In the Louisiana application for the ESEA waiver of No Child Left Behind, Superintendent John White criticized the results of past teacher evaluations in Louisiana that yielded a high percentage of proficient teacher ratings even though more than one third of Louisiana students were not achieving at grade level on annual state assessments.
Is it correct to assume that the quality of teaching in a particular school system can be equated to the performance of its students on the state standardized testing system, or could there be other factors that affect student performance other than the quality of instruction? Do the letter grades given to our individual schools and school systems really reflect the quality of instruction in those systems?
The following analysis and table compares the student performance in each of the 74 public school systems in Louisiana with an accepted measure of student poverty (the percentage of students who qualify for free or reduced lunch). Using the latest LDOE analysis of state testing, school systems are ranked according to overall student performance along with the percentage of at risk students in each school system as determined by the free or reduced lunch data.
The table below demonstrates that the lowest three performing school systems: The Louisiana Recovery District, the Baton Rouge Recovery District and the St. Helena school district also had the highest percentage of students in poverty in the state (approximately 97.5% of students in those three systems were on free or reduced lunch). In addition, the rankings of all the other school systems indicate a clear relationship between average student performance and the rate of student poverty. Most of the school systems fall at approximately the same position on the academic achievement ranking as they fall on average family income ranking. As the level of poverty goes up, the level of student achievement goes down. It is an almost perfect mathematical relationship. In fact, the three school systems with the highest performance in the state have basically the lowest level of student poverty.
Louisiana is second only to Mississippi in the percentage of its students eligible for free and reduced lunch because of low family income. The median percentage of students in all school districts in Louisiana classified as at-risk because of low family income is 69.7%. The school system with the lowest percentage of students in free or reduced lunch is at 42.7%. The number one school system in student performance (Zachary Communty Schools) is second from the bottom of all school systems in percentage of its students on free or reduced lunch. Of the top 10 performing school systems, all but one fall near the 50% level in the percentage of their students on free or reduced lunch. For Louisiana that equates to relatively low poverty!
Would it be logical to conclude (as Louisiana has implied by use of the present school grading system) that school systems with the poorest children almost always have the least effective teachers? Or could it be that student poverty is more important than the effectiveness of teaching in determining average student performance? The table below shows an incredibly strong relationship between the level of student poverty in a school system and the level of student achievement. Is it logical therefore to conclude that the consistent difference in student performance in school systems with a difference of as little as 5 to 10 percentage points in poverty is probably caused more by the influence of poverty than by the competence of their teachers?
When one digs into the data at the local school level, one finds that there is a single factor that can trump poverty as the dominant factor in student performance. The data shows that schools such as magnet schools that select their students based upon past high academic achievement, perform significantly better regardless of the level of student poverty. For example, Forest Heights Academy of Excellence in East Baton Rouge Parish has a free or reduced lunch population of 77.4%, yet has achieved an “A”rating on the state accountability system. If this were not a selective academic school, the poverty rate would predict a school grade of “C” or less. But this outcome is a no-brain-er since the students who are allowed to attend were already high performers. So the fact that a student comes from a poor family does not automatically condemn that student to low academic performance. The lower academic performance of high poverty populations is simply an average result for such populations even though there is still a wide range of performances for individual students.
The KIPP schools in the New Orleans Recovery District have also managed to DE-select of counsel out most of the poorest kids that may have wanted to attend, and now have a free or reduced lunch percentage of 54%. Most schools in Louisiana with that low a percentage of high poverty students achieve an “A” rating on the Louisiana school grading scale, yet these schools have only managed a “B” rating. But the point is that their higher rating than most schools in the RSD is most probably much more related to their lower poverty student enrollment than to their teaching methods.
The same deviation caused by selective admission is demonstrated by the one public school system in the state which selects the majority of its students based on academic performance. The Orleans Parish School Board system (OPSB) still manages the schools that were performing above average when the state Recovery District took over all schools in that parish that were performing below the state average right after hurricane Katrina. Several of the schools in the OPSB system were highly selective schools before Katrina and continue to be highly selective. So even though the poverty rate for the OPSB system now stands at 67%, the school system ranks 6th in the state in academic performance. However, almost all the other school systems in the state that are not selective perform exactly as would be predicted if the rate of poverty were the only factor affecting school performance.
