Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Just how much Title 1 money are we spending?


That fabulous DeKalb Parent has once again crunched some interesting numbers. We have all been wondering if perhaps we have not been utilizing the over $31 million in annual Title 1 funds in the best way for student success. Our discussion revealed that we seem to have literally thrown everything but the kitchen sink at the problem of 'making AYP', yet we continue to miss the mark. Mull over the following report from DeKalb Parent --

I agree that DCSS is spending "tons of Title 1 dollars". Click here to read the parent letter sent home by Cross Keys, one of the many Title 1 schools that did not make AYP. Similar letters went home from all of these schools. The letter is very illuminating as to how Title 1 dollars ARE NOT being spent on direct and intensive math and Language Arts instruction for students.

According to the letter, below is where the Title 1 money for struggling Language Arts and Math students is going:
  • Implement school wide tutorials in the areas of Language Arts and math
  • Provide transportation for all students that attend tutorial sessions
  • Provide targeted remediation academic sessions that take place before or after school
  • Execute focused staff development training for teachers in order to address the needs of all students
  • Implement collaborative planning opportunities for teachers to strategically plan research based lesson plans
  • Implement the America’s Choice framework that is proven to increase academic achievement in the areas of Language Arts and Math
  • Provide the placement of a fulltime Language Arts Coach at Cross Keys
  • Provide the placement of a fulltime Math Coach at Cross Keys
  • Provide the placement of a fulltime Graduation Coach at Cross Keys who works intensely with students, parents and faculty members
  • Provide the placement of a Re-design Coach that places a special emphasis on the academic, social, and emotional needs of all freshmen
The emphasis is on expensive, non-teaching personnel - Language Arts, Math, Graduation, and Re-design Coaches, as well as transportation and staff development training. BTW the average salary and benefits cost for each Instructional Coach is around $100,000 (source: Georgia Salary and Travel audit) so four of these non-teaching coaches cost about $400,000 a year. America’s Choice for our Title 1 schools is around $90,000 per school. How much direct instruction tutoring would $500,000 buy for Cross Keys students?

What is a Re-design coach? I've never heard of this one. The Re-design coach "places a special emphasis on the academic, social, and emotional needs of all freshmen". Well, I thought that's what Cross Key’s four counselors (average salary and benefits for each DCSS counselor is $84,000), one Intervention and Prevention specialist, one social worker, one school psychologist, and one Parent Resource Center Facilitator do ($75,000 in salary and benefits for a Parent Resource "Facilitator" - Zepora Roberts' daughter is one).

DCSS spent $8,000,000 for America's Choice, and the renewal is going to be funded by the BOE for the 90 Title 1 schools bringing the average to $90,000 for each America’s Choice school. Please show me valid and reliable studies (not done by America's Choice) that show significant improvement in Language Arts and Math for schools using America's Choice. DCSS has absolutely no proof that America's Choice or these Instructional Coaches have increased student achievement for DeKalb County students.

Cross Keys ONLY HAD forty students who were in the “Did Not Meet” category. Considering the $500,000 cost of Cross Keys Instructional Coaches and America's Choice, we spend $12,500 a year for each student who “Did Not Meet Expectations" at Cross Keys on the GHSGT. Thirty seven of those were Economically Disadvantaged. Maybe the parents of these students are better off getting the $12,500 for intensive tutoring than spending it on non-teaching personnel.

Don't believe me? Go to the Georgia DOE site for Cross Keys and see that only 40 students out of “All Students” are in the “Basic/Does Not Meet” category (and 37 are in the Economically Disadvantaged category) – click on Academic Performance

Before you protest that these numbers are an underestimation of the problem, I recognize that it's really more accurate to view 40 students per grade level (9th, 10th and 11th grades) as needing academic help since only the 11th graders taking the GHSGT are considered by NCLB. I also understand that these at risk students need intervention from when they enter high school. But even dividing that $500,000 a year among 120 students will fund hundreds of hours a year per student to receive one on one instruction by SES (Supplemental Education Services - aka tutorial services) . Tell me that won't make more of a difference than four Instructional Coaches and America's Choice.

What is Audria Berry ($145,000 in salary and benefits) who runs the Office of School Improvement and makes the Title 1 decisions thinking? Where is the cost /benefits analysis that needs to occur for Cross Keys (or each school in DCSS)? Why are we not using Title 1 funds for intensive one on one tutoring for the students who have fallen behind?

93 comments:

Anonymous said...

You do realize the date on that letter is July 2009?

Anonymous said...

Also, Cross Keys opted out of America's Choice for this year...

Anonymous said...

This is spot on. Title One funds are being misspent all over DCSS. I do not think that those running the system know how to help these students that are behind. Many in charge have taught very little (3-5 years). You can't possibly understand how to help failing students in 3-5 years. Their degrees are mostly paid for degrees, from questionable schools. What did they really learn in those classes? Were they ever able to apply what they learned in class and tweak it to make sense in the classroom and at the school level?

McChesney sent me a reply about my questions of America's Choice and he is fine with using the program, because Obama and Duncan have approved it for improving schools. The only studies on America's Choice that I am able to find are those done by the authors, who have lots to gain with a positive outcome. Data can easily be manipulated to have a desirable outcome. I cannot find any independent studies.

I've been a reading coach, in another state and I not only worked with teachers, but also with children. I was paid on the teacher scale, so I did not make more money than the teachers. I have friends who are coaches in other states as well, and again, they are paid on the teacher scale not on another higher scale. They work with teachers for whole group lessons, and pull children as needed as well.

Our coaches are over paid. They should have direct contact with the children as well as working with teachers to help them improve the lessons and team teach with the teachers. This is what good coaches do in other districts, in other states. Coaches are to help the children and to help improve instruction.

DCSS continues to fail it's students with misspending money and having salaries that are way out of line with what happens elsewhere.

What will it take to get the district's spending in line and our children a better education? When will the focus be on educating the children and not employing people?

Square Peg said...

That's a very telling way to look at the spending. Wow.

Did you also notice that Cross Keys actually made big improvements in their math pass rates from 2009 to 2010, while DCSS as a whole went the other direction?

Give Cross Keys that $500,000 to be spent as they see fit, but only on things that are DIFFERENT from what the rest of DCSS spends Title I on, because whatever is working at Cross Keys must be something they're doing that's different.

Then use Cross Keys as a model for the rest of the system.

Anonymous said...

Sent Congressman Hank Johnson emails in July and early August and asked him to request an audit into DCSS's use of Title 1 funds on behalf of DeKalb students and taxpayers - still waiting for a response.

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous 8:35 am from DeKalb Parent

Yes. I am well aware the letter was dated July, 2009 when I wrote this post. That was part of the subtext - that with all of the money the Central Office poured into Cross Keys, they still failed to make AYP. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Furthermore, I realize that Cross Keys AYP numbers may not be the same as other schools. Each school deserves to have the services that fit their students' needs. DeKalb is notoriously top down and uniform with directions that may not fit a particular school's needs. The Central Office should be a facilitator for each school's success. This letter was typical of an approach that lacked any depth of thought for Cross Keys. No one in the administration seems to look ahead at the end result which is why the schools are left scrambling every year. That's the norm as schools are asked to march lockstep when one fad or another is adopted by the Central Office.

Anonymous said...

But, Cross Keys performed better in 2010 than in 2009. Doesn't that blunt your argument?

Kim Gokce said...

I think the scrutiny of Title I spending policies in DCSS is a very valuable exercise. I have not looked at it from a governance perspective. I have, however, encountered some of the odd circumstances that Title I schools face.

For example, last Spring the Cross Keys Foundation wanted to recruit volunteer tutors for CK juniors. We made the offer to bring in a small army of professionals two days per week after school. The problem? Most of the kids who are in the population that need individualized help are like the 37 mentioned above.

