Five Kinds of Failure

Following up on Jim Weigand’s five-subject SOL averages (average of the pass rates in Reading, Writing, History & SS, Math, and Science), I again unleashed Excel’s pivot table on the VDOE database

As before, here are the five-subject averages for Charles City, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, and Richmond by year, along with the average of division averages (as opposed to the state average pass rates in the earlier post).

image

And here are the same data, expressed as the difference between the Division average and the average of divisions.

image

One further measure of Richmond’s dismal performance: Here are the rankings of the 132 division averages by year (132 is the lowest possible rank).

image

Your tax dollars at “work.”

Damaged in Transit Thru RPS

I finally got around to updating the SOL page on crankytaxpayer.org and was reminded that we now have outcome data beyond just the graduation and dropout rates.

These Federal data are part of USDOE’s reporting requirements under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.  Inter alia, Virginia must report the numbers of students in the cohort who, having graduated with a regular diploma, enter a public, private, or 2-year college or university (Institution of Higher Education, “IHE” in FederalSpeak) within sixteen months of graduation.  Here are the data for the 4-year cohort graduating in 2014, expressed as a percentage of the cohort:

sol_sc13

I trust you got that: Even with Richmond’s reporting of Maggie Walker students at schools they don’t attend (you can be sure those MLW kids will graduate and do well afterward: average SAT scores in 2013 were 713 verbal, 692 math; average scholarship offer was $72,000 per student; SOL pass rate 100%), the diploma graduates of RPS are much less successful than the state norm at getting into public universities and community colleges. 

Then we have the 2012 high school graduates who enrolled in a Virginia IHE within sixteen months of graduation and who completed at least one year’s worth of college credit applicable to a degree within two years of enrollment in the IHE.

sol_sc4

One can only conclude that Richmond is giving diplomas to a number of students who would not receive them in other divisions. 

Your tax dollars at “work.”

It’s Dismal Here in the Basement

Jim Weigand, who likes to look at the five subject average pass rate (Reading, Writing, History & SS, Math, and Science) sends along Richmond’s rank on that scale by year:

image

Given that the data are readily available I thought I’d also plot the actual five subject averages pass rates for Richmond and some comparable old, urban jurisdictions (and our neighbor Charles City County).

image

Those data are perhaps more accessible expressed as differences from the State average.

image

We can thank our former Superintendent for the recent deterioration of our already substandard performance.

Dollars But Not Scholars

I earlier demonstrated that division expenditure per student does not correlate with division SOL pass rate in reading or math.

Jim Weigand of Lynchburg points out that VDOE prepares an annual report on each division’s “expenditures and appropriations designated to meet their required local effort in support of the Standards of Quality.”  The 2015 report is not yet out so the available data are 2014.  Jim juxtaposed those data the excess expenditure reported there with the 2014 five-subject (Reading, Writing, History & SS, Math, and Science) average pass rate.  Here is the result:

image

The fitted line might suggest that pass rate increases by 2.7% for a doubling of the required local effort but the R2 tells us that the correlation is minuscule.

The gold square is Richmond.  For Jim’s interest, the yellow diamond is Lynchburg.  The red diamonds are, from the left Hampton, Norfolk, and Newport News.

The average excess RLE is 84.  The Big Spender out there at 221% excess RLE with the 63% pass rate is Sussex; the next Big Spender at 218% excess RLE with the 91% pass rate is West Point.

Here are the data.  Accomack is missing for lack of a spending report.

