Under the federal No Child Left Behind act of 2001, Title I schools where so-called Adequate Yearly Progress has not been made in math or in reading for two years in a row are identified for School Improvement.

We have previously explained the situation at Charlottesville's Clark Elementary, as they anxiously awaited test results. Now, because an insufficient number of Clark students passed the third-grade Standards of Learning tests in reading/language arts for the second year in a row, the City system is required to offer school choice to parents of Clark students.

There were only 35 kids whose results counted for this assessment--each represents about a 3% increment up or down (see box, below). According to Arthur Stow, Principal of Clark, it was not a bell-curve result. Most of the kids who passed did quite well. There were a few who scored just under the line - "if three or four kids had just got one or two more answers, we would not be in this situation." And the rest did poorly.

It should be pointed out that substantial improvement was made on the math test (well above the required pass rate), where Clark kids had performed below standards in the previous year. Barbara Myer, a parent and the head of the PTO, asks, since the kids had to read and understand rather sophisticated instructions to take the math test, why did they not do better on the reading test? She blames the tests for being tricky and poorly-worded.

Clark is a 'Title I' school

Because of the large number of kids from families at or below the poverty level, Clark qualifies as a 'Title I' school. Family economics are known because income must be reported in order for the child to qualify for free or reduced-price lunches at school--and over two-thirds of the kids at Clark get free lunch. In fact, a free breakfast is also offered at Clark, because the staff learned that many of the kids do not get breakfast, or do not get an adequate breakfast, at home.

Title I provides federal funding for extra teachers (Clark has the lowest student/teacher ratio in the system) and enrichment of the curriculum. At Clark, the PTO also offers financial assistance for the purchase of school supplies for low-income families.

It is Title I schools not meeting federal mandates for Adequate Yearly Progress that are required to offer parents choice--the option to move their child to a school in the system which is not identified for School Improvement. In Charlottesville, that's the other five elementary schools.

Meetings held to explain choice to parents

Meetings were held July 13 and 14, at Friendship Court Community Center and in the Library at Clark School. Principal Stow and leaders of the city school system gave detailed explanations of the situation and the options. At Friendship Court about 15 parents were in attendance, and at Clark, perhaps 20. And at each meeting, in addition to the administrators, Clark faculty and staff were present, along with community activists like Joy Johnson, Alicia Lugo and Karen Waters.

Newly-appointed Superintendent of Schools Scottie Griffin spoke of the effort to seek additional outside support for Clark from UVa and foundations. She also promised that "we will analyze the state data and disaggregate it and prepare individual instruction."

The mood at each meeting was remarkably upbeat, with enthusiasm and support for the principal and the staff of the school. There was an obvious and understandable effort by administrators to encourage parents to keep their kids in Clark. With smaller classes, with specialists in reading and math and now, an even-more-intensive and individualized effort to educate, the pitch is that Clark will continue to be the best school in the system for kids who need help.

Robert W. Thompson, Director of Administrative Support Services (and former principal of CHS) outlined the logistics of choice. He explained the form for prioritizing the schools a parent would select as alternatives. He ended with a direct suggestion: "check the top box--'stay at Clark'--and make Mr. Stow and his staff very happy." But in answer to a question, he acknowledged that staffing in the other schools will be adjusted upward if necessary to handle an unanticipated influx.

School Choice as an answer

The question here is, do the results show Clark to be a low-performing school, or is Clark a pretty good school with a large number of low-performing students? And are these students low-performing because, as Principal Stow said in one meeting, "lots of kids come to us without normal levels of preparation."

Barbara Myer, the PTO president and parent of a rising third grader at Clark, says "I think it is a great school. I wouldn't dream of moving my child. But there is an achievement gap. Clark is demographically challenged."

Will these students benefit more from being mixed into a better-performing group at another school? Or will they benefit more by continuing in a school that will receive intense enrichment as a result of their poor performance?

One reason that was given for employing school choice as an answer to low-performance was that it would engender competition among schools. Alternative strategies of education would be pursued in a kind of educational Darwinism, with students, given choice, opting for the winners. That takes years--which these kids, now in a PK-4 school, do not have so many of.

Another argument has been that testing and the availability of choice will make parents pay more attention to how schools perform. (It sure makes the school system pay attention).

All indications are that few Clark parents will choose to move their kids--we'll know very soon--and Clark will soldier on, attempting to overcome "demographic challenges" and make Adequate Yearly Progress this next school year. (Dave Sagarin, July 20, 2004)