New DOE Program to Boost Grad Rates: Tweeting for Credit Recovery

There has been a lot of criticism over the credit recovery program where high school students short on credits to graduate can spend a little time copying and pasting from on-line encyclopedias to make up these credits and receive a quickie diploma before entering a remediation program in college.

Despite these tricks, when you take the kids pushed into phony GED programs or into trade schools disguised as legit transfer schools into account, the grad rates haven't budged all that much and may even be dropping. What is needed is a way to help boost the graduation rates and raise the standings of poor Mayor Bloomberg whose poll numbers as the education mayor have been dropping almost as fast as the scandals coming down on his head.

Really, why make the students come into school at all? Why not just let them tweet their way to a high school diploma – in 140 characters. Or less. And if they can do it in less, let's toss in some extra credits for being thrifty.

Tweed jumped at my idea and is even having a contest for the best credit recovery tweets.

Here is the leading tweet candidate so far, worth 3 social studies credits and exemption from the American history regents exam: GWash cut dwn chrry tree, bad boy.

*************
Social Note

Murry Bergtraum CL John Elfrank sent this wonderful photo. Guess the location and win a front row seat at the April 28 PEP meeting at Prospect Heights HS.

"If the new standards had been in place for the class of 2009, the city’s graduation rate would have been roughly 45%, instead of the nearly 60...

Jenny Medina has a pretty good piece in today's Times. Titled "New Diploma Standard in New York Becomes a Multiple-Question Choice" it lays waste to some of the BloomKlein distorted stats. Here are some highlights:

The new requirements do not take full effect until the class of 2012 graduates. What is clear is that if they were in place today, New York City’s graduation rate would almost certainly drop after years of climbing steadily.

Currently, the state awards two basic kinds of diplomas. The tougher one, called a Regents diploma, requires scores of at least 65 (out of 100) on five Regents exams: in English, math, science, global history and United States history. The other type, called a local diploma, requires a 65 on three of those tests, and a 55 on the other two. In two years, the local diploma will cease to exist. Students who want a diploma but have not passed all five tests by the end of senior year will have to retake the missed tests in a following year or seek a G.E.D.

And now the most telling points (my emphasis added):

If the new standards had been in place for the class of 2009, the city’s graduation rate would have been roughly 45 percent, instead of the nearly 60 percent that city officials boasted of, according to city statistics. Among black and Latino students, barely more than one-third would have qualified for diplomas.

A Regents diploma is supposed to signify that a student is prepared for college. Today, most New York City graduates who enroll in an associate degree program at a City University of New York college need to take remedial courses there.

Read it all because it is an important article that over time undercuts the ed deformers - and their enablers in the UFT /AFT - which I will get to on a follow-up post.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/education/28regents.html

Now, add this piece from Chaz on credit recovery, which Leonie posted on her listserve (the most influential ed listserve in existence) and you get the bigger picture of the ed deform scammers.

DOE's New Idea For "Credit Recovery" Double Credits For Summer School.

In the DOE's never ending quest to artificially raise the graduation rate of the high schools, Tweed has come up with the idea of splitting summer school into two three week sessions and giving the students double credit if they take both sessions. It is bad enough that many of the students don't have to show up during the year and are given "credit recovery courses" to artificially inflate the high school graduation rate. Now the DOE has quietly approved "credit recovery" for summer school by allowing students to get full credit for a semester by showing up for just three weeks. Students that show up for the entire six week course will get credit for both semesters or double the credit that summer school had previously allowed.

Over the years the DOE has approved the "credit recovery program" without so much as a guideline on what is "credit recovery". Principals, who are under pressure to raise graduation rates have gone to great lengths to use whatever means that are necessary to push out students to artificially raise the graduation rate and increase not only the school grade but to receive a financial bonous to the Principal as well. For example, the Principal at Lehman High School was accused of doing just that. I am sure every struggling high school in New York City can look at their own school and see abuses of the "credit recovery program". While the State has promised to look into the practice in New York City, So far the State has done little or nothing about these abuses. It is more important to artificially raise the graduation rate then to give a student a meaningful education. It is all about the numbers not about the quality of education.