The type of poverty some of these families experience is unknown to most of us. Not only do the parents rely on public transportation to get around, the children do, too. Many of them have after school jobs near their homes. If they don't catch the school bus, they won't make their jobs.

As a result, we had a very limited opportunity to help the children during their lunch periods. In affect, there was barely 20-30 working minutes per session - much less than ideal! The idea of individual tutors is a good one but I'm afraid there's no magic bullet for the circumstances of these especially difficult cases.

To add to Square Peg's note, the graduation rate of CK has been skyrocketing over the past four years from something like the 50% range to I think 86% recently. I do not know the instructional strategies that have been implemented over the past few years at CK but they are clearly doing something well that would be worth a case study.

Also noteworthy is CK's apparent lack of serious discipline problems. Everyone that spends time with the young people marvel at their general decorum. Somehow, they have developed a positive school house culture where the students themselves maintain norms of conduct in a positive way.

GSU's Education Dept has a long term agreement with CK that brings many, many student teachers to our school every year. I do not know what impact this has but I can't help but think it is a positive one. Also, many of these teachers fall in love with the school and pursue opportunities there. Don't underestimate the value of very motivated and passionate teachers.

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous 9:35
But they still didn't make AYP, and what was the return on investment for $500,000 spent on so few students. If we're going to go after AYP incremental progress, then we need to be smarter where we target these large fund expenditures. The excess dollars per pupil in this case is out of line with the return we received.

Cross Keys teachers and administrators need to have a greater say in what is done with Title 1 dollars.

Anonymous said...

Quit focusing on "making AYP" - the actual scores themselves are what is important. Cross Keys has made tremendous academic progress from 2009 to 2010. Actually, whenever Obama's version of ESEA is authorized, actual progress is what will be used as a measure of "making AYP".

And, again, Cross Keys administration/teachers chose to opt out from America's Choice this year. Schools were given the choice of coming up with their plan for their students.

Anonymous said...

@ Kim Glocke
" Also, many of these teachers fall in love with the school and pursue opportunities there. Don't underestimate the value of very motivated and passionate teachers."

Exactly. So what would these teachers do with $500,000 to help this particular group of struggling students?

Cross Keys is just an example of a larger problem. Each school is very different in their needs yet I imagine most are addressed in a like manner.

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous 9:57

"Quit focusing on "making AYP" - the actual scores themselves are what is important. "

While this is an admirable idea, ignoring "making AYP" is not something DCSS can do. Tens of millions of dollars are being spent on non-teaching personnel and expensive learning programs under the auspices of "making AYP". A large and powerful office (Office of School Improvement) has been created with the aim of "making AYP". The teachers in the schools "not making AYP" (as well as the ones that made AYP) are being consumed with paperwork due to the fact that so many schools are not "making AYP". Enormous expenditures towards making AYP have drained our classroom funding so that we are left with less classroom teachers and increased class sizes.

Ignoring "making AYP" is not a luxury we have. It has had a terrible impact on the school system and the children it serves.

Anonymous said...

"As a result, we had a very limited opportunity to help the children during their lunch periods. In affect, there was barely 20-30 working minutes per session - much less than ideal! The idea of individual tutors is a good one but I'm afraid there's no magic bullet for the circumstances of these especially difficult cases."

Title 1 teachers can work with very small groups of struggling students. This used to happen in DCSS schools. That way intensive instruction is built into the school day as part of their classes. I taught at Woodward in the 70s, 80s and 90s and all of my kids ended up at Cross Keys. I used to go to their homes for dinner, and take them down to the High Museum on weekends (we could do that years ago), etc. so I know the abject poverty many of these students face. Even in the early 2000s, the Woodward principal and the teachers chose to use Title 1 funds for tutors and other support personnel to work directly with students.

I just hope the Cross Keys teachers are driving the decision making train for Title 1 expenditures. Reading this letter, it doesn't seem that way.

You are so right. There is no magic bullet, and what works in one school may not work in a different school.

Anonymous said...

I can only speak for one school: Our Title 1 funds paid for numerous trips given pretty much as rewards to the principal's pals, after school tutorial which included a teacher as co-ordinator who was provisionally certified, tutors, bus transportation. The missing piece was the students...very few actually attended and little effort was put into encouraging them to attend. I vividly remember walking down the hall and seeing all the salaried tutors sitting in an empty room chatting. The date for the program to start was repeatedly changed. Tutorial was constantly being canceled at the last minute.

Anonymous said...

Crawford Lewis, Ramona Tyson, Bob Moseley, Marcus Turk, Audria Berry, Gloria Talley (who left this summer) made a conscious decision to use Title 1 monies for freaking ridiculous large purchases for the Central Office's convenience: eSIS, America's Choice, etc. Teachers and principals has NADA input on these disasters.

Title 1 money needs to be spent on the school house. If we are going to receive it (and if DCSS receives it legally is another story), then spend it on things like this:

http://www.buildings.com/ArticleDetails/tabid/3321/ArticleID/9894/Default.aspx

Research shows that cafeteria design can go a long way in getting children to eat their fruits and vegetables


Cafeteria design can go a long way in getting children to eat their fruits and vegetables, say Cornell researchers.



Display cases that allow healthier foods to be featured at eye level, or more prominently, increase quality food consumption. Even factors like noise, crowding, and long cafeteria lines may prompt children to choose “grab-and-go” foods instead of healthier options, say the researchers – all factors that can be taken into consideration when designing and laying out cafeterias.



Cornell researchers offer the following design tips for school cafeterias:

-Relocate vending machines farther from the cafeteria.
-Put the salad bar in a convenient location where students will walk by.
-Increase the amount of lighting on healthy food items to make them seem more appetizing.
-Create and hang signage to promote healthy food options.
-Add a stereo system or jukebox next to healthier food items to attract kids and make them want to stay there.
-Choose freezers with opaque covers so children can’t easy see what’s inside (ice cream).
-Decorate cafeteria walls with cool pictures and posters that encourage healthy eating.

Kim Gokce said...

@Anon 10:35 " This used to happen in DCSS schools. That way intensive instruction is built into the school day as part of their classes. "

This is exactly what I did see the CK faculty doing last year. I think many of the things you described as happening at Woodward then are still happening in CK area schools. I have not spent as much time inside the halls and classrooms of our MS and ESes to know first hand.

I do know that the cluster principals have worked to coordinate their efforts and collaborate on a regular basis on instructional efforts.

Anyone who wants to spend time at CK to observe what is going on would probably be welcome by Dr. McMillan. She always seems happy to have community members visiting the school and seeing the environment. And, we'll be looking for more volunteer tutors for lunch'n'learn efforts again this year! ;)

Anonymous said...

Title one funds should be used to lower class size to help ensure that all children are learning.

Anonymous said...

@ Ken Glocke

So you are saying CK has a number of Title 1 teachers at Cross keys that work directly with small groups of struggling students during the day as part of their classwork. I didn't see many Title I teachers on the website - just coaches. However, I did see a lot of ESOL teachers. I'm ESOL certified so I know how intensely the ESOL teachers work with small groups of students.

Anonymous said...

I think it's very prudent to address how Title I funds are being spent in DCSS. Title I is supposed to close the gap for Economically Disadvantaged students. See below the high schools who's Economically Disadvantaged students did not make the AYP target "Meet or Exceed" percentage for 2009-2010:
Avondale
Cedar Grove
Chamblee Charter
Clarkston
Columbia
Cross Keys
Druid Hills
Elizabeth Andrews
Lakeside
Lithonia
MLK
Mcnair
Miller Grove
Redan
SWD
Stephenson
Stone Mountain
Towers
Tucker

Anonymous said...

Title 1 funds are meant to be spent in the school house. They are not meant to be spent on fancy, large-scale administrative purchases.

Did you know Audria Berry, Lewis, Tyson, Turk and Moseley allowed Title 1 funds to pay for the crazy trip to California for DCSS staff for the America's Choice seminar???

