Lies, Damn Lies, and Accreditation “Adjustments”

On Tuesday, the Governor announced a “10-Point Increase in Fully Accredited Schools.”  As Jim Bacon quickly pointed out, some part of that increase must be due to the newly-allowed retakes that boosted pass rates by about four percent. 

Then we have the “adjustments.”  VDOE acknowledges that it fiddles the numbers:

Accreditation ratings also reflect adjustments made for schools that successfully remediate students who initially fail reading or mathematics tests. Adjustments also may be made for students with limited English proficiency and for students who have recently transferred into a Virginia public school. All of these factors are taken into account in calculating pass rates in each subject area.

That falls considerably short of earlier admissions.  Indeed, we know that earlier “adjustments” converted a 76.3 and a 73.7 into “perfect scores” and embarrassed the Governor

In any case, the process is opaque.  About all we can do is compare the “adjusted” pass rates with those reported in the SOL database (that already includes the 4% retake boost).  I have a modest example here.

For the 1774 schools that appear in both databases (see below for the missing 49), the “adjustments” increase the math pass rates:

image

Excel is happy to fit curves to these data.  For the fitted curves, the actual mean is 82.4, the “adjusted” mean is 84.6.

All this produced a nice increase in the number of schools that made the 70% cutoff:

image

VDOE writes the tests; they can make them as hard or easy as they wish.  Yet they indulge in this byzantine, opaque process.  And then they brag about the fudged results.

Moreover, there’s a problem with the data.

Data Problem

In juxtaposing the Accreditation and SOL data, I had to make sure that the school names in both lists were the aligned.  In many cases they were not.  So I spent a rainy afternoon yesterday getting the lists to match.

To accomplish that, I dealt with dozens of cases where the SOL database had a space after the school name but the accreditation list did not (Ask Excel to compare two strings and it really compares them).  As well, I had to deal with cases such as a Norfolk school that was “Mary Calcott Elementary School” in one list and “Mary Calcott Elementary” in the other.  Beyond those minor issues, I had to remove 48 schools that were in the accreditation list but not in the SOL database.

image

(You might notice that 1774+48=1822, which is one short of the 1823 reported by VDOE.  I had to move these by hand and perhaps I messed up a cut-and-paste operation.  I’m not sufficiently invested in this to spend another afternoon trying to figure out who’s missing.)

We are left to wonder how they calculated “adjusted” pass rates for these schools that apparently had no pass rates.

I also had to remove twelve schools from the SOL report that were not in the accreditation list.

image

At least the two Richmond schools here make some sense: Elkhardt and Thompson were combined into a single school this year.  We are left to wonder why their pass rates were reported separately but they got accredited jointly,* and what happened to the accreditations of the other schools in this list.

As a more global matter, we are left to speculate why they fudge these data.  And how they do it.  And what other ways the data are screwed up.

Oh, and if one secret process for manipulating the data were not enough, we have another: the federal count of schools and divisions that met or failed to meet their Annual Measurable Objectives (aka “AMO’s,” of course).  The only thing to be said for this further waste of taxpayer dollars is that it may be more honest: 51.5% of Virginia schools flunked.

image

 

*Actually, we know the answer, at least as to the latter: The combined Elkhardt-Thompson is a “new school,” so it got a bye on accreditation.  The joint accreditation thus solved the problem of Thompson, which was denied accreditation last year.

In the Accreditation Basement

VDOE has posted the 2016 Accreditation Ratings, based on the 2015 test scores.

I’ll have more to say later about VDOE’s manipulation of the Accreditation Ratings, to include the newly minted “junior is flunking but by less than before” ratings.  For now, here are the Richmond results.

image

image

It’s hard to know what all those “TBD” entries mean.  I’ll have a look at the pass rates and post them here, soon.  For sure, 38% fully accredited is not good news.

And, also for sure, Thompson was denied accreditation last year but the newly-minted Elkhardt-Thompson is getting a free pass.

