BCT Editorial – 9/25/05

This page was last updated on October 29, 2005.

Below the surface and Test scores; Editorial; Beaver County Times; September 25, 2005.

My critique of these editorials follows at the bottom of the page. As you will read, the Times is once again whining about the NCLBA while omitting relevant information, like the fact so-called “poor” school districts spend more per pupil than “rich” school districts.

The Beaver County Times published my letter to the editor on this subject.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

Below the surface

“You can’t find a better poster child for the unfairness of the federal No Child Left Behind Act than the Ambridge Area School District.

“The state Department of Education Tuesday released the results from the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment tests in reading and math for the 2004-05 school year and how they relate to NCLB’s requirement that schools make annual yearly progress toward meeting the impossible goal of having every child in America’s public schools be proficient or advanced by 2014.

“Two of Ambridge Area’s five schools - the high school and the junior high school - received warnings, meaning they failed to meet the state’s minimum AYP requirements in math and reading, which were 45 percent and 54 percent respectively.

“But that leaves a false impression.

“Actually, 56.7 percent of the high school’s students were rated as advanced/proficient in math and 67.3 percent were advanced/proficient in reading. At the junior high, 65 percent were advanced/proficient in math and 62.5 percent were advanced/proficient in reading.

“In general terms, three-fifths to two-thirds of these schools’ students scored in the top two PSSA quartiles.

“So, why the warnings? Because one subgroup at each school - economically disadvantaged students at the high school and IEP/special education students at the junior high - did not make annual yearly progress toward the AYP goals.

“It is grossly unfair to issue a school a warning when a subgroup of its students fails to make AYP because it does not reflect the quality of instruction that is taking place in the classroom. You can lead children to the fount of knowledge but you can’t make them drink from it.

“The state DEP reports that 2,311 public schools are making adequate yearly progress under the federal No Child Left Behind Act in 2004-05, down 6 percent from 2,450 schools in 2003-04.

“If the results from other local school districts are any example, the Ambridge Area is not alone in being unfairly issued a warning based on a small subset of students.

“Please, don’t judge these schools based on simplistic warnings that don’t reflect a district’s overall educational effort. Look below the surface. The results might surprise you. (See the following editorial.)”

Test scores

“While standardized test scores aren’t the sole or necessarily best measure of the learning that takes place in the classroom, they have importance because they are the basis on which school districts are compared.

“Check out some of the Ambridge Area School District’s math and reading results on the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment tests when compared to those from schools in districts that are perceived to be among the best in the region - the Beaver Area and Center Area.

“Ambridge Area’s third- and fifth-grade students at Economy and State Street schools had advanced/proficient AYP averages that were comparable to Beaver Area’s College Square and Dutch Ridge elementary schools and Center Area’s Todd Lane Elementary School.

“Ambridge Area’s Highland Elementary, which educates the highest percentage of low-income students (a good predictor of test scores), came close to matching them.

“Ambridge Area High School’s warning came in the economically disadvantaged category.

“However, when socioeconomic factors are taken into consideration, its PSSA scores in math and reading more than held their own against Center Area High School’s, which is so wealthy that it didn’t have the requisite 40 students to be rated in the category that got Ambridge it warning.

“AYP warnings don’t tell the whole story. Please keep all this in mind when rating school districts.”

Below is the letter to the editor I referenced above as I submitted it. The Times published the letter on September 28^th.

So wealthy that …

The September 25th editorials entitled “Below the surface” and “Test scores” demonstrate the difference between opinion pieces and what we should expect from news stories.

“Below the surface” was another in a regular series of editorials expressing displeasure with the No Child Left Behind Act. Times editorial authors consistently fail to note the NCLBA is voluntary. If a school district believes the regulations don’t suit the district either academically or financially, the district can opt out by refusing to accept funding from federal taxpayers. The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that right. Grove City College showed us the way over 20 years ago. My opinion is the feds have no business funding local school districts in the first place.

For those of you who will claim school districts can’t afford to opt out of NCLBA, federal funds made up only 4.4% of Ambridge’s 2002 tax revenue and 1.6% of Center’s.

I got a chuckle out of the “Test scores” comment stating Center Area High School “is so wealthy that …” I grew up in Center, I live there now, and it’s still a nice place to live. Wealthy, though, is not a label I’d give Center.

The editorial failed to note the Standard & Poor’s SchoolMatters website – a source cited by previous editorials – reports Center’s per capita income was slightly below the state average for 2004. The editorial also failed to note Ambridge spent over 10% more ($796) per student in 2002 than did “so wealthy” Center. Though it’s true the per capita income for Center is greater than that for Ambridge, when did below average income qualify for “wealthy” status?

When your argument is based on “us vs. them,” I guess anyone who earns more than you “is so wealthy that …”