District 150’s school board is trying to decide what to do about Edison Schools. Lots of parents like it, apparently, and so the district is considering replicating the program in-house to save money. But according to estimates recently released by the administration and reported in the Journal Star, it would cost almost a million dollars more than their current Edison Schools contract to replicate the program in-house. Now some parents are saying we should keep Edison because it’s cheaper.

My question is, why would we want to replicate it, let alone keep it? Take a look at the rankings below (click the “Show More” button if you’re not reading the permalink) and tell me what you notice about Edison schools compared to the rest of District 150’s schools. What I see is not much difference in student performance — certainly not $1.57 million worth of difference (the cost of the contract plus implementation). Is this the “world class education for every child” Edison promises in their promotional literature?

That there is little difference in performance should come as no surprise. The Rand Corporation recently released a study on Edison and other private for-profit companies that manage schools in Philadelphia. They found the same thing: “Within Philadelphia, the schools managed by private providers were doing neither better nor worse than districtwide achievement trends.” There is no reason to believe that these results would be unique to Philadelphia.

Instead of haggling over replication costs, the school board should simply fire Edison altogether and put together a restructuring plan of their own, based on what’s been proven to work in Peoria. District 150 has several successful schools from which to get ideas, such as Lindbergh Middle School and Kellar Primary School. Charter Oak, Von Steuben, and Whittier also did better than three out of four Edison schools.

Why not replicate success?

|inline

On January 20, 2007, the Journal Star reported that “Four District 150 schools have entered state-mandated “restructuring” because their disabled students’ most recent test scores didn’t improve enough.” In a recent open thread, frequent District 150 commenter PrairieCelt questioned the instrument used to assess those disabled students:

We’ve all heard Ken Hinton’s excuses for District 150’s poor performance – high poverty rates, the effect of subgroup performance on the district’s overall performance, etc. Based on what the administration said, it was my understanding that the subgroup students received the same test instruments as the non-subgroup students. But, according to Scott Russell (Sup’t. of Morton District 709), “special needs students who took Alternative Assessment exams and who attained the status of meeting/exceeding state standards doubled since last year.” That seems to invalidate the District 150 administration’s assertion about the special needs student subgroup. If the special needs student subgroup take an Alternative Assessment exam, why did Hinton and Chumbley lead us to believe they took the same exam as the students in the general population, and that their poor performance caused the majority of the problems with AYP?

Another commenter who goes by the pseudonym “Hula Monkey” added, “As the parent of a student in district 150’s lovely special ed program, I can tell you that district 150 doesn’t give their students the modified test. We asked about it because it is unfair that our child should be tested out of grade level.”

There is indeed an instrument called the Illinois Alternate Assessment (IAA), and I didn’t remember hearing anything about it in the news. So I e-mailed Bryan Chumbley, the director of research, testing, and assessment for District 150, and asked him if the district uses the IAA and, if not, why not. He promptly responded with this information:

C.J.,

You are correct that students in Illinois with disabilities can participate in either the Illinois Alternate Assessment or the ISAT/PSAE. However, the Illinois State Board of Education has set a limit of 1% of all students tested on the ISAT/PSAE that can participate in the IAA. Currently, there are slightly more than 1% of students who participate in the IAA. Each year we must submit a request for an “Exception to the 1% Cap” for alternate assessment.

Typically, the IAA is used to determine the progress of students with the most severe developmental delays. However, there are always exceptions that must be addressed. In our district there are several students for whom the IAA is used in place of the IAA [sic] for special circumstances (i.e., a student who has lost their vision who is not proficient in Braille takes the IAA because there is no way to make the necessary accommodations for testing on the ISAT/PSAE).

Please let me know if you have further questions.

As you can see, the district confirms that it is using the IAA. But what about Hula Monkey’s assertion that they’re not using it for his/her child? I don’t know Hula Monkey or his/her child’s circumstances; perhaps it has to do with that child’s specific situation. But I can say in general that not all special needs children are eligible to take the IAA. Only children with “significant cognitive disabilities” can take it, and even then, as Mr. Chumbley pointed out, no more than 1% of the student population that can take it without the state granting a special exception.

So let’s get back to PrairieCelt’s original question: “why did Hinton and Chumbley lead us to believe they took the same exam as the students in the general population, and that their poor performance caused the majority of the problems with AYP?” I don’t think D150 administration led us to believe they were taking the same exam. The point of contention is not the testing method used, but the grade level at which it’s scored. Indeed, the same Journal Star article quoted above also said, “Disabled students’ scores are a source of frustration for the schools in restructuring because gains elsewhere don’t matter when it comes to AYP. And disabled kids must be tested at their grade level, not their learning level, which two principals said isn’t fair.”

Even though disabled students are allowed to take the IAA, all that really changes is the method of testing. The ISBE explains it this way: “The IAA isn’t like a standard paper-and-pencil test. Instead it is a portfolio of student work and other materials collected at two points in the school year. The materials can include samples of student work, photos of the student doing work in school or at home and teachers’ summaries of what students have learned.” Despite this alternative method of testing, “The IAA assesses students in the same subjects and at the same grade levels as the Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) and the Prairie State Achievement Examination (PSAE),” the ISBE states elsewhere.

Now the question I have is, is it fair to say that children being tested at their grade level are not being tested at their “learning level” when the IAA takes into account the students’ Individualized Education Program (IEP)? Wouldn’t the IEP be tied to the child’s “learning level”?