Title 1 spending is so out of control at DCSS, but beware: Central Office hacks, er administrators, will fight tooth and nail to make sure they control those funds.

Our weak and out of touch BOE should take the lead and force Title 1 to be school house focused. But with BOE members like Gene Walker and Zpora "I'm Gonna Slug You", they will always lean towards the big, spalshy, multi-million dollar boondoogle purchases.

P.S. If a cost benefit analysis was done on eSIS, we would discover that thousands of hours of teacher productivity have been lost. I'ts been an epic disaster, but Crawford Lewis still gave MIS' Tony Hunter a promotion and raise, instead of a demotion and paycut.

Anonymous said...

"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink"

Let's talk some realities about Title 1. My children attended a Title 1 elementary school before I really knew what that meant. I recall money spent on both a reading and math specialists for pull out sessions with small groups. I recall evening events for families (food and daycare provided) so that information about the Title 1 services could be shared. There was a LOT of food wasted. Though our family did not qualify for these services, we were invited to several events to help with the numbers and to hopefully recruit other families to come.

Let's not just sit back and say the dollars are being misspent. If real outreach (which is a requirement of Title 1) does not result in people taking advantage of it, do you blame the school district? Yes, dollars are being wasted but in many cases they are being wasted on attempts to reach those that the money for the services are provided for.

America's Choice is just one strategy for using Title 1 dollars. One of the supposed benefits is that students in the entire school can benefit from the services. It should be noted that when asked, a majority of the principals indicated they wanted to continue with the America's Choice program. Are there some disgruntled teachers, probably so. The principal has the final decision.

Anonymous said...

Providing students in w/intensive one on one or very small group tutoring in a very systematic and consistant wayis the only real way to address the individual needs of at risk students. Students need a qualified teacher to get to know them and give them the individualized and meaningful tutoring. Students don't need another expensive big program. They need high expectations and differientiated help from TEACHERS who will be conspensated. If Dekalb was truly serious about improving test scores this is what the system where it would be putting resources. DCSS needs to stop talking about everything being data driven if data is not considered when spending money on expensive programs like America's Choice. Where are the numbers to support this expenditure.

Anonymous said...

Providing students in w/intensive one on one or very small group tutoring in a very systematic and consistant wayis the only real way to address the individual needs of at risk students. Students need a qualified teacher to get to know them and give them the individualized and meaningful tutoring. Students don't need another expensive big program. They need high expectations and differientiated help from TEACHERS who will be conspensated. If Dekalb was truly serious about improving test scores this is what the system where it would be putting resources. DCSS needs to stop talking about everything being data driven if data is not considered when spending money on expensive programs like America's Choice. Where are the numbers to support this expenditure.

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:09

I would urge you to look at the principals who have agreed to continue with America's Choice and ask yourself these questions:

1. How many years experience does the principal have in the classroom?
2. Is she/he part of the friends/family plan?
3. Where did he/she earn her advanced degrees?

As an educator for 15 years and having worked in schools that have turned themselves around, we did not use programs like America's Choice. We taught the children based on their needs and utilized the data. We had meetings with our principal and AP and developed strategies to help the children succeed. We held our standards high, and did not waver. Children earned the grades that they worked for and work was due the day it was due.

I have researched the America's Choice program and the only research about this program is done by the authors. This shot off red flags and sirens in my head. Reading and following a script is not teaching to the needs of the children.

Don't make excuses for America's Choice until you've researched it for yourself. I have little faith in many of the principals in DCSS and the choices that they make. They simply haven't taught long enough or have the education knowledge to know that programs aren't the answer to improving one's school.

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:19,

Very good post and questions you raise. I don't know America's
Choice enough to say whether it is good or bad. If as many suggest, we rely on the feedback from the principals, we should give them that authority as they are the ones measured by the success of these decisions. If not the principals, who do we rely on for decisions like this?

Being curious, I also performed brief research on ESEA/Title 1. Did you know that every school district is audited annually by the state regarding their use of this money. If it is determined they are not using the money properly, school districts can lose money. These are Federal dollars that come through the state and they want to ensure they are used as intended.

What I found most fascinating is that prior to 1994, Title 1 dollars were used exclusively for grades 1 - 3 as a means of early intervention. When the other grades were added, they did not add comparable dollars thus the one on one services provided for the younger children were now spread out for students through the 12th grade. This has impacted the effectiveness of the program. By no means will I suggest we need to spend more money, but as everyone has suggested, we should evaluate what the goals are then determine if the strategies being used will allow us to meet them.

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous 2:09 pm

"Let's not just sit back and say the dollars are being misspent. If real outreach (which is a requirement of Title 1) does not result in people taking advantage of it, do you blame the school district?"

Actually, yes. The school district administrators run the schools. If the programs, supplies and services they buy do not provide good results for students, then they are indeed responsible. That's what happens when you are the decisonmakers.

A corollary is that Title I funds are not free money. There seems to be a perception on the part of DCSS administrators that Title I funds "don't count" since these are federal funds. Title I funds come from federal taxes that we all pay.

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:15, you blame school districts if children do not learn? That is a pretty tough threshold for anyone to reach. Sounds like responsibility is transferred from the individuals to the schools district adminsistrators. Maybe that's why their salaries are where they are and why most urban superintendent's last between 3-5 years in a job.

Let me offer the link below as a perspective of Title 1 and possible changes that could improve the outcomes of students.
I found it by searching how can title 1 money be spent in google. It is interesting.

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/brookings_papers_on_education_policy/v2000/2000.1farkas.html

Anonymous said...

Title 1 money cannot be spent however one wishes. The important language to remember is "supplement NOT supplant". Schools cannot use title 1 funds to pay for things that should be (but aren't) being paid for through normal state/district budgets. My school ends up spending title 1 dollars on lots of worthless stuff because if it isn't spent it disappears. We can't use it for what we really need (more staff/paras, etc). Teachers usually get a couple hundred dollars to order classroom materials and the administrators spend a whole lot more on programs and resources of questionable merit. Some good does come of the money. Classroom teachers are able to purchase books for their classroom libraries, almost every classroom in our school is now equipped with an interactive board (this year lots of the title 1 dollars will be spent on the expensive replacement bulbs). Other times the money is spent on equipment or materials that are less than useful but like I said if the money isn't spent it vanishes. Trust me you really don't want to know about some of the stuff purchased with title 1 dollars.

What I'm most concerned about however is how we can ensure title 1 dollars are not spent in ways that could be or are clearly conflicts of interests. Are the educational products, office equipment, etc. vendors friends or relatives or former employees of someone in the school or system? If so let's hope no dollars (federal or otherwise) are flowing their way.

I remember hearing that the America Choice area representative was a former Dekalb employee. How much of a commission did she make selling the county her products and did her previous connection to the county help her with the sale?

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous 4:47

"....you blame school districts if children do not learn? That is a pretty tough threshold..Sounds like responsibility is transferred from the individuals to the schools district adminsistrators. "

I thought that's exactly what school districts are supposed to do.

