Sweetwater Union High School District
1130 Fifth Avenue
Chula Vista CA 91911
June 24, 2011
Examination of Allegations in an Undated Anonymous Letter
Addressed to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction
An undated, unsigned letter was received by the Sweetwater Union High School District (3768411) from
the California Department of Education. In the letter, two allegations were made regarding the
preparation and procedures of the STAR testing at Castle Park High School (3730801) and Sweetwater
Union High School (3738226). The letter claimed that these two schools were transferring students out
of their schools prior to STAR testing, presumable for the purpose of increasing Academic Performance
Index (API) scores at the schools. The letter also claimed that inappropriate test preparation was being
conducted at each school. The district has conducted an examination of each of these two allegations.
Allegation 1:
“Every assistant principal is asked to remove between 30 and 40 students that is either FBB, Spec Ed or
English Language Learner. They are moved to Summit (court schools), Alternative Education, Learning
Center or another school.” “In investigating numbers both Castle Park and Sweetwater HS’s have the
largest amount of students per ratio than other high school in their learning centers.”
A.
SED Percentages: In comparing the number of transfers to Independent Study High School
(ISHS) and other schools, one should take into consideration the percent of socioeconomically
disadvantaged (SED) students at the schools. The state and federal governments both require that SED
subgroups be identified separately for accountability purposes, along with English Learners and Students
with Disabilities, since they are considered more at risk than the general population of students. So
schools with higher numbers of SED may be expected to have a higher rate of transfers, at least in part,
due to credit deficiencies. The following table shows the percentage of students that were identified as
socioeconomically disadvantaged listed on the 2010 Growth API results.
1
Prepared by Gene Baker – Office of Research and Evaluation – 619-796-7600
Sweetwater Union High School District
1130 Fifth Avenue
Chula Vista CA 91911
Table 1. Percent of SED Students at Sites Based upon 2010 Growth API Student Counts
Site
BVH
ELH
ORH
OLH
HTH
SUHSD
MVH
MOH
CVH
SOH
CPH
SUH
SYH
% SED Students Based upon
2010 API
19.8%
18.5%
28.2%
34.2%
47.6%
55.6%
65.1%
71.8%
72.8%
76.7%
77.7%
78.7%
83.0%
Notably, from Table 1, Sweetwater Union High School (SUH) and Castle Park high School (CPH) are
among the highest rates of SED enrollment based upon 2010 Growth API.
B.
ISHS Enrollment/Transfer Data: Enrollment data was collected from the Independent Study High
School (ISHS) supporting CPH and SUH and compared to other high schools. The following table
compares the enrollment at the ISHS as a percentage of the enrollment at the main campus on March
25, 2011, the Friday before the start of the 2011 STAR testing window:
Table 2. Percent of ISHS Enrollment Compared to Main
Campus Enrollment at End of Semester 2, 2010-11 (from DataDirector)
ISHS
ISHS-BVH
ISHS-ELH
ISHS-ORH
ISHS-CVH
ISHS-HTH
ISHS-SYH
ISHS-SUH
ISHS-SOH
ISHS-MOH
ISHS-CPH
ISHS-MVH
Number of Students in Site
ISHS As a Percent of Main
Campus
3.4%
3.5%
4.0%
4.0%
4.9%
6.1%
8.8%
9.8%
10.3%
10.5%
14.1%
2
Prepared by Gene Baker – Office of Research and Evaluation – 619-796-7600
Sweetwater Union High School District
1130 Fifth Avenue
Chula Vista CA 91911
If the CPH and SUH were transferring increased numbers of students to ISHS, one would expect
to see a disproportionately large enrollment in the ISHS. As noted in the table above, generally the
schools with higher percentage of socioeconomically disadvantaged students have the larger percent of
students at their ISHS. CPH and SUH, with high percentages of SED enrollment, are among those with
the large ISHS sites but are not the highest.
Of note, any transfers to Alternative Education Independent Study, generally referred to as Alt
Ed, remain an enrolled student in the main campus. This is a different program than Independent Study
High School. Any test scores that contribute to accountability taken by a student at Alt Ed are assigned
back to the home school. So any transfers to Alt Ed Independent Study would not affect API in any way.
For CPH and SUH specifically, how does their ISHS enrollment, as a percent of main campus
enrollment, change over the past few years? The following table lists the three year trends. Note that
the source of this data is DataDirector and counts students at the end of the school year.
Table 3: Number of Site ISHS Students at End of Semester 2 (From DataDirector)
Academic
Year
Ending
Total #
Students
2009
2010
2011
277
202
153
ISHS-CPH
% Students
#<
Compared Grade 12
to Main
Students
Campus
18.3%
13.6%
10.5%
125
96
83
#
SpEd
# ELs
Total #
Students
24
26
24
113
98
76
313
271
197
ISHS-SUH
% Students
#<
Compared Grade 12
to Main
Students
Campus
13.7%
11.6%
8.8%
218
173
129
#
SpEd
# ELs
72
44
22
194
169
101
Table 3 shows the number of students, the number of special education students and the number of
English Language learners enrolled in ISHS for CPH and SUH at the end of semester 2, as extracted from
DataDirector. The learning center enrollment for both schools has been flat or on a downward trend for
the past several years. This is true for all students, for special education students and for English
Language Learners. The number of non-senior students, those that would contribute to site
accountability, has been declining each year for the past three years. This table certainly suggests that
there was no concerted effort to specifically move ELs and special education students into the learning
centers during academic year 2010-11. The declining trend would suggest the opposite.
How does the number of social adjustment transfers compare to other sites at each school? Social
adjustment transfers take place throughout the school year as needed. Table 4 below lists the students
transferred to other schools within the district on a social adjustment transfer as a percentage of total
school enrollment.
3
Prepared by Gene Baker – Office of Research and Evaluation – 619-796-7600
Sweetwater Union High School District
1130 Fifth Avenue
Chula Vista CA 91911
Table 4. Social Adjustment Transfers as a Percent of Total Enrollment on March 25, 2011
School
HTH
BVH
ELH
ORH
CVH
SYH
OLH
SUH
MOH
SOH
MVH
CPH
Percent of Enrollment Transferred on Social
Adjustment
0.38%
0.72%
0.74%
0.77%
0.83%
1.23%
1.32%
1.71%
2.59%
3.35%
4.12%
4.14%
Again the percentage of social adjustment transfers is higher for schools with higher socioeconomically
disadvantaged students compared to other district schools. In this metric, CPH and MVH have the
highest rates of social adjustment transfers as a percent of total enrollment.
C.
Principal Interviews: The principals at both CPH and SUH were interviewed regarding the
identification of candidates for transfer to Alternate Education programs such as the ISHS, Summit or
Palomar. Both principals state that their primary consideration is credit deficiencies, those students
behind in their credits and in danger of graduating late or dropping out. A secondary issue is
attendance, social adjustment or behavior issues where the interest of the student would be best served
in the new learning environment. In both schools, for these alternative education transfers, parents are
notified and a parent contract is signed.
Both principals state that a student’s possible contribution to the site’s Academic Performance Index is
not a consideration in determining student candidates for transfer. Both principals state that, in
general, many of these types of transfers occur at the beginning of semester 2 when student credit
deficiencies are identified.
D.
Assistant Principal Interviews: The assistant principals at CPH and SUH were interviewed. All
state that students are moved to other learning environments based upon credit recovery
requirements, attendance or discipline. They state that they have not been asked to transfer 30-40
students (presumably for the purpose of improving API scores).
4
Prepared by Gene Baker – Office of Research and Evaluation – 619-796-7600
Sweetwater Union High School District
1130 Fifth Avenue
Chula Vista CA 91911
Summary of Findings for CPH and SUH for Allegation 1:
-
-
-
-
CPH and SUH have the district’s second and third highest rates of SED enrollment, based upon
the 2010 Growth API.
The enrollment of the ISHS-CPH and ISHS-SUH tends to be in the middle, as a percent of main
campus enrollment, of other district high schools with high levels of socioeconomically
disadvantaged students. CPH’s rate of social adjustment transfers is at the high end, although
comparable with other high SED schools. The SUH rate of social adjustment transfers is at the
low end compared to other high SED schools.
At ISHS-CPH, the enrollment of all students and for English language learners has been
decreasing over the past three years. The number of special education students has been flat
over the past three years.
At ISHS-SUH, the enrollment of all students, special education students and English Language
learners has been trending downward over the past there years.
Both CPH and SUH students must meet certain criteria to qualify for transfer to Summit Court
School, alternative Education Independent Study, learning center and other schools. The criteria
for transfer are credit deficiencies, attendance problems or behavior/ social adjustment issues.
Administrators at both CPH and SUH state that they do not transfer students for the purpose of
improving API scores.
Discussion of Allegation 1: Enrollment figures in ISHS-CPH and ISHS-SUH do not indicate any
inordinately large numbers or increases of students. In fact, the number of students in both ISHS over
the past several years is trending downward. This is true for all students as well as special education
students and English Language Learners. The percent of social adjustment transfers at SUH is moderate
compared to other sites. The rate at CPH is higher, but still comparable with other high SED enrollment
schools. This is not what one would expect if assistant principals were asked to remove 30-40 low
performing, special education and English learner students each. Statements from both the principals
and assistant principals state that site accountability issues are not considered when determining
candidates for transfer to alternative education programs. There is no definitive evidence that supports
the allegation. The evidence and statements suggest that each assistant principal was not asked to
remove 30-40 special education or EL students as alleged in the letter.
5
Prepared by Gene Baker – Office of Research and Evaluation – 619-796-7600
Sweetwater Union High School District
1130 Fifth Avenue
Chula Vista CA 91911
Allegation 2:
“Then when the CST window comes along the remaining spec ed and English Language Learner do not
take the test with the rest of the school. They hold off two days while the testing coordinator reviews
the testing material the first day. The second they are given a “prep “class prior to taking the test. “
A.
Principal Interview: Both principals were interviewed regarding this allegation. As is customary
at many Sweetwater District high schools, both schools identified students in need of intervention based
upon the student quarterly test results, End of Course test results and/or previous year STAR test
results. These students were formed into instructional cohorts and were provided additional instruction
during the fall and spring breaks. Coincidentally, in 2011, spring break occurred in the middle of the
STAR testing window (after the first two weeks of the three week STAR testing window).
B.
Intervention Procedure at CPH: At CPH, this additional instruction occurred during fall and
spring breaks as well as on most Saturdays, except Saturdays during the STAR testing window. Identified
students were provided instruction in ELA, math, science and history during the first week of spring
break. All of the students in the instructional cohort were tested during the regular STAR testing
schedule. They did not have a separate schedule apart from other students. They were administered
the English-Language Arts, science and math CSTs before spring break consistent with the school wide
testing schedule. Per the site STAR testing schedule, they were administered the history CSTs after
spring break during the third week of the STAR testing administration. The CPH STAR Test Coordinator
was interviewed regarding these allegations. The coordinator stated that site teachers provided the
history instruction during spring break. However, none of these teachers had access to any of the
history STAR testing material before the spring break instruction. The instructors provided their
instruction based upon identified needs of the students as determined by quarterlies, EOCs and site
assessments. The history instruction was targeted based upon these determine student weaknesses.
Summary of Findings at CPH for Allegation 2:
-
-
CPH conducted an instructional intervention during the fall and spring breaks in the content
areas of ELA, math, science and history.
Students were identified for the intervention based upon performance results in site
assessments, district wide assessments and the previous year STAR test results
The spring instructional intervention occurred during the first week of spring break. The two
week spring break occurred between week two and week three of the STAR testing window.
Students in the spring break instructional interventions were administered the ELA, math and
science STAR tests during the first two weeks of the STAR testing window and before spring
break.
Students in the spring break instructional interventions were administered the world history and
US History STAR tests after spring break during the third week of the STAR testing window,
along with all other CPH students.
6
Prepared by Gene Baker – Office of Research and Evaluation – 619-796-7600
Sweetwater Union High School District
1130 Fifth Avenue
Chula Vista CA 91911
-
Teachers providing spring break instruction in history did not have access to the World History
or US History STAR tests before the spring break instruction
Discussion of Findings at CPH regarding Allegation 2: For inappropriate test preparation to have taken
place, the spring break intervention instructors would have needed access to STAR test questions. Then
they would have needed to pass that knowledge of test questions to students during the intervention
instruction. The STAR Coordinator states that all history STAR testing was conducted after spring break,
during the third week of the STAR testing window. He further states that none of the STAR history test
material was issued to examiners until after spring break. Since the opportunity for inappropriate test
preparation was not available, it seems very unlikely that inappropriate test preparation took place at
CPH.
C.
Intervention Procedure at SUH: The instructional cohort at SUH received instruction in one of
the content areas of math, science or history during the spring break intervention. Students were
identified for the intervention based upon performance results in site assessments, district wide
assessments and the previous year STAR test results. Identified students were provided instruction
during spring break by site teachers. Intervention students were administered the STAR test in the area
of their intervention after spring break during the third week of the STAR testing window.
D.
SUH Teacher Interviews: Four of the teachers providing instruction at SUH were interviewed,
representing the content areas of chemistry, algebra, world history, US history and biology. All of the
teachers stated that they were tasked with creating curricular material based upon the identified
weaknesses of the students, generally from semester 1. These weaknesses were identified through an
examination of common formative assessment results, site test results and their knowledge of the
student (for those students in the teacher’s class). Several teachers administered the STAR test in their
content areas during the two week STAR window prior to the spring intervention. All of the teachers
stated unequivocally that any access to STAR tests they may have had did not in any way influence how
they prepared instruction or what they taught during the intervention. They all stated emphatically that
no instruction was provided to these students based upon knowledge of the 2011 STAR tests. Their
curricular material was created chiefly from the text book publishers primary and ancillary materials
provided to teachers. All of the intervention teachers interviewed had signed the STAR test security
Affidavit.
