Chicago Trib: Top suburb schools hit by `No Child' sanctions

[iconoclastic cat]

From today's Chicago Tribune:

Top suburb schools hit by `No Child' sanctions

August 18, 2004

Students at a number of well-regarded suburban schools will have the right to transfer out, as the number of Illinois public schools facing federal sanctions ballooned again this year.

Just days before the beginning of school, the Illinois State Board of Education on Tuesday released a preliminary list of 694 schools around the state that will have to offer students the choice to move to better performing schools, and in some cases, receive tutoring and other services.

Although the numbers could change in coming weeks as school districts review state data, the list currently includes 360 Chicago public schools that have failed state achievement tests for at least two years in a row, the period that triggers sanctions under the federal No Child Left Behind law.

The list also features schools more accustomed to accolades, including Hinsdale South High School, Evanston Township High School, Lyons Township High School North Campus and Highland Park High School.

(more)
****

Hey, suburbanites: Bush doesn't care whether your public schools score well or if you spend $23,000 per pupil--he wants all public schools gone. Sorry, but there's profit to be had and brains to wash!

[iconoclastic cat]

1. I especially love this quote:

(snip)
Although many of the suburban schools on the list are associated with affluent bedroom communities, educators say the test results underscore the growing economic and racial diversity of their student bodies.
(snip)
****

So, you're saying that the lower test scores are due to economic and racial factors?

Translation: "Poor and minority kids are bringing our scores down."

But of course, it couldn't be that these students have been getting and inadequate eduacation--a.k.a. the SHAFT--from the start, especially now that Head Start is on the block, right?

[alcuno]

9. You think that life outside of school can't influence performance?

I live in one of these districts. The fact of the matter is that many of our students from a lower socio-economic background struggle mightily in ALL aspects of their lives so it's no great mystery that they struggle in school.

[iconoclastic cat]

10. Nowhere in my statements on this thread have I disclaimed outside factors.

Please re-read my typo-ridden post again. I think you will see that I am being critical of blaming poor and minority students as a way of explaining the scores.

[greatauntoftriplets]

2. NCLB was a huge mistake from the get-go.

It has nothing to do with the under-funding. It was just bad legislation.

[iconoclastic cat]

4. I think it is purposefully bad, GAofT.

I think this was built to break the public system.

[greatauntoftriplets]

5. A very wise friend has said the same thing.

And I think you are both correct.

[iconoclastic cat]

6. If you would like a great resource on NCLB horrors,

my pal Susan Ohanian has a great site:
http://www.susanohanian.org/

[LWolf]

7. Of course it was.

Study the history of and statistics involved in standardized test scores, and you will realize that:

*standardized tests were never meant to measure progress on the "continuous improvement" model; the high-stakes testing legislation misuses the tests

*the current formulas used to crunch the numbers, the individual scores on individual tests, corrupt the integrity of the data to arrive at scores (AYP, API, etc) for whole schools; the tests are not designed to test schools, but individual students.

*standardized tests tend to follow a pattern. This pattern was known long before NCLB or the state versions that preceded it in the last decade. I learned about it 15 years ago or so in a psychological testing course. The pattern: introduce a new test. Scores drop significantly the first year or two, then slowly increase until they reach a plateau. From there, they may fluctuate a little year to year, but generally stay at the plateau. I can't think of a more productive pattern to use to "prove" that public ed is a failure. First you insist that we're all a bunch idiots and "raise standards." In my state, that generally means, in math for example, dropping the curriculum down a grade level. Then choose your new test. Based on the pattern, the scores will be low the first few years, adding fuel to the "failing" mindset of the public. Then the scores will begin to rise; you can claim the gains are because schools and teachers are now doing things "your way." When the plateau is reached, you blame it on lack of motivation or competence by teachers, and declare public ed "broken" because the scores don't continue to rise every year.

California, according to an article I read this morning, has reached the plateau.

[iconoclastic cat]

3. One more idea:

(snip)
"You're sending a letter home, in most cases, to parents whose children are having a wonderful experience, and then you get this letter that there is something profoundly wrong with their child's district. That doesn't help what we're trying to accomplish."
(snip)

These schools should emphasize in this letter that this is BUSH's FAULT.

I'm sorry for yelling.

[Babette]

8. Hinsdale Central had problems the year before last...

They failed the test because 3 students did not take it. All three were classified as special education. Two were in an alternative school. The alternative school screwed up and the kids didn't take the test. The last kid's mother had died the day before the test and was an absolute mess. The principal excused her from the test. According to the NCLB rules, a certain percentage of students from each group must pass the test in order for the school to receive good marks. Because those three special education students missed the test not enough of the special ed kids passed for the school to pass. Three students missing the test brought down the grade for the entire school (over 2000 kids).

[LizW]

11. This happened in our school district, too

What the press doesn't oftem mention is that the test doesn't just measure performance, it measures participation. If a school has less than 95% participation on the test (and in our state that means 95% on each of four days of testing, because the NCLB test incorporates some parts of the Stanford Achievement test to get its scores) it's considered not meeting the standard. That goes for every group of students, too. You have to test 95% of ESL, black and latino, low income, and special education kids, and if you fall short of 95% in any one of those groups, you get flagged.

It is hard to explain to parents of special needs children or non-English speaking children that they must send their children to sit through four days of frustrating testing. My sister-in-law had to test a child who had only been in the United States a few weeks and spoke no English, and a special needs child who can barely sit in a desk for more than a few minutes at a time. Of course, there's no money for extra aides or assistants to help give the test to these special children, so they're just in the classroom with all the others. They were basket cases by the end of the test. You can see why it would be hard to get parents to send their children to school to experience such frustration. But the school district does everything it can to get them to come, otherwise they will be reported as "failing".