judging schools

On 8 Mar 2004, H Schinske wrote:

H Schinske wrote:
But currently,
this child will only be tested at grade level, and all her advanced
work will be given no credit.

and Barbara ) wrote:

Well, I'm not entirely sure this is correct. Most of the standardized tests
used in schools today test material that is somewhat below grade level,
material that is at grade level, and material that is above grade level. If
they *only* tested for children were expected to know at grade level, then
it would be impossible for any children to achieve a test score that is
above proficiency, and all tests I know of have a grading level that is
*above* proficiency.

That could be, but it doesn't go awfully far up. As it is, we have a gifted
magnet school here where the math and reading curriculum are two years ahead of
what the standard classes do. Do they get tested with standardized tests from
two years ahead? They do not. Third graders working at the fifth grade level in
math and reading are tested on the third grade ITBS for those subjects. They do
pretty well, of course, but you would EXPECT kids working at a fifth-grade
level to do well on a third-grade test! They don't get given standardized tests
that actually show whether they are truly being challenged at the level
promised.

I understand your frustration but that's not really the purpose of
standardized tests. Those students will show up as performing beyond
standard for their grade level and that, of course, is accurate. But
if they don't meet standards in a test for older kids, it can't
accurately be said they are performing below grade level yet that's
how the politicians, for whom these tests were designed, would
interpret it.

Nor do our schools take any notice of high scorers in the regular program and
assume they need any higher-level instruction. They just brag about "high test
scores" in the school summaries.


That's a shame and all too common. At the high school, we tend to brag
a lot about the sports stars.

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, P. Tierney wrote:

"Joni Rathbun" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, P. Tierney wrote:


"Joni Rathbun" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 6 Mar 2004, P. Tierney wrote:


"H Schinske" wrote in message
...
wrote:

The biggest predictor of test scores is the socioeconomic class
of
the
students. Other predictors that have nothing to do with the
quality
of
the school are the percentage of kids who enter not speaking
English
and
the turnover rate of students. If your school's test scores are
below
the average for schools with similar socioeconomics and turnover
and
rates of non-English speakers, THEN you might be concerned -- but
otherwise I'm not sure they tell much.

I really, really wish they'd switch to a system that would track
how
much
PROGRESS was made in a given year.

That's how it works here in Kentucky. Higher scoring schools
can be "in crisis" while lower scoring schools can be have in
"reward" status. If such is the case, then the latter is showing
improvement, while the former is not. It doesn't penalize
schools for their socio-economic base

Well, it does in part. If your school is performing at the top, it's
probably has a higher socio-economic base, yet how much higher can it
go?

I don't know how much. Either way, that hasn't been a problem
here, as most of the high-end schools continue to find ways to
improve. The biggest improvement when the first sucessfully
adapted the standards, and continued improvement comes in
refining how they are taught, I suppose.

We can always find ways to improve. But the requirement is 5% on
test scores per year.

I was referring to the system that my state has used, which is
different but still requires a similar percentage increase. The
high end schools, by my experience, didn't seem particularly
or unusually put-upon.

Regarding NCLB, the test component is only one of the many
issues at play here, and according to the local newspaper (I've
been a bit out of the loop), "Only Title I schools (with 35% or
some students qualifying for free or reduced lunch) face
penalties under NCLB." If so, then many of the high-end
schools wouldn't have any sure penalties if they didn't
meet the 5%. Correct, or no?

No. The AYP -- adequate yearly progress -- is required of all schools
and all demographic groups and subgroups within those schools. So
not only must the school as a whole meet the goal, so must each
subgroup. Everyone could meet the goal except, for example, your
ESL kids... and you'd still be labeled a failing school. 95% of
every group/subgroup must also be there for the test. If one
group comes in at 94.9, your school will be labeled a failing school.

"Joni Rathbun" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, P. Tierney wrote:

"Joni Rathbun" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, P. Tierney wrote:


"Joni Rathbun" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 6 Mar 2004, P. Tierney wrote:


"H Schinske" wrote in message
...
wrote:

The biggest predictor of test scores is the socioeconomic
class
of
the
students. Other predictors that have nothing to do with the
quality
of
the school are the percentage of kids who enter not speaking
English
and
the turnover rate of students. If your school's test scores
are
below
the average for schools with similar socioeconomics and
turnover
and
rates of non-English speakers, THEN you might be concerned --
but
otherwise I'm not sure they tell much.

