Good school. Struggling school. All in the same district.

Grand Rapids Public Schools officials are rightly proud of the success of the district’s Coit Creative Arts Academy. The elementary school has seen its students overcome high poverty – nearly 9 in 10 are eligible for a subsidized lunch – to produce excellent test scores; and Coit ranks as one of Bridge Magazine’s 2014 Academic State Champs.

But despite Coit’s success, the district has other schools – with similar levels of student poverty – that performed poorly. Four schools were in the bottom quarter of elementary schools statewide in Bridge’s rankings, which measure academic performance while factoring in the impact of student family income. Five, including Coit, were in the top quarter.

The stark disparity in school performance within some districts was revealed in the new school-level analysis undertaken by Bridge this year, underscoring gaps that should grab the attention of parents and educators across the state.

Grand Rapids administrators are well aware of the differences among their 17 elementary schools, which they say are being addressed by a comprehensive overhaul the district began a year ago. Spokesman John Helmholdt said the district has already seen improvements.

“Our graduation rates and test scores are on the rise. We are restoring stability to the district and finally stopping the churn,” Helmholdt said. “But as the Bridge report demonstrates, we have a lot more work to do. We could make excuses about poverty, funding cuts, inequitable funding, and other X factors, but we won't.”

Grand Rapids isn’t the only district facing disparities. A number of the state’s largest districts, covering more than 300 schools, have some schools with State Champ-level scores and others among the poorest performing in the state. How a single district can produce schools of varying accomplishment isn’t always easy to determine, especially when its schools have similar poverty levels. Does one school have a huge population of newly arrived immigrants, for instance, who don’t have the language skills of students in neighboring schools? Is one school getting higher-performing teachers than another, or more teachers who are teaching outside their fields of expertise? Could a rock-star principal mean the difference?

The Detroit Public Schools, which has seen myriad efforts to revitalize its troubled schools, has traditionally gotten poor marks from Academic State Champs. As a group, the district’s elementary schools ranked 580th out of 653 districts in 2014.

But Bridge’s school-level analysis shows a more nuanced reality: Despite having 40 of its traditional public elementary schools mired in the bottom quarter of statewide achievement, eight Detroit elementaries are in the top quarter – inlcuding four Academic State Champs: Thirkell, Davison, Dixon and Chrysler. Six other DPS elementary schools are in the second highest-achieving quarter.

For a district often dismissed as dysfunctional, these high-performing Detroit schools – home to more than 4,000 students ‒ are succeeding. Finding the reasons for such successes successes (and failures) is important, particularly when the same district oversees examples of each. The reasons could be many: the nuances of poverty, the stability within students’ homes, how a school markets its strengths, even the distance parents are willing to send their children for school.

And often, the answer may be found in the principal’s office, said Armen Hratchian, vice president for K-12 systems with Excellent Schools Detroit, a nonprofit coalition that advocates for better schools in the city and offers school grades for parents.

“More important than systems are the people in and around the school,” Hratchian said. “Great schools have great leaders who build and support great teams. And they know how to build and sustain meaningful relationships with families and the community. It's hard to replicate.”

What gives

In districts across Michigan, the State Champs rankings offer one way of gauging school quality. State Champs accounts for the impact of one, very important measure – the level of student poverty – and compares how schools with students of similar socioeconomic backgrounds are doing. The analysis also shows broad differences among some schools, even when poverty levels are similar.

In the Kalamazoo schools, the Woodward School for Technology and Research and Northeastern Elementary both teach populations with poverty rates above 90 percent. But on state MEAP tests, Northeastern students perform better overall. In fourth-grade math in 2013, nearly 49 percent of Northeastern students were rated proficient by the state, compared with only 20 percent at Woodward. In fourth-grade writing, 28.6 percent of Northeastern students were proficient, compared with 14.3 percent at Woodward.

“They should be looking at the rankings, sure,” said Tim Bartik, a senior economist at W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research and a former member of the Kalamazoo school board, said of the questions these scores raise for Kalamazoo and other districts. But Bartik said that while student income levels are a key component of student achievement, the rankings may not tell the whole story.

“You should be looking at multiple measures,” he said. For instance, he noted that a number of children of Western Michigan University graduate students – who make so little they would meet the standards for a free or reduced-priced lunch – attend Kalamazoo schools. Though they may be poor, they live in households with other advantages: highly educated parents. So their scores may be higher than expected.

