Yes, the numbers have come down but there are many flaws in the system. Inconsistent scoring, differences between the scoring criteria for the four subject areas, and lack of support from the central administration have all contributed to the stress that the students still feel under. Some of these students have passed all their classes and more, have done community service, and have submitted projects only to have them rejected for insignificant issues. Who is standing up for them? No one at the central office, that's for sure. There is no one person to talk to to get a straight answer. I know that there are standards but some disciplines are stricter than others about scoring and students are caught in the middle. I feel for the students and their parents who have to try to navigate this mess.

@Vetern Teacher - This an unfair statement: "No one at central office"? I strongly disagree. I've been working on the HSA waiver process for the past few months, and I guarantee you that we have expended a great amount of effort to ensure that waivers are consistent, fair, and transparent (all for the benefit of students). In fact, MSDE's team in charge of the process commended the City's effort as the State's most diligent in (1) maintaining high standards, and (2) creating a process in the best interest of students. The real-time, online Graduation Tracking Application, though not at all perfect, was created for the purpose of ensuring that all students get a fair shake. When waiver requests were first submitted, we parsed the data and identified schools/students that needed a second-look to decide for sure that student didn't qualify (generally these students were special ed, had met all other grad requirements, and had successfully completed over 80% of their projects - normally something like 9 accepted out of 12 required). Schools have been hesitant to say that their Bridge program prevented students from meeting high numbers of projects, and I understand that concern. But, we've gone to great lengths to reassure schools that a struggling Bridge program should not hurt the students, and no consequences will result for the schools (rather, they'll be targeted for increased support next year, ideally through the workings of the Network Support Teams).

Furthermore, I think it's worthwhile to step back and recognize the incredible efforts of schools + central in managing Baltimore City's Bridge program. We have had, by far, the best running program in the State. Other districts similarly situated (i.e. needing thousands of projects completed, such as PG & Baltimore County) haven't come close to our successes. Is the program perfect? Absolutely not. Are some projects too easy or not reflective of absolute content mastery? Potentially. Is there inconsistency amongst schools? Yes, as unfortunate as that may be. Does that automatically disqualify the efforts of schools and central in facilitating the passage of well over 5,500 Bridge projects? I would argue absolutely not. The urge to just sit back and "blame central" without taking a breath to examine the positives doesn't do justice to the efforts of staff at all levels. I sincerely wish the Bridge statistics for other districts were published in the story - it's a much clearer picture of the effort expended in Baltimore City to ensure the success of students.

Bridge has been a huge roadblock this year, distracting schools and central office workers, but it's the first year that such a requirement has ever been in place. It will improve with experience, and people (in schools & at central) absolutely are working their tails off to ensure that the work ultimately benefits the students.

"working their tails off to ensure that the work ultimately benefits the students."

Where is the evidence, beyond the self-referential data points of ostensible "completion" that the pedagogy of bridge projects, the content of bridge projects, the huge amount of resources and "tails being worked off" by educational bureaucrats and the bromides of educational politicians about bridge projects benefited students . . . at all?

Bill--Get a grip. I am not referring to the waiver process which is an entirely different situation. Where were the people who were promised to those schools with 100's of projects to accomplish and not enough staff to help the students? We were promised a person to assist us at least once a week--total time they actually walked in the door--twice for one hour at a time. We didn't have the staff to catch all the students and needed the outside help--no one came forward. This entire process needs some major attention and the people at North Avenue who were supposed to work with the schools no longer exist. Now what? Bill, stop apologizing for everyone there and come out into the real world for a time.

@ j. dewey

I'm confused by your question. Are you implying that Bridge projects should not have been allowed at all and that students should have had to earn those minimum HSA scores no matter what or are you saying that there should not have been a standardized graduation requirement at all? Or maybe you'd suggest a change to the Bridge projects in general? Please clarify.

For good or for ill, Bridge content (all subject areas) is a MSDE issue. No input from LEAs directly. Content and pedalogical issues are a different question, and require different avenues to address.

You're right, objective quantitative data is not immediately available. However there's something to be said about the personalized attention students received as a result of Bridge. I'm sure there are MUCH better ways to achieve this, but if anything, that's a positive step. I believe MSDE and DREAA (for City Schools) are both looking into the issues you've mentioned, but I don't know details at all.

Not apologizing for anyone, merely sticking up for the hard working people in cental and in schools. Your comment was awfully broad, noting that no one in central "cared about the students." I just didn't want to let that slip by.

Situation is damned if you do, damned if you don't (like other posting about Networks). If staff come to schools, criticisms fly that they're incompetent and a waste of time because of their interference. If they oversee from central with technical support, they're lazy fat cats sitting at North Ave wasting peoples' money. I just find it difficult to respond these days bc each phrase has potential of being attacked. I don't spend time to make a crystal clear argument with each post, and with all the myriad of opinions about the City Schools, its nearly impossible to write something without it being in the midst of the lions den (and I am definitely a culprit as well, as evidenced by my initial purpose in responding to VTs post).

The $40 mil def in funding certainly played a role in the lack of site-based work, and hopefully the new Teacher Leader model as infused within the Network structure will help to develop the leadership pipeline that's needed for hands on assistance. The intention of putting the resources in schools is to do exactly that, keep expertise in schools so that facilitation of school programs is an everyday thing with the Teacher Leaders in each building.

No question, review/assessment/reform is needed with Bridge program. But given constraints, timeframe, and lack of clear State objectives this year, I think its worth celebrating something positive that staff at all levels helped to facilitate.

Lastly, waivers, for good or ill, are now intrinsically linked to Bridge (formally because of COMAR language, informally bc its all in the same bucket of getting students towards on-time graduation).

Ultimately, VT, I think we agree and exist on the majority of common ground. At the margins, we may differ, but I certainly think we're for the most part on the same side here.

All of my 189 projects finally got accepted. But we can't do it again next year--staffing issues. Bill, have you looked at the "new" HSA tests yet? Maybe there is a reason that they are not quite as challenging. And, yes, we are eventually on the same side--that of the children--but let's try to be a little more balanced in our assessments of who is doing what.