Teachers Quitting In DC

Valerie Jablow points out that there is an enormous problem with DC public and charter teachers being so harassed that they quit: around 70% of them quit by their 5th year of employment. (She adds that this is probably not a bug, but a feature of the DC teacher evaluation program.) I am reprinting her entire column, but you should subscribe to it yourself.

====================

 

Let’s Be Clear: DC Teacher Retention Isn’t Just A Problem. It’s A Crisis.

by Valerie Jablow

This Wednesday evening, October 23, at 5:30 pm, the DC state board of education (SBOE), DC’s only elected body with a direct (if relatively powerless) voice on our schools, will take public testimony on teacher retention in DC’s publicly funded schools. (See more information here.)

While public voice is sorely needed in every conversation about our public schools, in this case it’s a bit akin to choosing wallpaper for a burning building.

But that’s hardly SBOE’s fault.

In the wake of years of testimony about horrific treatment of DC teachers, SBOE last year commissioned a study by DC schools expert Mary Levy, which showed terrible attrition of teachers at our publicly funded schools, dwarfing attrition rates nationally.

An update to that 2018 study was just made available by SBOE and will be discussed at the meeting this week.

The update shows that while DCPS teacher and principal attrition rates have dropped slightly recently, they remain very high, with 70% of teachers leaving entirely by the 5-year mark (p. 32). Retention rates for DC’s charter schools are similar to those at DCPS–with the caveat that not only are they self-reported, but they are also not as complete and likely contain errors.

Perhaps the most stunning data point is that more than half of DCPS teachers leaving after 6 years are highly rated (p. 24). This suggests that the exodus of teachers from DC’s publicly funded schools is not merely a matter of weeding out poor performers (as DCPS’s response after p. 70 of this report suggests). Rather, it gives data credence to the terrifying possibility that good teachers are being relentlessly harassed until they give up and leave.

Sadly, that conclusion is the only one that makes sense to me, given that most of my kids’ teachers in my 14 years as a DCPS parent have left their schools–with only a few retiring after many years of service. Most of my kids’ teachers were both competent and caring. Perhaps not coincidentally, they almost always also lacked basic supplies that they ended up buying with their own money; were pressured to teach to tests that would be the basis of their and their principals’ evaluations; and feared reprisal for saying any of that.

(I’m hardly alone in that observation–read some teacher testimony for the SBOE meeting here, including that of a special education teacher, who notes that overwork with caseloads; lack of supplies; and increased class sizes for kids with disabilities are recurring factors at her school that directly lead to teacher burnout.)

In other words, high teacher attrition in DC’s publicly funded schools isn’t a bug but a feature.

Now the real question is why is SBOE apparently the only school leadership body undertaking this work in this manner?

To be fair, DC’s office of the state superintendent of education (OSSE) recently commissioned a report, which showed even higher rates of attrition in DC’s publicly funded schools.

Yet, despite a situation that resembles a full-blown crisis of longstanding proportions, OSSE’s report was weirdly anodyne.

For instance, only 50 of 68 LEAs participated and then, even after citing horrific retention rates, OSSE’s report noted (boldface mine) that “some evidence suggests that DC teacher retention rates may be slightly lower than other cities across the country.”

The report went on to note that “a study of 16 large urban districts found that 81 percent of teachers remained at their schools after one year, compared to 70 percent in DC. National figures suggest that about 84 percent of public school teachers remained at the same school between 2011-12 and the 2012-13 school year.”

Gotta ask:

Is anyone at OSSE at all given pause by the fact that their own citation shows that DC’s teachers are leaving at annual rates more than 10% higher than in comparable urban areas? Or that DC’s 70% annual retention figure above means that a third of DC’s teachers are leaving every year?

Or how about the fact that OSSE’s collaborator on this study, TNTP (founded by former DCPS chancellor Michelle Rhee), has long been the beneficiary of DCPS contracts on teacher performance and training–as well as one of the cheerleaders for rating schools and teachers with test scores, while a former staffer for TNTP recently co-authored a report on DC teacher retention that happily concluded that high teacher turnover can actually increase test scores?

(Yeah–but only for students with teachers receiving the lowest ratings. Yay for us! Oh, and no worries about those kids with those low-rated teachers! Despite the fact that both recent OSSE and SBOE retention reports show that at risk kids in DC are much more likely to have less effective and less experienced teachers who stay for shorter terms, if churning teachers makes for good test scores, perhaps we shouldn’t worry about the collateral damage of taking away the little stability that these kids might otherwise have in their lives. Outcomes, baby, outcomes!)

