THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT / THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK / ALBANY, NY 12234
TO:		The Honorable the Members of the Board of Regents
FROM:		James A. Kadamus
COMMITTEE:		EMSC-VESID
TITLE OF ITEM:		Assessment Review and Action on Student Performance Results for the 2000 Student Cohort:  Intervention Strategies
DATE OF SUBMISSION:		January 31, 2005
PROPOSED HANDLING:		Approval
RATIONALE FOR ITEM:		Implementation of Regents Policy
STRATEGIC GOAL:		Goals 1 and 2
AUTHORIZATION(S):

 

SUMMARY:

 

In January, the Regents received the attached report that proposed three intervention strategies focused on students in academic difficulty.  These three strategies build upon current Regents strategies and our own experience in working with urban districts.  As part of your discussion, it was recommended that we add a strategy that focuses on implementation of current Regents policies relating to ensuring there are highly qualified teaching staff in the high schools with the lowest graduation rates and the highest proportions of students taking three or fewer Regents exams in four years.  This strategy has been integrated into the high school initiative and is reflected in the revised January report.

 

            We propose that the Regents continue discussion of these strategies and identify the next steps to be taken by Department staff.

 

 

 

Attachment

 

THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT / THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK / ALBANY, NY 12234

 

TO:	The Honorable the Members of the Board of Regents
FROM:	James A. Kadamus
COMMITTEE:	EMSC-VESID
TITLE OF ITEM:	Assessment Review and Action on Student Performance Results for the 2000 Student Cohort
DATE OF SUBMISSION:	January 6, 2005   REVISED
PROPOSED HANDLING:	Discussion
RATIONALE FOR ITEM:	Monitoring of Regents Policy
STRATEGIC GOAL:	Goals 1 and 2
AUTHORIZATION(S):

 

SUMMARY:

 

The EMSC-VESID Committee developed in November a framework for discussion of assessment and graduation issues.  In December, the Committee received an analysis of the Regents exam performance and educational outcomes of students who first entered grade 9 in the 2000-01 school year.  The data showed that the vast majority of general education students who take all five required Regents exams pass at 55.  But it also showed a disturbing picture of many students who entered high school unprepared to do high school level work, do not pass their courses and earn fewer than the 22 local high school credits they need for graduation in four years. The Regents exams are not a problem for these students; instead, they do not take the Regents exams. 

 

We can identify the students in academic difficulty and the schools they attend.  Our data now show that these students are concentrated in 136 high schools in 12 school districts.  The data suggest the need for intervention.  The attached report proposes three strategies that build upon current Regents strategies, such as the statewide urban district strategy, and our own experience in working with urban districts:

 

1.                  Require all schools to identify all the students in academic difficulty and to notify the parents.  Require the schools to report what they are doing to help these students succeed.  Evaluate the effectiveness of academic intervention services now offered.

2.                  Expand and strengthen our statewide initiative with the high schools that have the lowest graduation rates and the highest proportions of students taking three or fewer Regents exams in four years by bringing the 12 school districts together to evaluate and implement strategies to improve graduation rates and performance on Regents exams.

3.                  Create an appeals process for certain students who pass their courses and are close to passing the Regents exams but may have difficulty demonstrating their knowledge on a particular test.

 

This approach is intended to help students in academic difficulty, to help educators in schools with low graduation rates who work with these students, and to provide reasonable opportunities for a small number of students who may be close to passing the Regents exams and who pass their courses but may not do as well on a particular test.

 

The goal is to create capacity to help local educators in the 12 school districts and 136 high schools devise and implement strategies that work.  We should not, however, underestimate the difficulty in accomplishing this goal.  There are many promising strategies, but the problems facing these students and schools are very challenging.  Many educators have worked hard for years to resolve them.  At many points, we will have to learn our way together to create a solution.