Bartik said parents trying to judge a school should look at test scores – but they should also be investigating the kindergarten classroom, and they should visit the principal’s office, which may offer other clues to a school’s success.

For Amber Arellano, executive director of the nonprofit Education Trust-Midwest, an education advocacy group, rankings like Bridge’s shouldn’t force parents to ask more questions. Her organization is calling for a better student assessment program at the state level so that administrators have the tools to discover what works and what does not. Part of those changes include a revamped student testing schedule that better measures student growth.

“It’s not the job of parents to do studies of what’s going on in schools,” she said. The burden for assessment, evaluation and accountability rests with the state. “That’s why it’s so important to do a better job in the role (the state) plays.”

In some school districts, differences in school performance can be great, even when the district overall is exceeding expectations. In the Bay City Public Schools, the average State Champs elementary school score was above average in 2014 compared with the elementary school performance of other districts in the state. Superintendent Doug Newcombe lauded his high-flying students, who have earned millions in college scholarships, but acknowledged that some schools need more help.
“We also have a number that are struggling and that bothers me,” he said. Three of the district’s elementary schools were in the top quarter statewide, one was in the bottom quarter.

To help those not doing as well, Bay City has put a number of programs in place to deal with students struggling academically. He said teachers and principals work together to identify those who may be struggling and engage them in some kind of intervention, whether it be inside or outside the classroom.

He said the district saw some success in such programs at three of its schools last year, including Washington Elementary, where more than 85 percent of students are eligible for a free or cut-price lunch. Proficiency levels there have mostly risen the last three years and the school was in the top quarter in the state.

“We made significant gains last year in helping special education and economically challenged students,” Newcombe said. “We're seeing these strategies working.”

Differences within districts can prompt questions, and reports like Academic State Champs and Excellent Schools Detroit’s scorecard provide parents with the necessary tools to ask them, Hratchian said.

“You’re empowering parents with really important information to choose a school, and also to engage in the improvement of their current school," he said. “And we think that matters."

MLive reporters Dominic Adams, Julie Mack and Andrew Dodson also contributed to this report.

Like what you’re reading in Bridge? Please consider a donation to support our work!

It takes time, money, and hard work to inform Michigan readers and leaders with substantive, in-depth, future-oriented news and analysis. If you value our journalism, please consider a one-time donation or a monthly contribution. It takes just a moment to donate here. Please join the thousands of Bridge readers who are helping grow and sustain our nonprofit, in-depth public service journalism in Michigan.