In fact, OSSE’s recent report on teacher retention appears to be an outgrowth of its recent collaboration with TNTP, the stated goal of which is to “help LEAs develop effective strategies to attract, develop, and retain great teachers to serve their students through robust analysis of staffing data from across the District.”

Of course, that “robust analysis” is only with “LEAs who opt to participate”–which is a charming way to say that whatever OSSE and TNTP have together done on this subject is all, well, voluntary.

Which is kind of like seeing the burning building that is DC teacher retention and not worrying whether everyone has evacuated because choices!

(Or freedom? Hard sometimes to suss out right-wing talking points.)

Indeed, the charter board’s response to the latest SBOE report echoed this (see response after p. 70), noting that “each school pursues its own approach, including its own human capital strategies. In this context, there is no universal “right” rate of attrition, just as there is no universal rate that is too high or too low. The right attrition rate for each school will depend on that school’s approach, their needs and their situation in any given year.”

Despite such official unconcern with the recurring devastation of human capital in our schools, the SBOE is now undertaking to get the council to legislate standardized reporting for teacher attrition, given that we don’t have any standards.

Think about this for a second:

SBOE is asking the council, another elected body with only indirect oversight of schools, to enact legislation to force OSSE to ensure all schools report teacher attrition and retention in a standardized way because we have an emergency here already and no one is telling OSSE to do this. Come to think of it, given the subject matter and its emergency status, you would THINK all this is already OSSE’s obligation (you know, because of  that whole mayoral control thingy).

And yet, right now, there is literally only one person in DC who is doing any fulsome reporting of this emergency–and she doesn’t work for OSSE, despite being twice hired by SBOE to report an emergency situation that city education leaders outside SBOE seem to regard as, well, the price of doing business.

So, to recap:

–Horrific teacher retention in all publicly funded schools in DC;
–No standardized and/or mandated reporting of teacher retention in all DC publicly funded schools;
–Teacher harassment and blame for student and school success;
–No official connection of that to poor teacher retention in DC;
–At risk kids bearing the brunt of teacher mobility, including less experienced and effective teachers;
–DC education leaders begging to differ with all of that; and
–A dis-empowered SBOE trying to get both the council and OSSE to actually fix all of that while the mayor is . . . .

Uh, where IS the mayor, anyway?

Yeah.

KIPP gets to hide almost all important data from the public

The KIPP chain of charter schools has been criticized for a number of things, including high attrition rates among both teachers and students, high salaries for its CEOs, and large expenditures on advertising.

They are also allowed to hide most of that information from the public – something that no actual public school would be allowed to do. I am reprinting a few paragraphs from ‘Schools Matter’ on the topic:

We know that KIPP’s high attrition among students and teachers has been documented since 2008, even though KIPP has gone to great lengths to hide the facts that most teachers last less than three year and that the majority of entering 5th graders never reach 9th grade.

Their secrecy, however, took on new dimensions when the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) recently requested student enrollment and attrition information from the U. S. Department of Education.  

Since the U. S. Government handed over at least $40,000,000 in taxpayer money to KIPP over a two year period from 2013 through 2014, it would seem appropriate, would it not, that the federal government provide the requested information to public watchdog groups.  

But, then, KIPP is not just any corporate charter chain.  The KIPP Model of “no excuses”schools is the chosen model among white philanthropists and investors, hedge funds, and businessmen for a 21st Century indoctrination of the poor that is based on cultural/character scrubbing and neurological re-wiring of children to make them immune to effects of poverty.  It is an aggressive and profitable agenda that hopes to re-shape urban education into a tool of paternalistic exploitation.

When CMD requested student attrition information about KIPP schools, ED bowed to KIPP’s request to redact all information related to student attrition.   Would any of those Congressmen who demand public school accountability interested in knowing why the U. S. Education Department will not release this information?  After all, these are public charter schools, right? 

And here are some of those redacted pages:

kipp attrit1

and here is some additional analysis from Lisa Graves and Dustin Belike on PRWatch:

 

KIPP touts itself as particularly successful at preparing students to succeed in school and college.

Yet, it insisted that the U.S. Department of Education keep secret from the public the statistics about the percentage of its eighth graders who completed high school, entered college, and/or who completed a two-year or four-year degree.

A few years ago, professor Gary Miron and his colleagues Jessica Urschel and Nicholas Saxton, found that “KIPP charter middle schools enroll a significantly higher proportion of African-American students than the local school districts they draw from but 40 percent of the black males they enroll leave between grades 6 and 8,” as reported by Mary Ann Zehr in Ed Week.

Zehr noted: “‘The dropout rate for African-American males is really shocking,’ said Gary J. Miron, a professor of evaluation, measurement, and research” at Western Michigan University, who conducted the national study.