5 Subject Avg. SOL Rank Excess RLE Rank
Albemarle County  80.17% 25 140.25% 12
Alexandria City  68.76% 109 183.58% 4
Alleghany County  70.25% 104 180.40% 5
Amelia County  73.02% 88 44.58% 106
Amherst County  75.47% 67 94.26% 51
Appomattox County  77.00% 49 15.34% 127
Arlington County  84.12% 10 193.87% 3
Augusta County  76.36% 54 77.48% 67
Bath County  77.60% 43 118.81% 28
Bedford County  75.35% 70 87.24% 57
Bland County  75.21% 72 38.08% 112
Botetourt County  84.78% 6 132.86% 19
Bristol City  76.59% 23 44.94% 104
Brunswick County  63.99% 125 17.81% 126
Buchanan County  67.65% 111 73.69% 71
Buckingham County  71.86% 94 37.03% 113
Buena Vista City  64.64% 122 63.02% 91
Campbell County  75.97% 58 112.60% 30
Caroline County  71.78% 95 36.65% 114
Carroll County  76.01% 57 102.29% 39
Charles City County  77.73% 42 95.38% 49
Charlotte County  77.04% 48 34.84% 116
Charlottesville City  75.57% 64 154.45% 9
Chesapeake City  81.47% 18 114.57% 29
Chesterfield County  79.41% 31 82.30% 62
Clarke County  77.50% 45 101.54% 52
Colonial Beach  64.00% 124 64.95% 85
Colonial Heights City  79.54% 30 171.97% 7
Covington City  71.32% 97 152.31% 10
Craig County  74.41% 78 39.00% 110
Culpeper County  75.39% 69 60.11% 92
Cumberland County  66.77% 115 69.99% 77
Danville City  65.36% 120 88.81% 54
Dickenson County  74.09% 80 63.43% 89
Dinwiddie County  71.94% 93 70.52% 76
Essex County  63.21% 126 49.29% 100
Fairfax County  84.02% 11 127.86% 22
Falls Church City  91.10% 1 170.65% 8
Fauquier County  79.24% 33 112.23% 31
Floyd County  75.95% 60 45.87% 102
Fluvanna County  77.52% 44 65.86% 83
Franklin City  59.36% 131 129.24% 21
Franklin County  81.99% 17 64.35% 88
Frederick County  75.54% 65 124.29% 23
Fredericksburg City  74.36% 79 134.11% 18
Galax City  74.69% 75 70.74% 75
Giles County  76.71% 52 43.03% 108
Gloucester County  77.27% 47 98.21% 46
Goochland County  83.94% 12 59.77% 93
Grayson County  72.39% 90 38.09% 111
Greene County  73.62% 83 73.40% 73
Greensville County  67.45% 112 27.61% 121
Halifax County  67.78% 110 34.36% 117
Hampton City  70.83% 101 88.31% 56
Hanover County  84.36% 7 58.92% 94
Harrisonburg City  71.17% 100 102.25% 40
Henrico County  77.94% 39 69.50% 79
Henry County  74.00% 81 39.17% 109
Highland County  66.24% 117 23.29% 124
Hopewell City  67.25% 113 73.16% 74
Isle of Wight County  81.38% 19 68.85% 80
King and Queen County  70.30% 103 73.63% 72
King George County  77.88% 40 53.80% 98
King William County  78.66% 36 100.45% 44
Lancaster County  62.39% 128 77.00% 68
Lee County  74.90% 74 9.93% 130
Lexington City  83.32% 14 52.26% 99
Loudoun County  86.03% 4 138.33% 14
Louisa County  79.26% 32 69.69% 77
Lunenburg County  69.29% 108 24.07% 123
Lynchburg City  64.39% 123 103.34% 37
Madison County  72.18% 92 136.20% 16
Manassas City  71.38% 96 172.35% 6
Manassas Park City  71.20% 99 102.57% 38
Martinsville City  59.78% 130 111.14% 32
Mathews County  76.74% 51 58.44% 95
Mecklenburg County  66.65% 116 29.19% 119
Middlesex County  80.71% 23 35.60% 115
Montgomery County  78.83% 34 79.77% 66
Nelson County  78.53% 37 101.51% 43
New Kent County  80.90% 21 81.64% 64
Newport News City  66.85% 114 110.30% 33
Norfolk City  65.94% 118 90.52% 52
Northampton County  65.29% 121 31.46% 118
Northumberland County  77.28% 46 56.26% 96
Norton City  78.01% 38 47.40% 101
Nottoway County  70.15% 105 27.39% 122
Orange County  76.35% 56 63.27% 90
Page County  73.43% 85 64.59% 87
Patrick County  74.44% 77 11.02% 129
Petersburg City  57.64% 132 44.37% 107
Pittsylvania County  78.76% 35 22.77% 125
Poquoson City  86.21% 3 97.70% 47
Portsmouth City  69.40% 107 85.72% 58
Powhatan County  82.01% 16 107.65% 35
Prince Edward County  65.42% 119 95.62% 48
Prince George County  79.95% 27 45.02% 103
Prince William County  79.81% 29 98.56% 45
Pulaski County  74.92% 73 65.25% 84
Radford City  75.41% 68 83.96% 60
Rappahannock County  76.85% 50 76.17% 70
Richmond City  59.84% 129 90.30% 53
Richmond County  75.93% 61 76.54% 69
Roanoke City  71.21% 98 132.74% 20
Roanoke County  85.33% 5 103.62% 36
Rockbridge County  75.48% 66 82.02% 63
Rockingham County  79.99% 26 138.87% 13
Russell County  75.58% 63 29.03% 120
Salem City  83.35% 13 142.76% 11
Scott County  80.75% 22 13.33% 128
Shenandoah County  75.58% 62 84.78% 59
Smyth County  73.86% 82 44.66% 105
Southampton County  73.52% 84 68.22% 81
Spotsylvania County  76.35% 55 120.89% 26
Stafford County  81.24% 20 123.97% 24
Staunton City  73.13% 87 88.40% 55
Suffolk City  72.75% 89 66.41% 82
Surry County  73.16% 86 136.52% 15
Sussex County  62.89% 127 221.04% 1
Tazewell County  77.87% 41 8.84% 131
Virginia Beach City  79.85% 28 120.91% 25
Warren County  75.97% 59 83.74% 61
Washington County  80.71% 23 108.98% 34
Waynesboro City  70.40% 102 120.38% 27
West Point  90.97% 2 217.53% 2
Westmoreland County  69.96% 106 54.40% 97
Williamsburg-James City County  82.58% 15 94.36% 50
Winchester City  74.62% 76 134.37% 17
Wise County  84.27% 9 101.67% 41
Wythe County  75.25% 71 64.87% 86
York County  84.33% 8 80.51% 65

