Gone. Forgotten. For Shame!

The 2016 4-year cohort dropout data are up at VDOE.  The only good thing about the Richmond datum, 9.9% dropouts, is that it’s less than last year’s 11.9%.

Here is the distribution of division dropout rates.

image

Richmond is the gold bar.  The red bars are, from the left, Petersburg, Norfolk, Hampton, and Newport News.  The blue, with a hat tip to Jim Weigand, is Lynchburg.  Charles City is an invisible 0% over at the right.

And here are those selected divisions and the state average.

image

That 9.9% in Richmond counts the 146 kids, out of the 1,472 student cohort, whom the Richmond schools utterly failed to educate. 

But see this on the subject of the students who did not drop out and were left to marinate in the incompetence of RPS. 

Teacher Truancy, II

The 2014 data from the Feds showed Richmond with the ninth worst Virginia division record of teacher absences >10 days, excluding days for professional development. 

The Richmond data by school ranged from surprisingly high to astronomically high:

The 2014 RPS budget did not break out Richmond’s expenditures for substitutes; the 2015 budget showed $101.8 million for “instr. class staff” and $4.104 million (3.9% of the “instr.” budget) for “n-substitute instr prof.”

Today I checked the 2017 adopted budget.  It shows:

clip_image001

The 2015 actual expenditure for substitutes came to 5.6%, well beyond the budgeted 3.9%. 

As well, the budget for FY 17 shows 4.2% for substitutes (going up, it seems).  

Of course, I’ve filed a FOIA request to see what our Superintendent has been doing to reduce this waste of taxpayer funds.

Teacher Non-Evaluation

The National Council on Teacher Quality has a state-by-state evaluation of teacher evaluations.  Their analysis flunks Virginia’s implementation of the (statutory) requirement for use of objective measures of student growth as part of the teacher evaluation system.

image

(Note citation to Vermont).

In fact, that understates the weakness of the Virginia system.

The Virginia requirement in Va. Code § 22.1-253.13:5 is

Evaluations shall include student academic progress as a significant component and an overall summative rating.

According to the Board of Education, “Student Academic Progress” supposedly accounts for 40% of the evaluation.  But the Board’s “performance indicators” dilute that beyond recognition:

image

Nowhere in “sets . . . goals,” “documents . . . progress,” “provides evidence,” or “uses . . . data” do the guidelines say that the teacher shall be evaluated based on how much the students learn. 

This is important because experience teaches us that teacher evaluations that are not firmly grounded in objective data are inflated and meaningless:

  • In the 2011 the statewide report of teacher evaluations (the only such report), three of 7,257 ratings were “unsatisfactory” and forty-nine were “needs improvement.”  All the rest were “meets” or “exceeds” expectations.
  • In twelve of the Richmond schools denied accreditation this year, four of 444 (0.9%) teachers were rated “unacceptable” and 32 (7.2%), “developing/needs improvement.”  That is, only 8.1% of the teachers in these schools that had failed accreditation for four years running were less than “proficient.”

For a more detailed analysis of the Board’s feckless evasion of the law, see this.

Can You Spell “Ripoff”?

The annual CPI increase from 2014 to 2015 was 0.12%; the mid-year increase from 2015 to 2016 was 1.07%; extrapolated from the first six months of this year, it will be 1.68% in 2016.  The average increase in mandatory non-educational and general fees at our state colleges and universities for the upcoming year is 4.2%, ranging from zero in the Community College System to 8% at Mary Washington.

image

Details are in the SCHEV report here.

Reedy Creek Boondoggle

The City is planning to waste your tax money on a “restoration” project that won’t do any good.

Reedy Creek rises near Chippenham Hospital; it flows through Forest Hill park and into the James. 

The concrete channel built to control the flooding of and near Midlo Turnpike (esp. in front of the Evergreen plant) has led to high stormwater flows that erode the banks downstream.  The City now plans to spend $1.27 million of your and my tax money to create a new floodplain on the City property across Crutchfield St. from Wythe High School to reduce erosion there. 

The Reedy Creek Coalition lists five major reasons for opposing the project.  Their #4 should settle the issue: The money won’t do any good.

