In her 2010-11 welcome back letter on the Quakertown Community School District website, Superintendent Dr. Lisa Andrejko noted that every school in the district reached its Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) goals last year, as outlined by the No Child Left Behind law. That broad general statement, which is supposedly good news, is, in reality, not good at all when understood in the full context of the NCLB law.
AYP in Pennsylvania requires only that 56 percent of the students score "proficient" or better on the statewide PSSA math achievement tests, and 63 percent in reading. Compare Illinois, where AYP really means something - 95 percent student proficiency in each subject is required. That is because Illinois, and almost every other state except PA, is being realistic about what will happen in 2014 (assuming the law does not change by then). The requirement for continued federal funding will be that 100 percent of the students in every district meet the proficient-or-better benchmark. With each passing year (or, to be more accurate, each failing year), this mandate is looking more and more impossible here.
In 2009-10, one-third of QCHS 11th graders failed the math portion of the PSSA's, and one-quarter failed reading. The data was pretty much the same in prior years. Unless something magical happens here soon, we (and many other school districts) will have major funding issues. To celebrate AYP with QCSD's terrible performance is just a joke, and in four years that joke will be on us.
Meanwhile, back in QCSD today, Andrejko's is publicly promoting another deception. She told teachers in her opening day remarks "High school Special Education student scores jumped from 28% to 42% proficient in reading, and 22% to 53.3% proficient in math. This is an unbelievable accomplishment!", she crowed.
Nonsense. The only "unbelievable" part of this is that Andrejko apparently believes that it is "unbelievable"! Large statistical shifts like that are not only believable, but commonplace, when you deal with very small statistical samples. And, again, Andrejko's broad generalization may not mean anything.
"Sample size" is the key. That is what gives the "margin of error" you hear about in political polling. Grade 11 is the only high school class taking PSSA's, so it represents the entire "high school" scores Andrejko referred to. In a tiny sample population, like QCSD's 11th grade Special Education program, when a few really low, or high, performers move on to 12th grade, the test data numbers for the next 11th graders can jump and skew dramatically, even without any educational changes. Andrejko might as well take credit for the sun coming up.
According to The Philadelphia Inquirer's super-comprehensive 2010 "Report Card on the Schools", covering every public and private school in Southeast PA and New Jersey, QCSD reports only 12 percent of its students in Special Ed. Of the 66 Southeastern PA districts, only two, Lower Moreland and Perkiomen Valley, have less, both 11 percent. A change in just a few students' Special Ed status here has far more impact than it does in almost every other district.
And, all Special Ed students are not created equal. Special Ed is a catch-all term meaning that a student has an IEP, or Individualized Education Program, with specific guidelines mandated by federal law for kids with certain "disabilities". These can be hearing, vision, or speech impairment (even if fully treatable), nervous or social disorders, or any other condition, physical or mental, that can potentially affect his/her education process.
Students with IEP's range from profound to slightly impaired, but all are categorized together for NCLB purposes. As a result, it is not surprising, or unusual, to find Special Ed students who are high-functioning. A great case in point is a QCHS 10th grader who is hearing impaired, and has an IEP to put his teachers on notice that he needs to either lip-read or use a hearing aid. But for years he has won science fair competitions around the country, and has scored outstandingly well on his school assessment tests. He, and his achievements, were even honored on the QCSD website. But his PSSA results will be reflected in QCSD Special Ed data.
Check out the numbers for our high school: Specific student data for Special Ed is not public information, but the school has about 1250 students, and the district reports 12 percent Special Ed. That would mean about 150 highschoolers, grades 10-12, or, on average, 50 per class. Only 11th graders take PSSA's, so the "unbelievable" progress (14 percent, from 28 to 42 percent proficient in reading) basically reflects a change in seven students! Part, or even all, of this is likely due to the simple statistical anomaly of three or four higher-functioning SE students entering, and three or four lower-functioning SE students moving ahead - and no change at all in education! A few more kids would account for all of the "progress" in math. And the whole thing could be completely opposite next year, since the new 11th graders taking the tests are an entirely different group. There is absolutely no indication that our school system is in any way responsible for the increase in SE test scores.
The situation is made even murkier by the district-wide "Assessment" (created by the administration itself, not an independent outside agency) posted on the QCSD website. While confirming that the number of 11th graders with IEP's hovers around 50, it carries the red-flag disclaimer "The data on this report card may not match AYP data published for this school". In other words, BIG RED FLAG!
Maybe Andrejko is right, and we are making great strides in Special Education in QCSD. Or maybe this is yet another case of community deception from a district, and superintendent, that have become desperate to find any glimmer of hope in a sea of negative results.