Middle School Mess

The VDOE database is glad to produce pass rates by grade. 

We must view these numbers with some caution.  The high school pass rates are boosted by inclusion of the Maggie Walker students who live in Richmond, albeit Walker is not a Richmond public school.  They still are giving the notorious VGLA to LEP students in grades 3-8 (albeit it’s now graded by the state, not the local schools). 

Here, then, are the pass rates for the 2015 reading tests for Richmond and the State. 

image

And here are the pass rates on the math tests.

image

We can simplify the pictures by taking the difference between the Richmond and state pass rates.

image

So we see the elementary schools underperforming, the middle schools failing their students miserably, and the high schools a very mixed bag.

For sure, if RPS elects to attack the worst of the awful, they’ll start with the middle schools and eleventh grade reading.

Blarney à la Bedden

Carol Wolf has posted our Superintendent’s 2015 State of the Schools speech. 

After the introduction, the speech embraces the old, sad, false excuses for Richmond’s miserable performance:

  • A large percentage of students ages 0-17 live in poverty, 
  • More than 3 out of 4 students qualify for free/reduced lunch, 
  • 19% or put another way, over 4000 students receiving special education services, and
  • The growing ESL population, which has risen from 5% in the early 2000s to approximately 12% today.

 

Poverty Is Not the Problem

We already have seen that, while SOL pass rates certainly decline with increased poverty,

image

Richmond is grossly underperforming the other Virginia divisions with similar or higher poverty rates.

image

image

(Richmond is the gold points in the graphs above.)

 

Students with Disabilities Are Not the Problem Either

To see about the disabled students, let’s start with the reading pass rates by year:

image

Here we see Richmond’s students without disabilities consistently performing far below the state average for students without disabilities.  Then we see Richmond’s students with disabilities outperforming the state average for students with disabilities until the new reading tests in 2013, when the Richmond scores plummeted even more than the state average. 

We can tease out the magnitude of these effects by plotting the Richmond minus state pass rates.

image

In short, Richmond has since at least 2005 done a consistently lousy job teaching reading to its non-disabled students; since the new reading tests, Richmond has done a consistently lousy job teaching reading to all its students.