Sex and the SOL

The VDOE database is glad to produce the SOL data by sex, as well as by economic disadvantage.

BTW: The database calls it “gender,” not “sex.”  Nobody who took German long enough to know that “das Mädchen” (the maiden) is neuter gender would make that mistake.

Here, to start, are the 2015 reading pass rates for the state, Charles City, Richmond, and three other old, urban jurisdictions.

image

Even in that forest of data, it’s clear that the girls outscore the boys. 

As well, the Richmond numbers are low, compared either to the state or to the peer jurisdictions.  But, then, Richmond had the second lowest pass rate in the state. 

The Charles City male/female data look to be  anomalous. 

Taking this one step further, here are the female minus male pass rates by jurisdiction and economic disadvantage.

image

Here we see the female outperformance is larger in the economically disadvantaged populations, both statewide and in the urban jurisdictions. 

Something is different in Charles City.  I couldn’t guess what.

Finally, here are the not economically disadvantaged less economically disadvantaged pass rates by sex.

image

The effect of economic disadvantage is smaller in Charles City and Richmond, consistent with my speculation (here and in an unpublished communication) that Charles City and Richmond may have been overclassifying kids as “economically disadvantaged” to increase their Title I funding. 

Consistent with the anomalous numbers above, Charles City reverses the usual difference by sex.

Here are the analogous graphs showing the math data.

image

image

image

These data are generally consistent with the reading results, except that the Charles City anomaly on the female minus male scores is larger.

Lying by Telling the Truth

Monday, His Excellency Arne Duncan touted “a continuing upward trend in graduation rates.”  USDOE has a Press Release to the same effect.

What Duncan and USDOE neglected to mention was that the NAEP long-term data do not show improvements in reading or math scores of seventeen-year-old students.

image

image

Duncan is not dumb, so he must be deliberately overlooking the obvious conclusion, which is nothing to brag about:

Easier Grading = Higher Graduation Rate

Your tax dollars at “work.”

Richmond Pass Rates by Race and Economic Disadvantage

Having examined Lynchburg’s SOL performance broken out be race and economic disadvantage, I thought I’d take a look at Richmond.

First the baseline: Here are the statewide averages for the reading tests.

image

It is no surprise that Virginia’s Asian students outperform the white students who in turn outperform the black students, nor that, within each racial group, the economically disadvantaged students underperform their more affluent peers. 

The question for the day, however, is Richmond’s performance in each of these categories.  Here, to start, are the Richmond pass rates on the reading tests.

image

To simplify the comparison, let’s take the ratio of the Richmond to the State pass rates for each group.

image

There are several notable features in this pattern of underperformance:

  • Only Richmond’s white students who are not economically disadvantaged managed to equal (actually, to slightly exceed) the state average pass rate for their peer group;
  • Richmond’s Asian students did not outperform; and
  • Although well below the state average for their peer group, Richmond’s economically disadvantaged black students outperformed Richmond’s economically disadvantaged white students, relative to their peer group, and outperformed those of Richmond’s black students who are not economically disadvantaged. 

The outperformance of the economically disadvantaged black students comes as a surprise.  Everything else being equal, the more affluent students would perform better.  Perhaps the Richmond data  reflect an overclassification of students as “economically disadvantaged.”  We know that Richmond overclassified students as “disabled” in order to improve its scores.  The same approach to economic disadvantage would allow Richmond to collect more Title I money.   

Whatever the reason, the numbers here certainly are anomalous.

Turning to the math tests:

image

image

image

Here,

  • All groups are underperforming the state average pass rates for their peer groups;
  • Richmond’s Asian students again are not outperforming, albeit they are doing better here than on the reading tests;
  • Relative to their respective peer groups, Richmond’s black students who are economically disadvantaged again outperform both those who are not so disadvantaged as well as the white, economically disadvantaged students.

To compare the reading and math data, let’s subtract the Richmond/State performance for reading from that for math:

image

Except for one group, the math score ratio is higher than the reading.  That is, Richmond’s reading instruction is batting only .167 when compared to Richmond’s (already inferior) math instruction.  And, for sure, there is a larger problem with the reading instruction for our economically disadvantaged Asian students.

The Bottom Line: Richmond’s math instruction is bad and its reading instruction is even worse.  But, then, we already knew that.

Racial Smoke Screen in Lynchburg

Jim Weigand points out the News & Advance article reporting that the Lynchburg school gurus have concluded that students’ race is a greater indicator of challenge than poverty, albeit both factors “matter a lot.”

Ask the wrong question, get an irrelevant answer. 

The racial achievement gap is a fact of life, although the reasons remain a lively source of controversy.

The relevant question here is not whether there is a racial gap in Lynchburg or whether that gap exceeds the differences attributable to economic disparity; the question is whether Lynchburg’s students are learning as much as their racial and economic peer groups statewide.

Let’s start with the SGP data.  Those data, which are essentially uncorrelated with whether students are economically disadvantaged, tell us that Lynchburg’s schools are doing an awful job.  For example, the 2014 statewide distributions of SGPs by teacher show an average of 48 for the reading tests and 49.3 for math.

image

Lynchburg, in contrast, has a reading average of 40.2

image

and a math average of 37.2.

image

How would you like to have your kid in the hands of that Lynchburg math “teacher” who produced an average SGP of four?

(In light of the manifest utility of these data, do you wonder why the teachers’ association, which claims it works “for the betterment of public education,” thinks it would be terrible to publicly identify the good and bad teachers in Virginia’s public schools or why VDOE has had second thoughts and is abandoning the SGP?)

We don’t have SGP data by race (The Virginia Department of Data Suppression has those data but has not shared them).  Less usefully, the VDOE database can break out pass rates by race.  Data there show that, statewide, Asian students on the reading tests outperform white students, who outperform black students.  This holds both for students who are and for those who are not economically disadvantaged.

image

The Lynchburg pattern is somewhat different.

image

To illuminate  the differences, we can calculate the ratios of the Lynchburg and State pass rates by race and economic status:

image

Here we see Lynchburg’s white students, economically disadvantaged and not, performing about the same level as their peer groups statewide.  The black students who are not economically disadvantaged are underperforming the state average of similarly situated black students; Lynchburg’s economically disadvantaged black students are considerably underperforming their statewide peer group.  So, economic disadvantage or no, Lynchburg’s black students are passing the tests at a rate below the state average.

Here are the same data for the math tests:

image

image

image

So we see that Lynchburg’s white students, both economically disadvantaged and not, who pass the reading tests at or slightly above the state average rates for their groups nonetheless underperform on the math tests.  Lynchburg’s black students, both economically disadvantaged and not, considerably underperform their peers statewide. 

The important questions Lynchburg should be seeking to answer are why its black students underperform the state averages for their peers, economically disadvantaged or not,  in both reading and math and and why all Lynchburg groups but the economically disadvantaged Asian students(!) underperform in math.

Where Are the Data

As a further look at the performance and underperformance of Richmond’s elementary schools, here is the range of 2015 pass rates on the reading tests.

image

Here we see Carver and Fairfield Court outperforming (we’ll deal with Munford below) while Woodville underperforms at an unconscionable level.  In the meantime, the charter school, Patrick Henry, is in the middle of the pack.

The math scores paint a similar picture except that Cary joins the outperformers and Patrick Henry sinks to the bottom third.

image

The Fall membership data from VDOE tell us that Munford, the green point, is blessed with a large population of more affluent kids while the other leaders, blue with Carver to the left, are not. 

image

Woodville, with 79% economically disadvantaged students, is the orange point.

Here is the same graph for the math tests.  Cary joins the leaders as the left-hand blue point.

image

For sure, the economic status of the students does not explain these data.

Here is the dataset.

