State Educators Defend Federal Waiver Criticism

PROPOSAL WOULD COMBINE STUDENT SUBGROUPS

— Arkansas educators are defending a provision to their No Child Left Behind waiver that could benefit Springdale School District.

The federal government is criticizing the state proposal to combine student subgroups, which could help diverse school districts avoid a failing grade from the state Department of Education.

Under No Child Left Behind, students are categorized based on race and economic class, and each subgroup must pass standardized tests. If just one subgroup fails, the state can make changes to a school’s personnel or academic approach.

Arkansas’ waiver request sought relief from the restriction by combining subgroups based on poverty, disabilities and English language abilities, lowering the likelihood of one subgroup causing a school to fail standardized tests.

Springdale is one of the most diverse school districts in the state, meaning the school district has several student subgroups held accountable by No Child Left Behind guidelines. English is a second language to 44 percent of district students. Minority children make up about 60 percent of the student population. Two-thirds of students are eligible for free or reduced-cost lunch, an indicator of poverty.

Arkansas education officials revised and resubmitted their request for relief from No Child Left Behind last week after the U.S. Department of Education sent a letter to the state highlighting the waiver’s weaknesses.

The state Department of Education turned in its first waiver request on academic guidelines in February. State education administrators are confident their latest changes will be approved by the federal agency in the next few months, said Seth Blomeley, spokesman for the state education department.

State education officials addressed one concern by lowering the number of students to 25 in a subgroup. Schools were required to hold a subgroup accountable once it reached 40 students in a school.

No Child Left Behind guidelines required the state to use a poor-performing student’s scores against a school district multiple times based on that student’s demographics. For example, an impoverished Hispanic Springdale student whose second language is English would be counted in three separate subgroups.

The waiver guidelines would count such a student once under the combined subgroup.

The measure can mask the performances of certain subgroups who need extra academic help, though, the federal government told the state.

It is a legitimate complaint, said Gary Ritter, University of Arkansas education policy chairman.

As more students are brought together under one umbrella, results become broader, and it’s more difficult to draw a conclusion, he said.

Finding the right set of students to identify to hold school districts accountable is a balancing act. A broader group brings up fewer red flags that can get a school into trouble based on just a few students. A narrower group allows more specific accountability but can unfairly trip up an otherwise good school, Ritter said.

Ritter said he understands the point behind the waiver’s proposed method, though.

“It seems reasonable enough,” he said. “You have lots of different tripwires to identify a school or school district.”

Marsha Jones, associate superintendent for curriculum in Springdale, refutes criticism that combined groups mask student performance. She said schools are already being held accountable for multiple subgroups, and their resolve in raising those groups’ scores will not change, no matter what the federal government decides.

School districts will still receive testing information based on racial and economic categories. They just won’t be held accountable for each category, Jones said.

She said administrators and teachers have an incentive to improve individual categories because accountability requirements still call for a slow crawl to 100 percent proficiency in standardized tests for each school, originally a guideline for No Child Left Behind. Improving each subgroup’s scores helps schools get closer to that goal, Jones said.

Even if the federal government approves the waiver, Ritter said the state will not have a realistic way to identify and help the schools that truly need it. The waiver lacks ambition. Intervention methods for failing schools would remain largely the same, which has not stopped two-thirds of Arkansas schools from failing to meet academic standards.

“We have no idea what to do. There’s no magic intervention,” he said. “You’re either on double secret probation or not.”

There are no easy ways to measure student achievement, Ritter said. Educators expect Arkansas to eventually adopt a model in a few years where schools are held accountable by academic growth each year compared to the state average. Ritter said even that method has its drawbacks because half of Arkansas schools would always be failing.

The federal government and the University of Arkansas have fired criticism at the state’s waiver request, but Ritter said the waiver still has its bright spots. Most importantly, it changes the status quo, which is not working, he said.

“It’s not clear how we’re going to change it,” Ritter said. “Any change might be helpful.”

Upcoming Events