The school to prison pipeline, explained - Vox

The school to prison pipeline, explained - Vox:



The school to prison pipeline, explained

Updated by Libby Nelson and Dara Lind on February 24, 2015, 12:40 p.m. ET

A police officer handcuffs a small child during a demonstration. Lyn Alweis/Denver Post via Getty

 Juvenile crime rates are plummeting, and the number of Americans in juvenile detention has dropped. One report shows the juvenile incarceration rate dropped 41 percent between 1995 and 2010.

But school discipline policies are moving in the opposite direction: out-of-school suspensions have increased about 10 percent since 2000. They have more than doubled since the 1970s. Black students are three times more likely to be suspended or expelled than white students,according to the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights, and research in Texas found students who have been suspended are more likely to be held back a grade and drop out of school entirely. Those facts has led to concern among some people, including the Obama administration, that schools are suspending students too much and need to find other ways to discipline them.

The reason the difference between juvenile detention and school discipline is so surprising — and the reason school discipline is seen as a growing concern — is that the two are connected, leading civil-rights advocates to talk about a "school-to-prison pipeline." Especially for older students, trouble at school can lead to their first contact with the criminal justice system. And in many cases, schools themselves are the ones pushing students into the juvenile justice system — often by having students arrested at school.

Here's how the current state of school discipline developed and why some districts and federal officials are working to change the status quo.

1) Concerns about crime led schools to adopt 'zero tolerance' policies

A Chicago police officer escorts a child to school. (Chris Walker/Chicago Tribune)

In the 1970s, keeping students out of school as a punishment was relatively rare: fewer than 4 percent of students were suspended in 1973, according to an analysis of Education Department data by the Southern Poverty Law Center. But growing concern about crime and violence in schools led states and districts to adopt policies that required students to be suspended.

The Gun-Free Schools Act, passed in 1994, mandated a yearlong out-of-school suspension for any student caught bringing a weapon to school. And as states began adopting these zero-tolerance policies, the number of suspensions and expulsions increased. The suspension rate for all students has nearly doubled since the 1970s, and has increased even more for black and Hispanic students.

Zero-tolerance policies have been widely criticized when schools have interpreted "weapon" very broadly, expelling students for making guns with their fingers or chewing a Pop-Tart into a gun shape or bringing a camping fork for Cub Scouts to class.

But they're not the only reason schools suspended students more frequently. At the same time as zero-tolerance policies for violence were growing, school districts adopted their own version The school to prison pipeline, explained - Vox:

The biggest losers in the No Child Left Behind rewrite #NOonHR5 #ESEA @EdWorkforce

The biggest losers in the No Child Left Behind rewrite - The Hechinger Report:



The biggest losers in the No Child Left Behind rewrite

Rural school districts and states with large, rural populations are poised to lose a disproportionate amount of funding and opportunities to innovate under a bill proposed by House Republicans, according to a report by the Obama administration.

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan spoke at an on-the-record breakfast with reporters Monday morning to further detail his concerns with the bill, which would rewrite No Child Left Behind, the current version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Duncan and the White House have been vocal opponents to the proposed bill, which faces a House vote on Friday.

One of the major sticking points of rewrite is the proposed amount of spending, which a White House report released this month referred to as “effectively locking in sequestration-era cuts for the rest of the decade.” The bill would cap spending on ESEA at $800 million lower than 2012 and according to the report, would allocate $7 billion less in Title I funds over six years than President Obama’s budget.

“If you look at the numbers its a pretty devastating portrait of what this thing might do,” Duncan said in reference to the White House report, which also details the amount of funding that individual school districts are expected to lose as a result of the cuts.

The recent White House report mostly focused on large, urban districts like the Los Angeles Unified School District and the Chicago Public School District, which are poised to lose more than $80 million and $64 million respectively, or about 24 percent of their 2014 estimated Title I allocations. New data related to the White House report released Tuesday found that many of these large school districts poised to lose funding serve largely black or Hispanic populations.

But according to the previous report, some rural districts will lose even higher percentages of their Title I funding. Nationwide, nearly 50 percent of school districts are small and rural, and 20 percent of students in the country attend those schools. Rural schools are also serving an increasing number of low-income and minority students, according to the Rural School and Community Trust.