I really, really wish they'd switch to a system that would
track
how
much
PROGRESS was made in a given year.

That's how it works here in Kentucky. Higher scoring
schools
can be "in crisis" while lower scoring schools can be have in
"reward" status. If such is the case, then the latter is
showing
improvement, while the former is not. It doesn't penalize
schools for their socio-economic base

Well, it does in part. If your school is performing at the top,
it's
probably has a higher socio-economic base, yet how much higher can
it
go?

I don't know how much. Either way, that hasn't been a problem
here, as most of the high-end schools continue to find ways to
improve. The biggest improvement when the first sucessfully
adapted the standards, and continued improvement comes in
refining how they are taught, I suppose.

We can always find ways to improve. But the requirement is 5% on
test scores per year.

I was referring to the system that my state has used, which is
different but still requires a similar percentage increase. The
high end schools, by my experience, didn't seem particularly
or unusually put-upon.

Regarding NCLB, the test component is only one of the many
issues at play here, and according to the local newspaper (I've
been a bit out of the loop), "Only Title I schools (with 35% or
some students qualifying for free or reduced lunch) face
penalties under NCLB." If so, then many of the high-end
schools wouldn't have any sure penalties if they didn't
meet the 5%. Correct, or no?

No. The AYP -- adequate yearly progress -- is required of all schools
and all demographic groups and subgroups within those schools.

Then there is an awful lot of conflicting information out there.
The line that I quoted from, I believe, is straight from the
Associated Press.

So
not only must the school as a whole meet the goal, so must each
subgroup. Everyone could meet the goal except, for example, your
ESL kids... and you'd still be labeled a failing school. 95% of
every group/subgroup must also be there for the test. If one
group comes in at 94.9, your school will be labeled a failing school.

That's how it reads, but I'm quite skeptical that, say,
a school with loads of National Merit Scholars is labeled a
"failing school" due to a scenario like the above, and that
*serious consequences* result from that "failing" rating.
I've seen the label tossed around already. I've not yet
seen it hurt anyone, and when it seriously hurts a
high NMS school in some tangible way, I'll take notice.


P. Tierney

wrote:

That's how it reads, but I'm quite skeptical that, say,
a school with loads of National Merit Scholars is labeled a
"failing school" due to a scenario like the above, and that
*serious consequences* result from that "failing" rating.

What would constitute "loads" of National Merit scholars anyway? I'm always
surprised how few most of our high schools have. Last year only two high
schools in the city had more than ten semifinalists, and one of those was a
private school. Eight had five or fewer, including some quite posh private
schools. Seems to me it could easily happen that a school that generally has
one to five semifinalists might have none in a given year. It appears that only
a couple of schools are successfully attracting significant quantities of
parents who are likely to have kids in that range, and the rest are getting
them at random.

--Helen

On 09 Mar 2004 06:31:58 GMT, (H Schinske) wrote:

wrote:

That's how it reads, but I'm quite skeptical that, say,
a school with loads of National Merit Scholars is labeled a
"failing school" due to a scenario like the above, and that
*serious consequences* result from that "failing" rating.

What would constitute "loads" of National Merit scholars anyway? I'm always
surprised how few most of our high schools have. Last year only two high
schools in the city had more than ten semifinalists, and one of those was a
private school.

Evanston Township High School had 19 semi-finalists in 2003
It's major suburban rival New Trier High School had 32 semi-finalists
in 2003.
Loyola Academy (private prep school) had 31 semi-finalists in 2003.
IMSA - the Illinois Science and Math Academy had 40 semi-finalists
in 2003.

Stuyvesant in New York routinely produces about 70 National Merit
Scholars in any given year. I think they had 85 in 2003.

Eight had five or fewer, including some quite posh private
schools. Seems to me it could easily happen that a school that generally has
one to five semifinalists might have none in a given year. It appears that only
a couple of schools are successfully attracting significant quantities of
parents who are likely to have kids in that range, and the rest are getting
them at random.

