Part I: Reporting and Doctoring
Annually, the RIC unit of Orange-Ulster BOCES reports Middletown's graduation rates for the previous year in the New York State Report Card. For example, in the spring of '09, the report card listed Middletown's '08 graduation rates. The false impression given by the report card is that the reported data represents official state rates, and that the information presented has been verified and certified by the state. As a point of fact, RIC Orange-Ulster BOCES only collects information from local school districts prior to printing the report card. District superintendents have the discretion to alter information and are solely responsible for reporting and interpreting graduation rates. On two occasions, we contacted RIC and requested confirmation and clarification of graduation rates. Their response was to direct us to Dr. Eastwood, and they later contacted him to assure him that they had not given us any information. Obviously, RIC staff are mere functionaries of local district superintendents, and play little or no role in authenticating the validity graduation rates. These observations also helps to explain the difficulties in obtaining correct and official data concerning graduation rates; since, only the superintendent can provide this information. Dr. Eastwood has never reported the official graduation rates nor cohort numbers to the public.
Last year, Dr' Eastwood changed the official size of the '04 and '05 cohorts; thereby, altering the the graduation rates for the '08 and '09 classes, respectively. The graduation rate is equal to the number of students who graduate by August 31 divided by the number of students who stared in that class in 9th grade (the class cohort). In examining Dr. Eastwood's actions, we need to ask the following question. Why did it take almost four or five years to correct the size numbers of the '04 and '05 cohorts? The Public relation advantage and effects of changing the size of the cohorts is easy to see. On Oct, 2009, based on Dr. Eastwood's modification, RIC reported a 19% change for the June '8 and '09 graduation rates, and by decreasing the size of the '05 cohort, the '09 rate spiked to 77% compared to the '08 rate of 68%. We must now asked this question : Was the change in the cohort numbers after so many years by Dr. Eastwood justified, or just a manipulation of the data to inflate graduation rates? Given the timing of these changes, it appears that the later point is more probable.
Graduation Rates
Part II : Analysis
After Dr. Mauro's report that the graduation rates for the Middletown School District have not not changed significantly for the last several years, we were not surprised by Dr. Eastwood's attack of Dr. Mauro at the board meeting and on the district web site. We interrupted his response as a recognition of the potential damage this information could do to his inflated image of the district's academic achievement, and as a defense against a questioning of his credibility. However, during his long attacks, Dr. Eastwood never reported an official listing of the district's graduation rates between '03 to '09. According to RIC, only the district can officially report graduation rates and clarify the information provided in the state report cards. Since Dr. Eastwood has neither clarified nor provided this information to the public, how can anyone outside the administration have the correct updated official graduation rates or cohort numbers?
Following a request by Mrs. Isseks , Dr. Eastwood begrudgingly provided to the board a copy of a state form from RIC updating the June '08 an '09 graduation rates to 62% and 74%, respectively. Later, the Record reported our August graduation rates between '05 to '09 as : '05-59%, '06-71%, '07-69%, '08-68%, '09-77%. Statically, between '05 and'09, the overall graduation rate mean is approximately 69% plus/minus a large standard deviation of approximately 11%. Hardly a stellar achievement, and clearly indicate that THE CHANGE IN OUR GRADUATION RATES IS NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT BETWEEN '05 - '09. The lack of a statistically significant difference is even after Dr Eastwood's alteration of the '08 and '09 graduation rates (See Part I). It is also interesting to note, with the exception of the '09 rate in which Dr. Mauro estimated the size of the '05 cohort, that the graduation rates which he stated at a board meeting were, for the most part, the same or higher than the graduation rates reported by the Record between '05 - '09. Since graduation rates are the prime indicator of student achievement. Dr Eastwood's comments and the Record's headline appear to have grossly exaggerated our student achievement under his administration. It is important to know where we are before we and move forward. The records headline is also puzzling given the Record's June, 2009 article by Mr. Paul Brooks. He reported on the '08 and '09 graduation rates of 33 districts in Orange Sullivan and Ulster counties. For '08, of the 16 districts in Orange county, only two districts had lower graduation rates than Middletown. Of the 33 districts listed, Middletown's graduation rates fall within the lowest 20% of the 33 districts listed.
Graduation Rates
Part III: Use of Number of Graduates
Without Use of Graduation Rates
Even more troublesome than Dr. Eastwood's exaggeration of student achievement are his statements in which he boast in the Record of almost a doubling of the number graduates between '04 and '09, and on the district web site, a more than doubling of the number a economically disadvantaged students graduating between '05-'09. His comments give the impression that the district has doubled our graduation rates. As a point of fact, in terms of achievement, an increase in graduation numbers mean nothing without a concomitant increase in graduation rates. I will illustrate an example of why reporting only the number of graduates is both deceptive and misleading. Let's compare two hypothetical schools A and B :
School A: 350 graduates total cohort 500 : graduation rate 70%
School B: 700 graduates total cohort 1000 : graduation rate 70%
If we compare school A with school B, school B has twice the number of graduates. However, without a higher graduation rate, there is no difference in student achievement. Observe, we have twice the number of graduates, but we also have twice the number of students who did not graduate. According to the New York State Report Cards, the graduation rates for economically disadvantages student have not increased significantly for the past few years. For '08, the graduation rate for economically disadvantaged students was reported as 65%. A copy of the '08 Report Card is currently posted on the district web page. Since both our graduation rate for economically disadvantaged students, and our overall graduation rates have not changed significantly for the past few years (see Part I), Dr. Eastwood's reporting of a doubling or almost doubling of the number of student graduating in the newspaper, and on the school web site have given a false impression to the public of increased student achievement when little has occurred. Granted, there have been many improvements in the district, but not of the magnitude reported by the district administration.
Although this approach to the reporting of information may be acceptable in politics or business, it is antithetical for educational institutions to manipulate information in this way. Educational institutions need to be held to higher standard, and objectively report the facts without using inflated information, spin, hype, or propaganda. To do otherwise, not only brings Dr. Eastwood's credibility into question, but may jeopardize the credibility of the school district.
