Six county schools miss AYP standards
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
By Rhonda Simmons
Published: August 21, 2008
Six of Culpeper County’s eight public schools failed to meet Adequate Yearly Progress standards for the 2007-08 school year, according to preliminary reports released earlier this month.
The final numbers are expected next week.
AYP is a federal government measurement to determine how every public school nationwide is achieving academically.
A.G. Richardson, Pearl Sample, Sycamore Park and Emerald Hill elementaries, along with Culpeper Middle and Floyd T. Binns Middle, did not meet the standard benchmarks mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
School Board Chairman George Dasher said the board plans to review the latest numbers during Monday’s work session, which starts at 6:45 p.m. at the central office, 450 Radio Lane.
“We’ll discuss what actions need to be taken then,” he said.
AYP ratings are based on student achievement tests in grades three through eight and at least one in high school measuring reading and math skills.
For a Virginia school division to achieve AYP during the 2007-08 school year, at least 77 percent of students overall and students in all subgroups must have demonstrated proficiency in reading, and 75 percent in mathematics, according to the Virginia Department of Education.
Subgroups include: students with disabilities, limited English proficiency, economically disadvantaged and students who are white, black or Hispanic.
Farmington and Culpeper County High are the only two schools that met the required targets, according to Jim Allen, interim director of curriculum and instruction for Culpeper County Public Schools.
NCLB requires all students to be 100 percent proficient in reading and math by the school year 2013-14.
Most school officials consider AYP only one way to measure a child’s academic proficiency.
In order to achieve AYP, schools must meet or exceed at least 29 benchmarks in reading, math, attendance/graduation and student participation. Missing a single target may result in a school or division not making AYP.
Schools that don’t meet AYP repeatedly must implement a school improvement plan.
Last year, five public schools in the Culpeper district failed to meet the required benchmarks.
However, if a Title I school — one that receives federal money to help students in high poverty areas — fails to meet AYP two consecutive years in the same subject, certain steps must be taken.
Those schools must notify parents of their status before school starts, according to VDOE.
Those schools must also offer students the opportunity to transfer to a school within the division that is not under corrective improvements.
Culpeper has three Title I schools: Pearl Sample, Farmington, and Sycamore Park elementaries.
Rhonda Simmons can be reached at 825-0771 ext. 125 or
Post a Comment
The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.
Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
Reader Reactions
Posted by ( grjones ) on August 26, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Publius,
I have to agree that often setting a child back a whole grade is not necessary. The newer scheduling allows a student to make up “portional” failures without suffering whole grade setbacks, but just as there’s fault in your car analogy, for example, if a brake line has been routed too close to an exhaust pipe on your car causing fluid to boil, it may be necessary to examine the whole car to discover it, not just the brakes. A child may in some cases need an academic “overhaul” to put him on track. The “self esteem” issue comes into play here also, but I believe we are close to agreement - wonders never cease.
Now on the issue of performance-based pay…
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( publius ) on August 26, 2008 at 9:37 am
Mr. Jones,
I advocate promotion in nearly all cases because getting more of the same, beacuse it is rare that a child learns so little, that a whole year is needed to fill-in the gaps. Maybe an analogy will help explain my view. When a car is manufactured with defective brakes we go back & fix the brakes, but we do not disassemble the entire car. If a student has not learned sufficently in a certain portion of the curriculum, let’s focus on that through better instruction and supports. It may take getting creative in scheduling and spending some money for extra help. So, I do not favor “social promotion"- in deed w/out needed interventions it only sets kids up for more failure. I continue to enjoy the dialogue, keep writing. Publius
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( FightingAmish ) on August 25, 2008 at 5:47 pm
I certainly appreciate the dialogue; I was simply raising some questions.
Are SOL pass rates a proper metric for measuring learning? NO not in my estimation.
Do you advocate we get passing rates higher by teaching to the tests? I believe we are in some capacity teaching to the tests and are hamstringing our educators by doing so.
Should we devalue other aspects of the school experience like PE, art, music, drama, and field trips? No, I believe that these are actually essential. Especially the arts, however I do fear that litigation has grown to such a degree that field trips and exploratory projects are not tenable.
Would that be a good trade-off in order to make AYP? I believe that the model we have today that indicates inequity should be addressed. Assuming that education for all is a failure because some fail is a bit obtuse (philosophically).
Do you think that failing a SOL test means the student needs to repeat the grade or the course? Repeating the test, yes may make sense. If we provided better tools for the test, or review mechanisms i.e. computer based training / education perhaps our overall scoring could be improved.
If so, are you prepared to increase school population size(& costs) by 20%-25%? I do believe that if children cannot read, or write or communicate we have a problem. We being society, the child and of course the future.
Are you prepared to have 14 yr.olds in elementary school and 20 yr olds in high school? I do not believe that would be necessary if we looked at practical innovative ways to provide fundamental educational skills.
