PPT Slide
How does this work for Wisconsin's children? As an example, in several Title I schools in an urban district in the state, fewer than 40% of fourth-graders perform proficiently in reading assessments.4 Some of those schools exclude as many as 20% or more of the students from those assessments. Even if those schools fail to make any progress in student proficiency rates in reading, they can increase the percent of students tested by 3% and the state will deem them "not in need of improvement." They could do this for years, without intervention, technical assistance, or consequence. Children will grow up not being able to read (or write, or do math or science, etc.). Yet the state accountability system sanctions such a result.5
4. Schools with very high percentages of limited English proficient students often have even higher percentages of students excluded from the state assessments, which are only offered in English – an important issue that is outside the scope of this paper but which must also be addressed through the combined efforts of clarifying and enforcing current requirements in Title I and civil rights laws to include such students in assessment and accountability systems, as well as all parts of standards-based reform.
5. The 1998-99 CPI is based on school year 1997-98 data compared to 1998-99 data. The 1999-2000 CPI is based on the average of 1997-98 and 1998-99 data compared to the 1999-2000 data. The 2000-01 CPI is based on the average of 1997-98 and 1998-99 data compared to the average of 1999-2000 and 2000-01 data. For simplicity, the examples given in this paper refer to the 1998-99 CPI based on 1997-98 data only.