient to the most advanced and
whether losing students and buildings to charter schools will continue to be
treated as a measure of success.
3. To what extent did
the Mayor comply with Section 105(b)?
Section 105(b) begins with an unequivocal list of three
actions the Mayor "shall,"
i.e. is legally obligated to, do before selecting a nominee. Their order is both logical and intentional:
A must come before B, B before C; only then can the Mayor begin to make a
decision. That decision is guided by paragraph
"(2)", which establishes relative weights of stakeholders'
recommendations: "The Mayor shall
consider the opinions and recommendations of the
panel" but then "shall give
great weight to any recommendation of the Washington Teachers Union."
The following table analyzes both the sequence and the
substance of the Mayor's obligations:
Sect 105(b) obligation |
Met? |
Explanation/Comment |
(A)
Establish a review panel... |
yes & no |
The Mayor named a 17 member
"DCPS Rising Leadership Comm."
While a committee can be a "panel," only 11 of the 17 are
stakeholders, |
...
of teachers, including representatives of the Washington Teachers Union, parents, and
students |
yes & no |
yes: 2 teachers; 1
WTU rep; 7 parents; 1 student no: 1 principal;
1 Eastern HS alumnus; 1 university president; 3 officers/board members of foundations
which has used donor grants to influence DCPS policies. Details & documents, below. only 1 student;
105(b) calls for students (plural); one WTU
"representative"; 105(b) calls for representatives (plural); WTU Pres requested actual
"representatives," as the term is understood; DME, as Mayor's
designee refused. The reported legal
reason needs to be made public. |
(B) Provide the resumes... |
no |
Resume of applicant AW not provided prior
to the invalid meeting. 20 min before AW was introduced as Mayor's nominee.
There were many applicants, but the Mayor selected AW without submitting
other resumes to the panel. |
(C) Convene a meeting of the panel to hear the
opinions and recommendations |
no |
On 11/21, DME notified panel of a
meeting on 11/22; one resume was given; 20 min later applicant AW was
introduced w/o informing panel that he had already been selected as nominee
and had met w/ WPost writer, photographer, other (??) on 11/21. This "meeting" did not comply
with the statutory requirement in 105 (b) (C); The applicant was
improperly announced to the media by the Mayor the day before. The applicant's letter of resignation from
his previous position was apparently sent the day before the
announcement. This has every
indication of an effort to intimidate the panel (comm.) and the Council. |
(2) "shall give great weight to any recommendation of the [WTU]." |
no |
The one WTU representative, like the other
panel members, had only 20 minutes to review the one resume. |
Three community meetings and
several focus groups were held by the DME.
They do not meet the statutory meeting requirement.
The DME sent a cryptic email invitation to the panel/committee
on November 21st to attend an emergency meeting on November 22nd:
"I am writing to request your presence for a meeting to
discuss the next steps in the process to select the new DCPS Chancellor. At the
meeting we will discuss personnel matters relevant to the process."
She did not say that she and the Mayor had or were meeting
with Mr. Antwan Wilson along with a Washington
Post reporter and photographer.
4. The Mayor's
foundation appointees to the "review
panel"
Section 105 (b)(A) of the 2007 PERAA does not include
non-profit foundations or donors in its categories of members on the
"review panel," yet three were on the DCPS Rising Leadership
Committee:
Ms. Gina Adams (Co-Chair,
DCPS-RLC), Member, Board of Directors, DC Public Education Fund (DCPEF)
Ms. Michela English (Member,
DCPS-RLC), President and CEO, Fight For Children; Member, Board of Directors,
DCPEF
Mr. Thomas Penny (Member,
DCPS-RLC), Member (current or recent), Board of Directors, DCPEF
The DC Public
Education Fund and Fight For Children
are responsible for funding three teacher accountability policies that have
disrupted many DCPS schools, contributed to charter flight and school closings,
teacher churn and low morale: the IMPACT
teacher evaluation (by Fight for Children), teacher bonuses tied to high IMPACT
scores and teacher excessing with no rights to existing vacancies without
principal approval (by four foundations via the DCPEF).
