Ooops. Turns out the reason the graduation report was delayed was there was an error–a big one–in the Class of 2005 graduation rate that was first reported in the Mayor’s Management Report in February. According to the new graduation report, The Class of 2005 Four-Year Longitudinal Report, which made its debut today, the corrected figure is 58.2% of the Class of 2005 graduating in four years, not 53% as reported in the MMR. That’s the highest on-time graduation rate since at least 1992. DOE discovered the error sometime in March, according to the Chancellor, and called in outside auditors who reviewed the data and vouch for the 58.2% rate.
The Chancellor had a press conference to announce this, and kindly invited us (OK, we had to wheedle our way in). He also used the occasion to tell reporters from all the dailies, NPR, NY1, several other TVs and some weeklies that 15 new small schools started in 2002 have an average graduation rate of 73% for 2006, 15 points higher than the systemwide rate for 2005. (There was a handout on this but no link.) Bronx Aerospace HS had a 2006 graduation rate of 93%, starting with incoming freshmen who were almost entirely Level 1s and 2s. Hmmmm. But the Chancellor said high standards, a chance to rebuild schools and instruction, partnerships, and ownership of their performance by students makes the small schools exceptionally successful. That and the sweat and skill of their teachers, we’d respectfully add.
Here’s Randi Weingarten’s statement on the report:
“We are always happy to see the hard work of students and teachers pay off. What teachers would tell you is that the smaller class sizes in small high schools are also crucial. While the higher graduation rates are encouraging, we need to be able to have confidence in the assessment and reporting of the numbers. Let’s have one transparent standard with an independent source verifying the numbers each year.”
Graduation Report finally released
Don’t miss
6 Comments:
1 Chaz
· Jun 29, 2006 at 6:26 pm
Maisie:
The 15% increase in graduation rates for small schools could very well be accounted by any or all of the following:
1. Low special education & ELA student
population.
2. Small class sizes
3. Screening out of students who had
disciplinary issues in the Middle
School.
4. Limiting students that had long
term absences in the middle
schools.
5. Selecting more level 2 and less
level 1 students for the small
schools.
Unless you break down the statistics and compare the student populations of all the schools, the DOE may be comparing apples and oranges here.
Finally, we now all know that the small schools limit students with disabilities and these students are then dumped on the large schools. Don’t you believe that would affect the statistics?
2 institutional memory
· Jun 29, 2006 at 8:12 pm
NAME THAT SCAM
DOE statistics?
Words that come to mind are artifice, baloney, bamboozlement, banana oil, bunco, chicanery, con, con game, cover up, cozening, deceit, deception, dirty pool, dirty trick, dodge, double-dealing, fake, fast one, fast shuffle, fix, flimflam, frame, fraud, gyp, hanky-panky, hoax, hoaxing, hogwash, hokum, humbug, hustle, imposture, jazz, jive, plant, put-on, racket, rip-off, run around, sell, shady deal, sham, shell game, skin game, snow job, spoof, sting, stunt, swindle, total shuck, trickery, whitewash …
Or, just plain SCAM!
No matter how you slice it, figures lie and liars figure.
(With thanks to dictionary.com)
3 OldSchool
· Jun 30, 2006 at 6:27 am
I’ll quote Mark Twain to summarize it all
“Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.”
“In the first place, God made idiots. This was for practice. Then He made school boards.”
4 Peter Goodman
· Jun 30, 2006 at 9:32 am
I am sure the teachers at Bronx Aerospace are doing an excellent job and they are to be congratulated, however, the admission criteria as described in the HS Directory is as follows:
Eligibility
“Priority to students who attend an information session, then to Bronx students, then to New York City residents”
A subtle method of screening.
Entering class data as compared with large Bronx HS from Schoo. Report Cards as follows:
Aerospace large Bronx HS
SpEd (Parttime) 8.6 6.2
SpEd (fulltime) 0 10.5
ELL 4.3 13.7
overage 19.4 48.8
Attend prev yr 94 81.5
Met ELA Stand 27.2 15.1
Met Math Stand 38.1 19.9
Other small high schools have entering class data that matches large high schools, it is disingenuous to highlight Bronx Aerospace … small high schools with challenging populations are also succeeding … but the data is not as startling … large high schools require the same supports that are available to the small schools … leadership by spin and press release is disheartening … and characterizes a failed leadership.
5 Maisie
· Jun 30, 2006 at 10:30 am
Peter, Chaz,
Thanks for the details and explanations on Bx Aero. However, the chart the Chancellor handed out yesterday had their incoming freshman info completely different. He said only 12% were meeting math standards and 6% meeting ELA, judging by their 8th grade test scores. (Peter has Aero at 27% meeting ELA and 38% meeting math standards.) So there’s funny data somewhere. Not all schools did as well as Bx Aero. Bronx Guild HS had a 55% on-time grad rate, while their incoming 9th graders had similar proportions of Levels 1 & 2 to Bx Aero. HS for Teaching and the Professions had a 57% grad rate. Wish I had a link for this handout but I don’t.
6 Chaz
· Jun 30, 2006 at 7:28 pm
Maisie;
I think you hit the problem on the head. Different statistics that the DOE uses to suit it’s spin. Reading Peter’s articles and his expertize in small schools, I am inclined to believe his numbers. Further, it’s no secret that the small high schools are given a three year reprive in having to select special education and limited English language students to their schools (that seems to support Peter’s statistics not DOE’s). Therefore, they already have a built-in advantage.
I really would like to see DOE challanged on their statistics.