|
The Cranky Taxpayer |
|
No Child Left Behind |
|
|
The 2007-08 list (based on 2006-07 data) of Virginia Schools that made Adequate Yearly Progress under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is on the Department of Education Web Site. These data are helpful because, in contrast the state accreditation data that the state manipulates, the federal oversight probably reduces the opportunity to game the system. The federal system is complicated. Indeed, the Times-Dispatch headline on Sept. 12, 2003 said the requirements for Adequate Yearly Progress are such that "'Progress' hard to track, harder to understand." In fact, the data are not particularly hard to understand, provided you learn to look beyond the jargon. The basic notion is that every year, every school and every division must demonstrate adequate progress toward state achievement objectives in reading and mathematics. For the authoritative explanation see the State Education Department web site. For a nice summary see the federal NCLB site. The primary authority is the Act itself. The general requirements of the Act are applied to Virginia's schools via the State Application that has been approved by the feds. My attempt to summarize these requirements is on another page. The State has a summary here. To oversimplify, a Virginia school must have a 73% pass rate on the English SOL test and 71% on the math test in 2006-07. The requirement applies to the school overall and to six subgroups (black, Hispanic, white, disabled, limited English proficient and economically disadvantaged). It will increase in the future on a sliding scale (in 2013-14 it will increase to 100%!). Likewise, 95% of the kids overall and in each subgroup must take the test. In the alternative, the school can decrease the number failing by 10%, so long as 95% of each subgroup takes the test. [Note the 95% requirement: It appears the Act doesn't want anybody boosting the scores by letting the poor performers stay home.] The requirements are like an anchor chain: Any failure dooms the whole enterprise. To be sure, this is a serious challenge to our schools. But, then, the idea is NO child left behind. Statewide, 72% of the schools made Adequate Yearly Progress in 2006-07, down from 73% the previous year. Doubtless the increased requirements this year caused the drop. Richmond, in contrast, improved to an 83% AYP rate this year, up from 71% AYP last year: Of course, we don't know how many of the Richmond schools cheated in order to make AYP; we only are sure that Oak Grove tried in 2005. We also know that some some of Richmond's "improvement" came from chasing out nearly a sixth of the kids: For a school-by-school breakdown of the results, however obtained, follow this link. If a school does not receive federal funds under Title I of the Act, failure to make AYP means that the school must submit a plan to make that progress in the future. Then there are the schools that receive federal funds under Title I of the Act and have failed to achieve AYP for two or more consecutive years. Those schools go on a separate list (here called the "Title I" list). Thirty-six of the forty-nine Richmond schools (73%) are Title I school-wide. For those schools, the Act imposes real consequences. Here is a summary of the status of the Richmond Title I schools with current or potential AYP problems:
Chandler went year 5 on the list last year and was required to install "alternative governance," i.e.,
Chandler made AYP this year but it takes two years to get off the list. Elkhardt broke the bank (made Year 5) this year and must implement the alternative governance plan it was required to produce last year. The potential Good News here is that the State may be stepping in. Unfortunately, the State effort is in disarray (and larded with misleading information) In any event, we get to pay $2,579 per kid more than the state average for these awful results. And we keep electing "leaders" who prevent reform.
|
|
Last updated
08/26/07 |