New Ulm, other area schools on list

Officials see a 'Catch 22'

By KREMENA TODOROVA

Journal Staff Writer

NEW ULM -- While each of New Ulm's four public schools made what officials term "adequate yearly progress," District 88 as a whole was among 150 districts statewide that missed the mark.

The district' special education students missed progress goals in reading and math, placing District 88 on the "not-making-adequate-progress" list.

A school or school district is put on the "failing" list if it misses a goal in any one of several categories, for any one sub-group of students.

The categories are: reading and math proficiency, defined as performance at or above grade level; reading and math test participation rate (to ensure enough students take the test); attendance rate; and graduation rate.

The student subgroups include: white; Hispanic; black; American Indian; Asian; students with limited English; students eligible for free or reduced-price lunches (a measure of low income); and special education students.

Some subgroups, while counted separately, often overlap for area schools. For example, Hispanic students and students with limited English might be virtually the same in some districts. That district, then, may appear to be failing on several counts, while actually facing a single issue.

The apparent paradox of individual schools making the annual goals -- while a district as a whole fails -- is explained with school size. In New Ulm's case, none of the four local school sites have enough special education students to provide a representative sample and get counted -- but the district as a whole does. Conversely, smaller districts, with student sub-groups small enough not to get counted, may potentially make the grade by default.

Several other area districts were also on the list of "failing" schools.

* Redwood Falls failed to meet reading and math proficiency goals for special education students, just like New Ulm.

* Madelia missed on reading proficiency for Hispanic students.

* St. James missed on reading and math proficiency for Hispanics, for students with limited English, and for students eligible for free or reduced-price lunches.

* Sibley East failed on reading proficiency for Hispanic students and for students with limited English.

* Mankato missed math and reading goals for black students.

* The River Bend Area Learning Center in New Ulm, which draws students from several area districts, missed the math proficiency goal for the student body as a whole.

The school report cards are an instrument to judge performance under the federal "No Child Left Behind" law.

Schools that miss the goals for the first time face no consequences -- this is the case of New Ulm and its neighbors.

But schools that miss the mark for two or more years face an escalating list of penalties -- such as providing transportation for students to attend other public "schools of choice", a requirement to offer tutoring, and a requirement to replace curriculum and teaching methods.

New Ulm administrators on Thursday expressed a degree of discomfort with the district's unsatisfactory rating -- and the way report cards work.

"One reason why kids are in special ed is because they are NOT progressing normally," said New Ulm Curriculum Director Bill Sprung.

To be labeled "failing" because of it is "disconcerting -- something of a Catch 22," Sprung said. Other special groups in District 88 schools -- low-income students, for example -- are doing fine on tests, he pointed out.

"By the nature of the definition of special education, it seems unrealistic to expect those students to perform at the same level at the same point in time as non-special needs students," said Superintendent Harold Remme.

Several New Ulm school board members questioned the value of the report cards.

"We strive to educate kids to their highest ability," said board member Susan Nierengarten in a representative comment. It is unrealistic. she said, to expect everyone to meet the same standard.

She and others argued in favor of a comprehensive approach to evaluating schools' success.

Proficiency tests are little more than "snapshots" in time, comparing this year's group of students to next year's -- rather than showing each student's progress, as "value-added" testing would, these board members said.