Miron’s analysis was attacked by KIPP and its allies, who said KIPP’s success was not due to the attrition of lower performing students who leave the school or move to other districts. One of its defenders was Mathematica Policy Research, whose subsequent study was used to try to rebut Miron’s analysis. (That name will be important momentarily.)

The Department of Education has been provided with the data about what percentage of KIPP students graduate from high school and go on to college, but it is helping KIPP keep that secret—despite the public tax dollars going to these schools and despite KIPP’s claim to be operating what are public schools.

Real public schools would never be allowed to claim that high school graduation rates or college matriculation rates are “proprietary” or “privileged” or “confidential.”

– See more at: http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/04/13096/exposed-cmd-kipps-efforts-keep-public-dark-while-seeking-millions-taxpayer#sthash.hgMEHxto.dpuf

Jersey Jazzman Examines the ‘Myth of the Heroic Charter School’ — New Jersey Style

As you know, certain charter chains keep claiming that nothing needs to be done about poverty in America.

All that needs to be done to get rid of the ‘achievement gap’ is to get rid of unionized, veteran teachers; hire inexperienced, untrained teachers; and require them to follow a script, have ‘high expectations’, maintain tight discipline. Then, the scores will go through the roof.

Jersey Jazzman has actually taken the time to look into this, and has lovely graphs and tables backing up his words showing that it’s really a load of cow manure. The graphs should be read deciphered by all.

Pay particular attention to the graph that shows that on one Big Standardized (BS) test (where a particular charter chain scored quite high), the vast majority of the public-school students they were compared to, didn’t even bother taking the test, because they knew it didn’t matter to their futures in any way at all and was a big PITA.

Here is the link.

Charter School Segregation in New Jersey – information courtesy of Jersey Jazzman

Here’s the link: http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com/2014/04/uncommon-comes-to-camden-let.html

The attrition rates for students in the ‘highly-rated’ Camden charter schools look just like what I found here in Washington, DC.

Do DC Charter Schools Have the Secret for Preventing High School Dropouts?

The conventional wisdom is that urban charter schools do a much better job than public schools at getting their students to graduate from high school and go to college.

But audited figures from the District of Columbia’s Office of the State Superintendent of Education over the past ten years show that despite all the advantages and extra corporate funding of charter schools, the attrition rates from both types of schools is essentially the same, and is very high.

The graphs and tables below show that both public and charter schools in DC have a serious attrition problem, in that large proportions of the students enrolled and counted in October of their 9th grade have somehow vanished by the time that the cohort of 12th graders is officially counted in October.

This attrition rate is serious in both cases: over the past decade, about 44 percent of the high school freshmen (9th graders), in BOTH the DC public schools and the DC charter schools, have gone missing when it is time for them to be counted as seniors (12th graders). The differences in attrition rates are trivial: 43% for the charter schools and 45% for the public schools.

Our data does NOT tell us where these students have gone. Some probably moved or transferred to another state, or went to a private or parochial school, or have been incarcerated, but a significant fraction of them of them probably flat-out dropped out of school. It would be wonderful if there was a source of data that tracked where these students actually went, but let’s not hold our breath waiting for that data to be gathered and released.

Think of the advantages of the charter schools in recruiting their students: a parent has to somehow navigate the application system, fill out the lottery form, appear for interviews, and agree to the behavior and attendance and work requirements — all of which will eliminate a large fraction of the hardest-to-reach students who have parents who are simply non-functional. However, for all of their boasts of 100% graduation rates, the DC charter schools either expel or push out large fractions of their incoming high school students, or those students withdraw on their own (for whatever reasons we can only guess at).

dcps hs attrition

 

 

dc charter high school attrition


Other than the colors and the total count of students, you will not notice much of a difference between the two graphs shown above. The first one shows how the students in the regular DC public high schools have been disappearing from the rolls (or not) over the past 9 years, and the second one shows how the students in the DC charter high schools have been disappearing over the past 8 years.

My conclusion?

High school dropouts are a very serious problem in Washington DC, and that attrition rate is virtually the same in both the regular public schools and in the charter schools. The charter schools do NOT have a magic wand that has solved the problem.