In Mississippi, where more than 56 percent of students attend rural schools, Title I funding could be cut by $7 million, with the largest cuts taking place in five high-poverty Mississippi Delta districts. The Delta’s Coahoma County School District, for instance, would see a 50 percent reduction of its Title I funding. In Alaska, the rural Iditarod Area School District would see a nearly 63 percent decrease in funding. Hatch Valley Municipal Schools in New Mexico is estimated to see a nearly 44 percent decrease.

Supporters of the bill say it the rewrite is needed to curtail the federal government’s role in education. The bill repeals certain aspects of ESEA, such as requirements for how much states and school districts must spend before receiving federal funding, and eliminating more than 65 federal education programs. “Continuing to leave students, The biggest losers in the No Child Left Behind rewrite - The Hechinger Report:

Tell Congress: Vote NO on H.R. 5 – The Student Success Act

Newark Students Union-The Legacy of Cami Anderson #OccupyNPS #OurNewark

Why did we occupy Newark Public Schools headquarters for four days last week? Hear directly from our fellow students in this video featuring many of the leaders of the Newark Students Union!

JOIN US in demanding the Resignation of Cami Anderson by signing the petition here: MoveOn Petitions - PETITION FOR THE RESIGNATION OF CAMI ANDERSON http://bit.ly/1LMvt0z

Three Days and Nights in Newark: Tanaisa Brown Tells of the Newark Student Union’s Three Day Occupation http://bit.ly/1LCPhT9

 

Big Education Ape: The Amazing Students of the Newark Student Union - These Kids Rock! #OccupyNPS #OurNewark http://bit.ly/1JwIXij

Separating Fact & Fiction: What You Need to Know About Charter Schools | National Education Policy Center

Review of Separating Fact & Fiction | National Education Policy Center:

Separating Fact & Fiction: What You Need to Know About Charter Schools

Gary Miron, William J. Mathis, Kevin G. Welner

February 23, 2015

Press Release →

The irony of a recent report from the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools is that it purports to “separate fact from fiction” about charter schools. Unfortunately, in addressing 21 “myths,” it embraces fiction whenever useful to push advocacy goals, thus perpetuating its own myths and fictions about charter schools. Since it relies overwhelmingly on other advocacy documents, it does not give a balanced or thorough examination of any of the 21 “myths.” But the exercise provides a useful opportunity for this review to walk through the various claims and succinctly address each. Among the areas addressed are the financial equality of charter schools, lower teacher qualifications, student selection demographics, academic outcomes, segregation, and innovation. While the NAPCS report itself may provide only sound-bite fodder for advocates, we hope that the two documents combined—report plus review—offer an overview of issues that does advance comprehensive understanding.

Check it Out Here Review of Separating Fact & Fiction | National Education Policy Center:

The rise of public education and why we're losing it today - Liberation News

The rise of public education and why we're losing it today - Liberation News:

The rise of public education and why we’re losing it today

Public education has developed since the days of the one-room schoolhouse.

In January 2002, President George W. Bush signed No Child Left Behind. NCLB requires states to develop assessments (standardized testing) to measure skills in order to receive federal funding.

No Child Left Behind began the hysteria of “high stakes testing.” The result meant the private sector could access federal funds which were previously unavailable to them. Pearson publishing and McGraw Hill made record profits in the years following NCLB as a result of the sale of standardized tests, new curricula and homeschooling options aimed at passing the new state tests.

Since January of this year, U.S. senators have been debating the options in a bill to revise No Child Left Behind. Congress has been unable to compromise on what needs to change. Some senators like Republican Lamar Alexanderpropose more leeway on testing. Democrat Patty Murray stresses the need for annual assessments in order to keep low- performing students from “falling through the cracks.” Both the Senate and the House anticipate having bills on the floor in the coming weeks.

All of this begs the question, “why is all this happening?” Why the constant efforts to restructure and undercut public education?

Every few years, there is a new “reform” craze that promises to turn around “low-performing schools” but never a reflection on why the last one failed. Why are so many politicians on both sides of the aisle quick to come together to attack teachers and undermine public education?

What will it really take to close the achievement gap?

The organization of the public school system, and teachers’ rights in particular, has become a convenient scapegoat for the economic problems of capitalism: inequality, stagnant low wages, unemployment, declining global “competitiveness,” and so on. If politicians want better schools and schooling, they could show that by providing the resources necessary to improve them. If they want to motivate our students to learn, they would launch massive jobs programs and infrastructure projects to serve and upgrade oppressed communities. They would make a job at a living wage a basic right, along with access to free higher education. They would end the school-to-prison pipeline that criminalizes youth.

