## 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:

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:

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.

(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.

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.

*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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

## 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.

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.

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

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:

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:

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.”

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.

Lynchburg, in contrast, has a reading average of 40.2

and a math average of 37.2.

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.

The Lynchburg pattern is somewhat different.

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

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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:

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%

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