Stanford study's "success" story questioned
Stanford University's School Redesign Network has done a study that supposedly identifies five successful high schools around the state that should be emulated by other schools. The study is being promoted by respected Stanford education pundit Linda Darling-Hammond at the Achievement Gap Summit currently being held in Sacramento.
Two San Francisco schools are cited — June Jordan and Leadership, neither of which is viewed as a particularly successful school within the community (and I speak as an 8th-grade mom who is currently looking at and schmoozing endlessly with other parents about high schools).
June Jordan, in fact, has the lowest API of any SFUSD high school except Newcomer (all brand-new immigrants with limited/no English) and continuation schools.
I'm sorry to those who are offended by this, but the numbers are really troubling here, considering these schools are being cited statewide as success stories.
I am only responding to the fact that June Jordan was singled out and cited in this study; I am not trying to bash it wantonly.
???
June Jordan info:
June Jordan has two subgroups which are now large enough to have their own API score - African American students and socioeconomically disadvantaged students. The 2005 base API for AA kids was 590, but dropped to 525 for 2006 and again to 459 in 2007 (a drop of 131 points in just the two years since this group has had a large enough population to get a subgroup score.)
The 2005 base API for socioeconomically disadvantaged kids was 635, and dropped
to 593 in 2006 and to 499 in 2007, a drop of 136 points in just those two years. Their Latino students just got a subgroup score; they dropped from a 2006 base of 611 to 528 in 2007 - down 83 points in one year.
In addition, June Jordan seems to have a problem with shedding or failing to graduate AA students:
Quick report of AA students in the class of '07
Males - 9th grade 13; 10th grade 18; 11th grade 8; 12th grade 8
Females - 9th grade 18; 10th grade 16; 11th grade 10; 12th grade 8
Note that thus far, this is the only class to have graduated — so the claim of sending 80% or more of its kids to college is based on just one year of graduates — and nearby Balboa High School sends 96% of its graduates to college.
And JJ only sent 60% of its graduates to a 4 year college.
And only 63 of the 97 who started there in 03-04 were actually on track to graduate. So if you consider that about 60% went to 4 year colleges, and something like 90% to any college, shouldn't it be based on the number who started, not the number who graduated? So if 10%
didn't go to college, out of 63, then that means only 57 went to (any) college, out of 97 who started there as freshmen — 58.7%
Their 1 year dropout rate in 04-05 (the most recent year for which data is available on the CDE website) is 7.1%, compared to a district average of 1.9%
According to their SARC , their suspension rate for 04-05 (again, the most recent data
available) was 15.76%, while the distriuct average was 4.74%
Two San Francisco schools are cited — June Jordan and Leadership, neither of which is viewed as a particularly successful school within the community (and I speak as an 8th-grade mom who is currently looking at and schmoozing endlessly with other parents about high schools).
June Jordan, in fact, has the lowest API of any SFUSD high school except Newcomer (all brand-new immigrants with limited/no English) and continuation schools.
I'm sorry to those who are offended by this, but the numbers are really troubling here, considering these schools are being cited statewide as success stories.
I am only responding to the fact that June Jordan was singled out and cited in this study; I am not trying to bash it wantonly.
???
June Jordan info:
- June Jordan posted the lowest API of the 17 regular district high schools this past spring (does not include Wells or Newcomer) - 517
- Next lowest was ISA with 559, Mission with 575, and O'Connell with 577 (all other schools are 640 or higher)
- All three schools closest to JJ serve VERY similar populations, without all the "freedom" of June Jordan, and still are doing significantly better.
June Jordan has two subgroups which are now large enough to have their own API score - African American students and socioeconomically disadvantaged students. The 2005 base API for AA kids was 590, but dropped to 525 for 2006 and again to 459 in 2007 (a drop of 131 points in just the two years since this group has had a large enough population to get a subgroup score.)
The 2005 base API for socioeconomically disadvantaged kids was 635, and dropped
to 593 in 2006 and to 499 in 2007, a drop of 136 points in just those two years. Their Latino students just got a subgroup score; they dropped from a 2006 base of 611 to 528 in 2007 - down 83 points in one year.
In addition, June Jordan seems to have a problem with shedding or failing to graduate AA students:
Quick report of AA students in the class of '07
Males - 9th grade 13; 10th grade 18; 11th grade 8; 12th grade 8
Females - 9th grade 18; 10th grade 16; 11th grade 10; 12th grade 8
Note that thus far, this is the only class to have graduated — so the claim of sending 80% or more of its kids to college is based on just one year of graduates — and nearby Balboa High School sends 96% of its graduates to college.
And JJ only sent 60% of its graduates to a 4 year college.