================

I also attach charts showing the entire enrollment, by grade level and year, for all of DC public schools and all of the DC charter schools, for the past decade. These tables were painstakingly gathered by Erich Martel, a retired DC social studies teacher (last at Phelps and Wilson), who has been raking through files showing administrative malfeasance for a very long time in the administration of DC public schools. His source has been the official audited enrollment figures published by OSSE (Office of the State Superintendent of Education).

dc public school audited enrollment 2002-2013

 

dc charter school audited enrollment 2003 through 2013
The colors are important here, because they allow you to follow a cohort, or age-group, diagonally down and to the right, as they proceed through their years in school. For example, the charter school “Class of 2012” in our last graph is the magenta diagonal that reaches the 12th grade in 2011-12. This group started in the fourth grade, in SY 2003-4, with 843 students. The next year, in 5th grade, in SY 2004-5, it had 919 students. Obviously some students entered this cohort at some point between October 2003 and 2004 (and most likely some kids departed as well; the data does not tell us how much churn took place, only the net loss or gain). This magenta-colored cohort reached its maximum size in the 7th grade, with two thousand, one hundred nineteen students. By the beginning of 9th grade, that cohort had 1,971 students, and by October of 2011, at the beginning of their senior year, the overall charter school cohort that I am calling the “Class of 2012” had shrunk to 987 students,  which is almost exactly half the size that it was when it began the 9th grade in 2008 with 1971 students. So I say that the attrition rate for that class was 50%, since 50% of the incoming high school freshman class has somehow vanished by the time that the rest of the cohort reached 12th grade.

I am not aware of any single DC charter school or public school that goes all the way from pre-school through 12th grade. However, as far as I have seen, every public or charter school that offers 9th grade now goes all the way to 12th grade, so it seems quite fair to examine the attrition rate for charter and regular public schools as a whole.

In the regular public schools, that same class went from 5,375 students in October 2002, when they began third grade, to 2,972 students when they began 8th grade in 2007, to 4,571 students when they began the 9th grade in 2008, and shrunk to 2,114 students when they began the 12th grade in 2011, for a high-school attrition rate of 54% for that particular age-group.

I notice something very weird about the regular DC public school enrollment figures: there is an enormous jump in enrollment from 8th grade to 9th grade, and then a large drop from 9th grade to 10th grade. My colleagues who teach high school tell me that this is because large numbers of students are made to repeat 9th grade; some of them are eventually skipped past the 10th grade, in part because administrators don’t want them to have to take the 10th grade DC-CAS test, because their scores would be low.

Notice that over the past decade, the 9th grade DC public school enrollment has totaled over fifty thousand students, larger than any other grade, which is awfully fishy, since the 8th grade total enrollment over that time was only about thirty-six thousand students and 10th grade total enrollment was a bit under thirty-eight thousand students.

Since the 9th grade DCPS enrollment figures seem artificially inflated (by a LOT), one might conclude that the attrition rates calculated in this post for DC public schools are higher than they ought to be.

Perhaps.

But however you measure it, attrition is a very serious problem in DC, and nobody has solved it.

======

If you want to see the attrition rates at individual DC charter schools, look here.

Published in: on March 27, 2014 at 9:16 am  Comments (1)  
Tags: , , , ,

Yes, DC’s Charter Schools “Lose” a Lot of Students Over the School Year – contrary to what their defenders pretend

Here is a little table on Charter School and regular DC Public School attrition or growth, based entirely on the statistics displayed in a very recent DC  OSSE report 

( http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/local/dc-student-mobility-study/281/ )

I hope the table comes through legibly. If it doesn’t, please let me know and I’ll try a different tack.

It shows that there is very significant net attrition from the charter schools from October to June: 6.6% of the PCS student body left, for reasons that I can only guess at. (Many reasons have been proposed, including expulsion and informal push-outs.)

There is essentially no overall attrition from the regular public schools.

dcps and charter school enrollment

The columns labeled as “% change” and ” # changes” are counting from October. Negative numbers mean a loss of students; they are either indicated with a negative sign or parentheses.

Let’s look at this as a graph:

graph of dcps and charter enrollment

So, yes, there is a very significant attrition from the privately-run, publicly-funded DC charter schools — but not from the regular DC public schools –– as the academic year progresses. Anybody who says otherwise isn’t telling the truth!

What’s more, it looks like the ‘pushout’ is indeed a bit higher from March to April than in most other months (except from October to November), which is what a number of parents and teachers have been complaining about: students who charter school administrators don’t think will do well on the DC-CAS NCLB/RTTT exam, get pressured to leave.

And of course, the charter schools get to keep the funding for all of the thousands of students who are forced or pressured to leave: another point that parents and teachers have been complaining about.

 

All of which is sort of, if not perfectly, according to law and intention.

The intention is to remove “public” from any say in how schools are run, except as consumers. And, as in the market, them that has the most money gets the best education, and woe to those who don’t have any money or influence: their kids get the very worst there is.

 

(It would be nice to have a good, personal description of what it’s like in all of those sectors…  Maybe in a different post.)

Published in: on February 12, 2013 at 2:08 pm  Comments (1)  
Tags: , , ,
%d bloggers like this: