Is
Charles A. Tindley High School a dropout factory?
A preliminary report and commentary on
the graduation rates and promoting power of Charles A. Tindley Accelerated
School
It
is tragic to have to say that there is no need to prove urban public education
in America is in trouble. We only have to look at local television to see the
negative outcomes associated with urban school failure. We also know that when
urban students are graduated on time ready for careers, college and
citizenship, chances of being involved in crime or violence are reduced.
The Pushout Crisis
The
Schott Foundation (2012) report “The Urgency of Now” introduces a new factor to
the discussion: “The pushout crisis.” Evidently, nearly 17% of African American
students and 7% of Latinx students were suspended at least once in 2009-10,
compared to 5% for White students. The section of the report concludes that
disproportionate use of out-of-school suspension for Black and Latinx child-ren
at all levels is the first step toward pushing them out.
This Schott report defines a “pushout” as a student who leaves their
school before graduation through the encouragement of the school itself.
The
challenge now is a new one: trying to persuade the “Unconvinced Generation”
(Evans, 2006) to stay in school while trying to keep school officials from
pushing them out (Loflin & Evans, 2015).
The “pushout crisis” reflects situations where
many schools try to get rid of (dump or ”shed back”/“counsel out”) students who
may tarnish the school’s statistics (Lewin & Medina, 2003) when they score
low on tests, or fail to graduate on time.
During recent national hearings, an NAACP task
force found, “…many participants testified about students with special needs,
those perceived as poor test takers, or those who pose a behavioral challenge
are either not accepted, or once enrolled, disciplined or counseled out of many
charter schools” (NAACP, 2017).
This trend of manipulating students’ educational
lives like pawns or stick pins on a map by “hiding” students in “alternative
learning experiences” (Spring, 2016) to keep the “bottom line” of academic outcomes
and grad rates with other “quick fixes” is widespread (Turner, 2015). It reflects
the shady underbelly of a market ideology’s system of competition and choice applied
to, of all things, the lives of children (Winerip, 2011; Miller, 2015; Taylor,
2015; Wolfe, 2015; Brown, 2017).
As well, whole districts are not above throwing
some students under the bus to get/maintain high grad rates (Spring, 2016; Koran,
2017).
Pushing students out is especially tempting for
urban charter schools which are under
intense scrutiny and pressure to perform. Taking into account the past
economics of educational politics (i.e., school choice) in Indianapolis, this
is especially the case for Mayor Hogsett’s bevy of charters.
Particularly relevant to issues regarding “pushing
out” students is the December 19, 2015 Indiana
Business Journal (IBJ) story on
events at the Charles Tindley Accelerated School (CTAS): “Charter star Tindley
in cash crunch as CEO’s expenses questioned” (Columbo, 2015). Though the story
raises concerns, IBJ joins other
local media in validating the “star” status of the Tindley brand (www.tindley.org). Note, both Indy’s local
establishment (Pulliam, 2013) and Black community (Perry, 2013) hold CTAS up to
everyone and praise the school as a model for other urban charters.*
In fact, CTAS is recognized nationally as one of the “highest-scoring schools”
by US News and World Report (2015).
A scrutiny of this blend of concern and praise
suggests a public discussion. A deeper
review of factors behind the school’s graduation rates, which are in the lower
90% for the classes 2013 and 2014, will promote dialogue and clarity.
Introducing “Promoting Power”
In order to open a conversation about the
“success” of CTAS, fostering a clear view of the school’s graduation rates (or those
of any Indiana public school) is needed. The concept of Promoting Power
(holding power) is being used because it can provide a quick way to determine how
a school is doing. Promoting Power also circumvents certain graduation rate
formulas which can hide the inability
of schools to keep students in school and graduating.
Promoting Power takes the number of 9th
graders and divides that by the number of these students who make it to 12th
grade. It does not determine graduation rates--those 9th graders
(cohort) who actually graduate. A Promoting Power of <60% is weak Promoting
Power. High schools with weak Promoting
Power are called “dropout factories.” The term was used in the Indy Star’s 2005 “Left Behind” series: http://rishawnbiddle.org/RRB/Starfiles/leftbehind/Dropout_factories.pdf
To understand more about Promoting Power and the
dropout factory term see:
Comparing grad rates and promoting power: Is CTAS a dropout factory?
Linking both the Promoting Power concept and
“pushout crisis” factors will bring another possible explanation of the “success”
of CTAS. Contrasting Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) graduation rates for
CTAS with the school’s Promoting Power percentages reveals CTAS as a dropout
factory in all but 1 of the graduating classes for the 2007-2008 to 2017-2018 school
years. See Table II.
To illustrate, the graduation rate for CTAS for
2012-2013 was 90%. A closer look at the data shows only 27 of the 2009-2010 9th
grade cohort of 61 graduated. The 90% rate was determined by dividing the number
of seniors (30) into the number who actually graduated (27). In other words,
the class of 2012-2013 had 30 seniors of which 27 graduated. Even though the
cohort lost over half of its members after 3 years, it still had a graduation
rate of 90%. See Table II.
The Promoting Power formula measures the ability
of CTAS to hold on to its 9th graders. Comparing the 61 freshmen who
started the 2009-2010 school year with the 30 who made it to their senior year,
CTAS has a Promoting Power of (30/61) 49%--making it, for that class, a dropout
factory. See Table II.
An Indiana public school both traditional or charter can lose over half
its freshman class after 3 years and still have a graduation rate of 90%
How does this happen? According to IDOE guidelines,
a school’s graduation rate will not be affected by students who leave a high
school and are enrolled elsewhere. With regard to determining graduation rates,
the “home school” does not have to count these students among those in that
year’s cohort. For example, a particular
public high school could have 20 9th graders and 4 years later have 5
(seniors) left in that cohort due to 15 students leaving and enrolling in
another high school. If all 5 graduate, and even though the school lost 75% of
its freshmen class after 3 years, the school’s grad rate for that year will be
100%.
This raises the question and thus the rub: what if
the student/family is counseled out or persuaded to “self-select”--pushed away
from their school
before they are graduated, through the encouragement of the school itself?
Also, what about a school coaching a student/family
to choose homeschooling as an alternative to expulsion? In this way, these negative
marks do not appear on the student’s or school’s record, and does not count
against the school’s gradua-tion rate. However, are there drawbacks to the home
schooling option for the student/family? See Appendix B
On the surface “self-opting” makes sense and
appears fair to all parties: schools, and students and their families. Yet, the
issues brought to the surface by the Schott report on the national “pushout crisis”
raises questions as to whether these students left “on their own” or were they
“pushed” out.
As stated above, “The ‘pushout crisis’
reflects situations where many schools are trying to get rid of (dump/’shed
back’ or ‘counsel out’) students who may tarnish a school’s statistics (Lewin
& Medina, 2003) such as by scoring low on state standard tests, or failing
to graduate on time.”
A
commentary: Why is weeding-out students disguised and excused by the status quo
A closer look at the January 2013 story on Tindley by Indy Star commentator Russ Pulliam
(2013) is needed. Here Pulliam quotes Brian Payne, the president of the Central Indiana Community
Foundation who said, “I think it’s human nature that people generally rise to
the level of expectations.” Payne went on, “When you create a culture of high
expectations, people generally will self-select out of that culture if they are
not committed. They have this culture at Tindley that you will work hard. If
you aren’t ready to work, you may not want to be there.”
What “self-select out” means in a general
context, and then in the
context of charter schools
It
appears the “self-select out” concept came out of the business world explaining
why someone may not have applied for a job (they didn’t think they were
qualified), or after applying, decided on their own not to follow through on
the normal steps to being hired. For example, though they made it through to
the final stage of the hiring process, the applicant decided (on their own) to
“self-select out” and not to go to the final interview.
This
also may occur with certain charters as Mr. Payne noted, “When you create a
culture of high expectations, people generally will self-select out of that culture
if they are not committed.” In this case however, due to the local/national
education politics associated with charters and the present national “push out”
crisis used to introduce this report, a critical stance is needed to analyze this
situation.
“Self-select out” is a coin with 2 sides
A
review of the research shows the “self-select out” concept is a coin with 2
sides. This is not just a simple act of a student or family deciding to attend
a certain school or not--notably in this case, a school with “high
expectations.”
On
one side of the coin is the “self-select out” scenarios described above and by
Brian Payne. On the other side of the coin is a trio of related scenarios: the Self-Selection Bias, Select Marketing
Strategies, and the “Bum Steer.”