Chancellor Rhee predicted that these policies would lead to
increased student test score goals and an achievement gap narrowing. They didn't.
IMPACT generated a bureaucracy that pulled funds from beneficial
programs. When the $64.5M grant for
bonuses and excessing ended in September 2012, the costs were shifted to the
local, taxpayer-funded budget with destabilizing consequences.
A short time later, October 9, 2012, Peter Weber, Chancellor
Henderson's Chief of Strategy, in a draft of a presentation he wrote for
Henderson to deliver to the DCPEF, explained how DCPS was going to ease the budget
strain. He emailed it to DCPEF executive
director Catherine Townshend to look over.
In it, he explained that she was closing 15 DCPS schools was to fund the
donors' "investments" (IMPACT teacher evaluation,
"excessing" of teachers, teacher bonuses):
"[DCPS has] absorbed the cost of the WTU contract into
our local budget. Closing schools and
improving our strategic use of resources ... will help us continue to fund
these investments." (attached: 10/9/2012 email 1352-54: DCPS Chief of
Strategy Peter Weber to Catherine Townsend, executive director, DC Public
Education Fund, "Talking Points for Donor Briefing," released to
Empower DC, sponsor of the unsuccessful litigation to halt the closure of 15
DCPS schools)
B. The Mayor failed to ensure that NAEP-TUDA test
results were accurate and complete by allowing test results that were altered,
misrepresented or suppressed to be posted on DC Government websites, including:
The DME repeated the "fastest growing" claim in
community meetings, posted it on the DCPS Rising website with a link to the
above DCPS website: https://dcpsrising.dc.gov/page/learn
Although the State Superintendent immediately posted notice
of the NAEP and NAEP-TUDA results on the OSSE website on October 28, 2015,
shortly after NCES released them, but to get to the
DCPS TUDA reports, one had to follow a trail that led through three websites or
tabs, each with multiple choices that effectively concealed the District
Snapshot Reports from the public:
DCPS's
results on the NAEP Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA)
Then, on October 7, 2016, almost 12 months later, seven days
after Henderson had left, when the DCPS Rising Engagement site was closed to
additional recommendations, a more direct link to the 2015 TUDA "District
Snapshot Reports" for DCPS was posted: https://osse.dc.gov/service/national-assessment-educational-progress-naep
2. The DME and the ex-Chancellor misrepresented DCPS aggregate scale
score averages and "gains" from the four NAEP-TUDA tests given in
2007 and 2015 as the definitive NAEP-TUDA performance report and did not report
that aggregate averages do not represent the racial/ethnic or poverty criteria
required for a school district to participate in the NAEP-TUDA.
3. The Mayor allowed the following federal NAEP and/or NAEP-TUDA
reports:
- complete and accurate DCPS students'
scale score averages by race/ethnicity and by Free & Reduced Lunch
Eligibility (a poverty indicator) as reported on the TUDA "Snapshot
Reports" for 2007 and for 2015, AND that show the percentage of the tests
taken by each student group within the above categories;
- DCPS students' scale score "gains" by race/ethnicity
and by Free & Reduced Lunch Eligibility between 2007 and 2015 by failing to
calculate and report the changes in their scale score averages on each of the
four NAEP-TUDA tests and publicly report them;
- the changes in the percentage of
students tested on each NAEP-TUDA tests between 2007 and 2015;
- complete and accurate DCPS students'
scale score averages on NAEP and NAEP-TUDA tests between 1990 and 2007 by the
above student groups by year and by test.
MISREPRESENTATIONS WITH
SUPPORTING TABLES AND SOURCELINKS
I.