The article you provided a link to was extremely interesting:
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/brookings_papers_on_education_policy/v2000/2000.1farkas.html

The authors lay out what succeeds for low income children in schools, and then ask why are these practices not being implemented? Read quotes from the article below. This sound eerily like DCSS:

"Control by School District Administrative Elites

....Terry M. Moe agreed that the schools are too little concerned with the control and coordination of instructional activities..... The structure of education ... has to do with who has power, with what their interests are, and with what kinds of structures they demand, design, and impose to see those interests pursued. As presented in a longer work by John E. Chubb and Terry M. Moe, this rational choice and interest group politics view sees individual school actors pursuing power, self-interest, and rents via all the available techniques of interest group politics......Practices and structures often endure through the active efforts of those who benefit from them.... It is clear that elite intervention may play a critical role in institutional formation. And once established and in place, practices and programs are supported and promulgated by those organizations that benefit from prevailing conventions. In this way, elites may be both the architects and products of the rules and expectations they have helped devise.......This emphasis upon school district and education school elites and their use of power in the pursuit of self-interest via all means available, including "preservation of patterns of values"... the selection of new recruits, the socialization of successors, and control over the conditions of incumbency," provides a necessary background for understanding the implementation of Title I in the nation's school districts. 21 The districts we have observed display intensely networked management structures, supporting almost constant strategic behavior by individuals and groups. Classroom teacher is the lowest status among professional staff. Advancement out of this status typically requires the support of the school's principal and assistant principal, but professional specialty groups (for example, the group of reading curriculum specialists, Title I teachers, special education teachers, bilingual education teachers, and so on) and ethnic or other affiliation groups (for example, the Hispanic Teachers Association, the African-American Teachers Association, and their community affiliates) are also a resource. 22 The higher one seeks to rise, the [End Page 68] more important are network connections. Every principal was once some other's assistant principal. And the real jump in power, prestige, and compensation is out of the schools and into the central administration, a step requiring patronage by individuals already there...."

Read the full article for a better perspective.

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous 4:47

"you blame school districts if children do not learn? That is a pretty tough threshold..Sounds like responsibility is transferred from the individuals to the schools district adminsistrators. "

I thought that's exactly what school districts are supposed to do.

The article you provided a link to was extremely interesting:
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/brookings_papers_on_education_policy/v2000/2000.1farkas.html

The authors lay out what succeeds for low income children in schools, and then ask why are these practices not being implemented? Read quotes from the article below. This sound eerily like DCSS:
(Read the rest of this post below - it was too large for one post)

Anonymous said...

(contd.)

"Control by School District Administrative Elites

....Terry M. Moe agreed that the schools are too little concerned with the control and coordination of instructional activities..... The structure of education ... has to do with who has power, with what their interests are, and with what kinds of structures they demand, design, and impose to see those interests pursued. As presented in a longer work by John E. Chubb and Terry M. Moe, this rational choice and interest group politics view sees individual school actors pursuing power, self-interest, and rents via all the available techniques of interest group politics......Practices and structures often endure through the active efforts of those who benefit from them.... It is clear that elite intervention may play a critical role in institutional formation. And once established and in place, practices and programs are supported and promulgated by those organizations that benefit from prevailing conventions. In this way, elites may be both the architects and products of the rules and expectations they have helped devise.......This emphasis upon school district and education school elites and their use of power in the pursuit of self-interest via all means available, including "preservation of patterns of values"... the selection of new recruits, the socialization of successors, and control over the conditions of incumbency," provides a necessary background for understanding the implementation of Title I in the nation's school districts. 21 The districts we have observed display intensely networked management structures, supporting almost constant strategic behavior by individuals and groups. Classroom teacher is the lowest status among professional staff. Advancement out of this status typically requires the support of the school's principal and assistant principal, but professional specialty groups (for example, the group of reading curriculum specialists, Title I teachers, special education teachers, bilingual education teachers, and so on) and ethnic or other affiliation groups (for example, the Hispanic Teachers Association, the African-American Teachers Association, and their community affiliates) are also a resource. 22 The higher one seeks to rise, the [End Page 68] more important are network connections. Every principal was once some other's assistant principal. And the real jump in power, prestige, and compensation is out of the schools and into the central administration, a step requiring patronage by individuals already there...."

Anonymous said...

To paraphrase from the Wizard of Oz, "If I were superintedent of the school district", I would direct a majority of the Title 1 resources to early intervention strategies for PK4 - 2 students. The strategies would center around making sure students have a strong foundation in reading and phonics. If students cannot read, it is hard to have success in the other subjects. This would be implemented by having small group instruction segmented by ability.

Something like this could probably have a greater impact on the graduation rate than anything else. If students cannot ready by the end of 2nd or 3rd grade, they will have challenges during their remainder of time in school. This is not to say they could not overcome this but they will have obstacles.

Anonymous said...

While I'll leave it to you professional educators to offer opinions on how T1 monies are best spent, from my view I want to make sure DCSS at the very minimum spends their full allocation. There's no rebate to taxpayers on unspent money, so as much as it hurts my conservative values... Spent it on our children!

Unfortunately DCSS has let this money evaporate in years past.

Anonymous said...

DeKalb County School Board is an employment office for the school board for friends, family and church members of their church.

Anonymous said...

That $12,500 that is quoted in this post would purchase a lot of one-on-one tutoring. At $25 an hour it works out to be 500 hours or tutoring. That is a little over 2.7 hours a day over a 180 day school year.
ended.

Anonymous said...

Openness needs to be encouraged in school house spending, especially in regards to Title I. Taxpayers should demand that their schools openly post how money is spent. Those that do not should be shamed. All we need is a few school to start doing this to get the movement going.

Anonymous said...

I taught at a Title 1 school for several years. We had "Instructional coaches" who were supposed to assist teachers in improving student performance. They came by my classroom with a clipboard and checked a list to see whether I had certain items--student work, test data--posted. There were no students present, but I was told that I was doing a great job. One of them came in to observe and fell asleep in the back of my classroom. The students had a great time trying to make enough noise to stop her snoring. I know this sounds like hyperbole, but it's the sad truth. These "coaches" take long lunches, sit in their offices reading novels, and never come into direct contact with students. But it's OK. The administration can say, "See, we have coaches in place; we are addressing the problem."

Anonymous said...

From the Aug. 11 Education Week

Pearson Paying $80 Million To Acquire America's Choice

Peason PLC, a London-based education and technology company, has agreed to buy America's Choice, a Washington-based company known for its school improvement model, for $80 million.

The agreement, announced last week, still must undergo a federal antitrust review.

The National Center on Education and the Economy, a nonprofit school reform group, launched America's Choice in 1998 to implement the model, which features standards-based instructional materials, coaching, and professional development for teachers, and catch-up programs for struggling students. America's Choice, a for-profit subsidiary of NCEE, has worked with 2,000 schools in 38 states. Along with NCEE, it was involved in writing the new common standards in English/Language Arts and math that have been adopted by 34 states and the District of Columbia. -Catherine Gewertz

Anonymous said...

Unless DCSS changed the policy this year, I hope all of you realize that the Title I money does not follow the Title I students to the new school when they exercise school choice. DCSS could send the money with the students so they could get free tutoring at their new school, but they choose not to.

Anonymous said...

You just have no idea how corrupt Title I can be. I was one of about a dozen teachers who signed up to tutor students for the graduation tests during the weeks before they were given. We showed up on Saturday, and only three students came in. The administrator in charge said that all of us should stay--and be paid for the day--because if they didn't spend the money, the program wouldn't be funded the following year.

Anonymous said...

To add to what the anonymous poster pointed out (8:42 PM), the kids who are opting for school choice are landing in overcrowded classrooms in schools that are bursting at the seams. The state mandated class size of 34 students makes for a difficult teaching and learning environment. How does it benefit these kids from failing schools to be shipped across town to another school whose teachers can barely keep up?

Yes, if Title I students are transferred, funds should follow them so that additional teachers can be hired at receiving schools. In another couple of years,the high-performing schools will be dragged down until they no longer make AYP. Then what??

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous 9:07 pm

"In another couple of years,the high-performing schools will be dragged down until they no longer make AYP. Then what?? "

Then the DCSS administration will change principals, institute new programs, hire more non-teaching employees and say they are correcting the problem.n

Anonymous said...

SACS: Please look at how many called meetings DCSS has had in the past 12 months. In a normal month the District has 2 regularly scheduled meetings: a work session to discuss the issues, and a business meeting to vote on them. Certainly with a quorum of the board present action can be taken at either meeting if an agenda item requires such.

This district is spiraling and is out of control. "Called meetings" are now weekly. With no more than 24 -48 hours of public notice.

Isn't the intent of the "called meeting" to be used only for an emergency that can't wait for the (approximately) every 14-day public meeting's agenda?