If a school doesn’t have a passing rate in all subjects, is that school a failure? The school is a building, the children are the vessels, and the institution of learning is what our educators provide with the administrators support. Education is not confined to a school, parents are the primary supporters and enablers of education. If we fail to convince the administrators to work and provide for the educators, we are disillusioning a significant component of our educational system.
The question is “what should be done to measure a child’s educational experience?”
If we focus on the current approach of assessing our children’s education with a one size fits all test; does it benefit our children, does it benefit administrators or even the teachers? These tests are designed to evaluate a variety of subjects based upon the age of the student(s). Does the curriculum of each child no matter of their subject grades, classes, or lessons parallel these tests? If they do than why are their failures not reflected in their grades? I am not saying we fail everyone because the schools scores do not average 70%, I am simply asking why they are mutually exclusive.
Do we believe as parents that the SOL’s have merit? When a child flunks a single test in Algebra does the score affect the child’s overall score? If a child flunks mathematics will they pass the SOL for mathematics? What does the aggregated data say about the children that score poorly on the test? Is it accurate that some children may have an aptitude for mathematics but do poorly in English, or vice versa?
We could look as far as South Africa, Australia, or the UK where time and effort have been made to equitize education. There are concerns that the have and have not’s of our society are failed by education, and not the support of their family situation. Their approach is leveraging Outcomes-Based Education (OBE), and interesting discussion could ensue. The idea of OBE in a nutshell is what we want kids to know and be able to do, understand, and value as a result of their learning experience.
I believe that the monolithic test per age group to determine success or failure by a school or a school system should be linked to grades; maybe a percentage of the overall grade is predicated upon passing the test by the end of the school year. Maybe we change the way the kids study for these tests the same way a company would require professionals to multi task. We could offer computer based training / education (CBT or CBE) programs for the SOL’s, and allow the schools to teach the curriculum they believe will allow the child to continue progression in an academic subject. Academic classes and access to the internet will slowly start reflecting the individual’s ability to digest information and knowledge. This is probably one of many ways we can improve our outcomes. Maybe that is what Mr. Covey meant when he said “Start with the end in mind.” If we want brighter, flexible, articulate, and competent professionals and artisans (be it blue or white) to graduate from our primary and secondary schools, we need to provide the tools necessary to make that a reality. I just don’t believe that the SOL’s today are adding to our children’s future.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( grjones ) on August 25, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Publius,
I’m sure I’m wearing out my welcome, but please allow me to go on. You may as well “teach to the tests.” By the time the present administration finishes you won’t have enough money for PE, art, music, or drama. Field trips are already diminished by a reduced activities transportation budget.
And I would hope that you are not advocating “social promotion.” Repeating grades is certainly a painful experience for all involved, but often it is the only answer. Promoting a child who has not mastered a grade level is as much disservice to that child and society in general as passing him on. And most of the time, one can simply repeat a particular course rather than a whole grade level. But social promotion is one of the practices that poured us in this stew to begin with.
I for one appreciate your comments otherwise.
G
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( publius ) on August 25, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Fighting Amish:
The historical background on education was interesting; however, the comments at the end of your posting are perplexing to this reader. Are SOL pass rates a proper metric for measuring learning? If so, do you advocate we get passing rates higher by teaching to the tests? Of course we can devalue other aspects of the school experience like PE, art, music, drama, and field trips. Would that be a good trade-off in order to make AYP? Do you think that failing a SOL test means the student needs to repeat the grade or the course? If so, are you prepared to increase school population size(& costs) by 20%-25%? Are you prepared to have 14 yr.olds in elementary school and 20 yr olds in high school? If a school doesn’t have a pasing rate in all subjects,is that school a failure? Should schools get credit for the learning that occurs that is NOT tested or lies outside of the SOL curriculum? Differences in learning abilities and in home support cannot be solved by simply saying, “repeat the grade”. If that were true, we’d already would have solved the education problems of kids. Kids w/learning difficulties and social problems can be helped, but the costs of doing so are too much for this (and most) communities. Nothing as complex as the causes of abberrant behavior or the cognitive functioning of the brain can be solved by simple remedies or on the cheap. Best regards, Publius
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( commonsense ) on August 22, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Cul_peper, If you will stop the blind “supervisor think” long enough you will remember that the superintendent warned that the unbridled growth and crowded schools would take a toll on student achievement - not just issues of teacher pay. This problem sits squarely on the shoulders of Bossio, Walker, Hansohn, Nixon, and the other supervisors who fought building new schools for so long. Culpeper tax payers will be paying for their mistakes for years. EVHS cost more that $10 million more because supervisors drug their feet for 2 years in a ridiculous debate over the word “capacity”.
By the way, not making AYP means that each school may have missed only 1 of 29 benchmarks and ignores progress made by the school.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( grjones ) on August 22, 2008 at 12:42 pm
I was wondering how long it would take whom to weigh in on this one. “7:22 am” tells the story.
