The new School Performance Framework released last week by the Clark County School District (CCSD) may be a step in the right direction for the district as a whole. But down at the school level there seems to be some weak points in the new initiative. Unfortunately, this complicated five-star school ranking system, steered by the new Growth Model, may still be too much geared towards managing the Many. And as such it may end up leaving behind the Few.
Statistics often start breaking down as sample sizes become smaller. For large schools with a diverse and populous student body, there is little worry about this. But a ranking system begins losing its relevance when it applies large school statistics to small schools, especially when those small schools don’t fit into the norm. And that is precisely where the School Performance Framework (SPF) may end up failing the rural schools of the CCSD, including our own local schools.
It is interesting that none of the local schools ranked by the SPF last week came away with strong ratings. Even so, Moapa Valley schools don’t really fit the description of struggling schools. Despite the lackluster rankings, local students have consistently scored above the district and state average on standardized tests. Local schools have some of the most dedicated teachers and talented administrators in the district. And Moapa Valley schools enjoy a level of community and parent engagement that most urban CCSD schools can only dream about.
It is certainly true that there are areas where significant improvement is needed in the local schools. There are definitely needs that are not being met. There are obviously many struggling students. Our local administrators will fully own up to these facts. Still it is puzzling to try and reconcile such low rankings for schools that enjoy such consistently high levels of proficiency.
The trouble is that the SPF seems to present some statistical anomalies that play against our local schools and their rural counterparts. It is no coincidence that all of the 5-star ranked schools are urban schools, most with high percentages of minority students. Also interesting is the fact that none of the 5-stars were outlying rural schools. The fact is that the statistical deck seems to be stacked against smaller, whiter schools. A larger sample size in the various racial and economic “subgroups” seem to be paving a much easier path for the urban schools than it does for rural schools where those kinds of numbers are low.
In addition, over the past few years as budgetary belts have been tightened, the local schools have been passed over for the very resources they need in order to show the kind of growth called for by the SPF. Of course, the local schools are made up of a large percentage of white kids; generally with favorable economic circumstances, a positive family environment and a supportive community. So it is no surprise, in a huge urban district like the CCSD, that the scarce resources will be siphoned off to more diverse urban areas.
The 2-star rated Grant Bowler Elementary is a prime example. As the education budget has repeatedly been cut, Bowler has seen a steady reduction in its staff. It has had to send a number of its prized teachers packing and then watch as those teachers have gone off and become prime assets for other schools. Bowler has also lost its reading specialist and has had to share its Assistant Principal with another rural school. Both of these positions are essential when it comes to catching the struggling students and addressing their problems effectively. Being thus choked for resources, it’s not too surprising that test scores at Bowler have dipped somewhat. Still, it is a testament to excellent staff, administration and local families that the school’s academic performance has remained as high as it has.
Just because our rural kids are predominantly white and generally well-off doesn’t mean that some of them don’t struggle in school. Rural white kids do need extra help sometimes just like urban minority kids. Unfortunately with resources being pinched from rural schools, struggling rural kids are left to adapt in larger classes. Our teachers work hard but they can’t always work miracles. There are still so many hours in a day. The fact is that a few rural kids are getting left behind. But those few have a heavier adverse weight on the ranking of a small rural school than the same number would have in a large urban setting where there is plenty of statistical cushion for them to hide.
One answer to all of this is to cut the rural schools loose from the urban millstone. Rural schools operate under a completely different paradigm than urban schools. And they should be treated that way. The experts on rural schools are not to be found in the grand halls of the urban CCSD administration buildings. Instead they are the rural teachers, administrators and parents that are working on the ground in those schools every day.
If you give rural schools the equitable resources to do the job and the autonomy to choose how to use those resources, it is amazing how far they will go to find innovative and outside-the-box solutions; even without supervision or mandates from higher level district administrators. This has been born out over the past four years at our own Moapa Valley Empowerment High School.
Yes the district’s new SPF may enable a new, more in-depth, focus on the individual student. But the benefit from that will come purely at the classroom level between a teacher and a student, just the way it has always been. There is nothing new there.
At the school level, though, SPF still tends towards being a one-size-fits-all approach. It’s greatest failing may prove to be that the rural square pegs just can’t be stuffed into the CCSD urban round hole. It will be a shame if our outstanding rural schools; their diligent teachers and talented administrators; end up being trodden down by an urban ranking system that is inherently stacked against them. With all of the unique and clear advantages of small rural schools, wouldn’t it be best to just let them be rural schools?