E.
SUH Cohort Receiving Instruction during Spring Break: Of the 226 students receiving instruction
over spring break at SUH, 89 were English Language learners and 16 were special education students.
This appears inconsistent with the allegation’s implication that “remaining spec ed and English Language
Learners” take the CSTs later. The vast majority of the ELs and special education students were not in
this group. A total of about 357 ELs and 194 special education grade 9-11 students were administered
the CSTs on the school’s STAR testing schedule, not delayed until the last week. This suggests that there
was no particular emphasis on only ELs and special education students, as claimed in the allegation, but
rather, students in need of additional instruction.
7
Prepared by Gene Baker – Office of Research and Evaluation – 619-796-7600
Sweetwater Union High School District
1130 Fifth Avenue
Chula Vista CA 91911
Summary of Findings at SUH Regarding Allegation 2:
-
-
-
-
-
SUH conducted an instructional intervention during the fall and spring breaks in the content
areas of math, science and history.
Students were identified for the intervention based upon performance results in site
assessments, district wide assessments and/or the previous year STAR test results.
Students received spring break intervention instruction in a single content area.
An examination of the enrollment demographics shows a distribution of all language
proficiencies, rather than just English Learners. Further examination shows a very minimal
number of special education students identified for the spring break intervention.
The spring instructional intervention occurred during the first week of spring break. The two
week spring break occurred between week two and week three of the STAR testing window.
Students in the intervention were administered the STAR test after spring break, during the
third week of the STAR testing window, for the content area in which they received
intervention.
SUH teachers provided the instruction during the spring break intervention.
The intervention teachers created their curricular material based upon the identified
weaknesses of the students. These weak areas were identified by standard.
Several of the intervention teachers had administered the STAR test during the first two weeks
of the STAR testing window.
All intervention teachers state unconditionally that any access to the STAR test in no way
influenced their design of curriculum or their instructional content. The instructional material
was based solely upon the identified weaknesses of the students.
All of the intervention teachers interviewed have signed the STAR Test Security Affidavit which
states, in part, “I will not review any test questions, passages, or other test items independently
or with pupils or any other person before, during or following testing.”
The state provides a 21 school day testing window. SUHSD selects 15 school days (three weeks)
as a test window in which to administer all STAR tests.
High school students can take 2-6 STAR tests during the 15 day window. During the three weeks
when not taking tests, students are in class receiving instruction.
Discussion of Findings at SUH regarding Allegation 2:
A.
In viewing the demographic breakout of the students participating in the spring break
intervention, it appears that there was no concentration of English Learners or special education
students in the group, contrary to the claim in the allegation.
B.
The state definition of inappropriate test preparation, as found in the STAR District and Test Site
Coordinator Manual, is:
Inappropriate Test Preparation, including but not limited to:
8
Prepared by Gene Baker – Office of Research and Evaluation – 619-796-7600
Sweetwater Union High School District
1130 Fifth Avenue
Chula Vista CA 91911
1. Reviewing any test questions and providing instruction related to the questions prior to test
administration or between parts, or
2. Providing students with the writing prompt or writing genre prior to testing.
The teachers providing instruction during the spring break intervention have stated that they absolutely
did not change their instruction due to any access to the STAR tests but rather focused on the standards
that the students had previously displayed weakness. So, in believing in the integrity of the teachers,
their instruction did not contain inappropriate test preparation.
C.
It is true that, throughout California, instruction continues during the 21 day STAR test window.
And much of this instruction occurs by teachers that have had access to the STAR tests. Again, we must
depend upon the integrity of each teacher, having signed the STAR Test Security Affidavit, to continue
instruction without regard to any reference to the STAR test contents. And it appears that this is what
occurred during the SUH spring break intervention. It is recognized that the policy of providing
intervention instruction during fall and spring break in this district has continued in the past and should
continue in the future. The academic year 2010-11 was an unusual circumstance, however, in that
spring break occurred in the middle of the STAR testing window. As discussed with the Assessment and
Accountability Unit at the California Department of Education and with Educational Testing Services, the
school’s policy of testing students after spring break in the content area of their intervention instruction
is not in violation of any policies. The students were tested during the STAR testing window and no
inappropriate test preparation occurred. However the practice of administering STAR tests to
intervention students after their intervention, rather than testing them in accordance with the site
testing schedule has the appearance of impropriety. While technically correct, this procedure must be
discontinued to prevent any future misinterpretations.
9
Prepared by Gene Baker – Office of Research and Evaluation – 619-796-7600