The math scores show a similar picture, except that the big drop came a year earlier with the new tests in 2012.

image

image

You might well pause to wonder how Richmond’s students with disabilities outperformed their peers statewide until the advent of the new tests.  I think it was because Richmond was abusing its disabled students to cheat on the VGLA

In any case, in light of the gross underperformance of Richmond’s students without disabilities, it is simply false to claim that the students with disabilities are the problem here.  The problem is lousy schools, period.

 

Nor Are LEP Students the Problem

Turning to limited English proficiency (“LEP”), here are the data.

image

image

The signal/noise ratio here is lower for the LEP students, perhaps because of the smaller sample sizes, but the general effect is clear: Since at least 2010, Richmond’s LEP students have been underperforming their peers statewide but, relative to their peers, they have been outperforming Richmond’s non-LEP students.  LEP students are not the problem here.

 

Richmond’s lousy schools are the problem

Thus, it is worse that than misleading to blame Richmond’s poor, its disabled, or its LEP students for Richmond’s awful SOL performance.  Richmond’s awful schools are the problem here.

And I foolishly thought this Superintendent might be better than to wallow in these false excuses that blame the kids for the system’s failures.

 

Indeed, Bedden Blew His Best Chance

Superintendent Bedden had his chance to shine.  His predecessor failed to align the Richmond curricula with the new math and reading tests.  2015 was his first full year with newly aligned curricula.  He did not shine: In 2015 his schools were second worst in the state on reading; sixth in math. 

image

image

Now he is making the old, false excuses. 

At least he still has a little room to sing the other pitiful, old refrain: “We’re doing better than Petersburg.”

image

image

. . . Garbage Out

I’ve already discussed VDOE’s byzantine, opaque process for “adjusting” pass rates to calculate accreditation status.  So, without further comment, and for whatever these numbers may mean, here is the distribution of Full accreditations by division.

image

Richmond is the yellow bar.  The red bars are, from the left, Petersburg, Norfolk, Newport News, and Hampton.  The blue bar is the state average.

VDOE invented several forms of “nearly pass” categories this year.  Here is a list of the categories that appear in this year’s database, along with the abbreviations I had to use to fit the table below on the page. 

Accreditation Denied Denied
Conditionally Accredited (New Schools) New School
Fully Accredited Full
Partially Accredited: Approaching Benchmark-GCI Close, GCI
Partially Accredited: Approaching Benchmark-Pass Rate Close, Pass Rate
Partially Accredited: Improving School-Pass Rate Improving, Pass Rate
Partially Accredited: Warned School-Pass Rate Warned, Improved Pass Rate
To Be Determined TBD

The complete list is here and the press release explaining the new categories is here.

Finally, here is the table, sorted by division.