Tweed's "children last" continues.

Lehman HS, School for Scandal

We've been hearing stories since last year out of the Lehman HS in the Bronx, one of the few large schools remaining, about how the new principal, Janet Saraceno, who replaced the legendary ogre principal, Robert Leder, was considered even worse.

I was tipped to the 19credits blog when it first began last February and put a link on Ed Notes. It started out as somewhat cryptic with a fictional motif, calling Lehman "Herman High". I spoke to one of the authors, who is known as moral obligation, last March. We discussed giving the blog more of a direct link to Lehman to get more traction. This year they did so. And it is paying off.

I was slipped a letter of resignation from a fed up Lehman teacher in late June which I passed on to Anna Philips, Phylissa Cramer and Elizabeth Green at Gotham at the time. With summer coming on, nothing was done. But today, the stuff should start flying out of the fan.

Gotham just published an explosive report on the Lehman situation written by Anna Philips. Congrats to Anna and the crew for sticking with the story and putting together this excellent in-depth report.

Our sources report that Joel Klein has been directly informed about the situation at Lehman for quite some time, making this quote from David Cantor a total joke: “The Office of Special Investigations is investigating allegations of grading improprieties at Lehman,” said a spokesman for the Department of Education, David Cantor. “We’ll comment once we have findings.”

Sure David. You should have asked Joel about Lehman, since he's known about it for a long time. Send the investigator over there and ask why Klein sat on the information he received.

Excerpts from Anna Philips' report:

As part of a Department of Education program to lure principals to the city’s most challenging schools, she was given a bonus and the title “executive principal.” At the time, this perplexed more than a few parents and teachers, who told the city’s daily newspapers that they couldn’t understand why a school with a “B” on its latest report card needed to offer its new principal an extra $25,000 a year.

According to current and former teachers, Saraceno methodically set about increasing the school’s 47 percent graduation rate by changing students’ grades from failing to passing over the objections of their teachers and, in some instances, in violation of state regulations.

“Leder was not a perfect human. We had hoped that anybody would have been better,” said a current teacher. “It turned out his replacement was much much worse. She has changed Lehman into a diploma mill.”

Grade changing is not an entirely foreign phenomenon at Lehman. Teachers who worked under Leder said he sometimes asked them to change student athletes’ grades if their grade point average slipped below the minimum required for them to play, or if a student was mere points away from passing a class. But that process involved conversations with teachers in which Leder persuaded them to sign the paperwork, they said. Today, failing grades disappear from transcripts without warning, teachers said.

“Leder’s corruption was at least confined to a cohort of 50 kids,” said a former teacher who was one of eight math teachers to leave Lehman last year. Former and current math teachers said their department has borne the brunt of the grade changes, as it has the lowest pass rate within the school.

“Saraceno is actually worse. It’s sickening that I would take him over her,” said the teacher, who now works at a charter school.

Our sources at Lehman, who while admitting that Leder was a tyrant, felt he was the tyrant you knew. "He had an educator's mentality and if he believed you were serious he left you alone," said a teacher. "If he said he was going to consult with teachers and let them run the ship he meant it. There was no bull." Saraceno, on the other hand was described as duplicitous, going through phony charades to make it look like she was consulting with teachers, but still pushing her own program in a dictatorial way that at times made Leder look mild mannered. Well, maybe not exactly but maybe it was the devil you know factor operating. Her move to break Lehman into Small Learning Communities (SLC's) was fraught with manipulations and fear mongering against recalcitrant teachers. The SLC situation caused as much consternation as the credit recovery game.

Make sure to check out the 19credits blog to get the full background scoop.

There is a pro-admin blog, 19stepsahead, that has 2 posts so far. If you have nothing good to report, say nothing but make sure to put down the critical blog that says it all. This sounds familiar when shills come out:

For months conversation about Lehman High School, the new direction of the administration, and its development into SLC's has been dominated by what it would appear are a minority of loud complaining people... with lots of time on their hands to write "creative" stories, but with little real steps being offered to make effective change.

Hmmm. Joel Klein could be writing this.

The drop in SAT scores makes perfect sense...

.....if you give credence to the widespread anecdotal rumors that bogus "credit recovery" scams are in full force and/or that schools which grade their own students' Regents exams inflate scores.

From a comment on the post "SAT scores are down but AP's are up, in the city and state".

http://gothamschools.org/2009/08/25/sat-scores-are-down-but-aps-are-up-in-the-city-and-state/


Author: Dee Alpert

The drop in SAT scores makes perfect sense if you give credence to the widespread anecdotal rumors that bogus "credit recovery" scams are in full force and/or that schools which grade their own students' Regents exams inflate scores.

NYC DOE's press spin, i.e., that scores are lower because more black and Hispanic kids are taking the SAT tests, is nothing short of reprehensible. The increase in black and Hispanic kids' graduation rates in NYC - if they are to be believed - appears to be the result of a perverse kind of social promotion.

They get promoted all right, with meaningless diplomas in hand, right out of school entirely. But what, pray tell, is the purpose of increasing minority students' graduation rates if their underlying skills haven't been upgraded in sync?

So now the Tweed spinmeisters crow because they're giving the current generation of minority NYC high school graduates, who can mostly only get hired low-paying jobs as custodians, janitors, waiters and hairdressers because they really can't read or do math very well, high school diplomas that will make nice wallpaper on the inside of their work lockers, but do precious little else for them?

What a colossal fraud! And what a miserable thing to do to these nice black and Hispanic kids who have summoned the motivation and gumption to take the SATs in the first place.

No wonder the NYC DOE has ceased its practice of publishing individual high schools' SAT scores. Seems like a lot of them may really be Potemkin Villages.

Let's all push for more economic stimulus money for the CUNY community colleges' remedial programs.


See all comments on this post here:

http://gothamschools.org/2009/08/25/sat-scores-are-down-but-aps-are-up-in-the-city-and-state/#comments

Related:
Gotham's Elizabeth Green's article (and charts) on the SAT scores.

Other News to be posted later.
Report on the Coalition for Public Education founding convention
Report from the KIPP high school hearing at IS 195 in Harlem this past Thursday.

Seung and Steve Slap Goliath David (Cantor)

People on the NYCEd News listserve actually get hot when DOE press chief David Cantor decides to respond to a posting,which is what he did on GEM's Seung OK's comment on credit recovery. Seung has enormous credibility because he is on the front lines and daily sees the results of the disastrous policies of Cantor's boss.

Seung made a mark recently with his calling out during Randi's farewell address and the Unity Caucus hack machine is trying to lift his delegate position. (See UFT Delegate Assembly, Democracy NOT Unity Hack Attack Part 2, Seung Sings with lots more to come I haven't reported on yet)

Seung has been a teacher for 11 years and just recently became involved with GEM due to his outrage.And what an involvement as he has thrown both feet into the fray with gusto. If there were even 50 more like him out there we'd have BloomWeinKlein on the run.

Will Seung be getting visits at his school from the both the UFT and the DOE over his outspokeness? Frankly, I would be more sorry for the goons than I am for Seung.

For the record, I personally like David Cantor, as do most people who have met him. No matter how much the people opposed to BloomKlein disagree, he has always been a gentleman. His willingness to throw himself into the debate, even though he is always wrong, is something to be admired. I always encourage him to do so. It gives us so much material.


Seung Ok says in response to the NY Times article on credit recovery:

The only issues I have about this article - is it doesn't question the improvement showing that less city college students need remediation courses. The reason for that is the high prices of state colleges. Many higher level students who would have previously attended state colleges are now attending the cheaper city colleges. This is not due to mayoral control.

The other problem is that it should have mentioned that the state education department were recently looking to make recovery courses even more lax. They proposed to get rid of seat time requirements for students, to allow the school to determine what is and is not credit recovery, and to hide the source of credits on students transcripts so no outside observer could discern a regular credit from recovery.

Plus, they did not mention that regents standards are so low, that it is not a measure of anything anymore. Only 33% and 46% respectively on the Algebra and Biology regents is needed for a scaled score of 65.

Otherwise, I think this article is very good at exposing all the loopholes Klein and Bloomberg are allowing to happen for their own stats. I'm not hopeful that they will reign this practice however, because improvement in statistics is the bedrock of their argument to voters to keep in control of DOE.


DOE Press Secretary David Cantor responds:

This is bogus. Not only has the enrollment rate of NYC high school graduates gone up 50% at CUNY schools since 2002, it has gone up modestly at SUNY colleges as well.

Also, the reference to Regents test scoring is completely bollixed. Students do not need to score "33%" on the Algebra test in order to pass. They need a raw score this year of 30 out of a possible 87, but the test isn't divided into equal intervals. For example, a raw score of 19 yields a scale score of 49, while a raw score of 20 yields a scale score of 51; looked at another way, raw scores of 63, 64, 65, and 66 all yield a scale score of 84.

Additionally, the raw score needed to pass changes each year depending on the difficulty of the test's questions; while a student in 2009 needed a raw score of 30, next year a student may need a raw score of 40. Using the mistaken calculation below, and assuming 87 were to remain the high raw score, students would need to score "46%" to pass. By the logic here the State would deserve praise for raising standards.

David Cantor

Press Secretary

Seung slaps back - brilliantly, I might add

To Mr. Cantor,

Fine, if you don't want see the obvious - that there is a recession, and higher level students are in fact opting for CUNY rather than SUNY - then lets look at a report released by CUNY itself:

"In difficult economic times, students and their families especially appreciate the high value of an education at a CUNY college," said Chancellor Matthew Goldstein. "We are investing in CUNY by attracting world class faculty, building modern facilities and creating innovative academic programs in the most exciting city in the world. The University today is among the best values in higher education."

That same report by CUNY goes on to say:

Five elite New York City public high schools – Bronx High School of Science, Brooklyn Technical High School, Staten Island Technical High School, Stuyvesant High School and Townsend Harris High School – sent 505 freshmen to CUNY colleges this fall, a 27 percent increase compared with the number enrolled in baccalaureate programs in 1999.

And as far as your scaled scores on standardized testing is concerned, you missed the point completely. The issue is not that every student's grades will be inflated. You remark that a 62,63, and 64 raw score ( out of 87 possible questions) are all scaled at a test score of 87.

The issue is the MINIMAL standards of what you consider proficient (30 correct out of 87 possible credits). So, yes, if this were the physician's licensing exam, those that did great wouldn't get a 140% on an exam. The problem is that the lowest performing group (30 out of 87 questions), would still be graduated as doctors. Let's use common sense here, as someone else just mentioned, would you want anyone - your doctor, bus driver, barber, astronaut, waiter, proctologist to get 30 out of 87 in anything in their training?

And let me tell you why these tests are becoming easier than ever. I ran tutoring sessions for several hours 3 days prior to this years Living Environment exam. There were many students who attended who failed it in the past, and had not taken a single course related to this subject all year. Why did they come and thank me right after the test? They thanked me because every question I crammed into them was on that exam. Of course, because many of the questions appeared last year, and the year before that. These tests are getting narrower in scope, and exact forms of questions are being repeated year after year.

Any test in which one can predict the questions, does not measure what it claims to.

Seung Ok

Parent Steve Koss jumps into the fray

Dear Mr. Cantor,

I normally try my best to refrain from responding to the comments you submit to this listserv, but your most recent posting was so feckless and off the wall, I simply couldn't stand by and let it pass uncountered. I have to tell you that I've never seen anyone put their foot in their mouth so often and so readily as you seem to do; "tribalism" was truly a gem, I must say. Remarkable that they pay you for whatever it is you're doing. A bit of professional advice before I move ahead with responding to your email? Stop trying to defend the indefensible. It's difficult enough to do as it is, but you make complete hash out of it every time you attempt it. If I was your boss, I'd frankly tell you in no uncertain terms to shut the hell up and stay off the Internet.

Now, as for your comments, which I personally find (as both a math major and as a former NYC high school math teacher as well as public school parent leader) so preposterous as to be beyond laughable. They really make me wonder if you have any clue whatsoever as to how the NYC and NYS school systems and exam structures work. It's eminently clear that you don't. What you wrote is some of the most patently ridiculous and intellectually bankrupt stuff I've ever seen from someone who ostensibly speaks on behalf of a major city public school system.

I see that others have already responded regarding CUNY, including statements issued by CUNY itself as to their increasing enrollment due to their "good value for the money" education. Interesting to see the number of students who went to CUNY from the specialized high schools. When I taught at Lab School, some of my best students (especially first generation Americans from immigrant families) also went to CUNY because their families just didn't have the money for something more renowned. I'll leave that argument for others and focus on what I know best (advice I'd highly recommend to you) -- the Grade 3-8 and Regents first level Math exams.

The scaled passing score on Integrated Algebra is a 30 out of 87 points. Period. There's no if's, and's, or but's, no way of dancing around the fact that a 34.5% raw score earn you a 65 and hence the "math credit" toward a (now meaningless) Regents diploma. That fact has nothing to do with how the rest of the exam is scaled. Scaling creates all sorts of issues, but none of them are pertinent to the central argument Ms. Seung Ok was originally making. And nothing in this argument even begins to address all the other aspects of score inflation built into the Regents: narrowed scope, simpler questions, repetition of question content and format, opportunities for systemic cheating, etc.

Regardless, in order to help educate you, I've included below the cut scores for a 65 (passing grade) on every Math A and Integrated Algebra exam since June 1999. The second column is each exam's maximum possible score, the third column is the cut score for a 65 based on that exam's conversion table, and the last column is the percentage of the maximum raw score that it took to get the 65 (e.g., 43 out of 85 in June 1999 was 50.59%, and that was converted to a 65).

MATH A

Jun-99 85 43 50.59
Jan-00 85 44 51.76
Jun-00 85 41 48.24
Aug-00 85 41 48.24
Jan-01 85 46 54.12
Jun-01 85 46 54.12
Aug-01 85 47 55.29
Jan-02 85 48 56.47
Jun-02 85 52 61.18
Aug-02 85 53 62.35
Jan-03 85 52 61.18
Jun-03 85 51 60.00
Jun-03 85 36 42.35
Jan-04 84 37 44.05
Jun-04 84 37 44.05
Aug-04 84 36 42.86
Jan-05 84 34 40.48
Jun-05 84 36 42.86
Aug-05 84 34 40.48
Jan-06 84 33 39.29
Jun-06 84 35 41.67
Aug-06 84 34 40.48
Jan-07 84 35 41.67
Jun-07 84 35 41.67
Aug-07 84 34 40.48
Jan-08 84 34 40.48
Jun-08 84 36 42.86
Aug-08 84 36 42.86
Jan-09 84 35 41.67

INTEGRATED ALGEBRA

Jun-08 87 30 34.48
Aug-08 87 30 34.48
Jan-09 87 31 35.63
Jun-09 87 30 34.48

As you can clearly see, the cut score percentage actually rose somewhat in the few years before NCLB turned education on its head and politicized the outcomes of state standardized exams. Since 2002 though, the cut score percentage has been declining steadily, reaching an abysmal and embarrassing low of 30 out of 87 in three of the four Integrated Algebra exams (which, by the way, are filled with questions that belong in middle schoolers' exams). So your contention that "next year a student may need a raw score of 40" is patently absurd -- it's never happened, and it's not going to happen until folks like you and your bosses who've politicized all of this get out of the middle of something none of you understand and let real educators and parents take charge of their children's education. You only have to look at what happened in June 2003, when the passing score was dropped precipitously due to "anomalies" in that exam but then never re-raised in the years and exams following to see what's going on.

The State has never significantly raised standards since the inception of NCLB. In fact, they've consistently gone the opposite direction, and not just for the high school Regents. The cut scores for Level 3 in Math have been lowered consistently at every grade level, almost one point per year, since 2006 (when full Grade 3-8 testing was implemented -- if you want those numbers, I have them and will happily provide you with them so you don't make a fool of yourself yet again).

Interestingly, the Regents have kept the bar for a "high pass" (85%) pretty much constant. But then again, nobody's looking at that because who cares about kids doing more than just climbing over the lowest bar we can possibly set for them? In point of fact, the 2008 CIR's from NYS make it clear that the percentages of kids scoring over 85% on Integrated Algebra (which requires a raw score equivalent of 77-78%) are horrifyingly low, zero percent in dozens of NYC high schools (I've already found 46 schools where that happened, a total of 81 schools out of 142 I've looked at where the 85% bar scaled score bar was crossed by 2% or less of the students, and a total of 106 out of 142 schools where less than 10% could manage a raw score that reached 75% of the raw score points available to them). Lest you think I'm cherry-picking, my 142 schools included Townsend Harris, LaGuardia, Cardozo, Bayside, Edward R. Murrow, Bronx Science, Brooklyn Tech, Stuyvesant, Millenium, Eleanor Roosevelt, Baruch, Hunter Science, School of the Future, Staten Island Tech, Pace HS, Forest Hills, Midwood, Manhattan Center for Science & Math, NEST+M, Bard Early College, Manhattan Village Academy, HS for Dual Language and Asian Studies, Murry Bergtraum, Leon Goldstein, PPAS, and many others that are considered to be among the city's best public schools.

Before you embarrass yourself with another sparkling revelation of your lack of knowledge and apparent unwillingness to study the data in order actually to support your statements with something substantative like some of the rest of us do, I suggest you think twice about what you say on the listserv and how you say it. When you speak, you are not David Cantor, citizen, you are David Cantor, NYC DOE. If you are going to make arguments on behalf of the Chancellor that are utterly bereft of both common sense and supporting fact, you are going to have to deal with responses from people who have spent time studying these things and understand what's really going on despite all the "feel good" P.R. that comes out of both SED and the NYC DOE.

If the tone of this email is insulting, it was meant to be. I'm outraged beyond bounds by what you wrote, not because it's in any way personal, but because it's so nonsensical and demonstrates so clearly how those of you at Tweed simply don't get it. As a presumably responsible representative of the DOE, you cannot just say anything you want (sorry, you're not Rush Limbaugh, at least not yet) and expect knowledgeable parents simply to roll over and say thank you. This listserv isn't one of your silly subway posters that can claim anything without having to deal with public responses. Do your homework and check your facts next time if you don't want to enrage people who actually know what they're talking about.

Steve Koss

David, the ball is in your court. Or did Seung and Steve serve an ace?

NY Times article link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/13/nyregion/13credit.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=education

More comments on the article posted at Norms Notes:
Credit Recovery

Seung Sings

As we reported, DOE PR chief David Cantor's accusing the people wanting to celebrate the expiration of mayoral control of "tribalism" led to many comments, including calls for his resignation on the NYC Ed listserve. Below, GEM's Seung Ok answers a critic of the critics with this marvelous response. (By the way, I didn't find Cantor's comment as offensive as some did and encourage him to comment more often as it gives us so much material.)

I would disagree with you first on your evaluation that schools were failing before the the conception of mayoral control. As you say, we need to look at the facts. It was a mere 50 years ago, that we had essentially apartheid in this country. Even with the ruling of Brown vs BOE, can we with a straight face state that school funding has ever been equal between suburban white areas and the inner city schools? Right now, as I'm writing this, each student on the island gets 1000 dollars more funding than NYC students. And the ridiculous claim by Kline that the teacher to student ratio is 1 to 16, is at best data manipulation and at worse a fraud. I have been teaching 12 years, and I have yet to see that ratio (34 is currently what I see at my school).

The only good thing that charter schools like Harlem success has shown, is that if you throw money at the problem, it does narrow the achievement gap as was noted in the NY Times recently. However, it's sad that equality has now come to mean "lottery" and that we as a society can not pledge to make that type of funding a reality to all public schools, not just charters begging for private funding.

So, here is the crux of it. Because Bloomberg and society doesn't have the political courage, monetary self sacrifice, and sincerity to fully fund public schools - we do the next best thing - play the blame game and dumb down the tests to pretend the achievement gap is closing. I teach in east new york, and let me tell you about the massive educational fraud happening under Bloomberg.

Lets talk about common sense, shall we. Remember when you were in school, if someone failed a class, what do they do? They attend summer school, and get that 1 credit. Well now, it's not a mere 1 credit you receive, it's 4, 5 , up to 16 credits. And often times there is no standard. The worse case of this in my school were holiday credits, where students came in and did 4 mornings of busy work handout sheets that were never graded, nor went over by a licensed teacher. And they got their credits. Isn't this just social promotion to the nth degree?

More common sense. The current raw score on the Algebra regents is 30 questions right out of 87. The current raw score on the Living Environment regents (an extremely watered down curriculum than the old biology course) is 39 correct out of 85 questions. This is an example of negligent fraud mayor Bloomberg has brought upon education. I know as adults we may disagree on many things, but can't we at least agree that 33% and 46% of knowledge acquisition equalling a "proficient" 65 is utterly negligent on our part.

The truth is, these practices negatively impact generations of black and brown students a lot more than white students. When we lower the minimum standards so much, and on top of that threaten teachers and schools for closure based upon these high stakes testing, in essence we are stifling the standards of education for a whole generation of minority students. This is certainly a race to the bottom.

Here's is a further statistic for you - from the US Census. In 1960 the average number of African Americans (aged 25 and over) completing 4 years in high school was 22 percent. In 2000 (before the mayor took over) African Americans average 79% compared to all races 84 %. So in spite of the years of underfunding, overcrowded classrooms, disparity of health care, and income, the gap has been narrowing. Unfortunately all of these real modest gains are now being undermined by the watering down of education that is the legacy of mayoral control.

What I would ask of you, is to think about the core issues at stake here and not to trivialize the extent to which race does come into play. This issue is not about political correctness, it goes at the heart of the injustice that is occurring now. When community members and parents see what is going on in their schools - and the lack of voice that exists, to hear that word "tribal" used in what supposed to be a sincere debate, is tinged with the history and current practice of inequality happening now.

Seung Ok

More from Seung:

There is a Seung saga based on his calling Randi out at the DA during her farewell address that is still being played out and we will be publishing a follow up soon.

Read the background:

UFT Delegate Assembly, Democracy NOT

Unity Hack Attack Part 2

Seung-Yong Ok of GEM spoke on Bernard Gassaway's CUNY Talk Show WHCR (90.3 FM for Bronx or Manhattan or vwww.whcr.org) on Friday, June 12 at 6:30PM to 7:15PM.

Topic: Mayoral Control and Ramifications.

SEE WHY SEUNG WAS SO PASSIONATE ABOUT THE EVILS OF MAYORAL CONTROL, HE CALLED OUT WHILE RANDI WAS LISTING HER ACCOMPLISHMENTS.

Not Worth the Paper . . .

Jamaica HS teacher Mark Epstein tackles credit recovery and the drive by diploma mills.

New York’s public schools have replaced social promotion with universal promotion.

At the City Journal.

Credit Recovery and Drive-By Diplomas in NYC

Teachers have been screaming about credit recovery and the drive-by diplomas that result as a cheap BloomKlein tactic to pump grad rates. See Jamaica HS CL James Eterno testimony last week on the ICE blog. ICE Members Testify at State Assembly Education Committee Hearing in Brooklyn

This winter, Jamaica High School has followed other schools by starting something called “Credit Recovery.” A pupil who has failed a class can make up an entire course by showing up for three mornings for three hours during winter or spring break. The academic standards have fallen so much that teachers now joke that vehicles better roll up their windows when they pass by our school or they will have a “drive by diploma” thrown in their car. We understand why the SAT scores are down. Standards are virtually nonexistent. Kids are smart. They know this. We know we are not alone and that what is happening at Jamaica is occurring in many other buildings. We are told by administration that if the graduation and promotion numbers don’t improve, the DOE will shut down our school and get rid of us.

Below is a fascinating discussion between Leonie Haimson and David Bloomfield who heads the principals' academy at Brooklyn College, a NYC parent and major critic of BloomKlein, though he does support the concept of mayoral control.

Leonie Haimson writes:

Thanks so much, David; this is truly fascinating stuff.

I’m not sure who Mr. Marino means by “They have tried to stop this action but as I see it, it is still occurring. “ If this refers to DOE, I would doubt its veracity.

In extended questioning at the Brooklyn Assembly hearings last week, Eric Nadelstern passionately defended the current practice of credit recovery and also claimed this it was a long-standing policy of the NYC schools, even before the current administration came into office.

As he was seated with Marcia Lyles, Chris Cerf, Deputy Mayor Walcott, Jim Liebman, and the entire top brass of DOE except for Klein, and Michael Best was seated just behind him (the chief counsel of DOE) and none of them contradicted his remarks, one can only conclude that the DOE very much supports the current policy, whatever they may have stated to SED to the contrary.

Indeed, this comment from SED is reminiscent of their recent statement to the press about the class size increases in NYC schools this year:

"Although the New York City Department of Education made measurable progress in the first year of their Contract for Excellence, we required them to take corrective actions this year. Both the State and City are working together to fully understand this new class size information and decide what further actions are needed to address this situation."

Either the state is more naïve than one would think possible, or another interpretation is in order.

About the following statement in Marino’s email that you reproduce below: “NYC DOE did publish a statement from the Office of School Improvement that Credit Recovery was not acceptable for students to earn credit other than the way I mentioned.”

Could you possibly ask Mr. Marino if he could forward you a copy of this statement, and ask him where and how it was published by DOE?

I have not seen it in the Principals weekly or otherwise. I wonder how it was circulated.

Thanks,

Leonie Haimson

From David Bloomfield
To: nyceducationnews@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [nyceducationnews] credit recovery

I thought people might be interested in a post by a NYS Education Department official about credit recovery, posted on the Long Island School Leadership's listserv for aspiring administrators:

As an Education Associate for the New York State Education Department there is no such item in the Commissioner Regulations as 'CREDIT RECOVERY' and this is a misconception. The only way a student can earn credit for failed courses is that the student have the 180 seat time in the course and go to a summer session for 5-6 weeks and then take the appropriate test at the end of the summer course. Anything less, is a violation of the commissioner's regulations and a school can be sanctioned for this. Hope this is clear to you!

Peacefully,
Sal Marino

Mr. Marino went on to state, in response to whether "component retesting" is possible to allow students to pass a course (i.e., if they flunk the course, could they would only then have to "pass" the parts of the course that they failed in order to receive credit):

The answer to your question is no! If the course let say is Integrated Algebra and the student fails different topics of the course and has a failing average of the course, then he has to repeat the course. I think your thinking of component retesting. That is totally different from course elements. If a student has the seat time in a course and fails the regents exam twice with a grade of between 48 and 55 then they can take the component retest in specific topics and if they get enough credit on this test the scale score is added to the regents grade to help them pass the regents, but not the course. They can pass the course without passing the regents exam. I hope I have made this clear. I also believe that this may be the last year for component retesting.

The good news (though don't hold your breath) is that Mr. Marino states, in response to my question about whether SED will make the DOE crack down on the practice and track credits obtained in this way, he stated:

At the present time the NYC DOE did publish a statement from the Office of School Improvement that Credit Recovery was not acceptable for students to earn credit other than the way I mentioned. They have tried to stop this action but as I see it, it is still occurring. At the present time the legal department of the state and city are working on something, for students to recover credits but it has not been published. Yes you may pass on the information I sent as a reply and I hope others will read this and see that there is no such item as credit recovery in the commissioner's regulations!!
Sal Marino

-David