releasable documents 1

161
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Melissa Salmanowitz Wednesday, August 8, 2012 (desk) 202.535.1096 Chancellor Henderson Releases Inspector General’s Report on Testing Integrity in 2010 DC Public Schools (DCPS) Chancellor Kaya Henderson today released the Office of Inspector General (OIG) report on the 2010 DC CAS investigation. The report, requested by Henderson in March of 2011, found that there is no widespread cheating at DCPS, among other findings. The report did confirm cheating at Noyes Education Campus. Henderson’s statement is as follows: “Today, I received the report from Office of the Inspector General’s investigation into alleged cheating on the 2010 DC CAS test. I am very grateful to the Office of the Inspector General for its hard work on this important investigation. Our team is in the process of reviewing the findings and recommendations. While it will take some time for us to evaluate the full report, three findings are very clear. “First, the report explicitly states that there is no evidence of widespread cheating at DCPS. This is consistent with all previous studies of DCPS results and confirms what I have long held to be true. I expect that this study will put to rest claims about widespread wrong-doing. “Second, the Inspector General’s investigation found there were definitive instances of testing impropriety at Noyes Education Campus. It is disappointing that a handful of staff would think so little of their profession and of their students that they would do anything to compromise results. I am dismayed by the actions of these staff. And moreover, I am deeply saddened that their actions have compromised the integrity of our entire teaching corps and caused people to question the abilities of our 47,000 students. We employ the best teachers in the world. I am proud of them day after day, but the staff implicated in this report do not represent what we stand for as a school system. “Finally, the OIGs report provides thoughtful recommendations for improving test integrity at DCPS. I am proud to say that we have already implemented many of these recommendations during our 2012 test administration. For example, on the 2012 DC CAS, we improved test monitoring, engaged with a new investigative firm, and increased security around testing materials. “DCPS will continue to improve testing protocols to ensure that our data on student performance is reliable and to hold our staff to the highest standards. The OIG’s report confirms what we have long suspected: the vast majority of our staff did nothing wrong; our

Upload: huffpost

Post on 26-Dec-2014

39 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Releasable Documents 1

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Melissa Salmanowitz Wednesday, August 8, 2012 (desk) 202.535.1096

Chancellor Henderson Releases Inspector General’s Report on Testing

Integrity in 2010

DC Public Schools (DCPS) Chancellor Kaya Henderson today released the Office of Inspector General (OIG) report on the 2010 DC CAS investigation. The report, requested by Henderson in March of 2011, found that there is no widespread cheating at DCPS, among other findings. The report did confirm cheating at Noyes Education Campus. Henderson’s statement is as follows: “Today, I received the report from Office of the Inspector General’s investigation into alleged cheating on the 2010 DC CAS test. I am very grateful to the Office of the Inspector General for its hard work on this important investigation. Our team is in the process of reviewing the findings and recommendations. While it will take some time for us to evaluate the full report, three findings are very clear. “First, the report explicitly states that there is no evidence of widespread cheating at DCPS. This is consistent with all previous studies of DCPS results and confirms what I have long held to be true. I expect that this study will put to rest claims about widespread wrong-doing. “Second, the Inspector General’s investigation found there were definitive instances of testing impropriety at Noyes Education Campus. It is disappointing that a handful of staff would think so little of their profession and of their students that they would do anything to compromise results. I am dismayed by the actions of these staff. And moreover, I am deeply saddened that their actions have compromised the integrity of our entire teaching corps and caused people to question the abilities of our 47,000 students. We employ the best teachers in the world. I am proud of them day after day, but the staff implicated in this report do not represent what we stand for as a school system. “Finally, the OIGs report provides thoughtful recommendations for improving test integrity at DCPS. I am proud to say that we have already implemented many of these recommendations during our 2012 test administration. For example, on the 2012 DC CAS, we improved test monitoring, engaged with a new investigative firm, and increased security around testing materials. “DCPS will continue to improve testing protocols to ensure that our data on student performance is reliable and to hold our staff to the highest standards. The OIG’s report confirms what we have long suspected: the vast majority of our staff did nothing wrong; our

Page 2: Releasable Documents 1

Posted at 08:24 PM ET, 08/11/2012 The Washington Post

D.C. schools cheating report thin and biased By Jay Mathews Now we know who did it. D.C. Inspector General Charles J. Willoughby has concluded his 16-month probe of cheating on the D.C. schools’ annual tests by saying that kids, not adults, made the astonishing number of wrong-to-right erasures found on answer sheets.

Never mind that testing companies, academic experts and veteran teachers say that students almost never make more than one or two wrong-to-right erasures per test. Ignore the fact that in Atlanta, where there were similar volumes of erasures on 2009 tests, state investigators with subpoena power found 178 principals and teachers had changed the answers.

DC schools chancellor Kaya Henderson (Matt McClain - The Washington Post) After Willoughby’s investigators visited only one school, Crosby S. Noyes Education Campus, he endorsed their conclusion that since the adults at that school seemed innocent of changing answers, none of the adults at dozens of other schools with massive erasures could be guilty either. The investigation is over, in part because Willoughby, allegedly immune to influence from interested parties, let D.C. school chancellor Kaya Henderson persuade him that schools she thought were great should not be examined. I had hoped Willoughby’s report would be thorough and independent, since that is what people in such jobs are supposed to be. This thin, biased 14-page document fails egregiously on both counts.

Henderson has not responded to my questions about her involvement in the probe. Deputy Inspector General Blanche L. Bruce said “your assumptions and conclusions are incorrect.” She said her office’s conclusions relied “on the totality of all the evidence.”

Noyes, the only school investigated, had 75 percent of its classrooms flagged by the testing company CTB/McGraw-Hill for unusual numbers of wrong-to-right erasures in 2008, followed by 81 percent in 2009 and 80 percent in 2010, on the D.C. Comprehensive Assessment System tests. At least five Noyes classrooms had wrong-to-right erasure rates of more than 10 per child, while the D.C. average was less than two. (Disclosure: my wife Linda Mathews conceived and supervised a USA Today investigation that revealed 103 D.C. schools had abnormally high erasure rates at least once from 2008 to 2010.)

University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill testing expert Gregory Cizek, a consultant to the Atlanta investigation, told me “nothing we know of” has ever caused such large groups of students to change so many wrong answers to right. Massive erasing only occurs when “others do if for them,” he said.

Yet the Inspector General’s report, quoting no erasure experts, concluded that the D.C. data, without “specific evidence of impropriety . . . was not a sufficient basis to conclude the erasures resulted from cheating.” His investigators interviewed 32 current and former staffers at Noyes and found just one former teacher willing to admit he or she helped some kids get the right answers on one test.

At that point Willoughby let himself be swayed by a powerful official with a vested interest in his conclusions. His investigators could have looked at J.O. Wilson Elementary School, where 93 percent of classrooms were flagged for unusual erasures in 2008, 83 percent in 2009 and 100

Page 3: Releasable Documents 1

percent in 2010. But the report said the investigators discounted those numbers because Henderson told them that Wilson was a great school and “she does not consider a high number of erasures to be an indication of a problem.”

No other schools were visited, the report said, in part because Henderson “revealed no additional evidence to corroborate the allegations.” Was gathering evidence Henderson’s job or Willoughby’s?

D.C. administrators and teachers had an incentive to cheat. They won big bonuses for high test scores. Many were dismissed when scores failed to climb. Still, the Inspector General blamed the students, who got nothing for a good score. The report noted a teacher said the tests were untimed, and students had many opportunities to change their answers. But how could they have been right so often?

The investigators didn’t bother to interview any students about that. None were asked if they remembered making any changes on answer sheets that, when scored, were full of erasures. Investigators did not check Noyes students’ test scores in subsequent years to see if each continued to perform at high levels when test security was tightened and erasures declined.

That is what a real investigator who wanted to get at the truth would have done.

By Jay Mathews | 08:24 PM ET, 08/11/2012

Page 4: Releasable Documents 1

Posted at 06:10 PM ET, 08/08/2011

Did D.C. test scores fall as security tightened? By Bill Turque There’s no way to know with certainty. But 24 of the 41 DCPS schools that had classrooms flagged by D.C. officials for high rates of wrong-to-right erasures on the 2010 DC CAS saw reading and math pass rates drop in 2011, new test data shows. Another 10 dropped in at least one category.

As my colleagues Nick Anderson and Jay Mathews reported last week, among the biggest losers were J.O. Wilson Elementary and the Noyes Education Campus. The latter was the focus of a USA Today investigation published in March raising questions about test score gains across the District. After 16 of Noyes’s 20 classrooms registered high levels of erasures in 2010, officials promised heightened test security. This year’s pass rate in reading dropped more than 25 percentage points, to 32 percent. The pass rate in math dropped more than 20 points, to 28 percent.