In other words, they would make massive investments to drastically The rise of public education and why we're losing it today - Liberation News:

Tell Congress: Vote NO on H.R. 5 – The Student Success Act

Three Days and Nights in Newark: Tanaisa Brown Tells of the Newark Student Union’s Three Day Occupation - Living in Dialogue

Three Days and Nights in Newark: Tanaisa Brown Tells of the Newark Student Union’s Three Day Occupation - Living in Dialogue:



Three Days and Nights in Newark: Tanaisa Brown Tells of the Newark Student Union’s Three Day Occupation 

 By Tanaisa Brown, Secretary, Newark Students Union.

We went to Cami Anderson’s office on Feb. 17 as an escalation from last Spring’s 17 hour occupation of the conference room where the Business Board Meeting was. This time, after the public participation portion of the meeting, we went to the elevator and went down two floors to the Superintendent’s office.

In the beginning, we posted up our banners and waited patiently. We were demanding that she have a meeting with us students who were occupying her office. We simply wanted her to come into work the next day, make this simple and address us. At that meeting, we intended to introduce to her what the whole community wanted and that was for her to come to the next School Advisory Board Meeting (which is today), since she has not been coming for over 9 months.

The community was amazing through the whole occupation; they provided moral support through social media and were present outside in the cold while we were inside occupying. The community gave us food and when it was not allowed up the second day, the clergy demanded that they be allowed upstairs. The clergy said that if they wanted to stop them, they would have to physically be restrained by security guards. It was amazing to hear of the clergy having our backs and risking arrests to see us and provide our bodies with nourishment.

In the beginning, Cami’s administration was completely ignoring us. But in the 65th hour, she decided to meet our demand and have a meeting with us. We talked to her about the One Newark Plan’s roll-out, the misallocation of funds in public schools and the accommodations that will be made by the district for the PARCC exam coming up in less than 2 weeks.

She responded with much rhetoric and used many literary skills to try and skew the conversation from truth and facts. She said that she wants to restore trust with the community. Therefore, we asked her to attend the next board meeting. She stated that she was not here to fulfill any demands and she has to think about coming to the meeting.

The media coverage has been great. Locally, we have been updating many news channels (4,12,7, etc.) while we were still sitting in, we got calls from Spanish-language channels, we were able to do an interview with Three Days and Nights in Newark: Tanaisa Brown Tells of the Newark Student Union’s Three Day Occupation - Living in Dialogue:

Big Education Ape: The Amazing Students of the Newark Student Union - These Kids Rock! #OccupyNPS #OurNewark http://bit.ly/1JwIXij

The more people say they know about the Common Core, the less they actually do - Vox

The more people say they know about the Common Core, the less they actually do - Vox:



The more people say they know about the Common Core, the less they actually do

The Common Core standards have been around for more than five years. Students in dozens of states are taking new tests to see whether they're able to live up to those standards. And even still, lots of Americans know almost nothing about it.

A new poll from PublicMind at Fairleigh Dickinson University found that just 17 percent of Americans approve of Common Core and 40 percent disapprove — and 42 percent still haven't made up their minds. Paradoxically, the more people have heard about Common Core, the more likely they are to misunderstand what the standards are actually about.

The poll found 77 percent of people who said they have heard "a lot" about Common Core didn't know basic facts about the standards, saying they included at least one of four concepts: the American Revolution, evolution, global warming, and sex education. In fact, the Common Core standards are limited to math and language arts.

People who had heard "nothing at all" about the Common Core — and were presumably just guessing in response to the pollster's questions — were actually more likely to say, correctly, that the Common Core doesn't include any of those topics.

What people thought was in Common Core, even it was wrong, affected whether they thought the standards were a good idea. Democrats who wrongly think the Common Core includes sex ed, revolutionary history, evolution, and global warming are more likely to approve the standards than Democrats who know it doesn't. That suggests that some people were basing their approval of the standards on wrong information — and that they like the standards because they thought they supported their worldview.

The poll found that more Americans approve of a federal attempt to create education standards (40 percent) than approve of Common Core (17 percent). In a summary of the poll, The more people say they know about the Common Core, the less they actually do - Vox:

CHECK OUT the #commoncore Project

Big Education Ape: #commoncore Project - How social media is changing the politics of education http://bit.ly/18hHH23

Public backs NY teachers in fight with Gov. Cuomo, poll finds | syracuse.com

Public backs NY teachers in fight with Gov. Cuomo, poll finds | syracuse.com:

Public backs NY teachers in fight with Gov. Cuomo, poll finds

SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- In the ongoing war betweenGov. Andrew Cuomo and New York's teachers, the teachers are winning, according to a new poll out today from Siena College Research Institute.