Consider that the total number of National Merit Scholars is fairly
small, thus it would be unlikely for any school to have very many.

Only 50,000 students nationwide are given notice of NMSC eligibility.
Of this about 34,000 students are commended students and about
16,000 are named semi-finalists. Only the semi-finalists are
eligible for the award itself.

Only 7600 National Merit Scholarships were awarded to students
in 2003.

--Helen



--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

"H Schinske" wrote in message
...
wrote:

That's how it reads, but I'm quite skeptical that, say,
a school with loads of National Merit Scholars is labeled a
"failing school" due to a scenario like the above, and that
*serious consequences* result from that "failing" rating.

What would constitute "loads" of National Merit scholars anyway?

I don't know. My point was in how schools would be treated
who, to roughly paraphrase past posts, "were so good that they
couldn't get much better" (regarding how they would be penalized
by having to continue to get better). I tossed NMS out there as a
possible indicator of such a place, a school that is widely revered, etc.
Use other indicators if you like, but determining what makes
such a school (as brought up by past posters, not me) isn't my aim.

I'm always
surprised how few most of our high schools have. Last year only two high
schools in the city had more than ten semifinalists, and one of those was
a
private school. Eight had five or fewer, including some quite posh private
schools. Seems to me it could easily happen that a school that generally
has
one to five semifinalists might have none in a given year. It appears that
only
a couple of schools are successfully attracting significant quantities of
parents who are likely to have kids in that range, and the rest are
getting
them at random.

Which is how it is here as well. I thought of the one widely
regarded school that was "so good it couldn't get much better".
They have about 45 NMS scholars per year, and I think they
had close to 70 last year, among the highest in the nation.
They have more than any local school every year, public or private.
But, we have public school choice, and they (along with some
other high-end high schools) aggressively, and successfully, recruit.

I can't find numbers at the moment (since my crappy Windows
keeps shutting down), but I'd guess that the vast majority of our 24
public high schools have under five, and half have none at all. The
mid-level school that I taught at didn't have any for years, and they
were pretty excited when one came along. That school had flaws up
and down, but they did promote students who were high academic
achievers (according to NMS and state tests, anyway).


P. Tierney

P. Tierney wrote:
That's how it reads, but I'm quite skeptical that, say,
a school with loads of National Merit Scholars is labeled a
"failing school" due to a scenario like the above, and that
*serious consequences* result from that "failing" rating.
I've seen the label tossed around already. I've not yet
seen it hurt anyone, and when it seriously hurts a
high NMS school in some tangible way, I'll take notice.

Well, mind you, I don't know whether this school has any national merit
scholars, but I think the following article suggests that you're incorrect,
at least with regards to whether or not schools that have a failing subgroup
suffer negative consequences under NCLB.

====================
School at top, bottom of national test-score scale:[2 Edition]
Sherry Parmet. The San Diego Union - Tribune. San Diego, Calif.: Jul 6,
2002. pg. B.5

Copyright SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY Jul 6, 2002

CARLSBAD -- This year, La Costa Canyon High School has been spotlighted with
both the nation's top honor for campuses and as a school that failed to
provide a solid program for its neediest students.

The Carlsbad campus was recognized with the national Blue Ribbon School
award partly because of high standardized test scores. It ranks among the
top 10 percent of schools in the state.

At the same time, because the campus showed a slight decline in scores among
lower-income students, it made the list of 8,652 schools nationwide that
need improvement. The school, which is part of the San Dieguito Union High
School District, must help students who want to attend another school of
their choice this fall.

The plan, a component of the No Child Left Behind Act signed by President
Bush in January, is part of a national movement toward greater
accountability and is intended to ensure that all students achieve academic
success.
But it is a blow to educators and parents at La Costa Canyon, who have long
taken pride in their school's academic standing. They say programs added
last fall to give a boost to low-income students have not had a chance to
translate into higher test scores.

"La Costa Canyon is a terrific school, and my kids have thrived in that
environment," said Denise Zoldan, president of the school's foundation, the
fund-raising arm of the campus. "And this doesn't change my opinion of the
school, which I put very high on the map."

Superintendent Peggy Lynch said, "The frustration is that La Costa Canyon is
such a good school with a lot of good programs for kids."