Based on this data and similar data collected over the years, this researcher and many others have concluded that the present school rating and grading system used in Louisiana and in several other states is extremely misleading and can have damaging results. In Louisiana, the school rating system has resulted in the state takeover of many schools. As this blog has pointed out as recently as June 16 and June 19, the state takeover and conversion of schools to charters has not improved instruction. All of the schools except one taken over in East Baton Rouge, Pointe Coupee, St Helena and Caddo are still rated as failing. These schools and many of the schools in the New Orleans Recovery District have been subjected to the disruption of multiple management changes. Some schools are closed and their students and parents required to fend for themselves in finding a new school when none of the remaining choices are highly rated. A few schools in the RSD (such as the KIPP schools) have been successful in selecting the more privileged students and in removing low performers so as to be rated relatively higher. Such practices do not empower parents nor do they serve the most at-risk students.
But the most damaging effect of the present school grading system in my opinion, is to make schools serving the neediest students unattractive to the most qualified and possibly the most effective teachers. What teacher in Louisiana wants to teach in a school that is constantly berated and scorned for having low performance. What highly effective teacher wants to risk her/his reputation and career by committing to serve the most needy students? Fortunately there are a few teachers that are willing to do this thankless job, but there will never be enough good teachers to fill this critical need as long as Louisiana falsely labels schools and teachers as failures.
| 2014 Percentile Ranks for Percent of Students Basic and Above (LEAP and iLEAP state testing) and 2013 letter grade | ||||||||||
| |
||||||||||
| Site Name | % of students on free or reduced lunch | Letter grade assigned for 2013 | Ranking for % proficient for 2014 | 2014 Basic or Above (Percentile Rank) | ||||||
| CAMERON PARISH | 42.7% | B | 19 | 79 | ||||||
| ZACHARY COM. SCHOOL DIS. | 44.3% | A | 1 | 100 | ||||||
| ST. TAMMANY PARISH | 48.0% | A | 9 | 89 | ||||||
| BOSSIER PARISH | 48.1% | B | 13 | 80 | ||||||
| ASCENSION PARISH | 48.5% | A | 10 | 87 | ||||||
| LIVINGSTON PARISH | 50.0% | B | 8 | 89 | ||||||
| CENTRAL COM. SCHOOL DIS. | 50.6% | A | 2 | 97 | ||||||
| WEST FELICIANA PARISH | 52.3% | A | 7 | 89 | ||||||
| ST. CHARLES PARISH | 53.0% | A | 4 | 95 | ||||||
| BEAUREGARD PARISH | 53.6% | B | 20 | 71 | ||||||
| PLAQUEMINES PARISH | 54.5% | B | 3 | 97 | ||||||
| LASALLE PARISH | 57.2% | B | 15 | 75 | ||||||
| VERMILION PARISH | 57.5% | B | 21 | 75 | ||||||
| VERNON PARISH | 58.1% | A | 5 | 94 | ||||||
| JEFFERSON DAVIS PARISH | 58.4% | B | 14 | 80 | ||||||