Apparently the DEQ bureaucrat who approved the City’s application for grant funds is a recent ComeHere.  Anybody who has lived in Richmond for more than a few years knows that the City already spent $1.4 million to restore the Forest Hill Park lake that is downstream of this project.  The renovation included a silt capture system , actually two forebays:

“A forebay is basically a hole. It’s a settlement hole where the silt will kind of build up. We will be able to clear it out with a Bobcat and haul it off and it will fill up again. So the process will be able to continue. But it will not affect the lake so that the citizens’ investment that they have in the lake will certainly be safeguarded,” said Richmond Parks deputy director Roslyn Johnson.

The City’s grant application to DEQ calculates that the new project will remove 150 lbs/yr of phosphorus and 98,736 lbs/yr of sediment.  The calculation entirely overlooks the two forebays that already are removing most of this and other sediment and the attached phosphorus.

So the City wants to spend $1.27 million to solve a problem that it already has solved.

And they want Chesapeake Bay TMDL credits for removing pollutants that are NOT entering the river.

Can you spell “boondoggle”?

SAT Update

RPS has just posted the 2015 SAT data.  Here are the reading scores by school back to 2010, along with the division averages and the Virginia averages.

image

And here are the math scores.

image

I’ve included the available data points for Maggie Walker (the 2010 data are from an RPS post; 2014, from Jeff McGee at MLW); of course, MLW is not a Richmond public school, albeit VDOE reports the SOL scores of MLW students at the high schools (that those students do not attend) in those students home districts.

To provide some context, here are the 2014 (presumably; they were posted on 12/20/14) 25th and 75th percentile scores of the students admitted to Virginia public colleges, along with the 2014 Virginia and Richmond averages. 

image

image

Here is (part of) what the Web page has to say about what the percentiles mean:

Understanding these numbers is important when you plan how many colleges to apply to, and when you figure out which schools are a reach, a match, or a safety. If your scores are below the 25th percentile numbers, you should consider the school a reach. Note that this does not mean you won’t get in — remember that 25% of students who enroll have a score that is at or below that lower number.

For sure, averages v. percentiles is an apples and pomegranates comparison.  That said, the Virginia reading average is between to the 25th percentiles at VMI and Christopher Newport; Richmond is 95 points lower than that state average; for math, the Virginia average is between the 25th percentiles at VCU and VMI while Richmond is 102 points lower.

Westover Hills Elementary: Glass Half Full?

The Winter edition of the Forest Hill Flyer (not yet posted to the Association Web site) had an interesting piece regarding the new (since 2011) Principal at Westover Hills, Virginia Loving, and her project to “make it a neighborhood school.” 

I’ll leave it to someone with more direct knowledge to assess the other effects of Ms. Loving’s outreach; I turn to the results on the VDOE Web site from the statewide testing program under the SOLs.

First, I should note that Principal Loving came in at a particularly difficult time: VDOE promulgated a new, tougher set of math tests in 2012 and reading tests in 2013 that clobbered the pass rates statewide (data here for all tested grades). 

image

Unfortunately, our former Superintendent did not prepare the Division for the new tests.  The lack of preparation exacerbated the score drop here.

image

You might also recall that Richmond’s elementary schools on average perform ten points or more below the state average (but stratospherically above our middle schools).

image

That said, the SOL performance at Westover Hills has been decidedly mixed.

On the math tests, WH was scoring near the (unacceptable) Richmond average before 2012.  The new tests hit even harder at WH than the at the district average.  But WH recovered more quickly than the Richmond average (data for grades 3-5).

image

That is, under Principal Loving, WH took an unusually big hit from the new math tests but since has been showing signs of improvement.

I’ve included the data for Patrick Henry, which is nearby and might be viewed as a neighborhood school.  PH was hit even harder by the new tests and recovered only to about the (awful) Richmond average.

The reading scores reveal a more troubled situation.  WH again was performing at about the Richmond average.  After the new test plunge in 2013, Richmond scores improved but the WH scores continued to decline.  This  is not good news for the school or for the children who attend it.  (Again, data for grades 3-5).

image

Patrick Henry started higher and dropped to the state average, but then continued also to drop. 

For what they may communicate, here are the combined (reading + math) pass rates.

image

Seems to me the neighborhood outreach could be more effective if the teaching, especially of reading, were improved. 

Of course, VDOE has been obtaining SGP data that would tell us which of the Westover Hills teachers are, or are not, effective, so Principal Loving (and the neighborhood) would have data that directly measure teacher performance.  Unfortunately, VODE is concealing the data they already have and now is abandoning the SGP entirely.  This is fully consistent with VDOE’s actual function, which is to be the Department of Data Suppression.

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