           

We propose that these strategies become part of the Regents statewide program already in place to close the gap in student performance, such as making pre-kindergarten universal throughout the State, implementing research-based reading and mathematics instruction, implementing middle school reform models, expanding the career and technical education model, enhancing services for disabled students, increasing intensive English instruction for students who are English language learners and providing an adequate system of school funding for high need districts.

 

            This report as well as the December report presented to the Board provide extensive data analyses on the performance of students who first entered grade 9 in the 2000-01 school year as well as strategies for helping high school students in academic difficulty.  The data and proposed strategies set the groundwork for further discussion on the Board's policy on raising the minimum passing score on Regents exams to 65 for the 2005 student cohort (students who enter grade 9 in September 2005).  In October 2003, the Board approved a two-year extension of the low-pass option at local district discretion.  That provision will sunset with students who entered grade 9 in the current school year.  This issue was included in the discussion framework on assessment issues developed by the Committee in November 2004.

 

 

 

Attachment

 

 

ASSESSMENT REVIEW AND ACTION ON STUDENT PERFORMANCE RESULTS FOR THE STUDENT COHORT WHO FIRST ENTERED GRADE 9 IN 2000

 

 

            In December, the Regents received an analysis of the Regents exam performance and educational outcomes of students who first entered grade 9 in the 2000-01 school year.  The data show that achievement overall is improving.

 

·        More students are graduating each year.  There were 153,202 graduates in 2003-2004, compared to 136,754 in 1995-96.  Total high school enrollment has not risen as fast.

·        Since the fall of 1998, fewer students have been held back in ninth grade each year, meaning that more students are entering high school better prepared for high school work.

·        Grade 8 English and math scores show fewer students scoring in Level 1 each year between 2000 and 2004.  This indicates that students are better prepared and are receiving extra help.

·        Of those students who entered grade 9 in 2000, 92 percent who took all five Regents exams passed at 55 and 77 percent passed at 65.  This shows that the high school graduates are better prepared for college or work.

 

While these are good signs, the data on students who entered grade 9 in 2000 also show a disturbing picture.  The big problem is that many students enter high school unprepared for high school work, do not pass their courses, and consequently do not earn the 22 local high school credits they need for graduation in four years.  The problem is not with the difficulty in passing the Regents exams; the problem is with the courses they must pass to graduate.  These students do not take the Regents exams within four years. 

 

In December, staff presented an extensive analysis of the 2000 student cohort.  A few points are repeated here as a reference for the Regents discussion in January.

 

1.         Almost one-fourth of general education students in the cohort did not take the five Regents exams at the end of four years.  The fact that they had not taken the exams would generally indicate they have not taken or have failed the prerequisite courses.  Note that very few students took the exams and failed them.

Table 1

Regents Examination Performance of General-Education Students Who Entered Grade 9 in 2000-01 After Four Years

Examination	Not Tested	Percent of Tested Students Scoring
		0-54	55-64	65-100
New York City
English	30.1%	6.7%	7.7%	55.5%
Mathematics	31.2	9.6	13.2	46.0
Global History	28.3	7.7	7.0	57.1
U.S. History	37.1	3.9	4.7	54.3
Science	29.2	6.3	10.1	54.4
Rest of State
English	10.7	1.9	3.6	83.7
Mathematics	8.9	5.5	7.0	78.6
Global History	9.9	2.0	3.7	84.4
U.S. History	11.8	1.4	2.7	84.1
Science	7.7	1.5	3.0	87.8
Total Public
English	17.7	3.7	5.1	73.5
Mathematics	17.0	7.0	9.3	66.8
Global History	16.6	4.1	4.9	74.5
U.S. History	21.0	2.3	3.4	73.3
Science	15.5	3.3	5.6	75.7

 

 

Because of a lack of preparation for high school, 30 percent of general education students have not graduated in four years.  Twelve percent have dropped out.