School Name

% ED

Reading

Math

Bellevue Elementary

61%

64%

73%

Blackwell Elementary

53%

53%

66%

Broad Rock Elementary

70%

81%

83%

Chimborazo Elementary

68%

50%

57%

E.S.H. Greene Elementary

73%

55%

71%

Elizabeth D. Redd Elementary

68%

63%

68%

Fairfield Court Elementary

84%

88%

90%

G.H. Reid Elementary

65%

49%

51%

George Mason Elementary

81%

43%

61%

George W. Carver Elementary

71%

98%

97%

Ginter Park Elementary

58%

63%

79%

J.B. Fisher Elementary

42%

83%

90%

J.E.B. Stuart Elementary

69%

72%

80%

J.L. Francis Elementary

68%

59%

69%

John B. Cary Elementary

69%

72%

93%

Linwood Holton Elementary

29%

74%

69%

Mary Munford Elementary

11%

90%

91%

Miles Jones Elementary

70%

61%

70%

Oak Grove/Bellemeade Elementary

75%

41%

56%

Overby-Sheppard Elementary

68%

48%

62%

Patrick Henry School Of Science And Arts

31%

67%

65%

Southampton Elementary

54%

73%

75%

Swansboro Elementary

69%

52%

51%

Westover Hills Elementary

64%

53%

68%

William Fox Elementary

16%

85%

82%

Woodville Elementary

79%

29%

30%

The data do raise some questions:

  • Where is VDOE?  Where is their study that explains the over- and under- and mediocre-performance of these schools?  What are they doing to transmit that information to the other schools?
  • Carver and Fairfield and Cary (in math) are doing something right (or cheating extravagantly); what is it and why are the other schools not doing it?
  • Patrick Henry has absorbed a lot of money and energy but is not getting results.  What is wrong there?
  • Where are the Woodville parents?  Why are they not at the School Board every meeting to demand that RPS stop abusing their kids?
  • Where is VCU?  To date, their major “contributions” have been a study to validate the VGLA that, upon examination, is a whitewash and the hiring of Richmond’s failed Superintendent as an Associate Professor in “Educational Leadership.”  Perhaps they could do something constructive for a change.

A Tale of Two Schools

The Wall Street Journal this morning (Paywall!  If this link does not work, try Google and “tale of two schools one building”) has a tale of a charter and public school sharing a building and challenging student populations in New York.  The success of the charter, if real, is astounding.

All of which raises the question why our own Patrick Henry is not doing better.

image

image

And, for that matter, what are Carver and Fairfield Court doing to achieve such excellent results?

 

Note added later in the day: Jim Bacon makes the point that the mediocre performance at PH is not an argument against charter schools: “The idea of charter schools is to foster experimentation. Not all experiments succeed. But you don’t know if a new approach will work until you try it. The good thing about charter schools is that if they fail and lose support, they will shut down. Conventional public schools are a monopoly.”

I’ll concede that, but real value is there only if somebody investigates and finds out why PH is not doing better.  Given the generally lousy state of RPS, the PH experiment should be charmed.

Yet another interesting issue is the superb results coming from Carver and Fairfield.  Either there is something VERY good going on there (with two of the most challenging populations in the City) or they have perfected cheating on the SOLs.  I wonder whether an independent look at those schools might teach RPS a thing or two.

Disbursements vs. Economic Disadvantage

Cleaning up the files from the examination (here also) of SOL performance vs. disbursements and percentage of economically disadvantaged students, I noticed that there’s room to look for another correlation: disbursements vs. economic disadvantage.

Recalling that the disbursements here are 2014 data (2015 data won’t be out until they are almost stale), and do not include facilities, debt, and contingency, the result is:

image

The fitted line suggests that a 10% increase in the population of economically disadvantaged students is associated with an increased disbursement of $311 per student, but the R2 of 4.7% suggests a very weak correlation.  Richmond is the gold square.