At J.O. Wilson, where all 10 testing classrooms were flagged in 2010, the percentage of students reading at the “proficient” level or above dropped from 66.7 to 53.4 percent. In math, the figure went from 75.7 to 53.4 percent. Other schools that posted declines in 2011 after having multiple classrooms flagged in 2010 include Ludlow-Taylor, Leckie and Martin Luther King elementaries and the Whittier Education Campus.

Correlation, to be sure, doesn’t prove cause and effect. Erasures are only a marker for possible cheating. Forty-two DCPS schools lost ground in both math and reading this year. And a handful of high-erasure schools scored gains in pass rates this year. The matter is under investigation by the D.C. and U.S. Department of Education inspectors general.

But the same pattern played out in 2010, as well. Eight of the top 10 high-erasure schools in 2009 posted significant declines in reading and math on the 2010 tests. These were J.O. Wilson and Noyes (again) along with Barnard, Plummer, Houston, Hendley, Burrville and Harris elementary schools, the Marie Reed Education Campus and Coolidge High School (Birney was found to have high erasures in 2009 but was closed for low enrollment).

School officials say they have refined and improved test security each year since the erasure issue first surfaced in 2009. If you take them at their word, then the numbers show that erasures (and possible cheating) declined as protocols tightened.

According to the numbers unearthed by USA Today, 380 classrooms across 96 schools had high erasure rates in 2008. Of those 96 schools, nine had between 75 and 99 percent of their classrooms under suspicion. Thirteen schools showed between 50 and 74 percent of classrooms with unusual erasure levels.

In 2009, those numbers dropped significantly, to 165 classrooms across 46 schools. Just four schools had between 75 and 99 percent of their rooms flagged. In 2010, the downward movement continued: 110 classrooms in 41 schools.

We expect to get the 2011 erasure data within the next few weeks.