Why the "fastest improving" claim is false
A. Three of the four 2007 aggregate averages are fabricated: they
differ from those in NAEP reports;
Ex-Chancellor Henderson posted three altered 2007 NAEP-TUDA
aggregate scale score averages on the DCPS
website as "proof" that DCPS is the "fastest improving urban school
district." The TUDA website (select
DCPS) shows the correct aggregate averages
for the four 2007 and 2015 tests.
Table 1 shows the three altered and five accurate scale score averages, the
resulting changes or "gains" by test, then as a total of the four
tests (Altered shown in
red Italics)
Year |
Reading,
Grade 4 |
Reading,
Grade 8 |
Math, Grade 4 |
Math, Grade 8 |
Totals |
2007 |
198 |
237 |
214 |
244
|
|
2015 |
214 |
245 |
232 |
258 |
|
2007–2015
Gains |
+16
|
+8 |
+18 |
+14
|
+ 56 |
Table 2 shows the three correct and five accurate scale score averages, the
resulting changes or "gains" by test, then as a total of the four
tests (Correct shown in blue)
Year |
Reading,
Grade 4 |
Reading,
Grade 8 |
Math, Grade 4 |
Math, Grade 8 |
Totals |
2007 |
197 |
241 |
214 |
248 |
|
2015 |
214 |
245 |
232 |
258 |
|
2007–2015
Gains |
+17 |
+4 |
+18 |
+10 |
Correct: +49 |
The following wording & graphs, copied
from the DCPS website (https://dcps.dc.gov/page/dcps-glance-performance), were uncorrected as of 1/7/2017
"The NAEP TUDA allows comparisons of
student performance across urban school districts in large cities (i.e. cities
with populations of 250,000 or more). DCPS continues to be the fastest
improving urban school district in the country according to data from the 2015
Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA).
"The graphs below show the average scores of DCPS
students on each NAEP TUDA from 2007 – 2015."
198 (NAEP reports 197, thus: +16
really is +17); 237 (NAEP reports 241, thus +8 really is +4)
244 (NAEP reports 248,
thus: +14 really is +10)
B. DCPS Aggregate Averages on the NAEP-TUDA Do
Not Represent the Student Categories Whose Progress the TUDA was designed to
report: Minority & Disadvantaged
Students
Aggregate averages and gains conceal the lower averages and
gains of Black, F/R Lunch Eligible and Hispanic students. Henderson did not post their group averages
or average gains. It is these students whose hoped-for improvement is the
reason why NAEP-TUDA reporting was established and why DCPS is part of it. To participate in the TUDA, a school district
must have "the
characteristics of large urban areas": "50% or more [are]
minority students [and/or] ... eligible for ... free or reduced price lunch ...
or other poverty indicator."
The increased aggregate averages
from 2007 to 2015 were driven mostly by students not eligible for F/R Lunch
assistance and by the large increase in high scoring White students.
Deception and Disinformation:
Confusing "urban school district" with the student categories
(>50% minority &/or disadvantaged) that meet TUDA participation criteria
The general public knows that urban school districts have high
percentages of minority and/or economically disadvantaged students, many of
whom have low test scores. Most will, therefore, assume that "fastest
improving urban school district" was referring to them. Not only are they the focus of TUDA, they
were the rationale for mayoral control and the greater authority delegated to
the chancellors. Not so. The 2007 to 2015 gains she posted, i.e. when using correct averages (17+4+18+10 = 49), are aggregate gains.
Tables 3-6 show that the gaps between All students and Black students more than doubled in grade 4 and tripled in grade
8 between 2007 (5 + 3 + 5 + 3 = 16) and 2015
(12 + 9 + 12 + 10 = 43). Tables 3-6 show the averages for DCPS students on the four 2007 and
2015 NAEP-TUDA tests. "All" means the aggregate averages for all tested students. Table 7 combines Tables 3-6. Rank is the degree of improvement in the scale score average on
the four NAEP tests relative to the other 10 urban districts (see attached excel sheet).
