Changing the Goal Posts in the Middle Of The Game.

Delaware’s New and Old Goals

Chart Courtesy of Transparent Christina

Black type = the original RTTT Application Goals
Red type = detail required to understand and compare the original goals
Blue type = where we stand now at the end of 2012=2013

From our state application for RTTT funds sent to the White House in January 2010.

A)  Delaware will show results quickly. With Race to the Top help, more than half of Delaware’s students will be proficient or advanced on NAEP, and the achievement gap will  decrease by 50% no later than 2014-15.  (The  2009 baseline achievement gaps for Reading are as follows: white black(20.6); white Hispanic(16.8); Disabilities or not(42.6); English proficiency(36.9); Low Income Gap(19.4); Female/Male Gap(7.9))  As of now 2012-13, we stand at the following:  white/black(23.2); white/Hispanic(19.7); Disabilities of not(48.3); English proficiency (36.6); Low Income Gap(23.8); Female/Male Gap(-). Except for one, all gaps have grown under RTTT, not shrunk.

B)  All students will meet state standards,  graduation rates will rise and more students will enter and be successful in college. Graduation Rates in 2009 (85.3). In 2010 (86.7). In 2011(78.5). In 2012 (80.0). In 2013(tba).  Under RTTT graduation rates have fallen, not risen.

C)  In Delaware, student growth is not one factor among many; instead satisfactory student growth is the minimum requirement for any educator to be rated effective. Student growth is now considered essential to teacher and leader effectiveness. In 2013 the entire state’s scores shifted backwards, causing the entire system to receive a rating of ineffective.  As teachers must be fired for poor performance, expectations are that the Governor and Secretary of Education will fire themselves when their replacements have been fully trained in 5 weeks.

D)  Delaware’s newly-defined regulatory framework for school turnaround gives the State the authority to intervene directly in failing schools and requires schools to demonstrate results by achieving AYP within two years.  The state average was 10 points below this year’s target, and now has to increase by 30% to hit next year’s target.  Perhaps we should give someone the authority to intervene directly with the failing members of the Department of Education to require them to demonstrate results by achieving AYP within two years?

E)  By the 2011-12 school year, Delaware’s reform program will be fully operational, leaving the state education system to concentrate on driving rapid improvement to  achieve the greatest possible gains in student achievement. Since 2011-12 under RTTT our graduation rate have dropped 7.7%. . 

F)   Through this reform, Delaware will achieve the following goals:

• 60% proficient or advanced on NAEP 4th grade math by 2014-15….Although the NAEP scores are not out yet,  on the DCAS near 73% 4th graders were proficient in math 2012-2013

• 55% proficient or advanced on all other NAEP exams by 2014-15 Averages on all exams other than Science (under 50%)  in all grades were over the low bar set at 55%.

• Reduce black-white and Hispanic-white achievement gaps on NAEP by half by 2014-15…Blacks have widened the gap by 2.6; Hispanics have widened the gap by 2.9; disabilities have widened by 5.7; Non English has decreased by a 0.3; Low income increased by 4.4. 

• 100% meets-standard on the State’s math and reading exams by 2013-2014… With one year to go, we are near 70% on both.

• 87% graduation rate by 2013-14, and a 92% graduation rate by 2016-17… With one year to go, we don’t yet have access to this year’s data on our graduation rate. Last year’s rate was 80%, up from 72%.

• 70% college enrollment by 2013-14… Figures not yet available.  In 2011 the 4488 Delaware students who went on to college out of roughly 4 classes of 10,000 each, is 45%.

• 85% college retention rate by 2013-14 (with students earning at least a year of credit within two years of enrollment) Statewide 30 percent of Delaware’s ninth-graders remain in college by their second year,

G)  Require that teachers and leaders demonstrate satisfactory levels of student growth in order to receive an “effective” rating, and more than a year of student growth to receive a “highly effective” rating.  If the test is being used to rate teachers then we have catastrophic failure.  State average fell from 73 down to 70.  Target goal was 82. 

H)  Differentiating professional development, promotion, advancement, retention, and removal based on performance:  Either this won’t happen, or over 90% of our teachers will be fired.  As well as this year’s scores show how the merit system of bonuses would be a huge negative influence instead of a positive one.  Oh sorry, you don’t get a bonus for all your effort; test says you did poorly. This just shows Christina District was right all along.

I)  Improving and expanding effective preparation and certification programs. We did and with over 95% of our teachers rated as highly qualified, so far scores have trended backwards.  

J)  Linking tenure protections to performance: The State will seek new legislation requiring that teachers demonstrate student growth to qualify for tenure protections.  Embedded in SB 51

K)  Curricula in classrooms will match new career- and college-readiness standards, following centralized training:  Common Core

L)  Invest broadly in high-need schools, particularly by recruiting, training and retaining highly-effective teachers and leaders.  These schools received cut backs, and were not invested heavily. 

M) Turn around persistently lowest-achieving schools using a collaborative intervention approach supported by a strong regulatory framework.  Pencader?  Moyer(36)?  Reach(29)? Where is the DOE? 

N) Establish a rubric to rate teacher’s performances.

Rubric for testing teachers performance….  (here is the one used in New York as an example…