| OUACHITA PARISH | 59.4% | B | 16 | 80 | ||||||
| CALCASIEU PARISH | 59.4% | B | 17 | 75 | ||||||
| LAFOURCHE PARISH | 60.6% | B | 25 | 65 | ||||||
| LINCOLN PARISH | 61.1% | B | 28 | 49 | ||||||
| LAFAYETTE PARISH | 61.4% | B | 32 | 56 | ||||||
| ALLEN PARISH | 62.5% | B | 12 | 84 | ||||||
| WEBSTER PARISH | 62.9% | C | 45 | 38 | ||||||
| DESOTO PARISH | 63.3% | B | 31 | 69 | ||||||
| JACKSON PARISH | 64.5% | B | 42 | 35 | ||||||
| ASSUMPTION PARISH | 66.1% | B | 38 | 49 | ||||||
| CADDO PARISH | 66.5% | C | 54 | 21 | ||||||
| ACADIA PARISH | 66.7% | B | 37 | 56 | ||||||
| CALDWELL PARISH | 66.8% | C | 35 | 49 | ||||||
| ORLEANS (WITHOUT RSD) | 67.0% | A | 6 | 89 | ||||||
| GRANT PARISH | 67.2% | B | 23 | 65 | ||||||
| TERREBONNE PARISH | 68.1% | B | 27 | 65 | ||||||
| BIENVILLE PARISH | 68.1% | C | 52 | 45 | ||||||
| ST. JAMES PARISH | 68.7% | B | 26 | 60 | ||||||
| SABINE PARISH | 69.7% | C | 24 | 60 | ||||||
| RAPIDES PARISH | 69.7% | C | 36 | 56 | ||||||
| IBERIA PARISH | 70.2% | B | 33 | 49 | ||||||
| WEST BATON ROUGE PAR. | 70.3% | B | 30 | 63 | ||||||
| WINN PARISH | 71.2% | B | 34 | 38 | ||||||
| CATAHOULA PARISH | 72.8% | C | 39 | 45 | ||||||
| NATCHITOCHES PARISH | 73.1% | C | 59 | 19 | ||||||
| ST. MARY PARISH | 73.9% | B | 29 | 63 | ||||||
| ST. MARTIN PARISH | 75.2% | B | 43 | 43 | ||||||
| WEST CARROLL PARISH | 76.3% | C | 18 | 71 | ||||||
| EVANGELINE PARISH | 76.3% | C | 22 | 71 | ||||||
| JEFFERSON PARISH | 77.1% | B | 40 | 49 | ||||||
| TANGIPAHOA PARISH | 77.4% | C | 55 | 30 | ||||||
| CONCORDIA PARISH | 77.7% | C | 47 | 30 | ||||||
| ST. LANDRY PARISH | 78.0% | D | 51 | 21 | ||||||
| UNION PARISH | 79.0% | C | 65 | 15 | ||||||
| CITY OF MONROE SCHOOL DIS. | 79.7% | D | 46 | 21 | ||||||
| CLAIBORNE PARISH | 80.1% | D | 68 | 8 | ||||||
| EAST BATON ROUGE W/O RSD | 81.9% | C | 49 | 30 | ||||||
| CITY OF BAKER SCHOOL DIS. | 82.4% | D | 70 | 5 | ||||||
| FRANKLIN PARISH | 82.6% | C | 56 | 21 | ||||||
| RICHLAND PARISH | 83.2% | C | 62 | 16 | ||||||
| MOREHOUSE PARISH | 83.5% | D | 63 | 10 | ||||||
| EAST FELICIANA PARISH | 83.7% | C | 58 | 21 | ||||||
| ST. BERNARD PARISH | 84.0% | A | 11 | 86 | ||||||
| EAST CARROLL PARISH | 84.1% | C | 66 | 19 | ||||||
| AVOYELLES PARISH | 84.2% | C | 64 | 13 | ||||||
| WASHINGTON PARISH | 84.3% | B | 44 | 45 | ||||||
| IBERVILLE PARISH | 84.6% | C | 41 | 38 | ||||||
| POINTE COUPEE PARISH | 85.0% | C | 60 | 30 | ||||||
| RSD—NEW ORLEANS | 85.2% | C | 61 | 17 | ||||||
| TENSAS PARISH | 86.4% | D | 69 | 9 | ||||||
| RED RIVER PARISH | 87.8% | C | 57 | 10 | ||||||
| MADISON PARISH | 88.1% | F | 71 | 4 | ||||||
| CITY OF BOGALUSA SC. DIS. | 94.7% | D | 67 | 5 | ||||||
| ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PAR. | 97.5% | C | 50 | 38 | ||||||
| RSD—BATON ROUGE | 97.5% | F | 73 | 2 | ||||||
| ST. HELENA PARISH | 97.5% | F | 72 | 1 | ||||||
| RSD—LOUISIANA | 97.5% | F | 74 | 0 | ||||||
Posts