Table 3: DCPS Grade 4 Reading Table 4: DCPS Grade 4 Math (*tied w/ another district)
Year |
All |
Bl |
His |
Wh |
Elig |
InEl |
|
All |
Bl |
His |
Wh |
Elig |
InEl |
2007 |
197 |
192 |
206 |
258 |
188 |
216 |
|
214 |
209 |
220 |
262 |
207 |
228 |
2015 |
214 |
202 |
206 |
262 |
198 |
256 |
|
232 |
220 |
233 |
275 |
219 |
266 |
Gains |
+17 |
+10 |
0 |
+
4 |
+10 |
+40 |
|
+18 |
+11 |
+13 |
+13 |
+12 |
+38 |
Rank |
1st |
2nd* |
7th |
7th* |
3rd |
1st |
|
1st |
1st |
1st |
2nd |
1st |
2nd* |
Table 5: DCPS Grade 8
Reading Table 6: DCPS Grade 8 Math (*tied w/
another district)
Year |
All |
Bl |
His |
Wh |
Elig |
InEl |
|
All |
Bl |
His |
Wh |
Elig |
InEl |
2007 |
241 |
238 |
249 |
301 |
234 |
253 |
|
248 |
245 |
251 |
317 |
243 |
259 |
2015 |
245 |
236 |
244 |
299 |
233 |
281 |
|
258 |
248 |
263 |
314 |
247 |
300 |
Gains |
+
4 |
- 2 |
- 5 |
-
2 |
- 1 |
+28 |
|
+10 |
+
3 |
+12 |
-
3 |
+
4 |
+41 |
Rank |
6th* |
9th |
9th |
n/a |
9th* |
1st |
|
2nd* |
6th* |
2nd* |
n/a |
8th |
1st |
Table 7: DCPS, 2007 to 2015: combined
totals from Tables 3–6, by student group:
Total Gains from Tables 3–6,
by Student Group |
|||||||
Subject |
Grade |
Aggregate |
Black |
Hispanic |
White |
FRL Eligible |
Not Eligible |
Math |
4 |
+18 |
+11 |
+13 |
+13 |
+12 |
+38 |
Math |
8 |
+10 |
+ 3 |
+12 |
- 3 |
+ 4 |
+41 |
Reading |
4 |
+17 |
+10 |
0 |
+ 4 |
+10 |
+40 |
Reading |
8 |
+ 4 |
- 2 |
- 5 |
- 2 |
- 1 |
+28 |
Total |
|
+49 |
+22 |
+20 |
+12 |
+25 |
+147 |
(Combined gains
for White students use 2005 data for grade 8 math & reading; in 2007 none
were reported)
Source Links to
DCPS TUDA Snapshot Reports: The sources of 2007 and 2015 scale score averages of Black, Hispanic and White students
and F/R Lunch Elig/Not Elig; and each group's percentage of tests taken:
Table 8: Links to the 2007 & 2015 Urban District
Snapshot Reports
2007 |
|
2015 |
||||
Subject |
Grade |
website |
|
Subject |
Grade |
website |
Math |
4 |
|
Math |
4 |
||
Math |
8 |
|
Math |
8 |
||
Reading |
4 |
|
Reading |
4 |
||
Reading |
8 |
|
Reading |
8 |
C. Comparative average gains of Black, Hispanic and Disadvantaged students
in the 11 urban districts, reported by NAEP-TUDA since 2007 do not show DCPS as
"fastest improving" (see attached).