In my opinion (and admittedly without full research) I would venture to say that called meetings in DCSS are more frequent than in any other district in the United States. This madness and apparent purposeful non-transparency has got to stop!

I'm so sick of it I'd scream -- but I can't do that if I'm in executive session.

Anonymous said...

Amen to the original post! I know from first-hand experience that Title I money is misused, abused, and unaccounted-for in at least one high school. Instructional materials ordered from hastily, carelessly distributed funds are never received. No one knows what happened to orders. County Title I denies purchase orders and asks for justification of expenditures for basic instructional material, but the teachers who ordered the stuff are never told that the orders were denied. At one point, all the head honchos in County Title I were away at an out-of-state "training" event, while teachers' requests for travel and per diem at inexpensive conferences are denied, or approval is granted too late to register or when a late fee is due.

It's mind-boggling that such inept, and sometimes corrupt, money managers are handling such large amounts of money.

This is DCSS's next BIG scandal, and it will involve the feds.

Hunker down!

Anonymous said...

Considering the original post, we are still looking at $500,000 a year for no more than 120 students and virtually no results to see for it, and don't tell me how many more students are graduating.

Does it make sense that Cross Keys graduation rate went up while their ACT and SAT rate stayed stagnant and in fact experienced a slight decline? This is the case in particular with our Title 1 schools. The ACT and SAT are nationally normed tests that measure our students against students in other states. I'm sorry. Someone needs to bring these inflated graduation rates to the public. There are many ways to manipulate graduation rates (ask DCSS high school teachers what some of them are). Graduation rates are in turn used to justify the disposition of millions of Title 1 dollars. Unfortunately for DCSS's administration, they can't affect national tests like the ACT and SAT.

Cross Keys' ACT and SAT scores:
06 – 07 ACT 17.8 SAT 1349
07 – 08 ACT 17.5 SAT 1269
08 – 08 ACT 17.3 SAT 1249

Cross Keys' Graduation Rate:
06 – 07 49.9%
07 – 08 60.2%
08 – 08 70.3%

Statistically, these two should track. Does no one see a problem here?

BTW - Cross Keys students are great. I'm ESOL certified because I loved teaching ESOL kids so much, and taught regular ed in the 70s, 80s and 90s at a Cross Keys feeder school so I know what a challenge they have. Most of us could not go to a foreign country, be thrown in classes where no English was spoken and be expected to read and write fluently in a year of two. This is not a post knocking them or their terrific teachers (Cross Keys teachers are notorious in their devotion to their students).

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:10 said,

Statistically, these two should track. Does no one see a problem here?

In fairness, there is not enough data provided to give a reasonable answer. It could be that more students became inspired by the positive things happening and Cross Keys resulting in more student taking those tests. Despite not doing as well on the test did not discourage students from completing their high school requirements for a diploma.

This may be a reach but the point remains that we don't have enough information to determine if grade inflation is in effect.

Cerebration said...

Jumping in (I've been away) - I don't think this post was meant to specifically critique Cross Keys - just to question how the millions upon millions of Title 1 funds are being spent. For some reason, the DCSS website only posted the letter from Cross Keys, however, as DeKalb Parent pointed out - all schools in "Needs Improvement" are required to write similar letters to parents.

I think it's really just shocking - how much Title 1 funds we really spend. We are questioning if we are getting much ROI - or should we consider other alternatives? Who evaluates these programs success rates?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 11:08

Well, let's look at the DCSS as a whole.

Again the graduation rate rises while the ACT and SAT all. More student graduating because they master more academic skills is what we've been told. Why would this not be reflected in the ACTs and SATs?

04-05 ACT 18.4 SAT 922 (math and verbal)
05-06 ACT 18.6 SAT 913 (math and verbal)
06-07 ACT 18.3 SAT 900 (math and verbal
07-08 ACT 18.4 SAT 894 (math and verbal)
08-09 ACT 18.5 SAT 892 (math and verbal)

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous 11:08
Sorry. I left off the graduation rate.

Let's look at the DCSS as a whole.

Again the graduation rate rises while the ACT and SAT fall. More student graduating because they master more academic skills is what we've been told. Why would this not be reflected in the ACTs and SATs?

04-05 ACT 18.4 SAT 922 (math and verbal)
05-06 ACT 18.6 SAT 913 (math and verbal)
06-07 ACT 18.3 SAT 900 (math and verbal
07-08 ACT 18.4 SAT 894 (math and verbal)
08-09 ACT 18.5 SAT 892 (math and verbal)

Graduation rate for DCSS:
04-05 62.8%
05-06 64.6%
06-07 72.5%
07-08 75.3%
08-09 70.2%

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous 12:37, deep down many of us believe there is grade inflation going on in DeKalb and other school districts. I recall a story from a few years ago of an honors graduate from one school that went to West Georgia and made less than a 2.0 the first semester then flunked out after the second. She thought just because she was a honors graduate it meant she should have success in college when in reality her high school grades did not reflect her academic abilities.

While the Hope Scholarship has both provided tremendous opportunities for those who could not afford college and encouraged many strong students to stay in the state for college, it is probably the biggest reason for grade inflation. We really need to see a study of students grades, ACT/SAT scores, college grades. and when/if they lost hope to make stronger correlations as to where grade inflation is acute.

Square Peg said...

For a study on grade inflation in Georgia, go to http://www.gaosa.org/research.aspx and scroll down to "EOCT Grading Alignment Study," a study comparing 2007 EOCT scores to grades. You can download spreadsheets per subject and find, for example, that in geometry in DeKalb, 38.2% of "A" students did "not meet standards" on the EOCT. The study did not look at trends over time.

Easier to read the AJC article about the study than to pick through spreadsheets: http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2009/02/08/eoct_0208.html

I don't think ACT or SAT scores can give us information about grade inflation. Not all students take these tests. Many students take these tests several times. We don't know who is represented in these score averages.

Small quibble with Anon 12:37: the ACT scores for the district haven't gone down. They are flat. The score level was maintained even as the number of potentially college bound students may have increased. The number of tests taken increased from 1,546 to 2,330 over 5 years. (Cross Key's ACT scores are also flat when you consider a 5-year period.)

http://www.dekalb.k12.ga.us/instruction/testing/testscores.html

Anonymous said...

"August 17, 2010 8:33 PM" ---and don't forget: run errands, do administrative tasks for APs, pick up lunch or breakfast, hide, come in late, leave early -----but NEVER
work with a child.

Anonymous said...

Making AYP is a wrong policy and needs to be changed. Each year the percentage of students who pass must go up unti it reaches 100%. That is not only for the school but subgroups of 40 or more including ethnic groups, economically disadvantaged and students with disabilities. If a subgroup fails you don't make AYP even though it migth be a very small number of students failing.It's like Lake Woebegone all our kids will be above average.The tests and the cirriculum we use to determine AYP don't take into account that our kids need to learn thinking skills. The whole AYP thing is a march to the mediocre. Our students have more potential than that and the ones at CK have made great strides in the past few years. Part of the reason is they have someone in the community that cares. There is more to be done. Let's get to it.

Anonymous said...

"Small quibble with Anon 12:37: the ACT scores for the district haven't gone down. They are flat."

I'll grant you that. But the premise still remains that our SATs are falling and our ACTs are flat, yet our graduation rate is going up. There is a problem in DCSS with teachers being pressured:
1. To change students' grades
2. Not to give zeros when the student does not hand in work
3. To give the student 3 chances to turn in work (didn't a poster say that the newest Dr. Beasley edict was to give the students 3 times to turn in work? Tell me if I'm wrong in this statement).

All 3 of the above will inflate grades, retain students and up the graduation rate. But is this the way we want to increase the graduation rate? How about putting funding into the classroom rather than hiring more and more non-teaching personnel and following through with consequences when students don't perform up to truly rigorous standards?