 

 

Table 2

The Percentages of General Education Students in the Group by Outcome as of June 30, 2004 After Four Years

Outcome as of June 30, 2004	Total Public
	Number	Percent
Regents/Local Diploma	124,489	69.9%
Still Enrolled	29,114	16.4
Transferred to GED	3,235	1.8
Dropped Out	21,031	11.8
Other Exit	181	0.1
Total	178,050	100.0

2.                  Statewide, 11.8 percent of general education students in the 2000 cohort had dropped out and another 1.8 percent had transferred to GED programs.  In each subject area, the majority of the students who had dropped out or transferred to GED programs had not taken a Regents exam.  In each subject area, those students who had taken an exam were more likely to have scored 55 or higher than to have failed the exam.

 

Table 3

Regents Examination Performance of General-Education Students Who Dropped Out Within Four Years

Examination	Not Tested	Percent of Tested Students Scoring
		0-54	55-64	65-100
English	85.6%	4.8%	2.6%	7.0%
Mathematics	74.7	11.7	3.6	10.0
Global History	72.4	9.4	4.2	13.9
U.S. History	89.0	3.0	1.5	6.5
Science	69.5	8.2	4.9	17.5

 

 

Table 4

Regents Examination Performance of General-Education Students Who Transferred to GED Programs Within Four Years

Examination	Not Tested	Percent of Tested Students Scoring
		0-54	55-64	65-100
English	93.0%	2.1%	1.3%	3.7%
Mathematics	80.8	8.6	2.7	7.8
Global History	82.2	5.3	3.7	8.8
U.S. History	95.3	1.2	0.8	2.7
Science	73.1	7.6	4.3	15.0

 

3.                  Large numbers of limited English proficient (LEP) students had not taken the Regents exams in four years.  Many students were still enrolled and can be expected to take exams in the current school year.  About 80 percent of LEP students are in New York City, and the graduation data presented here are consistent with, but somewhat better than, the data historically reported by the New York City Board of Education. By contrast, former LEP students in New York City (almost 18,000 of their annual cohort) typically graduate at a higher rate even than students who have never been LEP.  A report published by the New York City Department of Education, The Class of 2000: Final Longitudinal Report—A Three-Year Follow-Up Study, stated the following statistics for students who first entered grade 9 in 1996 (and were scheduled to graduate in 2000):  Four years after entering grade 9, 32.6 percent of the 8,791 current LEP students had earned credentials, as had 60.1 percent of the 10,996 former LEP students, and 54.5 percent of the 42,157 students who had never been classified as LEP.  Seven years after entering grade 9, the percentages earning credentials had increased to 49.5, 76.5, and 70.5 percent of current, former and never LEP students, respectively.  The credentials earned included high school diplomas, IEP diplomas, and high school equivalency diplomas.

 

 

Table 5

Regents Examination Performance of Limited English Proficient Students Who Entered Grade 9 in 2000-01 After Four Years

Examination	Not Tested	Percent of Tested Students Scoring
		0-54	55-64	65-100
New York City
English	41.3%	16.2%	13.0%	29.5%
Mathematics	39.5	12.2	12.1	36.2
Global History	35.0	13.3	9.4	42.3
U.S. History	46.5	7.4	6.9	39.1
Science	37.8	13.3	14.0	34.9
Rest of State
English	34.4	11.4	11.0	43.2
Mathematics	31.9	13.3	11.3	43.6
Global History	35.1	9.4	7.9	47.6
U.S. History	35.7	5.9	7.6	50.8
Science	28.2	7.3	11.7	52.8
Total Public
English	39.9	15.2	12.6	32.3
Mathematics	37.9	12.4	12.0	37.7
Global History	35.0	12.5	9.1	43.3
U.S. History	44.3	7.1	7.1	41.5
Science	35.8	12.1	13.5	38.6

 

 

Table 6

The Percentages of Limited English Proficient in the Group by Outcome as of June 30, 2004

Outcome as of June 30, 2004	Total Public
	Number	Percent
Regents/Local Diploma	3,773	34.5%
Earned IEP Diploma	110	1.0
Still Enrolled	4,279	39.1
Transferred to GED	160	1.5
Dropped Out	2,610	23.9
Other Exit	8	0.1
Total	10,940	100.0

 

 

Proposed Approach to Helping High School Students in Academic Difficulty

 

            We know who the students are that are in difficulty at the high school level.  They score at Level 1 on an eighth grade test, repeat ninth grade, and/or complete two years of high school without having taken a Regents exam.  We must do more to help students still in these situations learn what they need to know for citizenship, work, further education, and other responsibilities of adult life.  They need to achieve the State's learning standards and to earn a high school diploma. 