And only 63 of the 97 who started there in 03-04 were actually on track to graduate. So if you consider that about 60% went to 4 year colleges, and something like 90% to any college, shouldn't it be based on the number who started, not the number who graduated? So if 10%
didn't go to college, out of 63, then that means only 57 went to (any) college, out of 97 who started there as freshmen — 58.7%
Their 1 year dropout rate in 04-05 (the most recent year for which data is available on the CDE website) is 7.1%, compared to a district average of 1.9%
According to their SARC , their suspension rate for 04-05 (again, the most recent data
available) was 15.76%, while the distriuct average was 4.74%
Labels: Charters
8 Comments:
This post has been removed by the author.
Quoting on what you said about
"...And JJ only sent 60% of its graduates to a 4 year college."
Well, let me tell you something, lady... Even if only 60% of us went to a 4 year college, more than 90% of the founding class got into college. Compared to other schools, I don't see a rate that high!
"Shouldn't it be based on the number who started rather than the number who graduated?"...
How can you make such a comparison if people transfer out?
Lady! Clearly you have not seen how this school can change a person. From your evidence and gestures, you seem to be judging from a distance. I encourage you to take the initiative to learn more about the model before setting a judgment on a study from Standford by someone who has been studying the inner workings of the school.
My name is Angelia Green and I am a parent of the first graduating Class of 2007 at JJSE. This happens to be the second time I have read something that you have written regarding JJSE. Both pieces have been very negative towards the school. I don�t understand what your real motive is to discredit JJSE. I�m sure from the tone of your letter; you harbor some ill feelings towards our school for what reason I can�t fathom.
Usually people�s choice of schools our based on many factors and not always on test scores are statistics. One would only have to look and see the results in teaching children in test taking and not to think critically. JJSE have been a source of community for most of the families whom have attended. Our school has a vision of educating our students through individual and group needs. We are small in numbers but strong in elevating our youth in to post secondary education.
I have been in support of the school through my son�s high school experience. Our experience had been very positive. JJSE has prepared my son to become an independent thinker and developed his skills to move on to college. When tested in his English and Math placement (West Valley College) he placed in there college level courses. My son has become more confident and stronger as a person. I know not only has it been through his strong family support but also due to the support and commitment he received through JJSE. Right now my son is attending West Valley College in San Jose (I�m sure this is not a school which you would consider) but for our family we are very proud of his choice and very confident that he will move on to a University of his choosing.
My issue is not with the school but with the study.
Previously when I commented on JJSE it was because of a large cover story in the S.F. Weekly praising JJSE and disparaging other SFUSD schools based on a series of inaccuracies. So I wrote the S.F. Weekly correcting the inaccuracies.
In this case we have a study basing conclusions on -- to an extreme degree -- incomplete information, and also scathingly disparaging other schools.
My name is Ayanna Banks, I am an active parent at JJSE, this school has not only brought the best out of my daughter, it also brought the best out of myself. I have learned to grow more as an parent with JJSE, they not only teach and work with the children of JJSE, but also the parents. JJSE shows that high school year is the most critical time of an young person life, the time were parents are most needed. Some parents seem to think when their child has entered high school they don't need to be involved as much. JJSE has proven that wrong, with strong parent and student support. I don't understand what your anger is toward JJSE, not only are you hurting the school and the great work they have done, you are also hurting the students that attend and have attened JJSE, this comment is showing them that they are not able to succeed. As a parent yourself, I know you would not want your child feeling like that. The kids at JJSE work and strive hard for the accomplishments they have made while here at JJSE.
This is posted on behalf of Linda Darling-Hammond and Diane Friedlaender, authors of the study in question.
This posting, with tables formatted for easier reading, is also posted here.
Based on a conference presentation releasing a new report last week, Caroline Grannan has raised a number of questions about the rationale for our selection of June Jordan School for Equity in a study of schools succeeding with African American and Latino students in California. We are sure that her concerns arise from the same motive as our own — a desire to support strong education for children of color in California. However, our data sources and interpretations are different. We used data on achievement that are disaggregated by race and class, and data directly from school records on student transfers and college-going which are more accurate than what seems to be available to Ms. Grannan. For those who are interested, below we provide information that explains why we selected June Jordan for the study and more descriptive information on the school’s context.
A central difference in our perspectives is that Ms. Grannan compares data on overall API scores and college-going rates for a number of schools without disaggregating the data by race. We selected our schools in 2005-06 based on their successes in high school graduation, college-going and achievement for low-income students and students of color. We looked at schools in comparison to others in their neighborhoods. For 2005-2006, June Jordan — with a population that was 70% African American and Latino — had an overall API base score of 605, which was lower than that of some nearby schools with very different populations, such as Balboa, with a population that was 61% white and Asian, and Burton (54% white and Asian), but higher than that of other comprehensive high schools serving more similar students in the district, such as Mission High School with an API score of 563 (61% African American and Latino students), John O'Connell High School (81% African American and Latino) with an API score of 553.
More pertinent for our purposes is the fact that June Jordan’s API scores for African American and Latino students were considerably higher than those of all of the other surrounding schools, including Balboa and Burton. (See table below).