I've taught literally thousands of students. Students actually feel prouder of themselves when there is a rigorous standard, and they achieve it. Our students are not stupid. They know when the adults in charge think they are so slow that they have to be "given" grades and extra chances. It's really insulting to our students.

Anonymous said...

I really think that you are not going to be able to correlate SAT/ACT scores and the graduation. The drop in SAT scores may be related to the number of students who in previous years might have dropped out and are now finishing HS. These student may be taking the SAT because that is what you do when you are getting ready to graduate from high school. For some of these students the goal is to get them a high school diploma, not a place in the freshman class of a college or university. You can't tell these students not to take the test.

About 20 years ago, the state of North Carolina (might have been South Carolina, I'm working from memory here), did a study of state school SAT scores. They found that the students who had access to advanced classes got better scores on the SAT than students who couldn't take these classes because they weren't offered. One of the ways that you improve SAT scores is to make sure that schools offer rigorous classes and to be sure that students who are planning to go to college take them.

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous 5:26 pm
"I really think that you are not going to be able to correlate SAT/ACT scores and the graduation. The drop in SAT scores may be related to the number of students who in previous years might have dropped out and are now finishing HS. These student may be taking the SAT because that is what you do when you are getting ready to graduate from high school."

So you are saying the students we are graduating are less able to do well on the SAT. Well, isn't that saying DCSS is graduating more students who have not mastered the subject matter (reading, writing and mathematics) that will allow them to do well on the SAT? And you think that is a good thing?

Do we really want to just push students through the system to get a diploma? What do you think will happen when they get to college or get a job? They will be expected to be proficient in math, reading and writing. If they are not, then they will have an extremely difficult time holding that job in today's society.

"One of the ways that you improve SAT scores is to make sure that schools offer rigorous classes and to be sure that students who are planning to go to college take them.'

You can't ask for rigor and then expect to "pass" everyone. You can't ask teachers to change grades, give them 3 chances to turn in their homework, forbid teachers to give zeros, and then say you have "rigor". This is what is happening right now in DCSS in order to ensure these students have a diploma. "Rigor" actually means that some students will fail. Failing is not always a bad thing. We are not proud of the things we are given. We are proud of the things we earn.

Anonymous said...

Those of you who are worried about how Title I funds are spent should volunteer to be part of the committee at your school that collaborates to determine how the Title I funds are spent at the school. In addition, make sure to do your research before speaking on a topic you obviously know nothing about. FYI, the District office DOES NOT determine how the local school should spend their Title I funds. It's a local school's decision. In addition, maybe you didn't know this, but many school use Title I funds to keep additional math and/or ELA teachers in their building.

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous 7:10 pm

"Those of you who are worried about how Title I funds are spent should volunteer to be part of the committee at your school that collaborates to determine how the Title I funds are spent at the school. In addition, make sure to do your research before speaking on a topic you obviously know nothing about."

I wrote this article, and I'm well aware there are Title I committees in the schools. I also know that the decision as how to use large amounts of Title I funds do not reside within these school committees.

Please go to the DOE website below to see what DCSS receives in Title I funds (approximately $34,000,000 a year).
http://public.doe.k12.ga.us/ReportingFW.aspx?PageReq=104&CountyId=644&T=1&FY=2008

Then consider that:
$8,000,000 goes for the America's Choice program (source DCSS website)

$1,400,000 goes for the Springboard program (source: DCSS website)

$8,000,000 goes for Instructional Coaches to support the America's Choice program (source: State Travel and Compensation audit)

$4,500,000 goes for the Family Resource Center personnel (source: State Salary and Travel audit)

2 to 3 million more go to support the salaries of the Office of School Improvement (DCSS website)

That leaves the Title I school committee with less than 30% of the total Title I funds ($10,000,000) in their decision realm.

Kim Gokce said...

Anon way up there: 'So you are saying CK has a number of Title 1 teachers at Cross keys that work directly with small groups of struggling students during the day as part of their classwork'

This may have happened, too, but I observed the existing faculty putting the extra effort for this group of students - "pull outs" during the week, summer sessions, and in some cases going to the homes in question.

I think the basic proposition of this posted item is pretty simple and justified. I consistently believe that every possible resource and decision authority should be moved down to the school house. This includes Title I.

There is no doubt in my mind that the principals and their support teams could make better decisions on average than the central office with these millions of dollars.

I think the way DCSS has managed Title I is another clear case of centralizing power and empire building. It is well establish organizational behavior for dominate leaders to attempt to expand their span of control. That works well when you have a organizational genius at the top. Such geniuses are few and far in between and therefore our policies should be decided upon a more modest assessment of a Superintendent's presumed skills and role.

Anonymous said...

You CANNOT correlate SAT and graduation rate!
You are just wrong to try.
Here is why:
To do so violates two fundamental principles of psychometrics: never use a test designed to measure one thing (e.g., Predict student success in college, the SAT) to measure something it was not designed to measure (e.g., graduation rate), and never use a single test score or measurement type to draw definitive conclusions (particularly not in the social sciences).

THe SAT is NOT a measure of student achievement. It was NEVER intended to be. The people who make and market the SAT never claim it is an achievement test.
The SAT is good at predicting student success in the freshman year of college.
The SAT is an aptitude test.
In order to graduate from high school, one does not have to be going to college.
Please stop the abuse of testing and statistics!

Kim Gokce said...

As far as Cross Keys' students and faculty being subjected to scrutiny in this thread, I think it is great!

When I first started working at CK I have to tell you honestly that I was looking for "the rat" for weeks. Every step of the way for the first few months I was bracing to find some dirty secret about the kids or administration. I was disappointed over and over again before I finally accepted the fact that both the students and the faculty were top notch and all the preconceptions I had been feed were off base.

So, I welcome the scrutiny on CK because I know that the more people learn about what really goes on in the classrooms and in the halls, the more impressed they will be.

Here's examples of what made me a zealot for these young people:

Linda Khor, CK Class of 2010 in some raw footage from a candid interview on the subject of her experience at CK.

Mpaza Kapembwa, CK Class of 2011 advocating for the YMCA partnership with DCSS at CK. He wrote this statement on the way to the BoE meeting - seriously!

Brandon Hamilton, CK Class of 2010 in a short segment of raw footage.

Anonymous said...

@ Kim Glocke

I saw no scrutiny of Cross Keys in this thread. The scrutiny seems to be of the DCSS administration. Cross Keys is obviously just an example of the problems with Title I dispersal in DCSS. I think this article shows that the number of Cross Keys students in the "Does not meet" category is quite low (only 40 students). I found this fact amazing considering that English is the second language for most of these students. Cross Keys students are a terrific group. No wonder their teachers are so proud of them.

Kim Gokce said...

I appreciate that, Anon, but the implication above was pretty direct that the only way our students could be graduating at higher rates was due to grade inflation/cheating, etc.

I'm not in a tizzy of this assertion - just counter-balancing it. Also, I agree the discussion is about Title I funds (mis-) management.

Kim Gokce said...

On the author's point about Cross Keys only having 40 students in a sub-group tripping up the school's AYP hopes this year - yeah, it's pretty crazy.

After what I've learned over the past few years about NCLB/AYP and how DCSS manages it, I have a perverse hope that we never make it. At least, we're better off just missing it versus just making it.

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous 9:14
I must disagree. Correlating the SAT to high school graduation student achievement is valid. If higher graduation rates mean higher achievement, then the SAT scores should be going up, not down.

That the SAT was strictly an aptitude test may have been true at one time, but student preparation in high school has very much to do with the SAT today.

Read this passage from the College Board website regarding the SAT:
"Under Caperton's leadership, the College Board dramatically changed the SAT, the nation's premier college admissions test......Addressing concerns over the writing skills of high school graduates, Caperton made the new section a required part of the test.....Higher-level math was added and more critical reading passages were introduced to replace analogies. According to Time magazine....77 years ago, the exam began life as a tool of social change." Time called the new SAT "another great social experiment," adding: "This time, the idea is that the test's rigorous new curricular demands will lift all boats—that all schools will improve because they want their students to do well on the test."