 

            We also know what schools these students attend.  There are new statewide data on the high school cohort now available as a result of improvements in the overall data system.  Based on the new data, we have identified 136 high schools (out of 907 public high schools in the State) in 12 school districts that have graduation rates under 70 percent and are already identified as needing improvement or as a School Under Registration Review (SURR) under the State accountability system (see Appendix A for a list of schools). The 12 school districts are:  New York City, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Yonkers, Mount Vernon, Amsterdam, Roosevelt, Hempstead, Wyandanch, Freeport and Central Islip.  Seventy-nine percent of the schools are located in the New York City School District.  The fact that these 12 districts are all urban or high need suburban districts means that we need to link any proposed interventions with the urban district strategies presented to the Regents in July 2004. 

 

The new data broadens our focus to include high schools.  This does not mean reducing our efforts to create an adequate system of school aid for high need districts, or to make pre-kindergarten universal, or to implement scientifically-based reading programs, or to put highly qualified teachers in every classroom, or to increase intensive English instruction for all ELL students.

           

            It does mean building on the national research on high school reform and our own experience in working with urban districts.  Unfortunately, the body of scientifically-based research on effective high schools is just emerging.  We know that national groups are promoting high school reform based on three principles:  a rigorous education program; a relevant education program through which students experience direct application of knowledge gained; and a school program that puts a premium on building strong relationships between students and between students and faculty.  Our strategies need to reflect these ideas.

 

            Possibly more instructive is our own experience in working with urban districts gained through the SURR process, Partnership Agreements, Urban Forums, Reading and Math Institutes, and the School Leadership Project.  These experiences tell us that:

 

1.                  We can effectively bring together districts that need help with experts who can provide help.

2.                  We are most effective when we generate and disseminate knowledge, provide support to local leaders to put that knowledge into practice, and hold all accountable for results.

3.                  Most interventions tried so far in urban high schools have failed because of poor implementation, not flawed strategies.

4.                  Building local district and school leadership capacity is critical for interventions to get implemented for the long-term.

 

There is a need for interventions to help individual students and to improve the overall high school program.  We propose that the following be implemented:

 

1.         Identify all of the students in academic difficulty and ensure they get adequate help.

 

            All of the students who score Level 1 on an eighth grade exam, repeat ninth grade or complete two years of high school without taking a Regents exam, would be identified by school authorities and the parents informed.  We would require the schools to report what they are doing to help these students succeed, including evaluating the effectiveness of academic intervention services provided to these students.  Identifying students in difficulty will make the problem clear to all and elevate the need for action to intervene with these students.

 

2.         Expand and strengthen our statewide initiative with the schools that have the lowest graduation rates and the highest proportions of students taking three or fewer Regents exams in four years.

 

            This strategy focuses on the 12 school districts that have the 136 high schools with the lowest performance in terms of graduation and taking Regents exams.  The role of the State Education Department would be to bring these districts together to examine the most effective strategies for improving graduation rates and performance on Regents exams.  The following is the initial list of strategies to be evaluated for implementation:

 

·        Develop individual academic plans for all students in danger of failing the ninth grade based on a diagnostic screening of their academic and personal problems.

·        Develop “catch up” curriculum and instruction that emphasizes literacy, reading in the content areas, and mathematics.

·        Hold schools accountable for failure to carry out State assessment requirements for students who have taken no Regents exams after two years of high schools.

·        Create attendance improvement strategies to dramatically increase attendance of students who have been identified as having academic difficulty.

