Followup: Grad rates and governor’s response
A short note from Dana Tofig, DOE spokesman, on the comments in response to the earlier entry on the Governor’s Office and grad rates:
Maureen, I was reading your post about the Governor’s response to the Graduation Rate story: Just a couple of thoughts:
V for Vendetta asks if our grad rate would improve if we had a viable Technical Track. I’m not sure how she/he defines “viable” but we do in fact have a technical track: Student can graduate with College Prep or Tech Prep endorsements (or both, which many do). It has been that way for many years now.
Public School Mom asks why we don’t have a data system: The answer is we do. We have a data system that can accurately track students from K-12 even as they move from school to school, district to district and in and out of public schools. The issue really becomes making sure that system is being fully used at the local level and that we have four years of strong, accurate data to do a cohort rate.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
27 comments Add your comment
Ernest
October 5th, 2009
1:28 pm
Dana:
You indicate the state has a data system that tracks students from K-12. You also ’suggest’ that it may not be fully used at the local level. Is the state system a ‘rollup’ from disparate computer applications from local school systems or is there an primary system at the state level that local school systems utilize? I want to believe it is the former and perhaps we have a ‘data quality’ issue (unless there are clear standards in place).
ScienceTeacher671
October 5th, 2009
1:32 pm
Interesting to know that Dana Tofig reads the blog. I’d like to hear a response to catlady’s post which I’ve copied below:
“catlady
October 2nd, 2009
9:22 pm
We might also have more students graduate from high school if we enforced expectations on them in elementary school (such as memorizing the addition and subtraction facts to 20 in first grade) so that they don’t continue on year after year, falling farther and farther behind their classmates (but being promoted anyway) and hit a wall in high school where they have to show some degree of MASTERY of the objectives. Even better, if the CRCT is a valid test, we should hold back all students who do not pass it in the gateway grades!
Don’t you think having 9th graders ready to do 9th grade work would raise the graduation rate?”
Disgusted
October 5th, 2009
1:52 pm
LOVE to hear Mr. Tofig’s take on the info below. All I have asked is is this an OK way to play with graduation rates? No one at any level local or state level will answer the flipping question! How about
“Let’s take a closer look at AYP in our high schools. Graduation rates and the graduation tests are the big deal here as mentioned in the article. http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/news/article/21112/
It seems that there is now a practice (last 2 years or so) where the students who may be graduating without an actual diploma, but with a Certificate of Performance, (these students would count against the graduation rate and passing rates for the graduation tests and therefore AYP for the schools) are systematically being transferred to the Lanier Career Academy right before graduation (a matter of days in some cases).
This increases all the other 6 high school’s graduation rates artificially. The Career Academy is small and is never expected to do all that well any way so no biggie on AYP there. In fact on the State AYP site it reads “There are not enough students in this school for the AYP determination to be
statistically reliable, therefore an AYP determination has not been made for this
school. These students are included in the District and State AYP reports.” in reference to the Career Academy. (http://public.doe.k12.ga.us/ayp2008/overview.asp?SchoolID=669-0105-a-1-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0)
Interesting. Let’s look at some numbers found on the Governor’s Office of Student Achievement site regarding Hall County students receiving Certificates of Performance over the past few years now ( http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/ReportingFW.aspx?PageReq=111&PID=62&PTID=69&CountyId=669&T=0&FY=2008 ) (look under the Report card tab for each school and then under the “Indicators” tab for information on High School Completers).
Numbers for the 2005-06 school year for the Lanier Career Academy show 12 students graduating with a Certificates of Performance. In 2006-07 The Career Academy had 16 students graduating with a Certificates of Performance. In 2007-08 (the same year Hall County finally made AYP in all High Schools I believe) The Career Academy has a whopping 47 students graduating with a Certificates of Performance. Wow! What is that – something like a 48% increase from 2006-07? HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN?!
Good question. Let’s look at the other 6 High Schools now.