At first glance, it appears that the high-priced divisions might be increasing the slope.  Removing the divisions >$15,000 (Arlington, Highland, Greensville, Alexandria, Surry, Falls Church, Bath, Sussex, and Charlottesville) gives this:

image

The slope decreases only slightly to $276 per 10% and the R2 doubles. 

For sure, some divisions with large numbers of economically disadvantaged students are not spending much money on their schools.  But Richmond is not one of those divisions.

Here are the data:

Division Name

%ED

$/ADM

Reading

Math

Accomack County

59%

 $10,486

71.5%

74.5%

Albemarle County

28%

 $12,478

79.8%

77.3%

Alexandria City

57%

 $18,151

70.8%

68.8%

Alleghany County

54%

 $11,109

74.5%

72.5%

Amelia County

41%

 $10,117

73.0%

74.8%

Amherst County

56%

 $10,739

77.2%

78.1%

Appomattox County

46%

 $  8,964

81.8%

77.6%

Arlington County

34%

 $20,028

86.3%

87.4%

Augusta County

37%

 $  9,554

75.3%

81.3%

Bath County

46%

 $17,376

82.4%

79.7%

Bedford County

40%

 $  9,560

80.3%

74.8%

Bland County

38%

 $10,475

79.2%

72.3%

Botetourt County

23%

 $10,644

88.5%

89.4%

Bristol City

67%

 $11,416

77.4%

81.4%

Brunswick County

73%

 $11,466

68.7%

57.5%

Buchanan County

64%

 $11,406

73.9%

73.0%

Buckingham County

65%

 $11,421

70.3%

77.8%

Buena Vista City

48%

 $  9,963

65.8%

54.2%

Campbell County

44%

 $  9,643

78.6%

79.2%

Caroline County

50%

 $  9,379

72.5%

68.8%

Carroll County

57%

 $10,745

79.8%

77.7%

Charles City County

59%

 $13,849

69.8%

64.2%

Charlotte County

61%

 $11,983

77.8%

82.0%

Charlottesville City

57%

 $16,503

77.3%

76.6%

Chesapeake City

37%

 $10,885

81.0%

85.0%

Chesterfield County

30%

 $  8,972

81.7%

81.8%

Clarke County

20%

 $10,617

78.0%

78.5%

Colonial Beach

67%

 $11,558

77.3%

71.0%

Colonial Heights City

46%

 $12,552

81.9%

82.7%

Covington City

44%

 $11,554

76.2%

77.2%

Craig County

50%

 $10,484

84.4%

87.5%

Culpeper County

46%

 $  9,633

75.7%

81.8%

Cumberland County

72%

 $11,315

62.2%

60.8%

Danville City

76%

 $11,214

65.8%

64.8%

Dickenson County

57%

 $11,095

75.6%

74.5%

Dinwiddie County

46%

 $  9,596

74.7%

69.5%

Essex County

70%

 $10,661

69.9%

67.0%

Fairfax County

26%

 $14,118

85.1%

83.5%

Falls Church City

7%

 $17,488

91.6%

89.8%

Fauquier County

24%

 $11,976

80.5%

79.8%

Floyd County

45%

 $  9,704

80.6%

80.1%

Fluvanna County

31%

 $  9,592

79.7%

81.9%

Franklin City

70%

 $13,846

70.0%

70.1%

Franklin County

43%

 $11,028

83.1%

80.0%

Frederick County

34%

 $10,619

74.9%

76.0%

Fredericksburg City

50%

 $12,989

76.2%

75.3%

Galax City

64%

 $10,629

78.7%

81.4%

Giles County

42%

 $  9,652

80.1%

81.3%

Gloucester County

39%

 $  9,965

83.2%

80.8%