·        Break-up large comprehensive high schools into smaller schools or learning communities that are able to pay more attention to the needs of individual students.

·        Expand proven career and technical education programs in the lowest performing high schools.

·        Provide summer school programs for mildly and moderately disabled high school students who are pursing local and Regents diplomas.

·        Accelerate implementation of middle school Model B in these districts to strengthen the core academic programs of middle schools that feed the lowest performing high schools.

·        Increase intensive English instruction for English language learners.

·        Ensure that all teachers in high schools with the lowest graduation rates are certified and receive adequate professional development.

·        Educate urban district and school leaders on how to effectively implement these strategies.

 

            Many of these high schools already have corrective actions under way, and we will support their efforts.  In addition, we will enlist the help of urban educators who have raised the achievement of students in schools that are similar to the ones in greatest need, and preferably, from the same school districts.  The goal is to create capacity to help local educators in the affected schools devise and implement strategies that work.

 

            From these efforts, a set of tested strategies, which could be of benefit to all of the State’s high schools, would be developed.

 

3.      Create an appeals process for certain students who pass their courses and are close to passing the Regents exams but may have difficulty demonstrating their knowledge on a particular test.

 

            There may also be a small number of students who have taken and passed appropriate courses and who may be close to passing a Regents exam but have difficulty demonstrating their knowledge on a particular test.  These students may need a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate through coursework that they do know the material.  The Regents would create a process conducted under rigorous quality controls through which students could make an appeal to demonstrate that they meet the State learning standards.  An appeal may be initiated by a student or by the student’s parent or teacher on his/her behalf.  Students seeking to make an appeal must meet the following criteria:

 

1.      Take the Regents exam in question two times.

2.      Have a score on the Regents exam under appeal within 3 points of the passing score on that exam.

3.      Present evidence that they have taken advantage of academic help provided by the school in the subject tested by the Regents exam under appeal.

4.      Have an attendance rate of 95 percent for the school year (except for excused absences) during which they last took the Regents exam under appeal.

5.      Have a course average in the subject under appeal that meets or exceeds the required passing grade by the school.  The course average must be based on the student’s official transcript that records grades achieved by the student in each quarter of the school year.

6.      Be recommended for an exemption to the graduation requirement by their teacher or Department chairperson in the subject of the Regents exam under appeal.

 

Students who meet all of these criteria would be eligible to apply to their school principal on a form to be developed by the Commissioner of Education.  The principal would chair a standing committee of three teachers (not including the teacher of the student making the appeal) and two administrators (the principal and one other) that would review all appeals and rule on them within five days of submission.  The committee may, in its discretion, interview the teacher or Department chairperson recommending the appeal.  The committee may interview the student making the appeal to determine that the student has demonstrated the knowledge and skills required under the State learning standards.  The school superintendent, or Chancellor in New York City or his/her designee, shall sign off on all appeals.  The school superintendent, or Chancellor in New York City or his/her designee, may interview the student making the appeal to determine that the student has demonstrated the knowledge and skills required under the State learning standards. 

 

The school will make a record of all appeals received and granted and report this information to the State Education Department.  The record of appeals will appear on the School Report Card.  All school records relating to appeals of Regents exams must be available for inspection by the State Education Department.

 

 

Next Steps

 

            With the Board's concurrence, the Department would take the next steps to implement the three new strategies: 

 

Strategy 1      Identify all of the students in academic difficulty and ensure they get adequate help.

 

            January -- June 2005

·        Analyze current Commissioner's Regulations on academic intervention services to determine what revisions are needed to implement this strategy.

·        Working with the District Superintendents and Superintendents of the Big 5 City School Districts, collect information on what schools are doing to help students in academic difficulty in high schools.

 

September 2005 and Beyond

·        Collect information on a sample of high schools to determine the effectiveness of various academic intervention services models on high school student achievement.

·        Disseminate information and provide technical assistance in the implementation of the most effective strategies.

 

Strategy 2      Expand and strengthen our statewide initiative with the schools that have the lowest graduation rates and the highest proportions of students taking three or fewer Regents exams in four years.