D. Demographic change (high-scoring, largely white students replacing mostly
lower scoring Black students), not "improvement," was the reason for
much of the rise in aggregate average scores or "gains" between 2007
and 2015;
Table 9: Grade 4
Math: % of Tests per Group Table 10:
Grade 8 Math: % of Tests per Group
Test Year |
Bl |
His |
Wh |
Elig |
Not El |
|
Test Year |
Bl |
His |
Wh |
Elig |
Not El |
2007 |
84% |
9% |
6% |
69% |
31% |
|
2007 |
88% |
9% |
3% |
69% |
31% |
2015 |
64% |
16% |
16% |
73% |
27% |
|
2015 |
72% |
15% |
9% |
76% |
24% |
% Pts Change |
-20% |
+ 7% |
+10% |
+ 4% |
-
4% |
|
%
Pts Change |
-16% |
+6% |
+6% |
+7% |
-7% |
(Sources: NAEP-TUDA Snapshot Reports: Table 8, above)
Tables 9 & 10 show the dramatic demographic change
that has transformed and still is transforming the city. Black 4th graders' enrollment fell 20
percentage points; Black 8th graders decreased by 16 percentage points. White
4th graders rose by 10 points, Hispanic by 7.
DC White students' average is the highest of all urban districts, since
almost all White students come from professional families as is true of
increasing numbers of Black and Hispanic residents.
This means that much of the +49 points combined, aggregate
score increase came from the admission of higher performing white and other
students and the withdrawal of disproportionately lower-performing Black
students (see Tables 11 & 12).
Black Removal is
not "improvement."
Tables 11 & 12 apply the NAEP-TUDA percentages to the DC
OSSE enrollment audits from October 2007 and 2015. These numbers are approximate, but close
enough to show the decline in Black student enrollment since 2007.
2007 to 2015: >1600 fewer Black students in just two
grades, 4 & 8!
Tables 11 & 12: October enrollment reports: https://osse.dc.gov/enrollment
Table 11: DCPS Grade 4 Enrollment Percentages & Changes,
2007 to 2015, by Race/Ethnicity
Grade 4 |
2007 |
|
2015 |
|
2007
> 2015 |
|||
Category |
% |
# |
|
% |
# |
|
% |
# |
Total |
100 |
3582 |
|
100 |
3590 |
|
+ 0.2 |
+ 8 |
Black |
84 |
3009 |
|
64 |
2298 |
|
- 20 |
- 711 |
Hispanic |
9 |
322 |
|
16 |
574 |
|
+ 7 |
+ 252 |
White |
6 |
215 |
|
16 |
574 |
|
+ 10 |
+ 359 |
Other |
1 |
36 |
|
4 |
144 |
|
+ 3 |
+ 108 |
Table 12: DCPS Grade 8 Enrollment Percentages & Changes,
2007 to 2015, by Race/Ethnicity
Grade 8 |
2007 |
|
2015 |
|
2007
> 2015 |
|||
Category |
% |
# |
|
% |
# |
|
% |
# |
Total |
100 |
2933 |
|
100 |
2311 |
|
- 21.2 |
- 622 |
Black |
88 |
2581 |
|
72 |
1664 |
|
- 16 |
- 917 |
Hispanic |
9 |
264 |
|
15 |
347 |
|
+ 6 |
+ 83 |
White |
3 |
88 |
|
9 |
208 |
|
+ 6 |
+120 |
Other |
0 |
0 |
|
4 |
92 |
|
+ 4 |
+ 92 |
II. Under Rhee and Henderson student improvement slowed
dramatically. Rhee and Henderson
suppressed data showing that Black and Disadvantaged students' averages rose
twice as fast from 1998 to 2007 as from 2007 to 2015; White & Hispanic
averages rose four times faster.