Goochland County

26%

 $11,289

86.3%

83.8%

Grayson County

56%

 $12,340

76.8%

77.8%

Greene County

43%

 $  7,392

71.1%

77.9%

Greensville County

62%

 $18,232

63.5%

65.9%

Halifax County

58%

 $10,624

69.7%

70.7%

Hampton City

50%

 $10,724

72.5%

73.9%

Hanover County

15%

 $  9,309

85.5%

87.3%

Harrisonburg City

71%

 $12,222

67.0%

76.2%

Henrico County

40%

 $  9,405

76.8%

76.8%

Henry County

65%

 $10,041

74.3%

76.3%

Highland County

69%

 $19,685

80.4%

85.7%

Hopewell City

77%

 $11,085

64.8%

71.9%

Isle of Wight County

36%

 $  9,985

81.7%

85.0%

King and Queen County

60%

 $13,384

78.7%

78.0%

King George County

33%

 $  8,681

83.0%

77.5%

King William County

37%

 $10,087

79.6%

80.4%

Lancaster County

60%

 $12,496

65.6%

67.4%

Lee County

61%

 $10,722

78.0%

78.2%

Lexington City

13%

 $  9,114

83.5%

87.5%

Loudoun County

16%

 $12,552

87.0%

85.1%

Louisa County

44%

 $11,730

77.8%

80.6%

Lunenburg County

70%

 $10,254

71.8%

64.5%

Lynchburg City

57%

 $11,422

67.0%

64.1%

Madison County

40%

 $10,467

72.0%

75.8%

Manassas City

53%

 $12,934

71.9%

78.4%

Manassas Park City

60%

 $10,720

71.2%

75.7%

Martinsville City

77%

 $11,646

62.2%

58.5%

Mathews County

42%

 $10,905

78.6%

75.2%

Mecklenburg County

58%

 $  9,648

73.1%

74.1%

Middlesex County

48%

 $10,657

82.6%

85.8%

Montgomery County

37%

 $10,415

83.2%

82.1%

Nelson County

52%

 $13,042

75.0%

78.3%

New Kent County

19%

 $  9,337

84.5%

86.0%

Newport News City

63%

 $11,163

68.2%

71.0%

Norfolk City

66%

 $11,716

67.2%

72.2%

Northampton County

79%

 $13,107

65.4%

73.5%

Northumberland County

59%

 $11,645

75.4%

79.7%

Norton City

68%

 $  9,491

81.5%

78.5%

Nottoway County

63%

 $10,241

68.3%

71.1%

Orange County

39%

 $  9,750

80.3%

76.2%

Page County

50%

 $10,015

74.0%

75.9%

Patrick County

54%

 $  9,292

78.2%

82.6%

Petersburg City

60%

 $11,740

58.1%

57.0%

Pittsylvania County

53%

 $  9,064

79.3%

82.0%

Poquoson City

17%

 $  9,618

89.5%

86.6%

Portsmouth City

66%

 $10,767

72.3%

72.6%

Powhatan County

20%

 $10,094

83.1%

80.5%

Prince Edward County

63%

 $11,623

65.7%

69.7%

Prince George County

45%

 $  9,636

81.0%

79.7%

Prince William County

43%

 $10,490

80.9%

80.3%

Pulaski County

53%

 $10,314

77.2%

79.9%

Radford City

48%

 $  9,789

77.2%

70.9%

Rappahannock County

34%

 $13,869

75.9%

80.6%

Richmond City

63%

 $14,089

58.8%

62.1%

Richmond County

52%

 $11,049

78.9%

83.1%

Roanoke City

76%

 $12,447

72.0%

78.0%

Roanoke County

26%

 $  9,699

87.6%

88.2%

Rockbridge County

44%

 $10,712

77.4%

81.4%

Rockingham County

40%

 $10,478

81.5%

87.0%

Russell County

55%

 $  9,637

84.3%

76.9%

Salem City

26%

 $11,156

85.5%