However, the school has a responsibility to give all students a good
education, she said. And there is a pocket of students who need more help.

The state's Academic Performance Index ranks schools according to
standardized test scores on a scale of 200 to 800. La Costa Canyon
catapulted 62 points in two years to 792 in 2001, placing it among the top
performers.

At issue, however, is a subgroup of 170 students labeled economically
disadvantaged by the state. This group dropped eight points over two years
to 463 in 2001. Schools that show dropping test scores and receive federal
money for low-income students must begin school choice this fall.

Bush's legislation was designed to close the gap between high- and
low-performing students at a school, and disadvantaged children and their
higher-income peers.

It requires schools that didn't meet test-score goals to provide paid
transportation to students who choose to attend another campus. The act
affects 64 schools in San Diego County.
============================
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [2] mom)

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

"Circe" wrote in message
news:dBm3c.15932$BA.8549@fed1read03...
P. Tierney wrote:
That's how it reads, but I'm quite skeptical that, say,
a school with loads of National Merit Scholars is labeled a
"failing school" due to a scenario like the above, and that
*serious consequences* result from that "failing" rating.
I've seen the label tossed around already. I've not yet
seen it hurt anyone, and when it seriously hurts a
high NMS school in some tangible way, I'll take notice.

Well, mind you, I don't know whether this school has any national merit
scholars, but I think the following article suggests that you're
incorrect,
at least with regards to whether or not schools that have a failing
subgroup
suffer negative consequences under NCLB.

That isn't what I was arguing. I was saying that "schools that
are so good that they don't need to improve" (a rough quote from
others, not me) will not suffer any negative consequences.

Regarding the article below, what are the negative consequences
happening to this affluent school? The only one that I can see is....

It requires schools that didn't meet test-score goals to provide paid
transportation to students who choose to attend another campus.

And that isn't a negative... yet. It remains to be seen how many
students will leave that well-regarded school as a result. Once that
number is known (and I'm betting that it will be quite low), those
missing students will likely be filled by others who are allowed to
transfer from other "failing" schools, thus not losing any per-pupil
money.

Either way, nothing has happened to that school yet. And I
would bet that, even if they lost students, this could help
them more than it would hurt them by creating spaces for
high-performing students from other "failing" schools that
could, in the end, raise their overall test scores even more,
and thus, their stature.


P. Tierney

P. Tierney wrote:
"Circe" wrote in message
news:dBm3c.15932$BA.8549@fed1read03...
P. Tierney wrote:
That's how it reads, but I'm quite skeptical that, say,
a school with loads of National Merit Scholars is labeled a
"failing school" due to a scenario like the above, and that
*serious consequences* result from that "failing" rating.
I've seen the label tossed around already. I've not yet
seen it hurt anyone, and when it seriously hurts a
high NMS school in some tangible way, I'll take notice.

Well, mind you, I don't know whether this school has any national
merit scholars, but I think the following article suggests that
you're incorrect, at least with regards to whether or not schools
that have a failing subgroup suffer negative consequences under
NCLB.

That isn't what I was arguing. I was saying that "schools that
are so good that they don't need to improve" (a rough quote from
others, not me) will not suffer any negative consequences.

And a school that is in the top 10% of schools in a state isn't "so good it
doesn't need to improve"? I mean, really, when you're already scoring in the
90th percentiles, it's pretty hard to go up any more!

Regarding the article below, what are the negative consequences
happening to this affluent school? The only one that I can see
is....

It requires schools that didn't meet test-score goals to provide
paid transportation to students who choose to attend another
campus.

And that isn't a negative... yet. It remains to be seen how
many students will leave that well-regarded school as a result.
Once that number is known (and I'm betting that it will be quite
low), those missing students will likely be filled by others who
are allowed to transfer from other "failing" schools, thus not
losing any per-pupil money.

It *is* a negative because the school must somehow find the funds to bus
those students to other schools, and they may not even all choose to go to
the same school. The logistics and costs of that could be quite significant.
And those costs will hardly be made up by getting standard per pupil
payments for other transfer-in students because those students cost just as
much to educate as the ones they are bussing elsewhere, only now they have
to pay to bus the transfer-outs as well.

