Texas Closes First High School.

Texas closed Johnston High in Austin last week for failing to meet state (and NCLB) standards for five consecutive years—five consecutive years—five.  The Local School Board President was “surprised” the district had taken so long to take action.  The local newspaper was “surprised” the district had not adopted a plan for the school in advance.  Few in the community were surprised that the school failed, or that the district had no clue of what to do about it.  About 70% of the students had 10 or more unexcused absences.  The football team had forfeited games because not enough players were academically eligible.  On the bright side, the top 10% of Johnston’s graduates automatically earn admittance to The University of Texas at Austin, which routinely rejects honor students from high schools rated excellent. 

Then the local paper ran an editorial implying that if “gains” were considered, low-performing schools such as Johnston would be saved from closing. (No data to support this assertion were provided.)  The paper even suggested lower standards for Johnston and other schools with disadvantaged populations.  Why is the paper defending Johnston High?  Do they want Johnston to continue for a sixth year of academic failure?

The EduGuru speaks: Editors just don’t get it.  Do they really want to lower expectations for students until really poorly managed schools are considered acceptable?  Unfortunately, the School Board doesn’t get it either.  They plan to reopen Johnston  as two new schools and try again.  Maybe they read the small cell size provisions and think that if they keep the two new schools small, they can fail to educate the students without such dire accountability consequences.  Oh, by the way, that’s the whole point here.  The dire consequences are for the students, not the school. Johnston has left thousands of students behind for years.  

Comments

[B A Data Therapist]

YES!!

Doesn’t that just beat all!? It’s the story behind lots of education data/statistics…this particular example focuses the question on accountability law/policies/procedures.

We, the public, can’t have “my school” (or “my child”) looking bad…even when “my school” (or “my child”) EARNED the marks!! And, what’s so incredible is that in NCLB, it’s actually KNOWN that the arbitrary and yet deliberate scoring mechanism would result in this!!!

Also, I’m reminded that we still don’t really focus on what makes a school the same school for comparison purposes??? Is it the student population? …the faculty? …the “feeder schools?” Maybe it’s the “governance” with one or more of the other factors? (I just know that “it” isn’t the “building.”)