I was glad to see that the DMN did a follow-up story to its Sunday report on DISD’s compliance with the state’s “90 percent rule.” Because that first story was pretty weak. The follow-up gave some more context to this issue, but the way it was presented in both instances — I’m particularly fond of leading with a respected former lawmaker who authored a paperwork-creating law change saying, “If they’re doing what you allege they’re doing, then that ain’t right, consarnit!” — gives a false impression of what’s going on here. More to the point, it misses the real problem(s). Let me ‘splain.
Actually, before I get into this, an admission: This story is personal to me. Quick story: I was poor in high school, worked 30 to 40 hours a week from 10th to 12th grade, had my own apartment with my younger brother. Why that happened is a long story, not worth sobbing about. Bottom line: Because I basically worked every night and 12-hour days on the weekend, I spent a lot of time sleeping in, making up homework, juggling a lot of stuff (as did my brother). When you’re poor and you attend a largely poor urban district and try to still do things the right way, you still end up missing a lot of time because that’s just what happens. Your car breaks down and you don’t have money to fix it; you have a toothache and no insurance; you’re just so damn tired you can’t get up for class. I missed 101 days of 10th through 12th grade, yet maintained a GPA over 4.0. An attendance law like the one we’re about to look at could have derailed my life. Which is one reason I paid close attention to this story.
Now, the background to this news story: The DMN got a hold of a report that says DISD was not in compliance with the paperwork rules surrounding the principal plan portion of the 90 percent law. This law requires some background. It basically says that if a kid attends less than 90 percent of a class, even if he/she is passing the class, the kids fails. Actually, it used to say that. The aforementioned former lawmaker changed the law in 2006 so that if kids attend less than 75 percent of a class, they fail, even if they’re passing. But if they attend more than 75 percent of the time, and are passing, but less than 90 percent of the time, the principal gets to write up some document about the kid, and then they pass. This tweak to the law is known as the “the principal’s plan.” Since the principal-plan tweak became law 2006, the district has been lax in handling attendance-for-credit paperwork associated with principal plans. But the newspaper suggests this is a recent problem that the district is trying to hide, and they’re doing so because DISD is juicing its graduation rate numbers. I know it doesn’t come out and SAY that, but it ALL BUT says that. That’s your takeaway, I’m sure. Here are the problems with that narrative:
• First, understand what happened here. The DISD board put in place an internal investigation unit that reports only to the trustees. They did so because they wanted to sniff out compliance problems within the district that could be rooted so deeply in the system that they would otherwise go undiscovered until it was too late. The compliance investigators found that principals were not adhering to the paperwork requirements. They notified the board as soon as they realized this, even though the report was not complete (so they could get right to fixing it). This was last spring. The board notified Mike Miles. Miles IMMEDIATELY ordered more training and oversight for principals (who are responsible for the credit for attendance procedures on each campus) to correct the problem. This was in March and April of last semester, and it’s continuing this semester. Actually, it wasn’t just the principals. Training was given to “division operations coordinators, campus attendance administrators, campus registrars, and data support and compliance coordinators,” according to the district. As well, Miles ordered that the district monitor attendance for credit more closely, and that it implement a centralized tracking system where principals can document their attendance for credit process so that executive directors can monitor what is taking place at campuses throughout the year. This is to fix the paperwork compliance issue. To recap: Board puts in place a group to find problems so it can correct them. Group finds problems, notifies district. District works to correct compliance with paperwork procedure that has been broken for years. (Because you still have to comply with dumb laws.)
• Now, a headline that says “District finds, works to correct paperwork problem on its own” isn’t very sexy. So, if you’re trying to make the front page of a newspaper, what you need to do is suggest that this compliance problem is nefarious. You need to suggest it was done to juice graduation rates. So here’s what happens: First, you are leaked a report by a trustee who is intent on making it look like Miles is failing. Check that: You are leaked a draft of a report. And this trustee, who leaks stuff to you all the time and who must really know what is going on because, well, they’re a regular source, tells you: “Look at this! Another examples of Miles crushing the hopes and dreams of children! You MUST report this injustice!” And you think, yeah, I can make a story out of this, maybe even front page, above the fold. Of course, the final report is still not complete. So you get the draft, and you want to suggest that this is nefarious, because you’ve been told it is. You say that this procedure juices graduation rates, which have risen a lot recently. (You note that the entire state’s graduation rates have risen since the law took effect, but you say that Dallas’s has risen even faster. Because, sure, okay.) Your storyline is now the following: We at the DMN have discovered that DISD is juicing its numbers! You’re on the front page, the anti-Miles folks have their chum, and the district — which was taking corrective action back in March, as soon as it found out about the years-long paperwork problem — looks nefarious.