I’m really hesitant to belabor the obvious: “you get what you pay for.” But anyone from a county that pays among the lowest salaries with the slowest increases in the state to complain about which he apparently knows very little deserves to be belabored with the obvious. Hey, cul_peper, “there ain’t been no big pay raises.” That’s part of the problem, and the previous superindendent knew it and told them. And that’s what the Board didn’t want to hear and that’s probably why he was let go. Get it?
One would think that you would be delighted that your high school was able to surpass extraordinarily stringent requirements, but of course that’s asking too much considering how well those who did get the job done are treated.
I’m going to go with BJBIII on this one, though. The students need to be the focal point from all sides. Politics be damned; get these kids all the help that can be mustered.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( FightingAmish ) on August 22, 2008 at 10:22 am
For years politicians and educationalists have had an ongoing barrage of accusations and a general sense of distrust.. This unease has accompanied formal education since its emergence from religious institutions during the middle Ages in Europe. The issues under debate have remained more or less consistent since then, centering firstly on the nature of the curriculum.
The tension between purely vocational education ( a popular effort when combined with low standard scores) and a broader more liberal variety, involving the whole person, soon emerged during the Renaissance, as boys were educated in subjects other than religion - in particular, mathematics and the classics. Educators such as the French philosopher Michel de Montaigne (1533-92) criticized traditional education, holding that pupils should be taught the art of living.
This art was to be mastered by increasing the powers of observation and conversation and through travel. Reading should aid the forming of correct judgments and not be used just to improve the memory. Montaigne also insisted on rigorous physical training as part of the development of the whole person: mind and body.
This was taken further during the Enlightenment by thinkers such as the English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704). Mr. Locke recommended a curriculum and method of education, including physical training, which was based on empiricism - examining demonstrable facts before reaching conclusions.
In “Some Thoughts Concerning Education” (1693), Locke advocated a number of reforms, including an emphasis on real objects instead of books, on learning through travel and on variety in subject matter. For instance, he advised students to study a tree rather than a book about trees and to go to France rather than read a book about France. This practical approach today would be most expensive and would also have legal risk associated with the learning model. However in today’s world that would be the equivalent to internet based eEducation classes, allowing an exploration in to the diverse reference material across the World Wide Web.
Locke was a major influence on the educational thinkers of the 18th and 19th centuries. However, this broad-brush approach was to come under fire from those who believed that children needed to learn some basic skills. These crazy people actually believed that having a standardized assessment of one’s academic capacity would provide a new lowest common denominator of future graduates.
Towards the middle of the 19th century, a second tension developed in Great Britain, this time concerning the role of the state in education. A speech by the Liberal, Robert Lowe, in the House of Commons in 1862 illustrates the dilemma:
“We propose to give no grant for the attendance of children at school, unless they can read and write ... but we do not say they shall learn no more. We do not object to any amount of learning; the only question is, how much of that knowledge we ought to pay for? It must never be forgotten that for whom this system is designed are the children of the persons who are not able to pay for the teaching. We do not profess to give these children an education that will raise them above their station and business in life; that is not our object, but to give them an education that may fit them for that business.”
This raised several related and difficult issues that remain only partially resolved today. We deploy a diverse coalition of people that agree that since the US is based upon a pluralistic society that we provide all children with a primary and secondary education at the taxpayers’ expense. This makes sense and the debate on how best to educate our children remains… So the questions of today are:
How do we define the metrics and reportable measurements stating that our children are receiving this basic education? (I have two children in the Culpeper County school system and both have never failed a SOL, this is not remarkable and not even something that we would discuss as a major achievement, and yet we have schools in our county that could not conjure up a passable score?)
Why are children that cannot pass the state’s SOL test able to continue to the next grade when they are unable to attain a passing score? (Are these not the same children that will fail yet again next year and continue this cycle of failure?)
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( rjma ) on August 22, 2008 at 8:46 am
The “achievement tests” mentioned here are SOL tests. Subgroups only come into play when there are at least 50 students in that subgroup in a particular school. Demonstrate proficiency means passed the sol test. Actually a school can not make ayp if a single student from one subgroup misses one question on one test on a single day. Making or not making ayp is a poor measure of how a school’s students are doing.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( cul_peper ) on August 22, 2008 at 6:22 am
OK....so now which is it? Big pay increases and hiring “quality” teachers while scores are terrible. Logic would indicate from this that bigger raises and lower scores. Or is tne data now related to the intelligence of the students? Another measure would be what percentage of our students go to college. But then we would be told that every system has students who don’t want to, we just have more. Some of this testing is suspect as are some of the arguments made to increase scores. But these are benchmarks and we didn’t reach them. Who was the superintendent then? I forget because he isn’t here. Maybe that is one reason he isn’t?
Report Inappropriate Comment