Table 13: NAEP-TUDA Scale Score Averages &
Comparative Gains: Gr 4 Reading: 1998–2007 vs 2007–2015
Year |
All |
Black |
Hispanic |
White |
FRL-Eligible |
Not Eligible |
1998 |
179 |
174 |
173 |
247 |
172 |
215 |
2007 |
197 |
192 |
206 |
258 |
188 |
216 |
2015 |
214 |
202 |
206 |
262 |
192 |
256 |
Gains
1998–2007 |
+18 |
+18 |
+33 |
+11 |
+16 |
+1 |
Gains
2007–2015 |
+17 |
+10 |
0 |
+ 4 |
+10 |
+40 |
Table 14: NAEP-TUDA Scale Score Averages &
Comparative Gains: Grade 8 Reading:
1998–2007 vs 2007–2015
Year |
All |
Black |
Hispanic |
White |
FRL-Eligible |
Not Eligible |
|
1998 |
236 |
233 |
246 |
280 |
229 |
253 |
|
2007 |
241 |
238 |
249 |
301* |
234 |
253 |
|
2015 |
245 |
236 |
244 |
299 |
233 |
281 |
|
Gains
1998–2007 |
+ 5 |
+ 5 |
+ 3 |
+21 |
+ 5 |
0 |
|
Gains
2007–2015 |
+ 4 |
- 2 |
- 5 |
- 2 |
- 1 |
+28 |
|
(* No average
for White students was reported for 2007; 301 is the
average from 2005)
Table
15: NAEP-TUDA
Scale Score Averages & Comparative Gains: Grade 4 Math: 2000–2007 vs
2007–2015
Year |
All |
Black |
Hisp |
White |
FRL-Eligible |
Not Eligible |
2000 |
192 |
188 |
190 |
254 |
186 |
219 |
2007 |
214 |
209 |
220 |
262 |
207 |
228 |
2015 |
232 |
220 |
233 |
275 |
219 |
266 |
Gains 2000–2007 |
+22 |
+21 |
+30 |
+ 8 |
+21 |
+ 9 |
Gains
2007–2015 |
+18 |
+11 |
+13 |
+13 |
+12 |
+38 |
Table
16: NAEP-TUDA
Scale Score Averages & Comparative Gains: Grade 8 Math: 2000–2007 vs 2007–2015
Year |
All |
Black |
Hisp |
White |
FRL-Eligible |
Not Eligible |
2000 |
235 |
231 |
236 |
300 |
226 |
258 |
2007 |
248 |
245 |
251 |
317* |
243 |
259 |
2015 |
258 |
248 |
263 |
314 |
247 |
300 |
Gains
2000–2007 |
+13 |
+14 |
+15 |
+17 |
+17 |
+ 1 |
Gains
2007–2015 |
+10 |
+ 3 |
+12 |
- 3 |
+ 4 |
+41 |
(* No White
average reported for 2007; 317 is the average from
2005)
Table 17: Combined Student
Gains from Tables 13–16 Four NAEP Tests: 1998(R) & 2000(M) > 2007
vs. 2007 > 2015
Comparative
Year Spans |
All |
Black |
Hisp |
White |
FRL-Eligible |
Not Eligible |
Gains 1998R
& 2000M – 2007 |
+58 |
+57 |
+81 |
+57* |
+59 |
+11 |
Gains
2007–2015 |
+49 |
+22 |
+20 |
+12 |
+25 |
+147 |
(* Combined
gains for White students use 2005 scores for gr8 math & reading; in 2007 no
averages were reported)
(Only reading
tests were given in 1998 [1998R]; only math tests were given in 2000 [2000M])
(See notes on
using 1998 Reading and 2000 Math results)
Black,
Hispanic and Disadvantaged students' improvement rates were two to three times
faster in the nine years that ended in 2007 than in the eight years from 2007
to 2015
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Appendix.