• Here are the problems with that story, besides the way it’s framed: EVERY student who is eligible for the credit for attendance plan IS ALREADY PASSING HIS OR HER CLASS! I know this was buried in each story, but it is the most important point here. The reason the 90 percent law is dumb is because it punishes kids WHO ARE ALREADY PASSING THE CLASSES! (The 2006 tweak made the law a bit less dumb by allowing some of these kids to graduate, but it did so by layering a paperwork requirement onto already overworked principals who should be concentrating on the kids who aren’t passing.) In fact, given that this is Dallas, it means the 90 percent law is punishing kids who are poor, are missing class, and who are still managing to pass nonetheless. The law is probably punishing the hardest-working, highest-performing kids in the district! I have some sensitivity to this, as I mentioned. So to suggest that poor kids who are passing their classes are somehow skating by and don’t deserve to be included in graduation numbers when you have no idea if that’s true bothers me greatly.
• Did I mention that every single one of these kids is passing his or her class when put on this credit-attendance plan? And that you can’t juice a graduation number by including kids who are passing classes in it, unless you are so married to the technical paperwork idea that you think it’s a bad idea to include passing students in your graduation numbers? Just making sure.
• Did I also mention that charter schools are exempt from this dumb plan? In the follow-up story, trustee Mike Morath mentions this. He also notes that this is the sort of dumb thing we could exempt ourselves from under a home rule charter. IJS.
• The other really funny thing here is the idea that DISD is juicing its graduation rates. Well, duh. EVERYONE juices graduation rates. It’s why they should largely be ignored. Who says so? I do! I give many examples in that post, but here’s the takeaway:
First, let’s all acknowledge that trumpeting graduation rates is a dicey game, because they are somewhat meaningless. Why? Because it’s the most easily manipulated metric in education.
Graduation rates should be mostly ignored because they don’t prove that we’ve prepared a student for college or the grown-up world. It’s also why DISD itself has repeatedly said not to put too much emphasis on graduation rates. You know who emphasizes graduation rates? The media! So the media create the incentive, then criticize you if the numbers are juiced. Sweet little game. (But, again, let me point out that you can’t juice numbers with kids who are passing the class already. Have I made that point clear yet?)
• Now, the DMN quotes a principal in the first story who says that there is a concern that this means we’re passing kids who don’t know the material. Well, yes, that is a concern. But it has little to nothing to do with the kids in this program. In fact, there is another dumb state program that almost assuredly juices graduation numbers, for DISD and others. It’s the credit recovery program for students who FAIL a class. In this statewide program, students who fail classes can take self-paced multiple-choice tests to recover credit for classes they have failed. This is a huge red flag, one that educators have told me does a very poor job of testing a student’s mastery of the material. THIS is a problem. THIS is worth looking at. THIS is worth the resources of a large metropolitan daily. Not a program that passes kids who are already passing classes.
• Let me find some Zen and get to a point that this story hints at, one that has real concern for our education system. Basic question: Why would this 90-percent law exist in the first place? Basically, because when a teacher says that a kid is passing a class, the state doesn’t really trust the teacher. Sometimes, that’s unfortunate, because the teacher should be trusted. But sometimes, the state has good reason to be suspicious. Look at the example given in the DMN story: Madison high school graduated 97 percent of its students but shows less than 3 percent college readiness from those same students. That is another huge red flag. So the state, in instances like that, says, “Okay, y’all say kids pass your classes all the time. If that’s true, how come so many kids can’t read good?” Absolutely fair point. That’s why I stress college readiness and college completion (as does the district), not graduation rates. And that’s why the state came up with an accountability system where external tests, not developed by teachers, check out kids’ knowledge level. But this 90 percent rule goes back to a time before there was such an accountability system. Somebody thought: “You know what, if a teacher tells me that a kid is passing, but that kid is never even in class, I’m not going to believe them. So, we’re going to put in place this 90 percent rule.” So now, a) that dumb law is no longer needed, and b) history tells us that lots of kids can do just fine and skip lots of classes, because the classes are beneath them. That’s also a problem we need to correct, of course. If we have classes that aren’t challenging kids to succeed, we need to fix that problem. (From experience, I can tell you that it makes your freshman year of college quite a shock to the system.) And history also tells us: Some teachers will let a kid skate through the system, because that’s easier than actually teaching. That’s a problem, without question. But it’s a problem that has nothing to do with the 90 percent rule. They don’t need that to let kids skate. In any case, a good way NOT to fix any of these problems is to create a paperwork process for our campus leadership when kids are absent, regardless how well or poorly the kid is doing in class. Another way not to help: To suggest that the district isn’t trying to address a compliance (read: paperwork) problem that we the public are only aware of because the district has been working to fix it.