Originating
from the world of statistics, when applied to charter school scenarios, the
concept of Self-Select Bias explains
how some charters like Tindley or KIPP are influenced by this predilection, and so can benefit from the bias in
that it can be implied their applicants are motivated to attend there. Many
traditional public schools are not influenced by this special intent, giving
charters “advantage” some see as unfair. The “bias” inherent in self-selection
is also another way to explain the “self-select out” situation referred to by Brian
Payne.
Due
to the pressure to perform (high letter grades [from IDOE], test scores and
graduation rates) some charters are not above using strategies to influence who considers their school or
applies in the first place. Some charters, as a matter of policy, also
have their own select marketing
strategies: they organically target particular parts of the market with
their public/private advertising and recruiting.
Plus,
they have elaborate application processes or the “bum steer” where
some charters “drive away” ELL and special needs students from applying via
their high standard mentality.
·
Here
is a look at the “self-select bias” regarding charters:
·
Here
is a link that challenges the marketing idea that charters are a better way of
educating minority students; yet, opponents say charters are able to educate
only “some” of these students:
·
See
how marketing/the “bum steer” ploy help charters maintain their “edge” over
traditional schools:
Other tactics:
“Flunk or leave,” “A deal you can’t refuse,” “No
backfill rules”
and recruiting “good test takers”
Now
that we’ve started a discussion about what happens before enrollment, we have
to unpack what some charters use after enrollment to keep grad rates high.
For example, certain “high standards/high expectation”
charters make use of the “flunk or
leave” angle where school officials threaten to hold the student back a
grade if they remain in the school.
Even
in some cases regarding disciplinary action/s, a student/family may be offered
“a deal they can’t refuse.” In this
situation, a school intends to suspend or expel a student, but proposes not to
if he/she leaves (supposedly) by their own choice and then enrolls in another
school or home schools (See Appendix B). Per- haps for certain students, such
“counseling” is used to help them realize they “…may not want to be there.” Due
to this “trade-off,” neither the school nor the student will have a suspension
or expulsion on their record and the school unapologetically gets rid of a student
they can say “…just wasn’t a good fit.”
Plus, most likely those students/families that
pick a Tindley-type charter will go to another school, thus removing that
student from the cohort. Now, she/he will not be counted toward determining the
graduating rate of that group/class.
And
then we need to talk about the importance of the “no-backfill rules” in operation in many charter markets,
guaranteeing that no new students ever come in during the middle of a
multi-year program. One can read this plainly when reviewing each year of
Tindley’s enrollment numbers. With traditional schools, in many instances, a
school’s 10th grade enrollment numbers are larger than the 9th
grade. This is not the case with Tindley. 10th grade enrollment is smaller than
9th grade, 11th grade enrollment is smaller than 10th
grade and senior enrollment is smaller than 11th grade. This is
because they do not “backfill.”
“It’s
a deeply divisive issue within the charter sector. When transient students
(those most likely to be low-performing) leave charter schools and are not
replaced, it potentially makes some charters look good on paper through
attrition and simple math: Strugglers leave, high performers stay, and the
ratio of proficient students rises, creating an illusion of excellence that is
not fully deserved.”
Another
obvious concern involves schools with high test scores—and the efforts of these
schools to maintain such status by recruiting
“good test takers.” Here, charters recruit/cultivate students from families
with more resources who can perform on standardized test while “weeding out”
more challenging students through their application process and school
policies--like ones demanding volunteer time from parents. How is it fair and equitable when schools, can
under the cover of the “self-selection” alibi, actually “weed out” poor test
takers?
·
Here’s
link to why some charter schools have better test scores:
Respecting
the school in light of graduation rate vs. Promoting Power percents, CTAS and
its supporters may attempt to “spin” what’s going on at the school as one where
the student and their family select the school or leave on their own
accord. In either case, the
student/family is gone. The school is left free of responsibility and the
school’s graduation rates and test scores remain high.
The
concern of this study is the problems which arise when these rather “boutique”
charters, that see themselves quasi-private schools, hold “high standards”
mindsets for students/families, but not themselves.
In summary: The CTAS
story calls for transparency in graduation rates
Indeed,
the above report/commentary can be seen as presumptuous and even accusatory. The study is not so much about CTAS per
se. As research reviewed and compared the various enrollment numbers and
grad rates of local high schools, the CTAS data stood out because the school
did not backfill and it was easy to follow the 9th grade cohort
through to graduation. Such cohorts are hidden in most schools, getting lost in
the increasing enrollments in 10th and 11th grades.
CTAS is just
the canary in the coal mine inadvertently warning voters and tax-
payers that
some of their public schools' performances aren’t what they appear.
Nonetheless,
with over 20 years of pressure on certain high schools (notably urban charters),
and in this case the very contentious, over 10-year local and state-wide debate
over school choice, this level of suspicion simply cannot
be avoided.
To
the extent that Mayor Hogsett is the only mayor in the United State of America
who can charter a school, to that same extent tremendous political-economic
pressure is put on the mayor’s charters to perform. Thus, he cannot afford to
have any of his schools fall below the norm--let alone be suspect of any
deceptions exposed by the pushout emergency and a Promoting Power analysis.
As
Indianapolis, Indiana, and the country praise the Charles Tindley Accelerated
School for having high expectations for its students, families and staff, the
Tindley board must maintain credibility by virtue of transparency and public
accountability, practicing the same level of expectancy it holds for the school.
___________
*This was especially the case when Mayor Ballard
closed The Project School (TPS) charter over financial issues. TPS also had low
test scores—which was why the Mind Trust’s David Harris said the school must be
closed (Peg with Pen, 2012). Yet, many believe the closure happened because 28
students opted-out of ISTEP. In the wake of the closing, CTAS was presented to
the public as the blueprint to follow—the opposite of TPS (RTV Channel 6,
2012).
TABLE I
Charles A. Tindley Accelerated School
(IDOE school #6208)
Enrollment numbers per 9th grade 4-year cohort for 2004-2015
04-05 05-06 06-07
07-08 08-09 09-10
10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17
9 66 59 29 40 46 61 69 62 68 93 135 94
89
10
44
34
26 30 28 52 52 48 54 79 87 80
11 15 22 23 23 22 43 32 41 42 44 64
12 14 19 22 13 18 30 30 32 35 40
TABLE II
Charles A. Tindley Accelerated School
Enrollment numbers, graduation numbers and rates,
and Promoting Power percentages for 9th grade cohorts
School IDOE * Class
IDOE * Promoting
Weak/ Dropout
Year
9th 10th 11th 12th #
grads of Grad %
Power <60% Strong
Factory
04/05 66 44 (-22) 15
(-29) 14 (-1) 12
12/19 2007-08 63.2%
14/66=21.2% W
Yes
05/06 59 34
(-25) 22 (-12) 19 (-3)
15 15/25 2008-09
60.0% 19/59=34.5% W Yes
06/07 29 26 (-3)
23
(-3) 22
(-1) 15 15/19
2009-10 78.9% 22/29=75.8% S No
07/08 40 30 (-10) 23 (-7)
13
(-10) 12 12/16
2010-11 75.0% 13/40=32.5% W Yes
08/09 46 28 (-18) 22
(-6) 18 (-4) 15
15/19 2011-12 78.9%
18/46=39.1% W
Yes
09/10 61 52
(-9) 43 (-9) 30 (-13)
27 27/30
2012-13 90.0% 30/61=49.1% W Yes
10/11 69 52
(-17) 32 (-20) 30 (-2) 29 29/32 2013-14 90.6% 30/69=43.4% W Yes
11/12 62 48
(-14) 41 (-7) 32 (-9)
24 24/28 2014-15
85.7% 32/62=51.6% W
Yes
12/13 68 54 (-14) 42 (-12)
35 (-7) 32
32/36 2015-16 88.9% 35/68=51.5% W
Yes
13/14 93 79 (-14) 44 (-35) 40 (-4) 35 35/38
2016-17
92.1%
40/93=43.0% W Yes
14/15 135 87 (-48) 64 (-23) 61 (-3) 2017-18 61/135=45% W
Yes
15/16 94 80 (-14)
72 (-8)
16/17 89 77 (-12)
17/18 91
APPENDIX A
Breakdown of Graduation Rate Calculations
Charles A. Tindley Accelerated School
Class of 07-08
IDOE
# in 12th grade =14
Grad rate
# of grads
63.2% 12
GED 5.3%
1
SiS 10.5%
2
DO 21.1%
4
19:12/19=63.2%
|
Class of 12-13
IDOE
# in 12th grade =30
Grad rate
