Who’s Making Progress?

KSDE has released a list of schools and districts not making “Adequate Yearly Progress” as required by No Child Left Behind.

If one of the subgroups of students within a school (race, income, disabled, etc.) does not perform at the specified level of proficiency across the district, that school fails to make adequate yearly progress, or AYP.

If one of the subgroups of students across a district (race, income, disabled, etc.) does not perform at the specified level of proficiency across the district, that district fails to make adequate yearly progress, or AYP.

A total of 63 districts–a full 20 percent of all districts–fell afoul of the requirements one way or the other.

In 19 cases, the district as a whole as well as at least one of its school failed to make AYP.

In 31 cases, at least one school in the district failed, but the district as a whole made AYP.

In 13 cases, the district as a whole failed to make AYP, but each of its schools made AYP.

So as you can see, the difference is whether you look at particular schools or the district as a whole.

——————

			Not Making AYP, 2008 Edition
District No	Name		District fail?	School No.		School
D0202	Turner-Kansas City		Yes	164		Turner Elem
D0202	Turner-Kansas City			167		Turner Middle School
D0204	Bonner Springs		Yes	210		Bonner Springs Elementary
D0204	Bonner Springs			216		Edwardsville Elem
D0204	Bonner Springs			221		Robert E Clark Middle
D0207	Ft Leavenworth		Yes			All schools made AYP
D0210	Hugoton Public		No	357		Hugoton Middle
D0213	West Solomon Valley		Yes			All schools made AYP
D0214	Ulysses		Yes	450		Hickok Elem
D0214	Ulysses			444		Sullivan Elem
D0228	Hanston		Yes			All schools made AYP
D0233	Olathe		No	865		Olathe South Sr High
D0243	Lebo-Waverly		Yes			All schools made AYP
D0246	Northeast		No	1194		Northeast Elem
D0247	Cherokee		No	1230		South East High
D0253	Emporia		No	1406		Turning Point Learning Center
D0253	Emporia			1418		W A White Elem
D0257	Iola		Yes	1562		Iola Middle School
D0259	Wichita		Yes	1614		Adams Elem
D0259	Wichita			1646		Clark Elem
D0259	Wichita			1808		Curtis Middle School
D0259	Wichita			1660		Enterprise Elem
D0259	Wichita			1814		Hamilton Middle School
D0259	Wichita			1846		Heights High
D0259	Wichita			1628		Jackson Elementary
D0259	Wichita			1704		Kelly Liberal Arts Academy
D0259	Wichita			1718		Linwood Elementary
D0259	Wichita			1824		Mayberry Cultural Magnet Middle
D0259	Wichita			1837		Metro Blvd Alt High
D0259	Wichita			1742		Metro Meridian Alt High
D0259	Wichita			1852		Metro Midtown Alt High
D0259	Wichita			1838		North High
D0259	Wichita			1756		Park Elementary
D0259	Wichita			1840		South High
D0259	Wichita			1842		Southeast High
D0259	Wichita			1693		Spaght Accelerated Magnet
D0259	Wichita			1782		Stanley Elem
D0259	Wichita			1785		Stucky Middle School
D0259	Wichita			1834		Truesdell Middle School
D0259	Wichita			1844		West High
D0259	Wichita			1796		White Elem
D0259	Wichita			1833		Wilbur Middle School
D0260	Derby		No	1926		Derby Middle Sch
D0261	Haysville		No	1956		Campus High Haysville
D0261	Haysville			1961		Prairie Elementary School
D0265	Goddard		No	2027		Goddard Middle School
D0266	Maize		No	2050		Maize Sr High
D0287	West Franklin		Yes	2559		Appanoose Elementary School
D0290	Ottawa		Yes			All schools made AYP
D0300	Comanche Co		Yes			All schools made AYP
D0305	Salina		No	3026		Salina High Central
D0308	Hutchinson		Yes	3102		Avenue A Elem
D0308	Hutchinson			3130		Hutchinson Middle School
D0308	Hutchinson			3114		Lincoln Elem
D0308	Hutchinson			3116		McCandless Elem
D0308	Hutchinson			3124		Wiley Elem
D0312	Haven Public Sc		No	3241		Pleasantview Academy Grade S
D0330	Mission Valley		Yes			All schools made AYP
D0343	Perry Public Sc		No	4029		Perry-Lecompton Middle
D0352	Goodland		Yes	4224		Grant Junior High
D0353	Wellington		Yes			All schools made AYP
D0365	Garnett		Yes	4590		Garnett Elem
D0367	Osawatomie		No	4665		Osawatomie Middle School