 

January -- February 2005

·        Work with superintendents/Chancellor in New York City and other school officials to determine current improvement strategies in use.

·        Assign specific District Superintendents to work with identified schools and districts outside of New York City and the Associate Commissioner and staff from the Office of School and Community Services (New York City) to work with targeted schools and districts in New York City.

·        Assign staff within the Department to increase efforts of colleges, libraries, museums and other organizations to work with schools, identify and disseminate information about research-based practices, and develop mechanisms for sharing emerging best practices.

 

March 2005

·        Conduct statewide conference on high school improvement for leaders of identified schools as well as for relevant SED staff and its partners.

 

April -- June 2005

·        Work with identified districts to accelerate implementation of middle school Model B to strengthen core academic programs of middle schools that feed their lowest performing high schools.

·        Work with identified schools to accelerate implementation of proven career and technical education programs.

·        Involve targeted schools in the high school strand of the State reading and math initiatives.

·        Revise improvement plans/partnership agreements currently in place in the identified schools and districts based on results of data review and evaluation of current strategies.

·        Align technical assistance efforts of SED, its networks and external partners based on these plan modifications.

 

July 2005 and Beyond

·        Implement modified improvement plans in participating sites, including the incorporation of "catch up" summer curriculum in targeted schools.

·        Train technical assistance providers in the implementation of identified research-based strategies in each participating district.

·        Work with identified districts to ensure their professional development plans meet the requirements in Section 100.2 of the Commissioner's Regulations and focus on the subject areas in which students experience academic difficulty.

·        Schedule monitoring visits to districts/schools in need of improvement, including the identified districts, to ensure their professional development plans are aligned with Commissioner's Regulations, the areas that led to the identification of the district or schools within the district as in need of improvement are being addressed, and federal NCLB resources for professional development are targeted to help teachers improve student performance.

·        Work with identified districts to ensure teachers have access to the State learning standards and best curriculum and instructional practices through the New York State Virtual Learning System, the New York State Reading Resource Center, and the Statewide Math Resource Center.

 

December 2005

·        Participating districts report to SED concerning implementation efforts and preliminary results; SED publishes updated data on graduation and test taking rates in those schools.

·        Include in the New York State school report cards additional information on graduation and how many students take and pass Regents exams.

·        Review the findings of the ongoing independent evaluation of teacher preparation programs to determine its implications for Regents policy.

 

Strategy 3      Create an appeals process for certain students who pass their courses and are close to passing the Regents exams but may have difficulty demonstrating their knowledge on a particular test.

 

January -- June 2005

·        Propose regulations to implement an appeals process.

·        Provide training to districts on how to implement such a process.

·        Revise data systems and school report cards to document and report the number of appeals requested and granted by every high school.

 

 

Summary

 

In summary, the approach outlined above would respond to the data.  It would identify the students in academic trouble, and require a local accounting of what is being done for them.  In addition, it would create a practical strategy to provide better education to particular students, together with new capacity for educators who work with the students.  The program to do this would be evaluated to enable us to expand to all schools where this approach would help students.  Finally, students who may know the material and pass their courses but who nevertheless did not do as well on a particular Regents exam would be given the opportunity to show that they meet the standards through an appeals process conducted under rigorous quality controls set by the State.

 

The data and proposed strategies set the groundwork for scheduling discussion on the Board's policy on raising the minimum passing score on Regents exams to 65 for the 2005 student cohort (students who enter grade 9 in September 2005).  In October 2003, the Board approved a two-year extension of the low-pass option at local district discretion.  That provision will sunset with students who entered grade 9 in the current school year.  This issue was included in the discussion framework on assessment issues developed by the Committee in November 2004.

 

 

                                                                                                                        Appendix A

 

Schools With Graduation Rates Below 70 Percent That Are in Improvement Status and/or SURR Status Under the Accountability System (Alternative High Schools Were Eliminated From This List)

January 6, 2005