Following
the
ACMi debate, Ms. Martyn
attempted to walk back her claim of Asian students being
disciplined at five times the rates of White students. Ms.
Martyn wrote, “Other
than one time during the debate when I inadvertently overstated
the rate at
which Asian high school students are disciplined compared to
white students
(without notes mistakenly stating it was five times the rate
rather than 2.6 times,
which is the correct figure), I am unaware of any other error in
my statements
that evening.”
This
is a case of transporting the goalposts across town in an
attempt to place them
in the most advantageous position. Instead of acknowledging
there was no
difference in district discipline data between White and Asian
students, she
pivoted away from district numbers to the much smaller numbers
at the high
school.
In
graduate school, we spent considerable time debating whether a
sample size of
20 or 30 was sufficient for any statistical analysis. We were
also cautioned
about the large statistical error inherent in an analysis of
cohorts of
different sizes. Unfortunately, DESE displays data for cohorts
of 6 students
(and sometimes even fewer), and while the state makes no direct
comparisons,
the publication of this data invites inappropriate conclusions.
Over
the course of 180 school days, 4 (out of 157) Asian students
were disciplined
at Arlington High. The small numbers magnify ratios when
compared to other
small numbers, which are easily manipulated and misinterpreted.
We can’t claim
extreme disparities when just one student having a
terrible, horrible, no good,
very bad day at school can shift ratios and alleged conclusions
dramatically
higher or lower. We can’t claim extreme disparities when we
repeatedly divide
small numbers into smaller and smaller fractions that descend
deep into
statistical insignificance.
I
could move the goalposts over to the Gibbs School, where 11 of
12 students
disciplined were White, and 0 Asian students were disciplined.
However, I must
not do that if I want to make valid or ethical inferences about
the school or
the district’s suspensions, just as Ms. Martyn can’t justify
claims of extreme
disparities by pointing to just four Asian high school students.
Just as we
can’t claim extreme disparities, we can’t congratulate ourselves
blindly when
all demographic groups have very high growth scores in the Grade
3-8
Mathematics MCAS. The bottom line is that we must not cherry
pick data to
provide a foundation for political claims of extreme
discrepancies and
thousands of underserved children when that is not the case.
I do not downplay the needs of any child in the system. One student who drops out is one too many. One student suspended is one too many. One student who does not feel welcome is one too many. One unhappy child or family is one too many. One incident of bias or racism seeping into any interaction is one too many. While we must work to get these numbers to zero, we must also recognize that our small number of adverse outcomes don’t point to extreme disparities or thousands of underserved students.
-------------------
Paul Schlichtman is a member of the state Board of
Elementary and Secondary Education’s School & District
Accountability & Assistance Advisory Council. The
Council reviews and recommends changes to the state's
accountability system. He spent the past 20 years analyzing
school and district performance and accountability data to
help principals and teachers to understand the levers of
change that improve their schools.
He understands that measures like the MCAS are just indicators
that inform our work, not desired outcomes that drive our
decisions. Too much emphasis on MCAS and accountability scores
takes time and resources away from art, music, world
languages, social studies, social-emotional learning, and
other essentials not tested by the state.
Return to schlichtman.org