The following is a complete email that was sent to principals on Tuesday, Feb 4^th. It was intended as a way to give principals a refutation to the concept that AP courses might be adversely affected by the new 7 Period Day concept currently before the Anchorage School District. I have redacted the names of individuals, including the sender, because this is not intended to lay blame at anyone’s doorstep, but is instead meant to raise awareness about issues. Personalities should not matter, concepts should.

Read the memo, then read the follow up below it.

——————————————————————————————-

From: XXXXXXX
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 11:47 AM
To: High School Principals; High School Curriculum Principals
Cc: XXXXXXXXXX
Subject: Seven periods and Advanced Placement

Principals,

During testimony last night at the Board meeting, a teacher did a fine job of articulating her fear of fewer instructional minutes as it related to her AP classes and students. She asked for some research or information that could assure her that fewer minutes and a 7 period day would not harm her AP program. I think many of our teachers may have the same question.

The information below is from the Mat Su Valley and clearly illustrates that AP was not hurt, but actually enhanced (I would guess because of the support offered during the day for AP students).

XXXXXXX

——————————————————————————————-

Most of us will look at the chart provided by a leader within the ASD only briefly. When we do so, we look at year 2009 versus 2013 and we see all the numbers have gone up. This “clearly illustrates” that the 7 Period Day has “enhanced” the AP program in Mat Su. But let us dig deeper shall we? And let’s use only the data provided above , which is being touted as a proof of the efficacy of the 7 Period Day.

First, we have no source for this data. Where does it come from. The memo states it is from the “Mat Su Valley.” This would be unacceptable source citation in my class. Is this from a school principal? The superintendent? A report of some sort? Does it apply to the entire district? Just one school? We have no answers to any of these questions. The lack of context for this data makes it almost worthless right off the bat. We have no way to assess its validity. But let us continue anyway and see what the numbers REALLY say.

The most important question to ask is, “What is the data attempting to prove?” According to the memo, a teacher asked for information showing that her AP classes would not be “harmed.” So this data must be attempting to show that the 7 Period Day (7PD) does no harm. But what is “harm?” Normally I would say that harm to an AP class is a decrease in AP test scores, any decrease in course standards or quality, and any additional impositions placed on AP classes in order to meet normal standards. The author of the memo, however, seems to indicate that numbers of students and tests taken is the criteria to look at. While I’m not sure I agree with that assessment, at least I can understand the concept. The author also mentions test scores as well. So, even though we do not know where these numbers come from, nor do they initially appear to address the real issue, lets move forward examining the numbers for what they mean.

Let’s look at the AP population first. According to the memo, we have the following statistics.

This indicates that from 2009-2013, the number of AP students has increase by about 130 students. At first blush this appears to be a good thing. The 7PD has not hurt AP population. But look closer. If we assume the dates pertain to the beginning of the school year, the 2011 number is when the 7PD was implemented. Between 2010 and 2011, when it was implemented, the population of AP students actually DROPPED! Since then, the population increased by an average of 40 students per year, which is good, but in the year prior to the implementation of the 7PD, the population increased by 50 students. I will admit that we cannot really show a trend with this limited amount of data, but there is no “clear” illustration that the 7PD enhanced anything when one can easily see in the year of implementation the population dropped and when in non-7PD years the growth was higher. But let’s move to the next row of data.

In this figure, we are looking at the number of exams students take. AP students can take more than one AP course or exam. We have no data of how many classes the students are taking. So, for example, while we have 363 students in AP during 2013, we have no way of knowing if they are taking only 1 class versus 3 classes the 238 students took in 2009. This is an important distinction which the author of the memo fails to inform us of. However, let us just interpret what is before us.

It appears that over five years, the number of exams taken has increased. Again, this appears at first glance to be a good thing. Closer observation reveals something else. From 2012 to 2013, despite the population increasing by 29 students, the number of tests taken dropped by 25. What this means is that students took an average of 1.62 tests in 2012 but only 1.43 tests in 2013. This is a 12% drop in per capita tests taken. Isn’t this a harm? In fact, the per capita number of tests HAD been increasing until 2013 where it dropped to about the same level as 2009. Does this “clearly illustrate” enhancement?

Now let’s look at test scores. This should be the big number. If the 7PD increases test scores, we should definitely do it. Looking at the scores simply as given, we see that students scoring at 3 or above has increased from 2009 – 2013. Or has it? Actually in 2011, 7PD implementation year, that number dropped from 159 to 149, despite increasing the year previous without the 7PD. But that’s not all. In 2013, despite an increase of 29 students, we see only an increase of 4 students getting a 3 or higher. We need to look at the percentage of increase to really do a valid comparison. Luckily, that is provided for us.

Using the percentages given, the numbers actually show the 7PD is NOT enhancing anything. In the year 2011, the year the 7PD was implemented, the percentage DROPPED by nearly 8%!! It even dropped more in the next year. But then we see it leaped to 70.1% in 2013. Wait… even though we only have a 4 test increase, that is a 8.5% increase? Does that appear correct?

Something appears amiss. Let’s do some math. The “% AP Students with Scores 3+” should mathematically be the “AP Students with Scores 3+” divided by the “Total AP Students.” In the case of 2013 then, we should take 201 and divide by 363 to get our percentage. Doing so yields 55.4%!!!! WHAT?!  The email says 70.1%  But the math says otherwise.  The 70.1% is … A Lie!

In fact, ALL the percentages are lies. The correct figures should be, 58%, 55.2%, 52.7%, 59%, 55.4%. In point of fact, the percentage from 2009 – 2013 has actually dropped by 3.4%. In two of the last three years with the 7PD the percentage of students scoring 3 or higher has actually been lower than 2009. This “clearly illustrates” an enhancement?

Furthermore, the number of students getting a 3 or better is a virtually meaningless number. For example, lets assume for argument sake that in 2009 the 138 students all scored 5’s and in 2013 the 201 all scored 3’s. The figure would still be “accurate,” but the interpretation of that data into information shows no enhancement at all! Scores would have been dropping!

Finally, there is information that is non-statistical which bears investigation. For example, in order to meet the rigorous AP standards, classes in the valley have had to add additional impositions. In AP Chemistry, students can only complete the course in THREE semesters instead of two. Students are required to complete chapters and readings during the Summer, an activity that has been forbidden for ASD classes since Fall of this year. Furthermore, the valley had to implement AP SUPPORT classes to give kids more time to do the work and meet the requirements of the AP course. CLEARLY this is NOT an enhancement!

This memo is just one more smoke and mirrors attempt to explain a personal decision made by individuals in the district leadership which has no pedagogical support. The data is clear, only inasmuch as it “clearly illustrates” that ASD is willing to mislead, misinform and, dare I say it, lie, about what they purport to be “data driven” evidence to support their concept. I do not, and cannot, accuse the author of lying about those percentages; perhaps the lie was given to him. But it is clear that SOMEONE fabricated those percentages.

That demonstrated, once again I must ask the question about whether we should adopt a drastic policy change, one that appears, on its face, to be detrimental to students. Why do we need this change? What good is it? And when every question asked is answered with prestidigitation, misdirection and mathemagical manipulation, the only thing that is “clearly illustrated” is that there is NO EVIDENCE to support this change. NO 7 Period Day!

(1671)