P. 1
Releasable Documents 1

Releasable Documents 1

|Views: 37|Likes:
Published by huffpost

More info:

Published by: huffpost on Apr 12, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/12/2013

pdf

text

original

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
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
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 J ay Mathews | 08:24 PM ET, 08/11/2012

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 J ay 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. J ust 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

Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 1 of 25
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 2 of 25
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 3 of 25
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 4 of 25
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 5 of 25
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 6 of 25
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 7 of 25
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 8 of 25
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 9 of 25
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 10 of 25
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 11 of 25
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 12 of 25
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 13 of 25
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 14 of 25
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 15 of 25
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 16 of 25
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 17 of 25
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 18 of 25
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 19 of 25
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 20 of 25
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 21 of 25
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 22 of 25
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 23 of 25
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 24 of 25
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 25 of 25
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 1 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 2 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 3 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 4 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 5 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 6 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 7 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 8 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 9 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 10 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 11 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 12 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 13 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 14 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 15 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 16 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 17 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 18 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 19 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 20 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 21 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 22 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 23 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 24 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 25 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 26 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 27 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 28 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 29 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 30 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 31 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 32 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 33 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 34 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 35 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 36 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 37 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 38 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 39 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 40 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 41 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 42 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 43 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 44 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 45 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 46 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 47 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 48 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 49 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 50 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 51 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 52 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 53 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 54 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 55 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 56 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 57 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 58 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 59 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 60 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 61 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 62 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 63 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 64 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 65 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 66 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 67 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 68 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 69 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 70 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 71 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 72 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 73 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 74 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 75 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 76 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 77 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 78 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 79 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 80 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 81 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 82 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 83 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 84 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 85 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 86 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 87 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 88 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-1 Filed 05/02/11 Page 89 of 89
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 1 of 21
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 2 of 21
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 3 of 21
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 4 of 21
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 5 of 21
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 6 of 21
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 7 of 21
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 8 of 21
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 9 of 21
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 10 of 21
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 11 of 21
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 12 of 21
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 13 of 21
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 14 of 21
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 15 of 21
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 16 of 21
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 17 of 21
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 18 of 21
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 19 of 21
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 20 of 21
Case 1:11-cv-00819-RLW Document 1-2 Filed 05/02/11 Page 21 of 21
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.
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 J une
2011.
lgartner@washingtonexaminer.com

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 L.. s:. L
School Profiles 8< Directory I Office Directory I OCPS careers I Contact Us I Need Help?
.... •• " -;:­ ---"". "
About DCPS • learn About Schools • In the Oassroom • Beyond the Oassroom· Plan fur College & 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 high­
perfonning 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
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
brittnay.buckner@dc.gov
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.Bound8tyIPSlPK
Meeting Information Report Card
lottery ..-oils
Get live, up.to.ctle-mlnute
Infonnatlon 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
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 J ay 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
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

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.

###

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->