87.6%

Scott County

54%

 $  9,428

83.8%

86.8%

Shenandoah County

47%

 $10,040

71.8%

76.3%

Smyth County

56%

 $  9,958

77.8%

74.1%

Southampton County

48%

 $10,353

77.4%

85.4%

Spotsylvania County

40%

 $10,153

78.4%

79.5%

Stafford County

22%

 $10,020

82.7%

84.4%

Staunton City

51%

 $11,683

74.4%

72.6%

Suffolk City

48%

 $  9,848

73.7%

75.2%

Surry County

65%

 $18,047

74.4%

80.5%

Sussex County

70%

 $16,842

72.4%

75.0%

Tazewell County

50%

 $  9,287

83.9%

84.0%

Virginia Beach City

39%

 $10,807

83.3%

83.7%

Warren County

45%

 $  9,390

77.6%

75.9%

Washington County

52%

 $10,579

84.1%

85.1%

Waynesboro City

63%

 $10,995

71.2%

68.8%

West Point

33%

 $11,127

93.8%

95.1%

Westmoreland County

61%

 $11,198

69.9%

75.5%

Williamsburg-James City County

30%

 $  5,931

83.6%

85.4%

Winchester City

52%

 $12,424

71.6%

73.6%

Wise County

57%

 $10,191

86.8%

92.7%

Wythe County

47%

 $  9,683

79.1%

76.3%

York County

19%

 $10,070

87.8%

89.0%

Dropout and Graduation Datasets

James Weigand of Lynchburg points out that I haven’t posted the complete dropout and graduation datasets.  Let’s see if I can fix that.

At the threshold, recall that the data for Richmond and some other divisions are inflated by inclusion of results from the Governor’s schools.  With that caveat, here, first, are the divisions with the lowest 2015 cohort dropout rates.

Division DO Rate
Charles City County 0
Falls Church City 0
King and Queen County 0
Clarke County 0.6
Page County 0.7
Radford City 0.8
Poquoson City 1
Orange County 1.1
New Kent County 1.2
West Point 1.6
Williamsburg-James City County 1.6
   
State 5.2

And here are those with the highest.

Division DO Rate
Hopewell City 13.3
Brunswick County 11.9
Richmond City 11.8
Alexandria City 11.6
Dickenson County 11.5
Fredericksburg City 11.5
Nottoway County 10.9
Roanoke City 10.3
Franklin City 10.1
Covington City 10
   
State 5.2

VDOE posts its inflated On-Time Graduation Index in the cohort reports.  I’ve calculated the Federal Graduation Indicator, which counts only standard diplomas, from the raw cohort data.  Here, first, are the divisions with the highest rates.

Division FGI
West Point 98.4
Falls Church City 97.6
Page County 96.0
Greene County 95.7
Norton City 94.8
Loudoun County 94.0
Clarke County 94.0
Poquoson City 93.8
York County 93.0
King George County 92.8
   
State 86.7

And here is the other end of the list.

Division FGI
Petersburg City 59.5
Covington City 70.0
Richmond City 70.6
Dinwiddie County 71.7
Danville City 74.2
Alexandria City 74.6
Sussex County 74.7
Lee County 75.1
Tazewell County 75.7
Franklin City 75.9
   
State 86.7

Finally, here is the complete list, alphabetical by division.  Highland County is absent because the numbers were too small to report.