D0369	Burrton		No	4734		Burrton Elem
D0373	Newton		No	4807		Santa Fe Middle
D0373	Newton			4799		Slate Creek Elementary
D0382	Pratt		No	5090		Liberty Middle School
D0383	Manhattan-Ogden		No	5130		Theo Roosevelt Elem
D0394	Rose Hill Public		No	5374		Rose Hill Intermediate
D0395	LaCrosse		No	5396		La Crosse Middle School
D0398	Peabody-Burns		Yes			All schools made AYP
D0402	Augusta		No	5560		Augusta Middle School
D0404	Riverton		No	5620		Riverton Elem
D0407	Russell County		No	5722		Ruppenthal Middle
D0417	Morris County		Yes			All schools made AYP
D0418	McPherson		No	6038		McPherson Middle School
D0420	Osage City		Yes			All schools made AYP
D0433	Midway Schools		Yes	6428		Doniphan West Middle School
D0435	Abilene		No	6475		Abilene Middle School
D0443	Dodge City		No	6686		Dodge City High School
D0443	Dodge City			6684		Dodge City Middle School
D0445	Coffeyville		Yes	6756		Community Elementary
D0445	Coffeyville			6770		Roosevelt Middle
D0446	Independence		No	6828		Independence Middle
D0447	Cherryvale		Yes			All schools made AYP
D0450	Shawnee Heights		No	6945		Shawnee Heights Middle
D0450	Shawnee Heights			6948		Tecumseh South Elem
D0453	Leavenworth		Yes	7008		Earl M Lawson Elem
D0453	Leavenworth			7020		Leavenworth Sr High
D0453	Leavenworth			7026		Leavenworth Virtual School
D0453	Leavenworth			7018		Leavenworth West Middle School
D0453	Leavenworth			7022		Muncie Elem
D0453	Leavenworth			7016		Nettie Hartnett/Ben Day Elem
D0453	Leavenworth			7017		Richard W. Warren Middle School
D0457	Garden City		Yes	7130		Garden City Sr High
D0457	Garden City			7138		Kenneth Henderson Middle
D0465	Winfield		No	7331		Winfield Intermediate School
D0465	Winfield			7333		Winfield Middle School
D0467	Leoti		No	7383		Wichita Co Jr High
D0476	Copeland		Yes			All schools made AYP
D0480	Liberal		Yes	7715		Cottonwood Intermediate School
D0480	Liberal			7714		Garfield Elem
D0480	Liberal			7728		Liberal South Middle
D0480	Liberal			7730		Liberal West Middle
D0480	Liberal			7724		Southlawn Elem
D0495	Ft Larned		No	8140		Larned Middle School
D0497	Lawrence		No	8195		Deerfield Elem
D0497	Lawrence			8198		Hillcrest Elem
D0497	Lawrence			8200		Kennedy Elem
D0497	Lawrence			8214		Lawrence Central Jr Hi
D0497	Lawrence			8224		Lawrence Free State High
D0497	Lawrence			8218		Lawrence High
D0500	Kansas City		Yes	8320		Argentine Middle
D0500	Kansas City			8324		Arrowhead Middle
D0500	Kansas City			8280		Central Elementary School
D0500	Kansas City			8316		Central Middle
D0500	Kansas City			8328		Coronado Middle
D0500	Kansas City			8331		D D Eisenhower Middle
D0500	Kansas City			8288		Emerson Elem
D0500	Kansas City			8329		F L Schlagle High
D0500	Kansas City			8294		Fairfax Campus
D0500	Kansas City			8308		Frank Rushton Elem
D0500	Kansas City			8332		Hazel Grove Elem
D0500	Kansas City			8290		John Fiske Elem
D0500	Kansas City			8342		Lindbergh Elem
D0500	Kansas City			8298		Mark Twain Elem
D0500	Kansas City			8303		Noble Prentis Elem
D0500	Kansas City			8305		Quindaro Elem
D0500	Kansas City			8321		Rosedale Middle
D0500	Kansas City			8282		Silver City Elem
D0500	Kansas City			8346		Stony Point South
D0500	Kansas City			8352		Welborn Elem
D0500	Kansas City			8319		West Middle
D0500	Kansas City			8313		Whittier Elem
D0500	Kansas City			8323		Wyandotte High
D0501	Topeka		Yes	8442		Avondale East Elem
D0501	Topeka			8552		Capital City
D0501	Topeka			8524		Eisenhower Middle School
D0501	Topeka			8469		Hope St Academy Charter Middle
D0501	Topeka			8532		Landon Middle School
D0501	Topeka			8471		Linn Elem
D0501	Topeka			8474		Lundgren Elem
D0501	Topeka			8494		Quincy Elem
D0501	Topeka			8444		Shaner Elem
D0501	Topeka			8504		State Street Elem
D0501	Topeka			8512		Whitson Elem
D0503	Parsons		Yes	8594		Parsons Middle School
D0503	Parsons			8596		Parsons Sr High
D0511	Attica		Yes	8764		Attica High
D0512	Shawnee Mission		Yes	8784		Bluejacket-Flint
D0512	Shawnee Mission			8793		Comanche Elem
D0512	Shawnee Mission			8880		Indian Woods Middle