Consider what voters said when asked about what hinders education in New York: Little parental involvement (37 percent), not enough money in schools (18 percent), the effects of poverty (17 percent), ineffective state oversight (12 percent), poor quality teachers (10 percent).

That's according to 810 registered voters across the state surveyed by Siena from Feb. 15 to Feb. 18. It has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 3.7 percentage points.

Cuomo has proposed an extra $1 billion in school aid, but only if lawmakers agree to revamp the state's new teacher evaluation system and require more experience for teachers to qualify for tenure. The proposals, and Cuomo's failure to release district-by-district state money lists, have prompted a backlash from teacher unions and some school administrators.

In Siena's poll, 48 percent say they side with the teachers' unions, and 36 percent with the governor.

Still, voters do approve of at least one of Cuomo's proposals: 62 percent support Cuomo's proposal to make teachers eligible for tenure in five years, rather than three years as it is now.

Contact Teri Weaver anytime: Email | Twitter | 315-470-2274

Public backs NY teachers in fight with Gov. Cuomo, poll finds | syracuse.com:

SNY0215 Crosstabs

Public backs NY teachers in fight with Gov. Cuomo, poll finds | syracuse.com:

#commoncore Project - How social media is changing the politics of education

#commoncore Project:

#COMMONCORE

How social media is changing the politics of education

HOW TO USE THIS SITE

Easy Reading PDF Version of  #COMMONCORE How social media is changing the politics of education Website (H/T Alexander Russo)

PROLOGUE

The Common Core has become a flashpoint at the nexus of education politics and policy, fueled by ardent social media activists. To explore this phenomenon, this innovative and interactive website examines the Common Core debate through the lens of the influential social media site Twitter. Using a social network perspective that examines the relationships among actors, we focus on the most highly used Twitter hashtag about the Common Core: #commoncore. The central question of our investigation is: How are social media-enabled social networks changing the discourse in American politics that produces and sustains social policy? To see how the site is organized, click HOW TO USE THIS SITE. To join a conversation about this research in an open forum, tweet using #htagcommoncore .. 

Parents, educators nationwide object to new Common Core assessments (links) | OregonLive com

Parents, educators nationwide object to new Common Core assessments (links) | OregonLive.com:

Parents, educators nationwide object to new Common Core assessments (links)

Tests linked to new Common Core State Standards made headlines across the nation last week. 

Starting this spring students will take new and more rigorous exams aligned with Common Core State Standards, adopted by Oregon in 2010. The exams have sparked a debate about standardized testing and parent's right to opt their student out. 

Here are a few headlines we found: 

Principal: 'There comes a time when rules must be broken.... That time is now.'- The Washington Post published a submission by an award-winning high school principal that called for parents to opt their children out of taking standardized tests. 

About 100,000 Ohio kids have tried the new Common Core exams this week, with mixed reviews- Last week Ohio became the first state to give students a Common Core test. Ohio administers the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers or PARCC exam, and districts reported some technical issues. Some students took the tests with pencil and paper. 

Portland teachers union resolution objects to new Smarter Balanced test- The Portland Association of Teachers approved a resolution opposing plans to conduct the Smarter Balanced exam in Oregon schools this spring. The resolution followed a demonstration at a school board meeting that encouraged parents to opt out. 

NJEA launches ad campaign against PARCC, Common Core- The New Jersey Education Association released four videos criticizing standardized tests. The campaign will run on network television in New York and Philadelphia and on cable networks in New Jersey. 

States start responding to backlash against standardized testing in public schools- The Associated Press has coverage of objections in multiple states, including Maryland and Pennsylvania. 

If you'd like to check out the Smarter Balanced assessment yourself, try our sample test. 

--Laura Frazier

lfrazier@oregonian.com
503-294-4035
@frazier_laura

Parents, educators nationwide object to new Common Core assessments (links) | OregonLive.com:

Parents Can Opt Out - United Opt Out National

Click Here to go to United Opt Out National: 

Click Here to go to the Website- United Opt Out Team

SO YOU SAY: No Child Left Behind and testing help hold schools accountable - LA Times

No Child Left Behind and testing help hold schools accountable - LA Times:



Op-Ed No Child Left Behind and testing help hold schools accountable

Tell Congress: Vote NO on H.R. 5 – The Student Success Act

The controversial education law known as No Child Left Behind is up for reauthorization, and amid the nuances under debate one question stands out: Will pressures from the left and right force the federal government to abandon its annual, statewide testing requirements?