I. How to read the attached spread
sheet:
The attached excel spreadsheet
lists average scale scores for the 11 school districts that were part of
NAEP-TUDA testing from 2007 to 2015 (there are now 21)
Sheet 2 shows Reading grades 4 & 8
Sheet 3 shows Math, grades 4 & 8
On both sheets, the first few
columns are for DCPS, the other ten are in alpha order to the right: Atlanta, Austin, Boston, Charlotte, Chicago,
Cleveland, Houston, LA, NYC, San Diego
Sheet #2:
Reading:
Rows 8–15: Grade 4 Reading: Comparative
Scale Scores, 2007, 2015, Gains, Rank
Under each district, scale score averages for
"All," Black, Hisp, White;
2007 scale score averages;
2015 scale score averages;
2007 to 2015 change, i.e. Gains, in scale score averages over 8 years;
2007 to 2015 Rank of Gains out of 11 for each student group (rank shown
only for DCPS)
Rows 17–24: Grade 4 Reading: 2007 to 2015: Change in % of students tested, by student
group: Black, Hispanic, White
2007 %,
2015 %,
8-year change in %s of Students Tested, by Student Group,
Rank of change (DCPS only)
Rows 26–33: Grade 8 Reading: Comp. Scale Scores (same as Rows 8–15)
Rows 35–42: Grade 8 Reading: 2007 to 2015: Change in % of students tested (same as Rows 17–24)
Sheet #3: NAEP Math: same sequence, rows and pattern of information as Sheet #2
II. Sources of 2007 and 2015 scale score averages of other urban districts
i.
See
links to Urban District Snapshot Reports: https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/districts/
(select each district)
It opens to a list of all the aggregate reading and math
scores from 2002 to 2015.
To the right are hyperlinks to that district's four
NAEP-TUDA test results for 2015.
ii. For 2007 , go to the NAEP
data explorer:
https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/dataset.aspx
Tab 1: Select Criteria
Pick Math or Reading, Grade 4 or 8
Tab 2: Select Variables
Under group, click "District"
To the right, click 2007
Tab 3: Edit Reports
Click "Race/ethnicity ....school
reported"
Tab 4: Build Reports
Click the green rectangle
III. Sources for 1998 & 2000, DC
state scores
https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main1998/1999500.pdf
Grade
4
- Scale Scores by Eligible/Not Eligible F/R Lunch: p. 139
- Scale Scores by
race/ethnicity: p. 136
- Percentages of
students by race/ethnicity: p. 272
Grade 8
- Scale Scores by
Eligible/Not Eligible F/R Lunch: p. 140
- Scale Scores by
race/ethnicity: p. 137
- Percentages of
students by race/ethnicity: p. 273
b. DC state, 2000 Math:
https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2000/2001517.pdf
Grade
4
- Scale Scores by Eligible/Not Eligible F/R Lunch: p. 283
- Scale Scores by
race/ethnicity: p. 261
- Percentages of
students by race/ethnicity: p. 279
Grade 8
- Scale Scores by Eligible/Not Eligible F/R Lunch: p. 284
- Scale Scores by
race/ethnicity: p. 263
- Percentages of
students by race/ethnicity: p. 281
c. Notes on the use of 1998 Reading and 2000
Math averages:
i. NAEP state testing started in 1990, NAEP-TUDA testing in 2002.
DCPS TUDA and DC state reports were the same from 2002 to 2007: both included charter schools in the sample
of tested students, but since 2009, charter schools have been excluded from
TUDA reports (See note at the bottom of
each TUDA Snapshot Report starting in 2009, Tables 9 & 10, above).
Since DCPS is the only school district in the
"state" of DC and since the scale scores of the state reports from
1990 through 2007 are aligned, the average 1998 reading and 2000 average math
scores form valid baselines to calculate score gains up to 2007, the year that
DCPS governance transitioned to mayoral control. The resulting 9 & 7 year
time periods (1998 to 2007; 2000 to 2007) and the 8-year period from 2007 to
2015 span equivalent numbers of years to allow a rough comparison of average
student gains before 2007 versus since 2007.
ii. There are two sets of scores for 1998 and 2000: tests taken with
and without accommodations. This report
uses scores from tests taken with accommodations, because that is how all subsequent tests were administered.
Sincerely,
Erich Martel
Retired DCPS high school teacher
(1969–2011: Cardozo HS, Wilson HS, Phelps ACE HS)