On May 29th, New York State announced that the
state was granted an ESEA waiver for the federal No Child Left Behind rules. Those who just read the headline cheered that
the NCLB rules were waived for New York.
After all, before the waiver, schools only had one year before students
in the 2014 cohort would have to reach a perfect performance index of 200 to
keep the school’s good standing. Data
Specialists and Principals let out a collective sigh of relief. Did
this break come without cost? What did New
York State schools actually get in this waiver and what was the cost for
receiving it?
First, a brief description of the changes in rules and calculations
under the waiver:
1) The
AMO target of a perfect 200 Performance Index for the 2014 cohort is
extended. The new AMO target is designed
to have schools make up half of the gap between their 2010-2011 performance
index and the perfect score of 200 over the next 6 years. Effective AMO and Safe Harbor targets were
unchanged by the waiver.
2) The
levels for performance on high school exams have changed. Previously, English and Math shared a
definition of performance levels. Under
the waiver, college readiness now helps to define these levels.
Level
|
Old Rules
|
New Rules
|
Level 4
|
Highest Regents score between
85-100
|
Highest Regents score between
90-100
|
Level 3
|
Highest Regents score between 65 –
84
|
English - Highest Regents Score
between 75-89
Math – Highest Regents Score
between 80-89
|
Level 2
|
Highest Regents score between 55-64
or RCT Pass for IEP students
|
English - Highest Regents Score
between 65-74
Math – Highest Regents Score
between 65-79
|
Level 1
|
Highest Regents score between 0-54
or RCT Fail
|
Highest Regents score 0-64, RCT
Pass or Fail
|
The immediate impact of these new
levels will be that performance index for (almost) every subgroup in (almost)
every school will drop substantially this year
3) Before
the waiver, schools that did not make their target for an exam after 2 years
would be classified as a School in Need of Improvement. This reliance on performance index as the only
metric used to define a School in Need Improvement, Corrective Action and Restructuring
has ended under the waiver. Priority and
Focus schools will now be identified based on an expanded definition using performance
index combined with low graduation rates (below 60% for multiple years). Priority Schools will be determined and have
until 2014-2015 to implement whole school reform. Focus Schools are located in Focus Districts
(districts containing priority schools) where the lowest performing students (performance
index or graduation) are part of the focus identified subgroup. A new category has been added for top
performing schools. Reward schools, the
highest performing schools in the district, could be eligible for grant money
to help their students.
As I read the waiver and the approval, I couldn’t help but
categorize it into three parts - the good, the bad and the ugly.
The Good – There are some very good elements
to the waiver. Schools have received relief
from the impact of having to receive a perfect performance index, where every
student must pass the English and Math Regents with a grade of 65 or more. Another positive change is the removal of the
graduation requirement being tied to the use of the Safe Harbor target. The Safe Harbor target was designed for
subgroups performing so far from the average performance index that the AMO and
Effective AMO targets were not sufficient to measure their annual
progress. Safe Harbor is the lowest
target for struggling subgroups (it could actually be the highest for
successful subgroups), and holding the
same struggling subgroup to the graduation requirement often meant it that the
Safe Harbor target could not be used to met AYP. Also good news for schools is that the school
now has 2 years to improve performance in any subgroup before it becomes a
local assistance school. The former
rules only gave schools one year to improve before they went SINI. Schools
will receive more points for students who pass Regents at a college ready level
of 75 for English and 80 for Math. This
matches the standards being asked for by many colleges and rewarding schools
for their students meet more rigorous standards. On a personal note, the good news is that the
waiver provides a fresh look at the accountability rules under NCLB. It also stirs my imagination on what type of
reports we can design for you in Skedula and the NCLB portals.
The Bad – Schools will now only receive partial
credit towards AYP when students pass the Regents but do not achieve a college
ready score. I do believe that college
readiness should be rewarded, but students who meet the graduation requirement
of a mark of 65 to 74 on English (65 to 79 on Math) will only earn half credit
for the school toward Performance Index.
This means high school teachers and staff must convince freshmen that
they must begin preparing for college at the age of 14. Even though students will have the
opportunity to take two more Regents exams in math, if the student does not
earn the 80 on the Algebra exam, it is more than likely that they will not earn
the 80 on the Geometry or Advanced Algebra exams. Although
I do believe that students should discuss and plan for their futures, the
practicality of having every 14 year old student work at this level will be a struggle
for schools, teachers and students. The
English exam will not prove to be the same struggle as the exam is taken by
high school juniors, who are already thinking about college plans. An
additional piece of bad news for schools is even though the goal of reaching a
Performance Index of 200 has been put off until 2017, the benchmark AMO target
that must be met is calculated at the pre-waiver, higher performance indices, while
the schools performance index is calculated on the new lower point values. Students in the 2013 cohort who scored
between a 65 and 79 in math then moved forward into higher math courses may now
need to take a non-credit bearing course so the school can earn full credit toward
their performance index. Will the score
of 80 prepare them better for college?
Definitely for CUNY, but only maybe for other schools who do their own
placement testing. This is a sudden
shift for a cohort in their final year of high school.
The Ugly - I was a teacher in NYC for 10
years and became the school data specialist when the position was created by the
DOE. For years I taught a first period
preparation class for the Math A and Algebra Regents. Many of the students in my class were special
needs students with an exam graduation requirement of marks of 55 or
higher. One year I taught a senior
special needs student who had made the decision to start life anew – he was
leaving drugs and gangs behind. Most
days for him were a struggle, some of his steps were backwards, but his
counselors along with me and his other teachers worked with him every day to help
pull him towards his new life. At the
end of the term, he scored a 57 on the Math Regents. He was as proud as could be to meet his
graduation requirement after all of his hard work. Under the new NCLB waiver, my school would
not earn points towards NCLB Performance Index for his success, even though it
met his graduation requirement. I am a
data geek and understand the need for the state to set high goals to facilitate
school improvement, but the human side of me knows that this isn’t the only way
to measure and reward success. He took
my class in the fall of his senior year, and we could have forced him to take
the class and exam again to earn the 65, but we let him go. He earned his way out of the course by
completing his graduation requirement - especially since college was not his
path. This is only one of many stories
educators can tell where the good of the student is at odds with the good of
the school’s data. Here’s another - The
school needed a student to pass the Living Environment Regents to guarantee an
80% graduation rate. However, if she
passed and earned the local diploma, she would be disqualified from her
vocational training program for students with disabilities. As I said, there are many stories like
these. The good of the school should
never be in direct conflict with the good of the student. Unyielding metrics such as the new NCLB
college metrics ensure these conflicts will continue.
The one given in education accountability is that it does
remain static. I remain hopeful that
the designers of the metrics can find a balance to serve all of our students
while making our schools stronger.
Stephanie Ring
Director of Accountability and Assessments
CaseNEX-DataCation
Grand Casino Grand Rapids, MI - Mapyro
ReplyDeleteGrand Casino Grand Rapids, MI. Distance: 0.01 mi. From I-395, 대전광역 출장샵 Stateline. Driving Distance: 5.1 안성 출장샵 mi. 양주 출장안마 From I-275, Stateline. 서귀포 출장마사지 Driving 동해 출장안마 Distance: 5.6 mi.