By Bill Turque | 06:10 PM ET, 08/08/2011

Page 5: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 1 of 25

Page 6: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 2 of 25

Page 7: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 3 of 25

Page 8: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 4 of 25

Page 9: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 5 of 25

Page 10: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 6 of 25

Page 11: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 7 of 25

Page 12: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 8 of 25

Page 13: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 9 of 25

Page 14: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 10 of 25

Page 15: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 11 of 25

Page 16: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 12 of 25

Page 17: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 13 of 25

Page 18: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 14 of 25

Page 19: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 15 of 25

Page 20: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 16 of 25

Page 21: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 17 of 25

Page 22: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 18 of 25

Page 23: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 19 of 25

Page 24: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 20 of 25

Page 25: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 21 of 25

Page 26: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 22 of 25

Page 27: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 23 of 25

Page 28: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 24 of 25

Page 29: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 25 of 25

Page 30: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 1 of 89

Page 31: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 2 of 89

Page 32: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 3 of 89

Page 33: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 4 of 89

Page 34: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 5 of 89

Page 35: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 6 of 89

Page 36: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 7 of 89

Page 37: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 8 of 89

Page 38: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 9 of 89

Page 39: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 10 of 89

Page 40: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 11 of 89

Page 41: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 12 of 89

Page 42: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 13 of 89

Page 43: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 14 of 89

Page 44: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 15 of 89

Page 45: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 16 of 89

Page 46: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 17 of 89

Page 47: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 18 of 89

Page 48: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 19 of 89

Page 49: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 20 of 89

Page 50: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 21 of 89

Page 51: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 22 of 89

Page 52: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 23 of 89

Page 53: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 24 of 89

Page 54: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 25 of 89

Page 55: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 26 of 89

Page 56: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 27 of 89

Page 57: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 28 of 89

Page 58: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 29 of 89

Page 59: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 30 of 89

Page 60: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 31 of 89

Page 61: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 32 of 89

Page 62: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 33 of 89

Page 63: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 34 of 89

Page 64: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 35 of 89

Page 65: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 36 of 89

Page 66: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 37 of 89

Page 67: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 38 of 89

Page 68: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 39 of 89

Page 69: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 40 of 89

Page 70: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 41 of 89

Page 71: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 42 of 89

Page 72: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 43 of 89

Page 73: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 44 of 89

Page 74: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 45 of 89

Page 75: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 46 of 89

Page 76: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 47 of 89

Page 77: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 48 of 89

Page 78: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 49 of 89

Page 79: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 50 of 89

Page 80: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 51 of 89

Page 81: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 52 of 89

Page 82: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 53 of 89

Page 83: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 54 of 89

Page 84: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 55 of 89

Page 85: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 56 of 89

Page 86: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 57 of 89

Page 87: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 58 of 89

Page 88: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 59 of 89

Page 89: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 60 of 89

Page 90: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 61 of 89

Page 91: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 62 of 89

Page 92: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 63 of 89

Page 93: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 64 of 89

Page 94: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 65 of 89

Page 95: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 66 of 89

Page 96: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 67 of 89

Page 97: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 68 of 89

Page 98: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 69 of 89

Page 99: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 70 of 89

Page 100: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 71 of 89

Page 101: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 72 of 89

Page 102: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 73 of 89

Page 103: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 74 of 89

Page 104: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 75 of 89

Page 105: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 76 of 89

Page 106: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 77 of 89

Page 107: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 78 of 89

Page 108: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 79 of 89

Page 109: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 80 of 89

Page 110: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 81 of 89

Page 111: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 82 of 89

Page 112: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 83 of 89

Page 113: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 84 of 89

Page 114: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 85 of 89

Page 115: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 86 of 89

Page 116: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 87 of 89

Page 117: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 88 of 89

Page 118: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 89 of 89

Page 119: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 1 of 21

Page 120: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 2 of 21

Page 121: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 3 of 21

Page 122: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 4 of 21

Page 123: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 5 of 21

Page 124: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 6 of 21

Page 125: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 7 of 21

Page 126: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 8 of 21

Page 127: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 9 of 21

Page 128: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 10 of 21

Page 129: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 11 of 21

Page 130: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 12 of 21

Page 131: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 13 of 21

Page 132: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 14 of 21

Page 133: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 15 of 21

Page 134: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 16 of 21

Page 135: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 17 of 21

Page 136: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 18 of 21

Page 137: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 19 of 21

Page 138: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 20 of 21

Page 139: Releasable Documents 1

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 21 of 21

Page 140: Releasable Documents 1

Inspector general confirms cheating at D.C. elementary school August 8, 2012 | 6:00 pm | Modified: August 9, 2012 at 10:35 pm 3Comments

The D.C. inspector general confirmed cheating by teachers on the 2010 standardized tests at Noyes Education Campus, but found no evidence of widespread cheating across the school system, according to a report released Wednesday.

The question remains exactly how widespread cheating was in the Ward 5 school. Teachers offered investigators conflicting accounts of how high up the decision was made to help students improve their scores; monitors say former Principal Wayne Ryan prohibited them from entering classrooms to observe testing, which Ryan denies.

While investigators confirmed cheating at Noyes, they found no evidence to warrant a larger probe of D.C. schools, whose results are reviewed annually by independent firms hired by the city.

"I expect that this study will put to rest claims about widespread wrongdoing," said D.C. Schools Chancellor Kaya Henderson.

A March 2011 article in USA Today questioned the large gains made by Noyes students on the D.C. Comprehensive Assessment System exams. On the 2009 reading test, seventh-graders in one classroom changed 12.7 wrong answers on average to the correct ones, according to erasure analyses. Statisticians told the newspaper the "odds are better for winning the Powerball grand prize."

Henderson asked the inspector general to investigate the article's findings in a March 29 letter.

That May, the school system's firm confirmed cheating at Noyes and "possible irregularities" at C.W. Harris and Leckie elementary schools during the 2010 testing.

According to the inspector general's report, investigators discussed concerns with Stanton and Burrville elementaries with Henderson, but the chancellor said situations at those schools had been resolved. As for J.O. Wilson Elementary, which showed a high number of erasures in 80 percent of its classrooms, "the chancellor said that she does not consider a high number of erasures to be a problem and she feels that the rising scores at that school are indicative of the quality teachers there."

The investigators said they did not have enough evidence to expand the probe beyond Noyes.

At Noyes, "Teacher 1" said a test coordinator asked teachers to create strategic seating charts, placing students who could reach the "proficiency" level with assistance in the back of the classrooms. Teacher 1 silently pointed at wrong answers until the students changed them. The test coordinator denies the claim.

Teacher 1 also said another teacher shared copies of the exam with her "to do what you need to do." According to Teacher 1, they both doctored the test questions to provide sample questions for their preparing students.

Page 141: Releasable Documents 1

A third teacher told investigators the test monitor gave copies of the exam to all teachers, who went over the exams with students ahead of time.

Two testing monitors dispatched by DC Public Schools said they were forbidden from entering certain classrooms with closed doors. The principal and test coordinator both deny these claims.

