On Tuesday, December 2, 2003, I received an e-mailed report from the State Department of Education on district and school performance on No Child Left Behind (NCLB) criteria.  I had no concerns about our district, because we had been told by the State that a sub-group of students, e.g. economically disadvantaged or students with disabilities, had to equal 40 students per grade level in order to be “counted.”  In fact, last year’s NCLB report had student data represented by grade level, i.e. fourth grade Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) performance, sixth grade CMT performance, and eighth grade CMT performance.  I knew that our students, by school, were meeting NCLB proficiency rates.

However, when I read the report for Stafford on December 2, I found that all fourth, sixth, and eighth grade CMT data had been grouped into one number/percentage in math and one number/percentage in reading.  This grouping of student achievement at all three grade levels also resulted in there being two sub-groups with more than 40 students: economically disadvantaged students and students with disabilities.

The overall percentage of those Stafford students that attained proficiency in the 2002 administration of the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) in grades 4, 6, and 8 is quite good.  According to this single score, 93% of all students met the proficiency standard in math, and 86% of all students met the standard in reading.
   
Moreover, there were 84 students in the economically disadvantaged sub-group.  84% of this group met the proficiency standard in math, and 76% met it in reading.  This academic performance surpassed the State proficiency goals of 65% proficiency in math and 57% proficiency in reading.   There were 53 students in the students with disabilities sub-group.  56% of this group met the proficiency standard of 65% in math, and 30% met the proficiency standard of 57% in reading. This academic performance did not meet the State proficiency goals of 65% proficiency in math and 57% proficiency in reading.  Thus, as a district, we did not meet adequate yearly progress (AYP) guidelines.  

While we are working hard to have all students achieve at higher levels, and we will continue to do so, I feel we must put these numbers in perspective.  First of all, we tested 100% of all of our students on their grade level CMT.  This included all special education students serviced in classrooms, resource rooms, and self-contained classrooms.  Even out-placed special education students who had been in our schools last year were tested.  Secondly, since there were only 53 students in the students with disabilities group, it takes only a few students to change the percentages.  For example, the difference between 56% (the percentage of special education students who met the proficiency goal in math) and the 65% State proficiency goal is about 4 students.  The difference between 30% (the percentage of special education students who met the proficiency goal in reading) and the 57% State proficiency goal is about 14 students.
    
At the high school level, we had been notified earlier in the summer that we did not meet base-line participation rate standards of 95% in the math and 95% in the reading sub-tests in the 2002 administration of the Connecticut Academic Performance Test (CAPT).  Our participation rate was 91% in math (about 6 students “off”) and 94% in reading (1 student “off”).  Of the students tested, only a whole group report is given, because there were less than 40 students tested who belonged to any sub-group (except White).  100% of the students tested met the proficiency standard in math, and 100% met the proficiency standard in reading.

What does all this mean?  We have been notified that while each Stafford school has made adequate yearly progress for all students, according to NCLB standards in achievement, we have not made adequate yearly progress with the sub-group of students with disabilities as a district.  Moreover, we have been notified that Stafford High School has not met NCLB standards for participation rate.  This is a warning year.  Should 2003 data show that we have not met NCLB standards, we could lose part of our Title I funding, although it is not clear to me how this could be determined if each district school has met NCLB achievement standards or if the standard we did not meet was one of participation.