When enacted into law in 2002, NCLB had widespread, bipartisan backing including support from President George W. Bush and Sen. Edward "Ted" Kennedy . Nonetheless, it had numerous creaky provisions, not least of which were the testing provisions that held schools accountable for student achievement.

Its measure of whether a school was failing was too bizarre for most people to understand and placed schools with the most challenged students at a disadvantage. Other mandates were equally meaningless. Giving students at failing schools a choice among other schools in their district simply shuffled children around the city. Requiring after-school programs did nothing to improve the school day itself.

All such provisions were potentially up for revision in 2007, but Congress couldn't agree on how to bring the law up to date. As a fix, Obama's education secretary, Arne Duncan, waived for most states the law's most onerous provisions. Still, the administration continues to support testing every student in math and reading in grades three through eight and again in high school.

Now, the new Republican Congress is making another effort to revise NCLB,and tests are in the crosshairs. Unions, including United Teachers Los Angeles, oppose them for fear the data will be used to evaluate teachers. Conservatives fear tests will be used to impose "progressive" Common Core standards, which are backed by the White House and 

 

Tell Congress: Vote NO on H.R. 5 – The Student Success Act

Bronx Principal Jamaal Bowman Debunks Common Charter School Myths- With A Brooklyn Accent

With A Brooklyn Accent: Bronx Principal Jamaal Bowman Debunks Common Charter School Myths:

Bronx Principal Jamaal Bowman Debunks Common Charter School Myths

Please allow me to indulge for a moment. First, good schools are good schools. I don't care what we call them. The most important thing in a child's life after a parent is a good teacher, coach, or mentor. When I say good schools, I don't mean schools that simply have good test scores. I'm speaking of schools that get good scores, as well as develop the character and passions of their students toward self actualization.

Allow me to debunk a few charter school myths. I don't know if this applies to all charter schools but definitely the ones I have some experience with. First let me say that studies show if a parent is savvy and passionate about education, regardless of race, class, or educational background, their child is more likely to graduate high school and college. Charters (at least the ones I have experience with), make sure that parents prove how serious they are before even giving their child a chance of getting in. For example, one charter that I know, mandates (not using this word lightly), that parents attend 5-6 meetings before even entertaining the possibility of the child making it to the lottery. These are obviously parents that value education in the home. If parents miss one meeting, no lottery. On the other hand, district schools have to take everyone. The savvy parent AND the struggling parent without meeting mandates. A parent can go through an entire school year without attending a meeting and the child is guaranteed a spot in a district school.
Further, in case you didn't know, parents also sign contracts in many charters to ensure homework is done, meetings are attended, and certain behavioral execrations are met. If the parent or child breaks the contract, the child can be kicked out of school. I know. I've seen it done while "interning" at a charter school.

Lastly, charters can fire teachers and have extremely high turnover rates. From my conversations and observations of charter schools, I've heard many of the policies and procedures be called "inhumane." This could be why so many teachers can't last anymore than two or three years in many charters. Ironically, these charters serve as a perfect pipeline for TFA --mocking two year commitment.

Based on what I know, as they are currently constituted, charters, TFA, and yearly standardized testing are wrong for our high need communities. We should stop funding them all unless they agree to make major adjustments to how they do business. Why? Because that money can be spent on giving all students a quality holistic education. Charters, TFA, and yearly testing infuse anxiety, disunity, and even worst, standardization into the psyche of society. They are trying to recreate a 21st century idea of "empire." Keep the masses, and "lower class" under control while the elite continue to rule. A standardized mindset will always be controlled. Whereas in schools like Riverdale Country School, there are not state standardized assessment, no TFA With A Brooklyn Accent: Bronx Principal Jamaal Bowman Debunks Common Charter School Myths:

Anti-democratic Emergency Manager? Check! State takeover of schools? Check! New Jersey adopts the Michigan GOP model. | Eclectablog

Anti-democratic Emergency Manager? Check! State takeover of schools? Check! New Jersey adopts the Michigan GOP model. | Eclectablog:

Anti-democratic Emergency Manager? Check! State takeover of schools? Check! New Jersey adopts the Michigan GOP model.

by Eclectablog on FEBRUARY 23, 2015 in EMERGENCY MANAGER LAW, EMERGENCY MANAGERS

10

In the spring of 2011 when I first began sounding the alarm bells at Eclectablog about the undemocratic Emergency Manager legislation that was quickly passed by the newly-elected, Republican-controlled state legislature, I warned that this was not a “Michigan only” problem. I have said repeatedly that Michigan is only the beta testing ground for an agenda and a way of governing that will be spread to other states if it is not stopped.