Ryan, who was promoted to an instructional superintendent position in 2010, resigned from DCPS in June 2011.

[email protected]

Page 142: Releasable Documents 1

TEAM Awards Program - DC Public Schools, Washington, DC Page 1 of2

Espa'\ol I Frano;a,s I 'I' x. I 'riling Viet I tI"'IC!I DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

p':.J E~ L.. \~ s:. i~i -:-~/ (~" L

School Profiles 8< Directory I Office Directory I OCPS careers I Contact Us I Need Help?

.... ~~~,.:." ~~".", ""'~ ~ ~_,-•• " -;: ­ t"~"?." "'~"""""~~~;;'!3~7:!~'J"~~{<~""""'''''' ~ ---"". " ~.

About DCPS • learn About Schools • In the Oassroom • Beyond the Oassroom· Plan fur College &~reers. Parents and Clmmunity •

Horne;> Beyo'ld the Classroom> SpecJal Projects in Schools;> rEAt.1 Awards Program

Autonomous Schools

DC Collaborative for Change

TEAM Awards Program

TEAM Awards Program Awards Program to Recognize, Reward, and Retain High-Performing Educators and Support Staff

a SHRRE I} t s

The mission of the TEAM (Together Everyone Achieves More) awards program is to recognize, reward, and retain high­perfonning educators and support staff in DC Public Schools.

TEAM represents a bold OCPS partnership with the Washington Teachers' Union and New Leaders for New Schools, a non-profit, education reform organization committed to strengthening public education.

TEAM offers OCPS school staff the opportunity to receive significant monetary awards and national recognition for helping students achieve dramatic gains. Through TEAM, educators are also able to share their effective practices with other teachers and school leaders across the city and the nation.

TEAM is a part of the Effective Practice Incentive Community (EPIC), a national program led by New Leaders for New Schools. This organization drives student performance by identifying schools with significant student achievement gains and rewarding their educators for sharing the effective practices that helped lead to the gains. Practices are shared with other educators across the country via the web-based EPIC Knowledge System.

Funding for TEAM is provided hy the U.S. Department of Education's Teacher Incentive Fund (TlF), OCPS, and the generosity of private philanthropic funders.

TEAM Awards

Since TEAM was launched In September 2007:

• 10 DCPS schools have won TEAM awards • Over $1.5 million has been awarded • Over 400 indiViduals have received bonuses

TEAM bonuses are substantial:

Criteria for receiving a TEAM award:

School Eligihility: All DCPS schools are eligible.

lndividual Eligibility: All adults working in an award-winning school are eligible.

TEAM follows a six-step process for honoring educators and sharing effective practices:

• Educators are informed about the TEAM program and the EPIC Knowledge System.

• Student achievement data is analyzed to determine the award-winning schools. • Award-winning schools are announced and financial awards are given to All staff in those schools. • Effective leadership, management and teaching practices that contributed to the achievement gains are identified through a

rigorous investigation process.

• Identified practices are documented through video andlor wrltten case studies • Effective practice case studies are shared with educators across the nation via the web-based EPIC Knowledge System and

utilized by DCPS and New Leaders in the professional development of school leaders and their teams.

learn more about the EPIC Knowledge System

TEAM Schools

http://www .dc. gOYIDCPSlBeyond +the+ClassroomlSpecial + Proj ects+in+Schoo Is/TEAM + A... 4/4/2011

Page 143: Releasable Documents 1

TEAM Awards Program - DC Public Schools, Washington, DC Page 2 of2

Ten DCPS schools have won TEAM awards for their dramatic improvements in student achievement'

Cohort 1: Schools awarded In the 2007-08 school year (based on 2006-07 DC-CAS student gains): (Note: If you are already registered on the EPIC Knowledge System, you can click the name of any of the three schools

below to view its case. Register now.)

• Barnard Elementary School

• Noyes Education Campus

• Tyler Elementary School

Cohort 2: Schools awarded In the 2008-09 school year (based on 2007-08 DC-CAS student gains):

• Aiton Elementary School

• Hearst Elementary School

• Mamie D, Lee School

• Raymond Education campus

• Sharpe Health School

• l1lomas Elementary School

• Winston EducatiOn campus

For more infonnation, please contact:

Brittnay Buckner

Office of Human Capital

District of Columbia Public Schools

1200 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20002 (202) 719-6643

[email protected]

Learn more:

• EPIC Knowledge System

• New Leaders for New Schools

• EPIC programs in other districts or in charter schools

Inside DCPS Highlights.