# of grads
90.0%
27
DO 10.0%
3
30: 27/30=90.0%
|
Class
of 08-09
IDOE
# in 12th grade =19
Grad rate
# of grads
60.0% 15
SiS 40.%
10
25: 15/25=60.0%
|
Class
of 13-14
IDOE
# in 12th grade=30
Grad rate
# of grads
90.6% 29
SiS 6.3%
2
DO 3.1%
1
32: 29/32=90.6%
|
Class
of 09-10
IDOE
# in 12th grade =22
Grad rate
# of grads
78.9% 15
SiS 10.5%
2
DO 10.5%
2
19:15/19=78.9%
|
Class of 14-15
IDOE
# in 12th grade=32
Grad rate
# of grads
85.7% 24
SiS 10.7%
3
DO 3.6%
2
28: 24/28=85.7%
|
Class
of 10-11
IDOE
# in 12th grade =13
Grad rate
# of grads
75.0% 12
SiS 18.8%
3
DO 6.3%
1
16:12/16=75.0%
|
Class of 15-16
IDOE
# in 12th grade=35
Grad rate
# of grads
88.9% 32
SiS 11.1%
4
DO 0.0%
0
36: 32/36=88.9%
|
Class
of 11-12
IDOE
# in 12th grade=18
Grad rate
# of grads
78.9% 15
SiS 10.5%
2
DO 10.5%
2
19: 15/19=78.9%
|
Class of 16-17
IDOE
# in 12th grade=40
Grad rate
# of grads
92.1% 35
SiS 2.6%
1
DO 5.3%
2
38: 35/38=92.1%
|
SiS=Still
in School students are expelled students, yet are still “enrolled” &
expected to return. Until that happens or not, this is counted against a
school’s graduation rate.
DO=Dropout
Appendix B
The limitations of homeschooling as an alternative to
expulsion:
Why high schools benefit, but students, families, and
society may not
The
language of “counsel out,” “self-select out,” “shed-back” (Lewin & Medina, 2003) and now “de-selection” and “Got to Go” lists
(Miller, 2015),
even “thrive or transfer” bullying (Winerip, 2011) become alarming as
analysis shows public school administrators have the option to offer parents
and students the use of home-schooling as a “transfer” over expulsion.
·
Is
this a good choice for low-income, marginalized families living in poor
neighborhoods, characterized by crime and violence?
This
is noted because Indiana home schooling guidelines are non-in-forcible by the
state. Indiana has no accountability for record keeping for students and/or
families who select this expulsion option. This worries some important local and
national community vitality and public policy groups (Fiddian-Green &
Bridgeland, 2017).
·
What
happens to those students being “homeschooled” without adequate or little or no
parent involvement, or formal supervision?
o What about situations
where the parent/s works during the day and the student, who is normally in
school, is left unsupervised?
o What if parent/s do
not have the level of education needed to home school adequately?
This
led to speculation that there is a possible correlation between the Indiana home
schooling guidelines and the school to prison pipeline.
·
Are
high schools inadvertently placing students in jeopardy by counseling families
to choose this alternative?
The
homeschooling choice is popular because it can benefit both parties: neither the
student nor the school has the expulsion mark on their official school records.
|
Does count against a school’s grad rate
|
Does not count
against grad rate
|
A student leaves a high school and drops out completely
and does not enroll at another school
|
ü
|
|
A student is expelled though counted as “Still in
School”
|
ü
|
|
The student/family “self-selects” out or is “counseled”
out, or is just “pushed” out. The student leaves and then enrolls in
another school.
|
|
ü
|
A student/family chooses homeschooling over expulsion
|
|
ü
|
__________________
Grasp the analysis of Appendix B via the
discussion about the homeschool option which resulted from an analysis by the
National Council on Educating Black Children, the Black & Latino Policy
Institute, and Indiana University’s School of Social Work. It was presented
02.17.16 to the Indiana Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights.
Other information
Office of Education Innovation 2013-2014/2014-2015
reports on CTAS
Chalkbeat 10.21.16 CTAS as one of the better local high
schools regarding ISTEP
CTAS 2017 2nd Best Charter HS Out of 19
in Indy Metro Area