Table 1: API scores of nearby schools, 2005-2006
JJSE Balboa Mission O'Connell Burton
API Base Scores 605 672 553 553 663
API African Am. 525 479 448 n/a 476
API Latino 611 575 513 549 569
June Jordan had substantially higher English Language Arts (ELA) CST scores for African American and Latino students than all of these schools by a considerable margin, often showing proficiency rates 10 to 20 percentage points higher for similar students. (See Table 2.)
Table 2: ELA CST scores proficient or above of nearby schools, 2005-2006
JJSE Balboa Mission O'Connell Burton
All Students
CST ELA 9th Gr 32% 47% 19% 21% 39%
CST ELA 11th Gr. 29% 33% 17% 14% 31%
Af. Am. Students
CST ELA 9th Gr. 22% 15% 6% 10% 6%
CST ELA 11th Gr 23% 20% 17% 5% 14%
Latino Students
CST ELA 9th Gr. 46% 27% 13% 19% 25%
CST ELA 11th Gr. 26% 20% 13% 14% 13%
.
June Jordan also had substantially higher pass rates on the CAHSEE exit exam in 10th grade in ELA than all of these other schools — for all students as well as for African American and Latino students (See Table 3.) JJSE's ELA passage rate of 72% far surpassed the next closest ELA passage rate, which was Balboa's, at a pass rate of 53%. JJSE surpassed all the other schools except for Burton in overall pass rates in mathematics, and surpassed all — including Burton — in math pass rates for African American and Latino students.
Table 3: CAHSEE passage rates of nearby schools, 2006
JJSE Balboa Mission O'Connell Burton
All Students
ELA Passed 72% 53% 44% 43% 51%
Math Passed 58% 56% 39% 39% 67%
Af. Am. Students
ELA Passed 69% 41% 40% 37% 34%
Math Passed 44% 30% 16% 28% 38%
Latino Students
ELA Passed 69% 39% 36% 41% 55%
Math Passed 57% 41% 31% 39% 50%
Our data analysis also examined graduation rates and college-going rates. With access to meticulously coded individual student data, we used the state metric for calculating a graduation rate from the school, which adjusts for transfers and counts dropouts. (The state had not yet done this calculation, because JJSE was just completing its first graduating class.) Using the state calculation method (described in our report), we found that JJSE had a graduation rate of 95%, with two students from the cohort still in school finishing a fifth year of high school.
We did track losses of students that occurred when June Jordan moved locations from its original site on the San Francisco State University campus to its current site, far from many of its initial students’ neighborhoods. We also tracked, in our longer case study, the number of students who did not graduate but are still at the school completing credits, expected to graduate next year. We collected data that tracked the transitions of students into and out of the school (including where those who left transferred to and their likelihood of graduation). Finally, we attended to changes in the student composition of the school over time, which can influence a variety of outcomes.
Finally, we documented, with individual student data, the fact that 73% of the school’s graduates were admitted to four-year colleges and 95% to 2- or 4-year colleges. Although Ms. Grannon questions whether the June Jordan’s college-going rate is noteworthy, this four-year college-going rate is nearly three times the state average, for a school with many more students of color, and its overall college-going rate is comparable to that of Balboa, which has fewer than half as many African American and Latino students.
As these comparisons are made, it is worth noting that JJSE has the highest percentage of African-American students of any high school in San Francisco Unified School District, except for the “second chance” continuation schools. In 06-07, JJSE’s student population was 37% African American, ISA’s was 35%, and all others were below 20% — Marshall 19%; Mission 18%; Wallenberg 18%; Burton 15%; Balboa 13%; SOTA 12%; O'Connell 11%; Washington 8%; Galileo 7%; Lincoln 7%; and Lowell 3%.
Our study was completed before state test scores were published for 2006-07. However, we are aware that the scores for JJSE went down that year, as its population grew by nearly 50%, from 254 to 371. In that year, the share of African American and Latino students served at JJSE also increased from 70% to 73%. We are also aware that two of the comparison schools — Balboa and O’Connell — lost so many African American students between the two years that they no longer have an African American subgroup whose scores are counted. The lower scores that incoming students brought with them to JJSE in their first year in the school will be a new challenge for the staff. We believe the staff should be evaluated on how they raise student achievement in the years to come, and that all analyses of school progress and accomplishment should be sensitive to these issues of student populations and migration that are essential to interpreting how schools are serving students.
We invite interested readers to find the study brief and cross-case analysis at http://srnleads.org
Respectfully,
Linda Darling-Hammond and Diane Friedlaender,
School Redesign Network at Stanford University
Thank you, Barbara and Linda, for taking the time to compose a detailed and thorough response. I would be happy to post this response, with whatever attribution you would like, as a new post on this blog -- at the same level as Caroline's original post above. Please contact me directly if you would like to do this.
Hi KC. I have tried a number of ways to find a contact for you without success (but you have a wonderful blogspot). Can you email me your contact information at mckenna@gallery-b.net? Thank you! Barbara
Post a Comment
<< Home