'-.

r - ,--- ~f -! --__'--;"f ..... ~, ...: ~.' . ·;r--:......i ' !.

~.. ... ~t \, ~. . , l,;r."'-'

. Next steps aftef' you receive State or the Schools Check out FY12 fiscal Oul-of.Bound8tyIPSlPKMeeting Information Report Card lottery ..-oils

Get live, up.to.ctle-mlnuteInfonnatlon thrOugh DCPS

text alerts

Home I SChool Profiles & Directory I Office DI'ectory I Contact us I Terms 0' <jse I Notice of Non·Discnmlnation I Educator Portal I Employee Webrnail Login

BEST Of HII;

WEB ••.••.M •••••.•

© 2011 District of Columbia Public SChools, 1200 FItS! Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002, (202) 442-5885

http://www.dc.govIDCPSlBeyond+the+ClassroomlSpecial+Projects+in+Schools/TEAM+A... 4/4/2011

Page 144: Releasable Documents 1

March 30, 2011

Categories:

• Education

Rhee, DC defend test investigation

In a statement to POLITICO, ex-DC school chancellor Michelle Rhee, the DC public school system and an independent educational consulting firm are pushing back against charges of possible cheating at one DC school during Rhee's tenure after a USA Today article raised the issue on Monday, and then questioned the District's internal audit of the suspicious results.

"This story is an insult to the dedicated teachers and schoolchildren who worked hard to improve their academic achievement levels," said Rhee. "There are many reasons for erasures and the presence of erasures does not mean someone cheated. In fact, it can mean that our students are being more diligent about doing well, yet to suggest that there is no way test scores could have improved for DCPS students unless someone cheated is absurd. At StudentsFirst we know dedicated teachers make a difference, a strong inspirational principal can turn a school around, and that children can perform at high levels when given the tools to do so."

The District was aware of a high erasure rate at some schools and hired the outside firm Caveon to investigate in 2009, interviewing administrators and teachers in schools with anomalous results. Critics have complained about the transparency of the audit and the integrity of the testing firm's results.

"For the rare cases in which the firm recommended a consequence or next step for individual staff or schools, we followed the firm's guidance diligently," said the city in a statement. "We know that the vast majority of school staff and students approach the test with the highest integrity. However, for those rare incidences when staff and students fall short of this standard, we do not hesitate to act quickly to maintain or uphold the integrity of DCPS as a whole."

"In no instance did Caveon conclude that cheating had been revealed by the process. Instead, plausible explanations were provided as to the reason for the high erasure rates," said the company in a statement. "Caveon had complete freedom to carry out the interviews and review data with strong encouragement to use our best professional judgment and experience to inform our results and conclusions. There was no encouragement to minimize problems or 'sugar coat' our results."

UPDATE: Some readers have pointed out that Rhee's statement to POLITICO seems to contradict what she told Jay Matthews of the Washington Post. Rhee spokesperson Mafara Hobson clarifies in a statement:

“In an interview earlier today with the Washington Post, Michelle Rhee said that she could not be absolutely positive that cheating had not occurred simply because she was not and could not have been

Page 145: Releasable Documents 1

in every single classroom at the time. The reporter’s paraphrasing of what she said leaves out this important point, and is an inaccurate reading of what she intended to say. Anyone who tries to interpret this as meaning anything else would be wrong. It is also important to note that an independent test security firm had been brought in at the time to determine whether cheating had actually occurred and concluded that there was no evidence of cheating.” Posted by Ben Smith 03:31 PM

Page 146: Releasable Documents 1
Page 147: Releasable Documents 1
Page 148: Releasable Documents 1
Page 149: Releasable Documents 1
Page 150: Releasable Documents 1
Page 151: Releasable Documents 1
Page 152: Releasable Documents 1
Page 153: Releasable Documents 1
Page 154: Releasable Documents 1
Page 155: Releasable Documents 1
Page 156: Releasable Documents 1
Page 157: Releasable Documents 1
Page 158: Releasable Documents 1
Page 159: Releasable Documents 1
Page 160: Releasable Documents 1
Page 161: Releasable Documents 1

gains and our losses are real and no longer tainted by false allegations. This report provides important information that identifies one instance of wrong-doing in the past and allows us to move forward to improve testing in the future. When school starts in three short weeks, I am confident this report will be behind us and we can move forward with the business of providing a world-class education to the students of the District of Columbia.

###