Either way, nothing has happened to that school yet. And I
would bet that, even if they lost students, this could help
them more than it would hurt them by creating spaces for
high-performing students from other "failing" schools that
could, in the end, raise their overall test scores even more,
and thus, their stature.

But eventually, under NCLB, a school like this will be designated as failing
if it has *any* failing subgroups at all, even if it offers them the
opportunity to transfer out. The consequence may be minor at this point, but
AFAIK, the only real consequence that *any* failing school currently faces
is a mandate to provide transportation to those who want to transfer out.
That's not *always* going to be the case, though.

NCLB is ultimately a mandate which, if carried to its logical conclusion,
will ensure that every public school in the country is eventually designated
as failing.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [2] mom)

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

"Circe" wrote in message
news:H%s3c.934$Nj.235@fed1read01...
P. Tierney wrote:
"Circe" wrote in message
news:dBm3c.15932$BA.8549@fed1read03...
P. Tierney wrote:
That's how it reads, but I'm quite skeptical that, say,
a school with loads of National Merit Scholars is labeled a
"failing school" due to a scenario like the above, and that
*serious consequences* result from that "failing" rating.
I've seen the label tossed around already. I've not yet
seen it hurt anyone, and when it seriously hurts a
high NMS school in some tangible way, I'll take notice.

Well, mind you, I don't know whether this school has any national
merit scholars, but I think the following article suggests that
you're incorrect, at least with regards to whether or not schools
that have a failing subgroup suffer negative consequences under
NCLB.

That isn't what I was arguing. I was saying that "schools that
are so good that they don't need to improve" (a rough quote from
others, not me) will not suffer any negative consequences.

And a school that is in the top 10% of schools in a state isn't "so good
it
doesn't need to improve"? I mean, really, when you're already scoring in
the
90th percentiles, it's pretty hard to go up any more!

Who said that they need to go up in percentile ranking?
For one, that isn't a measure in NCLB. And second, every
school can improve in ways that may not be discernible
in state percentile rankings.

Regarding the article below, what are the negative consequences
happening to this affluent school? The only one that I can see
is....

It requires schools that didn't meet test-score goals to provide
paid transportation to students who choose to attend another
campus.

And that isn't a negative... yet. It remains to be seen how
many students will leave that well-regarded school as a result.
Once that number is known (and I'm betting that it will be quite
low), those missing students will likely be filled by others who
are allowed to transfer from other "failing" schools, thus not
losing any per-pupil money.

It *is* a negative because the school must somehow find the funds to bus
those students to other schools, and they may not even all choose to go to
the same school. The logistics and costs of that could be quite
significant.

"Could", which is why I wrote the word "yet". There have been
no costs thus far, if there are, you and I have no idea what those costs
will be. There may not even be any transferring, and if there weren't, that
wouldn't surprise me at all. Despite what the federal government says
about whether or not a school is "failing", I suspect that few parents
will pull their kids from a school that is among the tops in the state,
and well regarded by the community, to go to a school that (odds are)
will be of lesser quality. We'll see.

(Locally, FYI, there won't be any additional transportation
costs because we already have public school choice and there are
already a maze of buses going everywhere in the city.)

Either way, nothing has happened to that school yet. And I
would bet that, even if they lost students, this could help
them more than it would hurt them by creating spaces for
high-performing students from other "failing" schools that
could, in the end, raise their overall test scores even more,
and thus, their stature.

But eventually, under NCLB, a school like this will be designated as
failing
if it has *any* failing subgroups at all, even if it offers them the
opportunity to transfer out.

Right, but if the "designation" means little beyond a label,
then it doesn't mean anything at all, imo.

The consequence may be minor at this point, but
AFAIK, the only real consequence that *any* failing school currently faces

is a mandate to provide transportation to those who want to transfer out.
That's not *always* going to be the case, though.

We'll see. But I predict that high-end schools like this won't
receive any major tangible consequences of such a label.

NCLB is ultimately a mandate which, if carried to its logical conclusion,
will ensure that every public school in the country is eventually
designated
as failing.

But if a "designation of failure" doesn't mean anything of
consequence, then it won't matter. Heck, public schools as a
whole have already been assigned that designation for years.
Having a federal label slapped on things won't do anything
to change public perception.


P. Tierney