Please read what the College Board says the SAT measures:
"The SAT is a 3-hour-and-45-minute test that measures the critical thinking, mathematical reasoning, and writing skills that students need to do college-level work."

Read what it measures:

"Critical Reading
(3 sections)
What is measured:
Understand and analyze what is read.
Recognize relationships between parts of a sentence.
Understand word meaning in context.
Mathematics
(3 sections) Solve problems involving:
What is measured:
Algebra and functions
Geometry and measurement
Number and operations
Data analysis, statistics, and probability
Writing
(3 sections)
What is measured:
Use Standard Written English.
Identify sentence errors.
Write an essay and develop a point of view."

http://www.collegeboard.com/parents/tests/meet-tests/21295.html

Can you honestly say that a student can learn algebra, geometry, essay writing, etc. with no prior instruction? Looking at what it measures, can you still say that high school academic preparation has nothing to do with high SAT scores?

Kim Gokce said...

I think there is a statistical analysis that can be made but I think we are missing a more fundamental point: Graduation rates ARE tied to the Graduation Test.

The amount of effort being put in GHSGT prep is mind boggling at CK and I'm sure at other Title I schools. There's no emphasis on the SAT prep at all.

Also, as more students are taking the SAT the scores are likely to drop in a school like CK vis-a-vis GHSGT because all the students have been taking the GHSGT. To me, the GHSGT reflects the efforts made in the school for the entire population; the SAT is reflecting a sub-population growing at our school - college bound seniors.

Kim Gokce said...

To be more direct in my point: The GHSGT is measuring a different population than the SAT - they are not the same total population and I think that is the flaw in the argument.

Kim Gokce said...

If 100% of the students have been taking GHSGT and only 50% have been taking the SAT, as higher percentages of students take the SAT the odds are that these new SAT takers will be in the lower quartiles and thus lowering the aggregate SAT scores.

Meanwhile, the overall populations could be improving their pass rate on GHSGT incrementally each year. If anything, I would be surprised if average SAT scores went up as higher percentages of the population take it in a Title I school!

Kim Gokce said...

In statistical terms, I am saying that the SAT takers are a self-selecting group and not randomized. One of the characteristics of the group is that they are presumptive college-bound students.

As marginally performing students incrementally improve their performance, they are more likely to join the self-selecting group of SAT takers. I think it is reasonable to propose that on average these new SAT takers will score lower than the earlier, smaller, self-selecting population.

This is in contrast to the entire population that continues to take the GHSGT and continues to improve with the focused effort of the faculty in this area.

Have I beat this one to death or what? Anyone seeing my point or am I just crazy?

My statistics professors are rolling over in their graves ...

Anonymous said...

@ kim

Look at the skills the SAT measures. Are these not skills Cross Keys students should be learning? The skills the SAT purports to measure are are basic math, reading and writing skills. The GHSGT should be reflective, measuring these same skills. If the GHSGT is not testing these skills, that is a problem for our students.

Nationally normed tests are generally superior in reliability and validity in that they have a greater population of test takers. A very rough analogy is taking a 10 question test versus a 100 question test. One has more depth and breadth and is a better measure of what a student truly knows.

SAT test measures these skills:
"Critical Reading
(3 sections)
What is measured:
Understand and analyze what is read.
Recognize relationships between parts of a sentence.
Understand word meaning in context.
Mathematics
(3 sections) Solve problems involving:
What is measured:
Algebra and functions
Geometry and measurement
Number and operations
Data analysis, statistics, and probability
Writing
(3 sections)
What is measured:
Use Standard Written English.
Identify sentence errors.
Write an essay and develop a point of view."

Kim Gokce said...

If the entire student population took the SAT, yes, I would think that it should generally correlate with the GHSGT. The fact is, the entire pop. doesn't, though.

I am sorry but I think you are ignoring my point about the statistical reality of the entire population vs a sample like SAT-takers.

You are arguing that the SAT and GHSGT test results should correlate and I'm saying, "Sure!" But only if all students took both - they do not.

Kim Gokce said...

Here's a completely un-normed test for you ...

Assuming the same class size each year, which of the following years would you expect to have the highest average SAT score:

a) Year 1 when the best 20 seniors took the test?
b) Year 2 when the best 30 seniors took the test?
c) Year 3 when the best 40 seniors took the test?
d) Year 4 when the best 50 seniors took the test?

Your answer better be, "a)."

Kim Gokce said...

"If higher graduation rates mean higher achievement, then the SAT scores should be going up, not down."

... if all things equal AND everyone who graduated also took the SAT - they do not.

Anonymous said...

@ Kim Glocke 12:11 pm

Let's test your hypothesis.

Cross Keys has a smaller group than the average high DCSS high school that takes the SAT so let's look at the larger sample population of DCSS juniors and seniors who take the test. DCSS has around 6,000 that could take the test. Close to 60% of them take the SAT. That's a pretty good population sample:

2005-06: Test takers 3495 - Average score 1365

2006-07: Test takers 3621 - Average score 1346

2007-08: Test Takers 3699 - Average score
1338

2008-09: Test Takers 3490 - Average score
1334

Almost exactly the same number took the SAT in 2005-06 as took it in 2008-09, yet the scores are lower in 2008-09. More test takers took the SAT in 2006-07, yet the scores are lower in 2005-06.

Should I still choose a? Statistically, I should, but what do you think overrode the statistics in this case?

Anonymous said...

@ Kim contd.

Sorry. It's late.

I mean to say:
More test takers took the SAT in 2008-09, yet the scores are higher in years where more students took them (2006-07 and 2007-08).

Kim Gokce said...

I understood - but your switching arguments on me. I am not arguing whether SAT scores are a valid measure of academic preparedness. In the case of CK's results, you said:

"If higher graduation rates mean higher achievement, then the SAT scores should be going up, not down."

I've given you two factors that explain how/when this could happen: 1) Intense preparation of the entire test taking population for the GHSGT and no particular test preparation for the SAT, and 2) As a population of SAT-takers grows, the average score will likely fall all things equal.

The County-wide figures you quote are not really compelling to me as a counter argument - the scores you contrast drop by 1.9% (1365 - 1334)... is this really statistically significant given all the other variables?

If you want me to say I love the SAT, "I love the SAT." I really do. I was a terrible student who managed to land in the 98th percentile on my SAT. I've hung my hat on that for 30 years so far.

If you want me to say DCSS sucks because SAT averages have plummeted 1.9%, I can't do that.

If you want me to say DCSS (CK, particularly) is graduating a higher percentage due to grade inflation and cheating, not going to do that, either.

We are at an impasse, my patient blogger. I respectfully decline to accept your argument and wish you a good night's rest - I'm off myself!

Anonymous said...

The point is--audit.
The audit would not only ID "mis-spending" (there's a nice way to frame that), but also:

FRAUD,as in criminal--in the way we collect the Federal money. Our Title I funds are astronomical--and they are growing by leaps and bounds every year.
Cheating--it's a darn racket.

What's good is we now have two articles here on Title I following the latest STEALING articles by AJC.
If the AJC is reading, they will put the two together and investigate STEALING FEDERAL MONEY. Then the IRS and US Attorney can come on in.

Anonymous said...

@ Kim
Well, I'm more concerned with the decline in the math and reading portion of the SAT scores for DCSS:

04-05 SAT 922 (math and verbal)
05-06 SAT 913 (math and verbal)
06-07 SAT 900 (math and verbal
07-08 SAT 894 (math and verbal)
08-09 SAT 892 (math and verbal)

And now I'm off as well.

Anonymous said...

If you watch the preview for The Cartel and you read just what is happening in GA, the feds have to know that Title 1 abuse is rampant.