In Michigan, despite plurality of voters rejecting emergency management at the ballot box in 2012, we failed to stop it. And now, as predicted, the show is going on the road. It first got started in Indiana where in 2012, their legislature passed House Bill 1192 – an Emergency Management bill – which was signed into law by their Republican governor.

Then, last month, New Jersey governorChris Christie appointed an Emergency Manager for Atlantic City saying, “I can’t wait any longer. We need more aggressive action, and that’s the action I’m taking today.” He even brought in former Detroit Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr as a paid consultant.

Atlantic City has seen its tax base implode with the closing of several large casinos. As in Detroit, the resulting financial catastrophe has been used as an excuse for the state to take over the city, bypassing the locally elected officials.

This past week, Gov. Christie went a step farther down the anti-democratic pathway by assigning a “fiscal monitor” to the cash-strapped Atlantic City school system. Rather than finding new ways to fund education in Atlantic City, like in Michigan the answer is to simply cut spending:

The Christie administration yesterday announced it would send Gary McCartney, a retired superintendent from South Brunswick, to lead a team of financial experts to start scouring the district’s budget for savings in the face of a drastic drop in local tax revenues, largely due to the collapse of casinos in the city.

Commissioner of Education David C. Hespe said in a statement, “It became clear that the best way for Atlantic City and the state to collaboratively address the school’s fiscal woes would be for the state to establish an ongoing presence in the district itself. It’s a commitment that we’re proud to make.”

This is a classic application of what author Naomi Klein calls “The Shock Doctrine” where calamities are exploited for political gain by those in power:Anti-democratic Emergency Manager? Check! State takeover of schools? Check! New Jersey adopts the Michigan GOP model. | Eclectablog:

Sample Size And Volatility In School Accountability Systems | Shanker Institute

Sample Size And Volatility In School Accountability Systems | Shanker Institute:

Sample Size And Volatility In School Accountability Systems

by Matthew Di Carlo -- February 24, 2015

It is generally well-known that sample size has an important effect on measurement and, therefore, incentives in test-based school accountability systems.

Within a given class or school, for example, there may be students who are sick on testing day, or get distracted by a noisy peer, or just have a bad day. Larger samples attenuate the degree to which unusual results among individual students (or classes) can influence results overall. In addition, schools draw their students from a population (e.g., a neighborhood). Even if the characteristics of the neighborhood from which the students come stay relatively stable, the pool of students entering the school (or tested sample) can vary substantially from one year to the next, particularly when that pool is small.

Classes and schools tend to be quite small, and test scores vary far more between- than within-student (i.e., over time). As a result, testing results often exhibit a great deal of nonpersistent variation (Kane and Staiger 2002). In other words, much of the differences in test scores between schools, and over time, is fleeting, and this problem is particularly pronounced in smaller schools. One very simple, though not original, way to illustrate this relationship is to compare the results for smaller and larger schools.

Schools vary widely in size. Some are large, with hundreds or thousands of tested students, while others serve just a few dozen students or less. As a rule, test results for smaller schools will be more volatile over time. That is, smaller schools will exhibit larger increases or decreases, positive or negative.

In the scatterplot below, each dot is a New York City school. The vertical axis is schools’ change in their overall proficiency rates (positive or negative) between 2013 and 2014. The horizontal axis is the number of tested students (i.e., sample size) at each school (averaged across both years).

The “sideways cone” shape of the dots indicates that the changes among larger schools – i.e., the dots further to the right of the plot – are considerably more modest than those of smaller schools. Just to give a better idea of these differences, consider that roughly one in four schools in this sample have sample sizes of fewer than 200 students, while almost one in five (17 percent) of schools have samples of 500 or more students. The mean absolute change (positive or negative) for the former schools (fewer than 200 tested students) is  6.7 percentage points, which is almost 50 percent larger than the average absolute change (4.5 percentage points) among the latter schools ( samples of 500 or more students).*

In other words, again, smaller schools exhibit much larger year-to-year changes, whether positive or Sample Size And Volatility In School Accountability Systems | Shanker Institute: