Correct The Blogger Challenge: “EastSide Charter’s Proficiency Gains Have Nothing To Do With Attrition”

In the first “Correct The Blogger Challenge” email I received, an anonymous individual under the pseudonym “Education Opinions” wrote to me about my article on EastSide Charter School from last week.  They wrote:

This is in response to your  3/10 post “The Recipe Behind the ‘Pixie Dust’ at Eastside Charter: Very High Attrition Rates, Part 1.” I want to start by saying that I don’t work at Eastside, I’m not on their board, I don’t have any kids at the school, I don’t work for the DOE, and I am not related to anyone who meets any of those qualifications either. I am just a community member concerned about the way data (for both traditional and charter schools) is sometimes utilized to make points that might not be completely accurate.

In your post, you state,
Governor Jack Markell gave the keynote speech, and left immediately afterwards for another engagement.  He spoke about Eastside Charter School’s great job with closing proficiency gaps, and stated “they have gone from only having 15% of their 5th graders scoring proficient in reading to 66% in just three years.”  If only this were true…”. You then go on to post the number of students in each K-6 grade from the year 2009 until the current year, citing high attrition as a reason why this proficiency statistic can’t be true. 

Before I address the attrition rates themselves, I want to focus on the 5th grade proficiency rating that Governor Markell cites, about which you comment “if only this were true.” If you have additional reason to believe that 5th graders did not go from 15% proficient to 66% proficient in three years then by all means I encourage you to post it. However, if high attrition is the only reason you are citing, I don’t think that is a fair use of data. I’m not sure which 3 year span the governor was referring to, but let’s look at a few sets of 3 year periods (according to the numbers you posted, which I haven’t actually verified but I’m just going to assume they are factual):

2009: Number of 5th graders = 36 (15% proficiency would mean 5.4 students scored proficient)
2012: Number of 5th graders = 49 (66% proficiency rating would mean 32.34 students scored proficient)

2010: Number of 5th graders = 34 (15% proficiency would mean 5.1 students scored proficient)
2013: Number of 5th graders = 29 (66% proficiency rating would mean 19.14 students scored proficient)

2011: Number of 5th graders = 35 (15% proficiency would mean 5.4 students scored proficient)
2014: Number of 5th graders = 53 (66% proficiency rating would mean 34.98 students scored proficient)

The only span where the number of 5th graders was slightly fewer at the end of 3 years than at the beginning was the 2010-2013 span, but even with these numbers the number of actual students (not percentages) scoring proficient was still much higher. I am not saying that attrition from kindergarten-6th grade isn’t potentially a problem (I will address that below), but I don’t see how attrition impacts 5th grade proficiency, particularly when you yourself admit that this school does not engage in cherry picking and admits high numbers of both minorities and special education students. I feel like describing the data in this way is playing into the fact that many of your readers place an inordinate amount of trust in you as a blogger and will take everything you say at face value without thinking more deeply into what is being stated. Again, if you have other reasons to believe that the 15% vs 66% proficiency numbers are untrue, I hope to hear them soon, but if not I don’t think it is fair to cite attrition as a reason the numbers are false.

As far as the K-6 attrition rates themselves, while I agree with you that people should not state that “Students don’t leave Eastside Charter” (because based on your numbers, clearly they do), I would love for you to do some analysis into the number of students who leave other Wilmington schools mid-year or at the end of the year. Something that was brought up a lot at the March 9 panel at the Chase Center as a reason to support consolidating Wilmington school districts was the fact that in traditional district schools, students frequently leave the district for a new district due to family instability, moving, etc. However, actual numbers year to year in district schools don’t seem to drastically change because for all the students moving, other new students are coming in (many school staff spoke of receiving 10s or even 100s of new students throughout the year). I would venture to guess that not many (if any) people begin at charter schools mid-year, and also that compared to districts, not too many come into charters at a random year that other new schools wouldn’t be starting (e.g. not as many coming in at 2nd or 4th grade as compared to kindergarten or 6th grade) so when they lose students they aren’t really getting the replacement students that traditional schools are. Now, I could be completely wrong, it’s possible that Eastside’s attrition really is a problem; however, I don’t think you have presented enough data to make me believe that. I would love to see an analysis of the number of students who LEAVE district schools throughout each year (without factoring in the number of new students that replace them). I think to cite attrition as a reason that Eastside just HAS to be “counseling out” students is making a lot of assumptions without a lot of evidence. I don’t know enough about the numbers to prove whether I am right or you are right, but it seems as though you don’t either. 

To summarize, unless you’re withholding additional information, I believe the claim that Eastside’s increased 5th grade proficiency scores are untrue is false. In regards to their high attrition, it could be true but it also could be false, and I think further analysis (and fewer blind assumptions) are needed.

This is the first challenge, and I am honor bound to issue a public challenge and face it.  And this challenger is completely right in many aspects.  Last week I wrote an article about EastSide Charter School and how Governor Markell cited the school as making incredible gains in reading proficiency.  I misread the data, and did send Dr. Lamont Browne an apology.  I made the mistake of thinking the gains in proficiency for 5th graders over a three year period were based on students in 5th grade, and then three years later in 8th grade.  Operating under my proficiency theory, it would make sense that attrition could contribute to a rise in standardized test scores.  But the reality in Markell’s praise was 5th graders in 2011 were at 15.15% in reading proficiency, and in 2014, 5th graders were at 66%.  This nearly 50% rise is a remarkable feat.  I based my data on similar data I read that a commenter on another blog wrote a few months ago so I had this in mind when I wrote this article.

As well, the numbers I posted in my original article, found here: https://exceptionaldelaware.wordpress.com/2015/03/10/the-recipe-behind-the-pixie-dust-at-eastside-charter-very-high-attrition-rates-part-1/#more-5495 were based on the DOE reported September 30th enrollment numbers, and not on the number of students taking the Spring DCAS.  In an attempt to verify with absolute clarity on Markell’s claim, I went to the DOE website and pulled up EastSide’s reading proficiency charts:

11064576_1049387288422076_1069791882_o

They say a picture paints a thousand words, and a picture like this certainly does paint a lot.  It clearly shows that Markell’s assertion was absolutely correct.  So I owe a very huge apology not only to Dr. Browne but to Governor Markell himself.

With this being said, there is no doubt based on my earlier post this school does have a very high attrition rate, and I do wonder why.  Is this the norm for charter schools in Wilmington?  It is not at Charter School of Wilmington but they do have a completely different set of students there.  Can I say it is based on counseling out?  That I do not know.  There could be a multitude of factors.  One would have to see the actual paperwork concerning these departures to ascertain why these students left.  I can say with certainty EastSide had no reported expulsions during these years.

In regards to the proficiency scores, it is very easy to pick one point of data and make it shine.  This is exactly what Governor Markell and the DOE did in the case of EastSide Charter.  To compare two completely different groups of students is equivalent to comparing apples and oranges.  What none of them have publicly stated was that the 66% mark was actually a decrease from the 2013 when 5th graders were at 71.43% proficiency in reading.  Even more alarming is what happened to those 5th graders in 2014 because they dropped to 43.59% in 6th grade.  The only group of students that rose in scores between 2013 and 2014 was 7th to 8th grade.

Was the 5th grade teacher in 2013 and 2014 a good teacher?  While I am not a believer in standardized testing, there were gains during an overall trend.  For that I will give EastSide, Dr. Browne and the teacher kudos.  What we don’t know is how well these students did on their actual grades, which to me is the foundation for gains or losses, not standardized test scores.  Furthermore, the DCAS is not even being used anymore as it was replaced by Smarter Balanced and Markell continues to use the results of a test judged to no longer be effective.  I will be very curious to see the results of Smarter Balanced when they come out.  Based on the DOE’s claims of the first few years, I expect disastrous results.

In terms of doing analysis on all schools in Wilmington, districts and charters alike, for how many students left mid-year would be a huge feat to accomplish.  Which may come down the road, but my original article was meant to debunk Markell’s claim, but it appears the debunker was debunked!

 

 

3 thoughts on “Correct The Blogger Challenge: “EastSide Charter’s Proficiency Gains Have Nothing To Do With Attrition”

  1. You folded too fast. The data proves you correct. What we have here are two interpretations…

    One: how well are we doing at teaching kids.
    Two: so what’s our score total now.

    Let’s put this in a football metaphor. If I as a new coach come in, have unlimited money to purchase only the best college players to replace all of the old, in three years I had better make a good team

    Or, I can choose to coach with what I have, take each of the them and develop and make them better.

    To me, the second one is what education should be about. We should not be interested in moving students around to collect the best, so we can win. (Fantasy 5th Grade ELA) Instead we should be interested in bettering those students we have..

    Back to schools. The attrition rate is high. But, the class sizes totals don’t show that. Which means new blood must be replacing old.

    What your commenter tried to do and it is legitimate, is compare 5th grade to 5th grade. Just like comparing Andy Reid’s Eagles team of 2001 to Ray Rhodes’ team of 1998…. Saying see, this group of players under this coach did better than that group of players under that coach.

    In education, the only thing that is important, is the child himself. Did he/she learn? To find that, you take on class and follow it through its years. The data you provided, allows us to do that.

    57 of that superlative class started out in 3rd grade. There were 3 less in 4th grade, and 4 more dropped by the time 5 grade was tested… But, as pointed out, with this group in 3rd grade, there was a 56% proficiency. Then these same students in 4th turned in a 46.3% and then rose to 66% this last year… So from 3rd grade to 5th grade, they lost 7 people and gained 10% points.

    If you take the number who passed in that 6th grade…(do the math) you get the above mentioned 33 which if divided into their original class of 57 students (showing the effect of attrition), you get 57.9%…. Which is exactly within the standard of error margin of the same classes’ third grade total of 56.1%…. at best. a 1.8% increase!

    Your original statement was true (without cherry picking I might add)… Kudos to you.

    Like

  2. I agree with Kavips, the debunker used the words as spoken but without consideration to reasonable intent. Comparing 5th graders in 2011 to 5th graders in 2014 is nonsensical.

    Like

  3. This is the “debunker” just weighing in on a few things. John, I agree with you, comparing 5th graders to 5th graders is not necessarily the best measure of growth. However, this was a correct the blogger challenge so of course I was going off the words as spoken. If the governor and whoever else is citing the growth this way then this is the data we have to look at when deciding if it’s true or false…do I think other data should be looked at instead? Sure. But the original blog post was wrong, so I corrected it.

    Kavips…correct me if I’m wrong but I think the basic meaning of your post is the same as John’s, that comparing 5th grade to 5th grade isn’t the best way to measure. If so, then as I wrote above, I agree with that for the most part. I was just going off what others have done in the past and correcting the way the original post was written. However, I don’t think you use the best sports analogy. I do think a “coach” (aka a teacher or a school administrator leader) can make a big difference and there are some out there better than others. And while this isn’t a debate about Lamont Browne’s leadership style, if the things he has spoken about at some recent panels (every other week teacher observations and instructional coaching sessions, etc.) are true, then that is a big “coaching” difference than what goes on in other schools (both traditional and charter) and likely makes a big difference in “how well we are doing at teaching kids.” I completely agree we shouldn’t be “moving kids around to collect the best” and attrition rates do certainly warrant more attention. However, as mentioned in my original email to Kevin, I would love to see someone conduct an in-depth analysis into these trends across all schools. Wilmington families are often very transient, changing their location and because of that changing schools, not necessarily always because they believe the school is better but just because it is a new feeder pattern (for traditional schools) or it is just closer to their house (for charters in the city like Eastside.) I think this type of analysis would help us try to see which charter schools might actually have an attrition problem and which charter schools follow similar patterns as traditional schools just without the flood of replacement students coming in due to moving mid year or at the end of the year.

    Anyway, I’m all for spirited discussion so I appreciated both your comments. Just wanted to clarify the points above.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.