If you look at the 6 combined (excluding the Career Academy) in 2005-06 they had 97 students graduating with a Certificates of Performance. In 2006-07 the 6 reported 91 students graduating with a Certificates of Performance. In 2007-08 they reported 28, about a 48% decrease from the year before. Oh I see now. Tricky tricky!! It seems like they are transferring the kids that will hurt their scores to the Career Academy between the taking of the Graduation tests and actual graduation. Neat trick! Really helps to make that pass on AYP.
So in 2006-07 the Career Academy had 16 students out of the Hall County District’s 107 students receiving a Certificate of Performance. In 2007-08 The Career Academy had 47 out of the Hall County District’s 75 students receiving a Certificate of Performance. Unreal! Any statisticians out there want to compute those odds?
All schools were fairly consistent in their Certificate of Performance numbers between 2005-06 to 2006-07. However, from 2006-07 to 2007-08, West Hall High went from 17 students graduating with a Certificates of Performance down to 0. Johnson High went from 23 to 8. North Hall High stayed at 8 for both years (not going to pull that up there I guess). Chestatee High went from 17 to 2. Flowery Branch High went from 12 to 10 (after being at 19 the year prior) and East Hall High went from 14 to 0.
Haven’t looked at the numbers for 2008-09 yet, but I will bet quite a bit that they are low again at the 6 high schools and higher at the Career Academy as it seems they did the same thing.
Have to wonder how ethical this is? Is it cheating? Is it fraud? You be the judge.
Also have to wonder if a disproportionate number of these students are economically disadvantaged, special needs or of a certain minority status.”
high school teacher
October 5th, 2009
2:05 pm
Actually, this year’s 10th grade class does not have a college prep or tech prep diploma. Everyone takes 4 English, 4 math, 4 science, and 3 social studies classes. Students must take 3 elective courses in the same area and declare a pathway in order to graudate. The pathway can be foreign language, fine arts, or vocational/technical classes. Students do not need foreign lanugage to get a high school dilplloma, though colleges still require two courses for admissions.
I can’t speak for V, but IMO, the above option is not a viable technical track. Do all high school students really need four years of math, expecially the way that we now dish it out? I’m all for consumer math, but that course is defunct.
I absolutely agree with catlady’s comments as well. It would be nice if all my 9th grade students had actually passed the “mandatory” CRCT.
Dana@DOE
October 5th, 2009
2:38 pm
ScienceTeacher: Surprised I read the blog? You’ll find this even more surprising — I helped start it! When I was an editor at the AJC, I helped Patti Ghezzi get this blog started. As for holding students back for the “gateway grades,” I’m not an educator or a policy expert, so I probably don’t have fullest view. But here’s a question to consider. If you have a kid who is excelling in English, Science and Social Studies in Grade 8, but is not doing well in Mathematics, is holding that kid back for all subjects the right thing to do?
Disgusted: I can’t really offer an “opinion” on that — I’m not an expert and it is not position to do so — but it shows you certainly have been doing your homework.
HS Teacher: You’re right — this year’s 10th grade class is under the new graduation requirements. My point to Maureen was that we have had two “tracks” for many years and in the end, it hasn’t resulted in a high graduation rate. If you click the link below, you’ll see that we have a large number of kids getting both College Prep and Tech endorsements. And that number has been growing each year. These students know what a lot of experts know now: The expectations for college and the work place are very similar.
http://reportcard2008.gaosa.org/(S(kazwmz45p34qeliseynsmd55))/k12/Indicators.aspX?ID=ALL:ALL&TestKey=GradCred&TestType=indicators.
Disgusted
October 5th, 2009
3:01 pm
Thanks for the reply Mr Tofig! Any ideas on who to contact?
Dana@DOE
October 5th, 2009
3:04 pm
Not off the top of my head. Shoot me an email and I will get back to you. dtofig@gadoe.org.
Ernest
October 5th, 2009
3:21 pm
Dana, any thoughts on my questions? Student Information Systems (SIS) are major procurements and I wonder if there has been thought of the state ‘helping’ local school systems with that.
Dana@DOE
October 5th, 2009
3:29 pm
Ernest: Sorry — I missed your question. We have been helping systems get up to speed on the new SIS and the new reporting requirements from the feds (of which they are a multitude each year). And, the systems have been helping us, as well. The main issue when it comes to calculating the cohort grad rate is making sure the ID number each student gets STAYS with the student. We are working on rules and policies that we believe will help facilitate that. The Longitudinal Data System — which is the next step in the process — will allow us to to do daily data exchanges with districts, which will be an improvement over the monthly uploads we do now. Does that answer your question? For more technical questions, email me at dtofig@gadoe.org and I’ll try to get answers for you.
Ernest
October 5th, 2009
3:40 pm
Thanks Dana! IMO, this is part of the equation for determining graduation rates. If a students transfers but remains in the state of Georgia, we should be able to factor that into the graduation rate. When they go out of state or to a private school, that’s when it gets tough.
I’ll take you up of your offer if I think of something…..
ScienceTeacher671
October 5th, 2009
3:44 pm
Dana, you’re right, I’m even more surprised! Thank you for helping to start the blog, and for “coming here” to take questions.
As for your hypothetical student “who is excelling in English, Science and Social Studies in Grade 8, but is not doing well in Mathematics”, I must say that I have not met that student, but I have seen plenty who were not doing well in ANY of those subjects but were promoted anyway. In many if not most cases, the students have been socially promoted while failing the CRCT since at least 3rd grade.
IF the student were actually excelling in all but mathematics or English but failing the CRCT in one of those subjects, my first response would be that the student should be tested for a learning or language problem, but there should definitely be a strong intervention if not failure, because that child is missing some very basic skills and will probably not be successful in high school.
Also, I agree with high school teacher on the current lack of a viable technical track, and with all due respect, I feel that your answer totally evaded the question. Your link shows that the majority of successful high school completers have historically chosen a college prep diploma, but it shows us nothing about those who are not successful in an academic setting, but drop out and go to Job Corps and similar programs, or perhaps drop out and at some later point obtain a GED and some sort of vocational program.
Requiring more academic courses of students who don’t have the skills to do high school level work (or are not motivated to do high school level work) will not increase our graduation rates. Allowing students to have a real vocational track, so that they could graduate with certifications in plumbing, heating & air conditioning, electrical, cosmetology, health care, etc. might.
Maureen's accountability metric
October 5th, 2009
6:52 pm
Dana, could you comment on how widespread cheating is on the CRCT, or do you not have “the fullest view”?
Or is it more to the point to suggest that the state DOE really, in its heart of hearts doesn’t have the fullest view, because it doesn’t want the fullest view, because the “fullest view” is the last thing the DOE wants the public to have?
Not that you’ll respond in any meaningful way, because it’s one of those questions that gets to the very integrity of the system, and thus strikes a palpable fear into politicians and education bureaucrats alike.
But if you were to address it, and not merely spin it, why not address not only the schools where the standard deviation was such that cheating was the only possible explanation, but address the fifty other schools-if memory serves correctly-that the AJC indicated that the standard deviation was such that cheating would be among the most probable explanations to explain the deviation?
Or is that a question that exposes a little too much “view”?
Maureen's accountability metric
October 5th, 2009
7:15 pm
Another post lost; did the blog monster reject it for using “integrity” and “state DOE” in the same post?
V for Vendetta
October 5th, 2009
8:32 pm
Dana,
Perhaps the confusion rests in my choice of words. I chose the word “viable” because I meant exactly that. Although we have long had two academic tracks in Georgia, in many counties the technical track is not “viable.” It is little more than a watered down college prep track offering no actual technical training and/or experience. For example, just look at Gwinnett and Cobb, the two most powerful counties in the state. (One could make an argument for Fulton, if Fulton were not weighed down by south Fulton . . . .)