Pay with VISA Pay with MasterCard Pay with American Express Donate now

Comment Form

Add new comment

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Comments

Thu, 02/12/2015 - 9:55am
Mike: I don't recall arguing that graduate student parents could explain the Kalamazoo results, and I am doubtful that is the case. I do recall making the point that in national studies, it has sometimes been found that schools that "break the mold" -- have very high test scores even with high free and reduced lunch percentages -- have a lot of graduate students from schools such as Harvard and MIT. Perhaps we had some miscommunication in our interview. My broader point is that MANY factors other than simply the free and reduced price lunch percentage explain current test scores, and are outside the school's control and do not necessarily reflect school value-added. A complete study of school value-added should control at a minimum for: prior test scores; parental income in more detail than just whether the family is below 185% of the poverty line, the cutoff for FRL designation -- there is a big interest between two districts with the same FRL % if one district has many families at 50% of the poverty line, and the other has many families at 150% of the poverty line; parental education; family structure; family mobility, particularly across school districts; and more controversially, race, which in my opinion we should consider controlling for to reflect the historic and current reality of racism. Therefore, while I think the Bridge rankings are interesting, and people should look at them, I am skeptical as to whether they actually are a good measure of school value-added. The Bridge rankings are essentially the differential from the predicted regression line based on a crude proxy for district income levels, the FRL percent. The Bridge rankings represent what we can NOT explain in school test scores due to FRL %. It might be due to school value-added due to teacher quality and principal quality or curriculum quality. Or it might be due to many other factors that are outside the school's control. I suspect that a majority of the "unexplained" variation in school differentials that constitute these rankings is NOT due to school quality as the average parent or policymaker would understand the term "school quality", but rather is due to "other factors". The headline from the Bridge effort should NOT be these rankings, which represent what we can not explain in school performance. It should rather be on what we can explain, which shows the powerful effect of school FRL percentage on test scores. What implications does this finding have for education policy? What does it imply for what policy needs to do to equalize educational opportunity? I think the Bridge effort could also be used to show how sensitive rankings are to various methodological issues. What is the correlation between Bridge rankings that control for FRL %, and alternative rankings that do not, and still other rankings that control for additional factors? I think people might be surprised at how much school rankings change as one adds additional factors.
SE
Thu, 02/12/2015 - 12:36pm
Very interesting point. If we could measure all the variables that affect the value added of each school, then we would, in the end, focus on all the factors that impact each student's performance. And that focus, on the child, if we were able to act on each factor, would do more to improve educational outcomes tnen all the testing in the world.
Jim
Thu, 02/12/2015 - 10:08am
Would someone please explain what is working to yield high performance in low income schools.
Chuck Fellows
Thu, 02/12/2015 - 11:24am
Some examples, KIPP and Big Picture Schools. The early (1970s) work of tes Sizer & Deborah Meier in New York's Essential schools. Rafe Esquith's fifth grade class. All pay(ed) close attention to the needs of the students, their environment and produce(d) learning that works long term.
Chuck Fellows
Thu, 02/12/2015 - 11:25am
Learning thrives in a school environment that has a focus on a child's learning, conducts frequent classroom observation and evaluation, meaningful and frequent professional development, a high degree of cooperation and collaboration between and among staff and the community, flexibility and diversity in teaching methods and educational tools used, integration of subjects across the curriculum, a preponderance of formative testing , locally sourced data driven quality improvement processes, school leaders that are teachers, mentors and coaches with the autonomy to be so, significant community participation in actually educating children and there exists a culture of support and respect for parents, students, teachers and administrators.
Chuck Fellows
Thu, 02/12/2015 - 11:27am
In simple terms the exact opposite of what this unfortunate series of Bridge articles is supporting, ranking and rating, standardized testing, reward and punishment - and reliance upon the expert advise distant from the classroom. Hey, they relied on the experts!
John S.
Thu, 02/12/2015 - 10:48am
Plainly, controlling for the SES of the children attending a school will account for a larger proportion of the variation in academic performance across schools. A measure of SES (or the percentage eligible for reduced or free lunches) is no doubt a surrogate for many things (e.g., parental education and income; family composition) over which the school can't do much about. There's no doubt a laundry list of candidate variables that will help to account for the residuals from the regression line. It's most important to focus upon those variables that the schools can influence and that can lead to actionable policy. Possible variables would include the competence and stability of administration, teacher qualifications and experience, stability of the curriculum, academic standards, level of homework, and parental involvement. There may be others--e.g., quality of the lunch program, quality of the building and classrooms, and class sizes. Although looking at outliers (comparative case studies) should be part of the analysis, especially at the schools that are champs and those that have low ranks, intuition and story telling (even if conducted by experts) may not get to the truth of the matter.
Gus
Thu, 02/12/2015 - 10:50am
I am puzzled as to why only public schools are ranked. If the goal is to showcase the best schools to help parents decide where to send their children, private and parochial faith-based schools should be ranked along with the public schools. But then again, such a ranking may embarrass public officials since many private faith-based and parochial schools have a much lower per-pupil cost than public schools.
Chuck Fellows
Thu, 02/12/2015 - 11:29am
Charter schools (AKA Academies) are included in the ranking.
Lou Ann McKimmy
Thu, 02/12/2015 - 11:55am
Every educator,every legislator and every concerned parent should read John Kuhn's book, Fear and Learning in America. It is an eye opener and a valuable resource to interpret data and the public schools.
Marty
Thu, 02/12/2015 - 12:05pm
Gus, isn't it true that that the lower cost per pupil of parochial schools is because the Catholic schools are staffed by nuns who have taken vows of poverty?
Betty Tableman
Thu, 02/12/2015 - 12:18pm
Take a look at school climate and see whether it doesn't correlate with test scores. Teachers (as well as children) need a supportive environment and the ability to learn from each other.
Charles Richards
Thu, 02/12/2015 - 3:43pm
"How a single district can produce schools of varying accomplishment isn’t always easy to determine, especially when its schools have similar poverty levels." This brings up the crucial question of the explanatory power of Bridge's mathematical model of school performance. What is the coefficient of determination of their equation? What is the standard error?