About a week ago it was determined that our own Woodrow Wilson High School, along with four other DISD high schools, would be "reconstituted," a measure mandated for underperforming schools by the No Child Left Behind Act. Earlier today, the Dallas ISD issued a press release announcing this move and we find that the story has been picked up by The Dallas Morning News. Before the finger pointing and hand wringing gets started, I thought a few facts would be in order. FIrst, a short primer on the terms and processes in play here. I’ll try to keep this short and clear, but I find that Edu-speak is the most difficult language I have ever tried to learn.
There are two primary school evaluation and rating systems in place under No Child Left Behind, known within the education community as Accountability Ratings Systems. One is the Federal system, which is tracked and administered by the Texas Education Agency and appears to be influential as it leverages Federal funding. It looks at test scores in the core education areas of Reading/English Language Arts, Mathematics and, for high schools, Graduation Rates. It also considers these factors individually among several student sub-groups, African-American, Hispanic, White, Economically Disadvantaged and Special Education. A school that meets all of the standards for each and every sub-group represented at the school is deemed to have achieved "Adequate Yearly Progress", or AYP. If one sub-group does not meet the standard in just one of the areas, that school is deemed to have not achieved Adequate Yearly Progress. Sort of like Pass/Fail. You get it all or you get nothing.
The other is at the state level, also administered by the Texas Education Agency. Under their Accountability Rating System, they examine 4 criteria: TAKS test scores, SDAA II test scores (where applicable), Completion Rate (like graduation rate, but not quite) and Dropout Rate. The TEA also considers the sub-groups of African-American, Hispanic, White and Economically Disadvantaged. Based on a school’s performance under these criteria, the TEA hands out the designations of Exemplary, Recognized, Academically Acceptable or Academically Unacceptable. You, no doubt, have heard these terms many times. Schools that achieve the Exemplary and Recognized ratings are justifiably proud and usually publicize those designations widely. You can get a better handle on these standards from a TEA chart to be found here. Like AYP, you have to hit the mark in all subgroups and in all criteria to be at least Academically Acceptable. It should also be noted here that for both accountability systems, the goals are ratcheted up every year, so no resting on your laurels.
It is the second rating system, the State system, which triggers the Reconstitution process. If a school has been found to be Academically Unacceptable for two consecutive years, then changes are mandated. Woodrow falls into this category.
So what does this mean for Woodrow? Visits with a School Board member and with senior staff on Ross Avenue have revealed that the answer is "not much." There is, and has been for some time apparently, a Campus Improvement Team in place looking at this issue. It is comprised of Woodrow staff led by a member of TEA staff. This team has been looking at the areas where performance has been lagging and has been developing strategies to address the concerns. Out of a faculty of more than 100, it will likely result in the removal of 4 or 5 teachers whose own performance ratings (student TAKS scores and what the DISD calls Classroom Effectiveness Index, or CEI) are below par. To me, this seems to be a measured, reasonable approach.
The bigger concern is stigma. In the brutal and sometimes irrational quest to have one’s child in the best school possible, such designations as "Academically Unacceptable" can inaccurately convey the idea that a good education is not available at that school. Certainly, I find that to be an almost comical perception about Woodrow Wilson. I suspect the numerous recent graduates who have gone on to top colleges and universities across the nation, as well as the very large body of distinguished alumnae would also. It doesn’t convey the fact that Woodrow’s test scores and ratings are among the most improved in DISD, that it is among the District’s 3 most academically accomplished comprehensive high schools, or that it is a receiver school, meaning it is one of the few places in the DISD where kids go when they get the option to transfer out of their low performing high school under No Child Left Behind.
Does this sound contradictory to an Academically Unacceptable designation? Remember that the rating system is an all-or-nothing deal. They take this No Child Left Behind stuff seriously. You get pretty much every child in every sub-group in every core subject up to the increasingly more stringent requirements, or you get to be Academically Unacceptable. And as I understand it, that’s the case with Woodrow. The school has great diversity, which means it has every sub-group in every core subject. Many high schools do not, especially in the suburban districts. In Woodrow’s case, the low performance is within one subject in one sub-group. That sub-group, by the way, is the smallest at the school. Out of 1,400 students, the Unacceptable tag hinges on the performance of only a handful of students, and I have personally witnessed the tremendous effort being made by Principal Vail and her staff to address the needs of those students.
So I think I’ll get my son up tomorrow and send him back to Woodrow. I think he’s going to be just fine.