A warning about preschool—from one of its advocates

Several publications ran the most recent Flint Hills op-ed on education. It’s reproduced here.

When the Kansas Legislature meets next year, it will surely talk about more taxpayer money for preschool programs. But the recent words of an advocate of such programs should serve as a caution to Kansans expecting great things from expanding preschool.

In the Fall 2008 edition of Education Next, Craig Ramey, a professor at Georgetown University, argues that the evidence these programs benefit some children is “quite strong.” But his remarks also warn against overreach.

Start with the question of how many children should be included. Some people want to offer taxpayer-funded preschool to all willing comers. The group Pre-K Now, for example, favors pre-K programs “for all children.”

Ramey, on the other hand, says that the benefits of preschool exist “particularly for children from low-resource families.” Who are these families? The ones who have “limited parental education, very low family incomes, and/or parents unable to consistently provide high-quality learning opportunities” for preschool children.

Ramey’s emphasis on the neediest families is echoed by other experts, such as Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution. It’s simply a matter of being smart with the public’s money.

Still, that doesn’t deter some people from calling for spending money on everyone, even the wealthy who could pay their own way. In Illinois, for example, Gov. Rod Blagojevich led the push for a “preschool for all” program that includes 3- and 4-year old children.

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is known across the country as a champion of spending more on preschool programs. To her credit, she’s been measured in her remarks. In a 2007 appearance before a congressional committee, for example, she called for targeting programs “to low-income communities.” Her budget proposals in Kansas have been for pilot programs.

But will Kansans who favor taxpayer-funded preschool be satisfied with targeted programs? Not necessarily. The group Kansas Action for Children, for example, calls for universal preschool in all but name. It says that “school readiness is lacking in many middle- and working-class homes, just as it is in the homes of low income families.”

Calling for preschool programs to be universal (open to all) is a smart political tactic that increases the flow of money. Bluntly put, public programs that are tailored to the poor don’t have the political base of those that reach everyone. Over time, they don’t expand as rapidly as middle-class entitlements.

Advocates who push for expanding government-sponsored preschool to all can get carried away in playing up its benefits. “There have been several different methods used to calculate benefits—and wildly different returns claimed,” says Ramey. Some estimates claim as much as $16 in benefits for each dollar spent, a claim that is “definitely not realistic” in most situations.

It’s unlikely that the lofty numbers, based on past programs, can be maintained. Ramey says that is “because many of the children being served [in today’s expanded programs] have relatively low levels of risk for school failure.” Compare today’s programs with the Perry Preschool Program, for example. That oft-cited program served children who were all developmentally or cognitively delayed—certainly not representative of children as a whole. Head Start, the single-largest preschool program, has been a disappointment.

