DCSS Title 1 Schools and AYP: "The Shell Game"

To see how disappointing for Title 1 students DCSS 2011 AYP results are, compare DCSS with other metro systems that are demographically similar:

73% of Marietta City Schools Made AYP in 2011. Marietta City Schools has almost EXACTLY the same demographics as DCSS.

55% of Clayton County Schools Title 1 schools Made AYP in 2011. Clayton County has similar demographics to DCSS.

20% of DeKalb Schools Title 1 schools Made AYP in 2011.

Of interest: 59% of all Title 1 schools in Georgia Made AYP in 2011.

As quoted in the AJC, "Trent Arnold, DeKalb's executive director of assessment and accountability...said lower-level schools in the district "struggled" and fell short of goals. Arnold attributes the growing failure to increasingly tough standards..."

Since the performance standards are EXACTLY the same for ALL school systems including those that are demographically similar to DCSS, is Mr. Arnold's statement a valid excuse?

Does anyone think our teachers don't work as hard as Clayton County and Marietta City teachers?

Are our parents less involved than Clayton County parents or Marietta City parents?

Are DCSS students less intellectually capable than Clayton County or Marietta City students?

If you answered NO to the questions above, the DCSS administration must assume responsibility for these catastrophic results. Consider that the DCSS administration and the BOE decreased 600+ teaching positions in the last two years, increased class sizes to levels not seen in 30 years, and overburdened teachers with meaningless classroom tasks, overbearing oversight, excessive meetings, and training that is disconnected from the learning process.

20% of DCSS Title 1 schools made Adequate Yearly Progress in 2011 – down from 74% of DCSS Title 1 schools making Adequate Yearly Progress in 2009. What happened to our Title 1 schools in two years time? Are the BOE members who represent these Title 1 schools asking Ms. Tyson, Dr. Beasley and Dr. Berry this question? Are the parents in all DeKalb County schools asking Ms. Tyson, Dr. Beasley and Dr. Berry this question?

Student progress in DCSS Title 1 schools has DECLINED at an unprecedented rate. The DCSS administration knows how bad this is for students. Just watch the video of the called Board of Education meeting last week to see how the DCSS administration and the BOE "sweat" the release of the AYP data. They were scrambling to come up with a plan to deflect responsibility for yet another year. They are counting on taxpayers being complacent players on the other side of the table in this shell game.

Source: http://www.gadoe.org/ayp2011.aspx

A Tale of Two School Systems – Part III

“This is an EQUALITY Issue” 

Since July 10, 2006 when Audria Berry was made Director of the Office of School Improvement, the number of DCSS Title 1 schools has increased slightly while federal funding (primarily for the academic improvement of students in schools classified as Title 1) has increased 220%. Note that federal funding from 2005 to 2010 has been close to half a billion dollars. When 2011 RTTT money is added in, that half billion figure will be a reality. Although the DCSS administration from Lewis to Tyson has treated these federal dollars as “free” money, EVERY citizen in DeKalb County who has paid federal taxes in the last 6 years has seen this money deducted from his/her paycheck. Have these federal dollars benefited the students they were/are intended to benefit?

DCSS is STILL divided into a dual system when it comes to student achievement. Look at DCSS’s 2011 Georgia High School Graduation Test scores. The Office of School Improvement has had close to a half billion dollars to spend in the last 5 years from when these students in our Title 1 high schools were in elementary school, and they have failed to move them forward in relation to their peers.

$500,000,000 spent for INCREASED student achievement in Title 1 schools that has in reality resulted in DECREASED student achievement is not acceptable. BOE members need to look at the schools they serve and ask if they are comfortable supporting the present DCSS administration personnel who have overseen the expenditure of half a billion dollars for Title 1 schools while presiding over a decline in student achievement. The DCSS administration needs to understand that taxpayers all over DeKalb are interested in the achievement of EVERY student in EVERY school in DeKalb. The DCSS administration and BOE must take responsibility for spending tax money earmarked for leveling the playing field for our lowest income students in an efficacious manner. A Return on Investment needs to happen for ALL students.

See below for a list of the schools that the DCSS BOE members represent. Please email your BOE member and ask him/her if he/she is satisfied with the $500,000,000 spent by the Office of School Improvement.

http://www.dekalb.k12.ga.us/board-of-education

===
Sources:
http://www.dekalb.k12.ga.us/school-improvement/title-i-schools
http://public.doe.k12.ga.us/ReportingFW.aspx?PageReq=104&CountyId=644&T=1&FY=2006
http://public.doe.k12.ga.us/ReportingFW.aspx?PageReq=104&CountyId=644&T=1&FY=2007
http://public.doe.k12.ga.us/ReportingFW.aspx?PageReq=104&CountyId=644&T=1&FY=2008
http://public.doe.k12.ga.us/ReportingFW.aspx?PageReq=104&CountyId=644&T=1&FY=2009
http://public.doe.k12.ga.us/ReportingFW.aspx?PageReq=104&CountyId=644&T=1&FY=2010
http://www.ajc.com/news/results-of-2011-georgia-958505.html
http://app.doe.k12.ga.us/ows-bin/owa/fin_pack_revenue.entry_form

Is DCSS leveling the playing field between schools?

Our talented researcher known as DeKalb Parent has looked into PTA spending and will have you wondering if we couldn't level the playing field better by bringing Title 1 funds directly into the schools.  Read on:

Maureen Downey who writes the AJC Get Schooled blog brought up an interesting question in a recent article titled “Should parent affluence influence how schools are funded?”

I took a look at a few affluent areas of DeKalb to see what their PTAs fund for students. In particular I pulled data for some of the schools that have the greatest percentages of responses to the online survey regarding redistricting.

The parents at these schools work hard for their money, and they work just as diligently to raise money for their schools. Reviewing their PTA’s income and expenditures gives an idea of the “extras” these school provide. Although this is only one reason parents might want their children to stay at these schools, the impact made by the PTA is substantial and obviously beneficial for the students.

Regarding the PTAs expenditures, the local PTA scrutinizes and controls the funds. The money is spent in a variety of ways. I didn’t see any single expenditure taking up the lion’s share of the budget. There are many different programs to appeal to the varied interests of students. They fund programs for struggling learners, average students, and gifted students. Teachers have a say in what their classrooms need. Money is earmarked to honor teachers. Many of the programs foster critical thinking skills and a respect for the environment.

This brought to mind the question - Are Title 1 funds being used as wisely in Title 1 schools as these PTAs use their funds? If you look at the allocation of Title 1 dollars that are supposed to level the playing field between more affluent schools and schools that are not as affluent, you will see that most Title 1 funds per DCSS Title 1 school are substantially greater than the funds raised and spent by these affluent PTAs. Should Title 1 schools have more local control over how their funds are spent? Would that allow them the accountability and flexibility to offer the variety of educational experiences that these more affluent schools have provided for their students? Couldn’t Title 1 students benefit from some of the programs that these students have access to? In other words, is there a better way to level the playing field than DCSS currently has in place? Regarding transparency, is there a full accounting of these funds on the DCSS website?

Fernbank Elementary:
Below is a sample of what Fernbank publishes as its PTA income and expenditures. They are to be commended for their transparency and extremely low administrative cost. Here is the link if you want a full view of their online balance sheet. They keep meticulous accounts:

Projected: $ 131,100.00
Actual: $ 132,596.23

Community Enrichment (funded by Membership Dues/self supported))
TOTAL Community Enrichment $21,255.80

Fund Raising Expenses
TOTAL Fund Raising $39,666.54

PTA Administration (funded by $$$ for Education/Tshirts/Box Tops)
TOTAL PTA Administration $6,501.20

Staff Enrichment (funded by Wrapping Paper)
Counselor
Reflections Art Exhibitions
Retirement Recognition
Staff Appreciation $1,755
Staff Gifts
Teacher of the Year
Teacher Stipends $5,150.65
Teacher T-Shirts
TOTAL Staff Enrichment $8,024.54

Student Enrichment - (funded by School Pictures & School Store/Bookfairs/or self supported)
Library Gift Book Program
Scholarships
Agendas
Chess Club $13,812.83
Lego Club $1,840.00
Field Day
Fifth Grade Fun Run $2,678.50
Writing class
Yoga $7,400
TOTAL Student Enrichment $31,917.42

Vanderlyn Elementary:
The Vanderlyn PTA webpage says that its primary vehicle for revenue generation is an Annual Fund that parents can donate to. Its goal is $100,000, and currently it stands at $73,000+.

Take a look at the FAQ page to see that this money is very well spent giving students many enrichment opportunities:

Austin Elementary:
Austin’s PTA doesn’t publish its revenue figures, but look at their PTA webpage to see some of the enrichment they provide:

Oak Grove Elementary:
Oak Grove doesn’t publish its revenue either, but it does quite a bit of fundraising, foremost being the Fall Festival. I’ve been to some of their Fall Festivals, and they’re big events. It also has a foundation similar to Vanderlyn. Take a look at its stated goals for expenditure of dollars raised through this foundation by clicking here.

Can Title I Attain Its Goal?

Below are some quotes from a ten year old white paper highlighting some of the ways Title 1 money has been squandered and misused over the years. Things haven't improved.

In a statement released on April 1, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson used the following words to argue for passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965:

This bill has a simple purpose: To improve the education of young Americans.... How many young lives have been wasted; how many families now live in misery; how much talent has the Nation lost; because we have failed to give all our people a chance to learn.... This bill represents a national determination that this shall no longer be true. Poverty will no longer be a bar to learning, and learning shall offer an escape from poverty.... For this truly is the key which can unlock the door to a great society.

More than thirty years and $118 billion later, two national evaluation studies have concluded that these goals have not been met. 1 The skill gap in reading, writing, and mathematics has not been closed between, on the one hand, children from low-income households--often African American or Hispanic and attending central city or rural school systems--and, on the other hand, middle-class children--often Anglo and attending suburban school systems.

This comes as no surprise. The federal government's more than thirty-year attempt to solve the problems of poverty--in particular, the diminished life chances of children from low-income households--has been largely unsuccessful. Title I of the ESEA is, and has been, the most heavily funded program in this area. At $8.3 billion for 1999 alone, this program is funded at approximately twice the level of the better-known Head Start program. The failure to win the War on Poverty is largely attributable to the failure of these two programs to achieve their goals: the school success of low-income children.

In particular, we found these miscellaneous quotes regarding Control by School District Administrative Elites relevant:

....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....""

This paper will enlighten you as to the damage done since 1994 and the ESEA reauthorization. We hope that you will read it in it's entirety and work to reverse the trends and end the corruption.

Click here to read the full article in Brookings Papers on Education Policy 2000 by George Farkas and L. Shane Hall.

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?

Dr. Crawford Lewis discusses funding of Hollywood trip for DCSS Employees

Video

America's Choice - Sucking up the Stimulus

So, it's true. As Channel 2 is reporting, nearly 200 DeKalb County school employees will be boarding flights to Los Angeles this week to attend an education conference that will cost taxpayers nearly $400,000. The money isn’t coming from local tax dollars but from federal dollars that came to the county as part of the Obama administration’s 2009 stimulus package.

Stimulus money from Washington is often discussed in terms of “shovel ready” construction projects that are supposed to create jobs for unemployed Americans. But the DeKalb County School System has decided to use stimulus money to attend a four-day conference sponsored by America’s Choice, which a schools spokesman calls “a great thing.”

The organization’s Web site describes it as a “solution provider" ... that offers “comprehensive, proven solutions to the complex problems educators face in an era of accountability.” The Web site also says America’s Choice has “an unparalleled history as a national thought leader.”

School spokesman Dale Davis told Channel 2 Action News investigative reporter Richard Belcher that 184 principals, instructional coaches, district staff and teachers are scheduled to attend the conference in Hollywood. We found that the primary conference hotel is the Renaissance Hollywood Hotel and Spa.

Davis said the school system will spend $91,500 for conference registrations and another $291,400 for hotels, flights, meals and incidentals. That’s a total of $382,900 in federal tax money. In an email, Davis wrote, “I am happy that you are expressing interesting in this training opportunity for our employees. We are focused on student improvement. America’s Choice is in partnership with the district to help improve the academic success in 40 of our lowest performing schools.”

Click here for the entire story from WSB.

To view the conference agenda, click here.