Neither Gwinnett nor Cobb have viable technical programs. For lack of a better description, they both pretend like tech doesn’t exist. What does Gwinnett have now? Seventeen high schools? How many of them are technical schools? Two?
No, Dana, what I meant by “viable” was a program that offers kids who are not cut out for a traditional academic setting an alternative that will benefit their lives–emphasis on BENEFIT. If I am a technical student in Georgia, why would I stay in school after my sophomore year? I would be better off dropping out, obtaining a GED, and enrolling in a technical institute of some kind. Is that what you consider “viable?”
What happened to classes like shop, auto mechanics, or computer tech? What happened to an education for ALL students, not just those who want to go to college?
Echo
October 5th, 2009
8:59 pm
I think liability issues killed many of the real tech programs, possibly the lack of “qualified” people to teach those courses. Auto mechanics make more $$$ fixing cars than they do teaching kids how to fix them (and they don’t have to deal with all the edugarbage either!)Plus I think the space and money to run these programs may have been significant. Can’t really teach cosmetology or welding in a portable classroom.
high school teacher
October 5th, 2009
9:35 pm
Regardless of the reasons, we don’t have a viable tech ed program, one that offers true choices for students.
ScienceTeacher671
October 5th, 2009
10:02 pm
Several years ago (probably close to 20 now) our little county used to bus the tech students to the technical college in the next county for all or most of the day. The students would graduate high school but also have real certification in a technical field, so that they could go to work right out of high school rather than having to spend another year or two after high school to get real job qualifications as they do now.
I don’t know why that program was discontinued, but the instructors and the equipment are already in the tech colleges, there are tech colleges all over the state, and there is no reason students couldn’t take those classes during their high school years – they do it in Europe, and they used to do it here.
Sistrunk
October 6th, 2009
9:51 am
Ms. Tofig: I am also interested in how widespread the cheating thing on the CRCT is. Why didn’t you answer the Metric person on this? You tried to answer the other questions. Please answer this question too. Thanks.
Dana@DOE
October 6th, 2009
11:14 am
ScienceTeacher and Sistrunk:
I am not the one who is qualified to identify incidences of cheating — it is a far more involved process than just data analysis and looking at standard deviations. However, the Governor’s Office of Student Achievement is qualified and they are the office that is, and will continue, to analyze test results for red flags and possible cheating. They have said publicly they will be casting a broader net in future years than they did in the past.
Does cheating happen? Obviously, it does. Is it “widespread?” No, I do not think so. But I think it’s important that you have a mechanism for checking that, and that is what GOSA does for the state of Georgia.
Maureen's accountability metric
October 6th, 2009
12:36 pm
Dana,
Funny you should mention red flags, because there are those who remember it wasn’t so long ago that the DOE admitted they didn’t red flag scores unless they got a specific complaint.
Guess it’s hard to have the “fullest view” if you make a deliberate choice to bury your head in the sand.
“Casting a broader net” also has to be met with a healthy skepticism, when you consider previous “nets” have consisted of the equivalent of throwing a single strand of rope into the ocean and hoping a fish is stupid enough to bite it.
But if you want some real credibility, if there’s any part of the journalist left in you that wants the government to serve the public trust, why not address the following. Will the DOE send monitors during the CRCT to those schools where cheating has been established as the only possible explanation, as well as to those schools where cheating has been established as the most likely explanation?
You can’t send a monitor to every school. We all know it’s cost prohibitive. But what you can do, is send a message to every school, by sending monitors to those schools that have cheated, and letting other schools know they’re next if they take shortcuts.
That is emphatically not cost prohibitive. That is merely a matter of how much the DOE really, truly wants “the fullest view.”
Dana, are you willing to ask the GOSA, or Kathy Cox if they are willing to embrace a mechanism that might actually check for cheating before it happens, such as sending monitors to schools where the evidence indicates it’s a real concern?
Sistrunk
October 6th, 2009
12:41 pm
Thanks, Ms. Tofig, for responding.
ScienceTeacher671
October 6th, 2009
4:18 pm
Dana, thanks, but Maureen’s Accountability Metric and Sistrunk were the ones interested in cheating.
MY pet peeve is social promotion, as well as the lack of a real vocational track.
Maureen's accountability metric
October 6th, 2009
7:59 pm
A typical example of a government bureaucrat trying to spin while insulting the intelligence of the people who pay his salary. From Dana:
“Does cheating happen? Obviously, it does. Is it “widespread?” No, I do not think so.”
Of course not. Who in their right mind would ever think such a thing?
Also from Dana:
“I am not the one who is qualified to identify incidences of cheating-”
If you readily admit you aren’t qualified to identify incidences of cheating, why on Earth should we believe you when you claim they aren’t widespread? You want us to believe instead the people at the DOE who have admitted that in the past they didn’t even red flag scores unless someone specifically complained?
Dana, since you can’t answer those questions without looking even more foolish, at least answer this. Will the DOE commit to sending monitors to those schools where the evidence shows the only possible legitimate explanation for their scores is that they cheated? Furthermore, will they send monitors to schools where the evidence shows the most probably explanation is that they cheated?
The DOE can claim it’s cost prohibitive to send a monitor to every school, but for a fraction of the cost, the DOE can send a message to every school by sending monitors to those schools where cheating has been proven, and schools were it is strongly suspected.
Thus the real question isn’t whether the DOE can afford it, it’s whether Kathy Cox is really committed to the “fullest view” of cheating, by putting the monitors where it has occurred in place. Is she, and will she?
Before you answer that Dana, in light of your last response, please remember that Kathy Cox isn’t the only one smarter than a 5th grader.
Gwinnett HIgh School Teacher
October 6th, 2009
8:46 pm
The truth of the matter is that the majority of students that would benefit from the technical programs offered at Maxwell School of Technology and Grayson won’t ever go because by 11th grade and 12 th grade they have already dropped out-the whole system needs to be revamped. In many European countries students are given the option to attend a vocational school or an academic one at the end of their 8th grade year-this makes complete sense! It is during the 9th and 10th grade that we lose so many students because they can’t hang in there until they are able to get vocational classes due to credits. For the students that make it through 10th grade and think they can do vocational classes in 11th grade find out that they can’t because of a class they failed in their freshman or sophomore year.What happens then is they get frustrated and drop out!
Another frustration is lack of transportation to the vocational setting. Even though transportation is available to Maxwell, the only way students can go to Grayson’s vocational program is by driving there. How inconvenient and expensive is that to the majority of GCPS students?
It amazes me that a system as large as GCPS does not provide for their students. They need to encourage students to stay in school by showing them that the academic track is not the only game in town . How about offering a glimpse(one semester) into the vocational programs in grades 9-10 so students have a reason to stay in school?
The reality is that not every student is college bound.The last time I checked my neighbor the plumber made a lot more income than I did with my masters degree. That being said, it should be GCPS’ priority to present viable, workable, realistic options to the college prep program.
Sistrunk
October 6th, 2009
11:29 pm
I am also interested in social promotions, a complete lack of discipline, and the crazy idea that did away with true vocational programs that could keep kids in school.
Old School
October 7th, 2009
10:05 am
Bring back Industrial Arts for 9th graders and update CTAE programs (equipment & facilities) that have been around (and very successful) since the 70s. Stop trying to compel CTAE programs in South Georgia to be clones of metro programs. We have cabinet shops begging for skilled craftsmen but cannot teach cabinetmaking in our construction lab. We have companies begging for skilled sheet metal fabricators but we don’t have the money for the necessary equipment.
Yet everyone of our CTAE staff step up and teach the reading and writing (journals, Writing to Win) and follow the Max Thompson mantra as best we can because it’s demanded of us.
ScienceTeacher671
October 7th, 2009
6:30 pm
Well, I don’t guess Dana is going to be interested in answering the rest of our questions since he’s leaving the state….