New and expanded government programs are sold on promises, but rarely judged on results. In that light, Kansans should be wary of enacting even more government-sponsored preschool programs. If they’re not, they will be left with less money for other needs—and yet another case of the reality of a program not living up to its hype.

Preschool Good for Some–But Should Taxpayers Fund it for All?

John McClaughry, president of the Ethan Allen Institute, echoes some of our concerns about the push towards universal preschool.

On using previous studies to justify universal preschool, he says:

“The Perry Preschool, Chicago Parent Child Center, and Abecedarian experiments, three projects frequently touted as showing the benefits of preschool] “dealt with seriously at-risk children. … Pouring the resources to the most desperate children can hardly help but produce some benefits, and most people would probably agree that it’s an inescapable public cost. But to proclaim 4-to-1 or 7-to-1 rates of return for investment in a program for all children is just not honest.”

On the motivation for universal programs, he says:

“The impetus for this movement comes from several different sources. A lot of sincere people think that lavishing lots of dollars on preschoolers is the next big thing in social progress. The Department of Education is obviously eager to expand the public school system. The NEA teachers’ union will naturally be enthusiastic, anticipating that expanded public preschool programs will bring them hundreds of dues-paying members.

A major driving force is business. Universal preschool, especially when it expands from a 10-hour a week to a 30-or 40 hour a week program, will be a boon to business. If kids are in school at 3 and 4, their employees won’t have to pay for day care, and the employer won’t have to provide for or bargain about day care.”

And in another column, he adds this:

First, “free” preschools are popular with working parents who would otherwise have to pay for day care. Second, two more public-school grades would mean more jobs and more teachers and miscellaneous aides. Third, for a lot of advocates, getting toddlers away from their unqualified parents and into public programs run by people with credentials is a step towards improving society.”

On the threat of universal programs to existing preschool businesses, he say:

“Universal ‘free’ government pre-K programs will either swallow up or wipe out small day-care businesses. For those–especially liberals–concerned about closing the achievement gap between at-risk kids and all other kids, universal preschool won’t do it. It will just eat up the funding that might do it.”

If a legislature wishes to expand a preschool program, he offers several alternatives, including:

“Give parents $2,500 vouchers that they could cash in at the public, private, or religious preschool of their choice. This would cost considerably less than taxpayer financing of unionized, credentialed public preschools. It would … keep alive the private day-care businesses that are in mortal peril if ‘free’ universal preschool is enacted.

A third approach would be to give a tax credit, as Arizona does, for contributions to nonprofit scholarship funding organizations … that offer scholarships to needy children to attend the preschool of their parents’ choice.”

Finally, McClaughy asks some hard questions, including these:

“If there are no identifiable educational benefits by the time children have reached third grade, why should the taxpayer be asked to pay for ‘preschools’? Isn’t this just a subsidized day care program for rich and poor alike?”

“How much in tax dollars does it take to give preschool children an identifiable educational benefit four years later, compared to children who have attended only K-3? Is that benefit worth the taxpayer investment?”

“If preschools for at-risk children help them close the achievement gap with their more favored peers, why won’t universal preschool maintain that gap indefinitely?”

“If private day care centers are drawn into a ‘collaborate’ controlled by the public school system, will the public school system not force higher teacher credentialing regulations on the operators  and staff of the day care centers? Will this result in any identifiable improvement for the children, or will it only replace day care operators with more costly (and unionized) public school teachers?”

Lawrence: The Headline Looks Great. The Record?

Some schools in Lawrence made progress in complying with the goals of No Child Left Behind. Unfortunately, neither high school is.

(Source: “District making progress when it comes to No Child Left Behind Act,” LJW, September 9, 2008)

No Surprise There

From the Wichita Eagle (September 7): “Economy could be hurdle for Wichita bond issue.”

The article focuses on the state of Oregon, focusing on a PR firm that has done a lot of work trying to get bond measures passed. (Aside: Why is taxpayer money being used to … lobby the public to pay more in taxes?)

Here’s one part of the article:

“Wichita’s bond plan, the state’s largest [$370 million], would cost the owner of a $100,000 home about $42.55 more in property taxes annually, includes $137 million for new schools. But bond supporters and opponents have both focused the discussion on $61 million proposed for athletic upgrades and $17 million added last month for technical education.”