  Denied New School Full Close, GCI Close, Pass Rate Improving Pass Rate Warned, Improved Pass Rate TBD Total % Full
Accomack County     8     2 1   11 73%
Albemarle County     19   1   6   26 73%
Alexandria City 1   12     2 1   16 75%
Alleghany County     4       1   5 80%
Amelia County     1   1 1     3 33%
Amherst County     7     1 2   10 70%
Appomattox County     4           4 100%
Arlington County   1 31           32 97%
Augusta County     14   1 1 4   20 70%
Bath County     2       1   3 67%
Bedford County     12       6 1 19 63%
Bland County     1   1       2 50%
Botetourt County     10       1   11 91%
Bristol City     4       2   6 67%
Brunswick County     2     1 2   5 40%
Buchanan County     7   1     1 9 78%
Buckingham County     1   1   2   4 25%
Buena Vista City             1 3 4 0%
Campbell County     12         1 13 92%
Caroline County     3       2   5 60%
Carroll County     7       2   9 78%
Charles City County     1       1   2 50%
Charlotte County     4       1   5 80%
Charlottesville City     9           9 100%
Chesapeake City     34   2 5 4   45 76%
Chesterfield County     52   1 3 5   61 85%
Clarke County     3     1     4 75%
Colonial Beach     2           2 100%
Colonial Heights City     5           5 100%
Covington City     2   1       3 67%
Craig County     2           2 100%
Culpeper County     7   1 1 1   10 70%
Cumberland County             3   3 0%
Danville City     3   1 1 5 1 11 27%
Dickenson County   2 1     1 1   5 20%
Dinwiddie County     5       1 1 7 71%
Essex County           1 1 1 3 0%
Fairfax County     177 1 2 3 9   192 92%
Falls Church City     4           4 100%
Fauquier County     17       2   19 89%
Floyd County     5           5 100%
Fluvanna County     5           5 100%
Franklin City     1         2 3 33%
Franklin County     16           16 100%
Frederick County     12   1 1 3 1 18 67%
Fredericksburg City     4           4 100%
Galax City     3           3 100%
Giles County     4       1   5 80%
Gloucester County   1 7           8 88%
Goochland County     5           5 100%
Grayson County     6       1   7 86%
Greene County     2   1   2   5 40%
Greensville County     1     1 2   4 25%
Halifax County     4     2 3   9 44%
Hampton City     12   4   8 5 29 41%
Hanover County     23           23 100%
Harrisonburg City     6     1 1   8 75%
Henrico County 1   45     3 17 1 67 67%
Henry County     11   2   1   14 79%
Highland County     1     1     2 50%
Hopewell City     1       4   5 20%
Isle of Wight County     8       1   9 89%
King and Queen County     3           3 100%
King George County     4     1     5 80%
King William County     4           4 100%
Lancaster County         1   2   3 0%
Lee County     8       2   10 80%
Lexington City     2           2 100%
Loudoun County   1 83   1   1   86 97%
Louisa County     5     1     6 83%
Lunenburg County     1       3   4 25%
Lynchburg City     3   1 1 8 3 16 19%
Madison County     2       2   4 50%
Manassas City     6   1 1     8 75%
Manassas Park City     3       1   4 75%
Martinsville City           1 3   4 0%
Mathews County     3           3 100%
Mecklenburg County     3   3   1 1 8 38%
Middlesex County     3           3 100%
Montgomery County     18       1   19 95%
Nelson County     3       1   4 75%
New Kent County     4           4 100%
Newport News City 3   15   2 6 9 3 38 39%
Norfolk City 4 1 17   2 4 10 7 45 38%
Northampton County 1   1     2     4 25%
Northumberland County     2   1       3 67%
Norton City     2           2 100%
Nottoway County     1     3 2   6 17%
Orange County     9           9 100%
Page County     4     1 3   8 50%
Patrick County     6     1     7 86%
Petersburg City 1   1       3 2 7 14%
Pittsylvania County     16     1 1   18 89%
Poquoson City     4           4 100%
Portsmouth City     11     2 4 2 19 58%
Powhatan County     6           6 100%
Prince Edward County     1       2   3 33%
Prince George County     6       2   8 75%
Prince William County   1 80   4 1 1 1 88 91%
Pulaski County     7       1   8 88%
Radford City     4           4 100%
Rappahannock County     2           2 100%
Richmond City 2 2 17     3 14 7 45 38%
Richmond County     2           2 100%
Roanoke City     15   1 3 5   24 63%
Roanoke County     26           26 100%
Rockbridge County     5       1   6 83%
Rockingham County     22   1       23 96%
Russell County     11       1   12 92%
Salem City     6           6 100%
Scott County     13           13 100%
Shenandoah County     5     1 3   9 56%
Smyth County     12       1   13 92%
Southampton County     5         1 6 83%
Spotsylvania County     27     1 1   29 93%
Stafford County     30           30 100%
State 13 9 1414 1 46 76 215 49 1823 78%
Staunton City     3     1   1 5 60%
Suffolk City     11     3 4 1 19 58%
Surry County     2     1     3 67%
Sussex County     2   1       3 67%
Tazewell County     15           15 100%
Virginia Beach City     73   3 1 3 2 82 89%
Warren County     6   1 1     8 75%
Washington County     14   1       15 93%
Waynesboro City     2       4   6 33%
West Point     3           3 100%
Westmoreland County     1     2 1   4 25%
Williamsburg-James City County     15           15 100%
Winchester City     5       1   6 83%
Wise County     12           12 100%
Wythe County     11       1   12 92%
York County     19           19 100%

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.