Division DO Rate FGI
Accomack County 6.4 85.6
Albemarle County 2.3 91.6
Alexandria City 11.6 74.6
Alleghany County 5.6 83.1
Amelia County 6.2 86.2
Amherst County 4.6 83.7
Appomattox County 3.8 90.8
Arlington County 4.2 88.3
Augusta County 4.7 88.1
Bath County 2.2 78.3
Bedford County 5 84.9
Bland County 3.7 88.9
Botetourt County 2.2 92.3
Bristol City 3.6 78.4
Brunswick County 11.9 76.3
Buchanan County 4.1 86.2
Buckingham County 3.9 87.0
Buena Vista City 8.4 78.9
Campbell County 3.7 85.3
Caroline County 6.2 78.4
Carroll County 7.9 86.0
Charles City County 0 86.0
Charlotte County 5.1 81.5
Charlottesville City 9.5 78.0
Chesapeake City 3.2 87.9
Chesterfield County 6 88.8
Clarke County 0.6 94.0
Colonial Beach 7 90.7
Colonial Heights City 5.6 85.0
Covington City 10 70.0
Craig County 7.1 85.7
Culpeper County 4.7 87.7
Cumberland County 8.1 90.1
Danville City 9.9 74.2
Dickenson County 11.5 78.8
Dinwiddie County 7.4 71.7
Essex County 4.2 83.1
Fairfax County 5.6 89.8
Falls Church City 0 97.6
Fauquier County 2.2 89.5
Floyd County 4.4 90.4
Fluvanna County 3.3 89.2
Franklin City 10.1 75.9
Franklin County 5.9 83.4
Frederick County 3.5 89.8
Fredericksburg City 11.5 79.1
Galax City 2.9 87.4
Giles County 5.6 83.6
Gloucester County 3.6 90.8
Goochland County 3.7 92.5
Grayson County 7.9 81.6
Greene County 2.4 95.7
Greensville County 5.3 80.6
Halifax County 6.2 78.8
Hampton City 5.1 82.6
Hanover County 3.4 91.8
Harrisonburg City 3.8 85.7
Henrico County 5.4 85.3
Henry County 5.7 84.0
Hopewell City 13.3 76.5
Isle of Wight County 2.5 89.1
King and Queen County 0 89.1
King George County 2.2 92.8
King William County 3.7 84.0
Lancaster County 4.9 80.5
Lee County 8.7 75.1
Loudoun County 2.2 94.0
Louisa County 7 89.6
Lunenburg County 6.7 81.0
Lynchburg City 7.1 77.4
Madison County 2.7 89.7
Manassas City 7.9 82.2
Manassas Park City 8.7 85.0
Martinsville City 7 76.4
Mathews County 2.6 86.0
Mecklenburg County 4 87.3
Middlesex County 4.3 92.6
Montgomery County 7 85.2
Nelson County 6.3 78.3
New Kent County 1.2 90.6
Newport News City 2.8 86.4
Norfolk City 5.8 76.9
Northampton County 9.3 76.3
Northumberland County 1.8 90.8
Norton City 1.7 94.8
Nottoway County 10.9 78.7
Orange County 1.1 86.8
Page County 0.7 96.0
Patrick County 5.6 85.9
Petersburg City 8.3 59.5
Pittsylvania County 6.4 87.7
Poquoson City 1 93.8
Portsmouth City 4.8 81.4
Powhatan County 3.5 90.9
Prince Edward County 9.7 80.0
Prince George County 9.2 82.6
Prince William County 5.9 87.7
Pulaski County 4.9 79.8
Radford City 0.8 86.8
Rappahannock County 2.7 90.4
Richmond City 11.8 70.6
Richmond County 3.7 90.2
Roanoke City 10.3 77.3
Roanoke County 3.1 91.4
Rockbridge County 5.6 87.3
Rockingham County 4.6 88.6
Russell County 4.7 88.2
Salem City 2.6 91.3
Scott County 3 90.0
Shenandoah County 2 90.6
Smyth County 4.7 89.0
Southampton County 5.7 83.0
Spotsylvania County 4.7 88.4
Stafford County 4.4 91.0
Staunton City 3.7 91.0
Suffolk City 9.5 83.4
Surry County 3.8 82.1
Sussex County 4.8 74.7
Tazewell County 7.6 75.7
Virginia Beach City 5.3 86.6
Warren County 2.6 87.9
Washington County 3.1 90.2
Waynesboro City 7.8 77.2
West Point 1.6 98.4
Westmoreland County 6.6 80.2
Williamsburg-James City County 1.6 89.5
Winchester City 2.1 87.5
Wise County 5.9 86.3
Wythe County 5.4 87.8
York County 3.6 93.0
     
State 5.2 86.7