The question you must ask, is why they fail to do anything?

Anonymous said...

Statistically, these two should track. Does no one see a problem here?

I am not sure that the comparison between grad rates and standardized test scores is valid.

With the advent of the block in about 2006, all of sudden most DCSS students now have 32 chances during the school year to earn those 24 credits for graduation. All of a sudden there were opportunities for credit recovery during the school year. Look MOM no summer school!

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:12, based on your post DCSS is definitely in the clear because the Title 1 program is audited every year. When Federal dollars are involved, the feds perform annual audits to ensure the dollars are spent in accordance to the law. A better exercise could be to understand the law before assuming DCSS and other schools are spending the money improperly.

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:41 = A DCSS administrator

The Feds are clearly not doing a thorough audit of all DCSS spending. And since when are the Feds a model of bureaucratic efficiency?

It's time to open the books. Cere has posted info. before on an online "Open Checkbook", where every purchase is posted online.

Anon 6:41: DCSS has proven its malfeasance time and time again. No one, not even DCSS staff, believes there isn't wasteful spending and even more unfound improper, borderline illegal and blatantly illegal spending. Hope you not one of those administrators like Beasley, Butler and Simpson who have side businesses going on and are most likely working on those businesses on their DCSS time, DCSS computer, DCSS phone, etc. I know for a fact that many DCS administrators going for their advanced degrees study while on the DCSS clock while using their DCSS computer. The lack of professional ethics by many of our DCSS administrators is systemic. Heck, I guarantee Ron Ramsey is doing state senator work during his DCSS time on his DCSS computer, probably using his DCSS car for state senate work.

Anonymous said...

If DCSS administrators, staff, etc. really are performing work for side businesses, work for advanced degrees, etc. during the work day, and/or on DCSS computers and phones, it is actually a form of theft and a chargeable offense. You'd be hard pressed to find a prosecutor who would follow through with an indictment, but if it's blatant enough and prevelant enough, a case could be made.

This is where a strong supt. backed up by a strong Director of Internal Affairs backed up by a BOE who push for ethical behavior come in. But when your supt, is accepting $1000 Hawks tickets without asking where their came from, and your Director of Internal Affairs is out for a full two months a year on his side job, with a BOE with more than half of its members with friends and family in the system, some with very cushy jobs and some without strong credentials for those jobs, then students, parents, teachers and taxpayers are stuck with a perfect storm where unacceptable behavior occurs daily with anyone even flinching.

Anonymous said...

I was with my neighbor last night. Her previous bookkeeper embezzled from her business. Plenty of evidence. It has been 18 months and it hasn't gone to trail.

Anonymous said...

If DCSS administrators, staff, etc. really are performing work for side businesses, work for advanced degrees, etc. during the work day, and/or on DCSS computers and phones, it is actually a form of theft and a chargeable offense. You'd be hard pressed to find a prosecutor who would follow through with an indictment, but if it's blatant enough and prevelant enough, a case could be made.

If any employer, public or private, attempted to follow up on this, every worker in America would be in jail. Using an employer's phone system to call home, using your own phone while working, using computers to check for directions to a ball game, taking office supplies, etc. Is there anyone out there that has not taken a pen from work? C'mon let's not get ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:06, actually I'm someone with common sense. You have to know the law before you can say what has been broken. By law, the Federal government audits Title 1 expenditures annually. Because they are not providing the results you want, you are saying they are doing something wrong, You also seem to imply you can do a better job.

I'm sure they are hiring in the Inspector General's office. Just remember you find people guilty based on facts not emotion.

Cerebration said...

"a strong supt. backed up by a strong Director of Internal Affairs backed up by a BOE who push for ethical behavior "

Yep, that's what we need.

And we also need our Title 1 funds spent wisely. We are concerned that the over $30 million DCSS receives in Title 1 funds have become a "managerial level" jobs program. I don't know about illegalities, but I do know that personally, I think this money should be spent on support teachers - who actually have direct contact with students. This needs to happen in the earliest grades most intensely. If students do not have strong reading and math skills, then by the time they get to middle and high school they will become troublesome and most likely have behavior problems (as a way to cover up).

Truly, this discussion isn't about Cross Keys - it's just that the Cross Keys letter is the only one DCSS has posted online. This also isn't about SAT scores. It's about the students who are struggling -- are they getting the direct instruction and support that our federal government is providing massive funding for -- or is DCSS using that money to create more high-paying jobs that don't directly impact students? Teachers do not need more monitoring or supervision -- they need help with struggling students.

Anonymous said...

Cere for School Board.


And yes, there should be common sense used when discussing administrators with side business on DCSS time. But it out of control. Many teachers have personally told me stories of administrators who spend hours each day while on the clock doing work for their graduate classes or side jobs.

It's one thing to take a brief phone call or two for your personal business. It's another thing to feel that you are entitled to spend your work day with hours dedicated to your advanced degree or side business. It's rampant at DCSS, especially among Audria Berry's army. Put in your 40 hours a week as a DCSS employee, and do your school work and side business out of the office.

Anonymous said...

Some AYP math
In a large high school
If you had an objective of 73.3% meeting the standard on an end of course test in English (2010 objective)and 85% of your students meet the standard but a subgroup (ethnic group, students with disabilities, or economically disadvantaged) of 40, if 12 of those students do not meet the objective then your school may fail to make AYP. This year your oobjective is 80% and if 9 don't met the standard then you may fail to meet AYP. Next year the objective is 86.7%.

Cerebration said...

Yes, and so why are so many people scrambling to leave their so-called "failing" schools? Are we simiply providing a new mechanism for uncontrolled "choice"? Why do we think that since 'some' people are not passing certain tests, that others should jump ship and high tail it off to Lakeside or Dunwoody or Druid Hills? (or the "annex" at Arabia - any takers on that one?) I don't understand this ridiculous transfer solution. It doesn't fix a darn thing.

Kim Gokce said...

It does, Cere. It placates the squeaky parent as does admin transfers. Attendance lines are for the suckers who do not know how DCSS has really worked over the years. Especially, if you are stranded in the "brown" zone of Cross Keys HS. Some of our African-American and Caucasian leaders in recent years may not have been able to agree on much but they could agree that none of their children deserved a fate so harsh as going to school with the children of Buford Hwy. Lordly, no!

I bet we have more of our attendance area children of African-American or Caucausian origin in surrounding schools via admin transfers than we do in the attendance area schools.

Anonymous said...

Cere said...
"a strong supt. backed up by a strong Director of Internal Affairs backed up by a BOE who push for ethical behavior "

Yep, that's what we need.

That's exactly what we need. Of course our spineless BOE will say they're working on it and things are getting better.. blah blah blah. Tyson wants 18-24 months to draw up better and more ethical policies by reviewing all the ones in place. Which means, they'll continue doing the same things while they receive their 6 figure salaries and all will be better! I smell another "Blue Ribbon Commission"

ENOUGH! BOE get your new super in place and have this new person clean house, completely! The BOE should have done this back in April, as soon as the indictments were read. Instead, all I see is business as usual and the waste, corruption, nepotism, cronyism and lack of respect for the taxpayer continues!

Cerebration said...

I couldn't agree with this last comment more, Anon. This is where the aggravation about Beasley comes in. Beasley is only serving to implement more of the same - implying that if teachers only do more data-mining, more paperwork, more teaching to learning styles, more, more, more... More of the same does not work.

Strip away the excess. We have a $1.2 BILLION consolidated budget. Send it an ARMY of TEACHERS to roll up their sleeves and get to work supporting classroom teachers in tutoring early grade students intensely in reading and math. Hire additional teaching support staff to run after and Saturday schools for current middle and high school students who never got what they needed in the early grades.

Direct student contact is the only thing that can possibly make a difference. The millions upon millions wasted on these programs and their expensive administrators who do not directly teach students is a waste and has pretty much proven to be ineffective thus far.