Similar-School Rankings Are a Boost for Some Districts

Ten of 11 schools in the Hueneme Elementary District rated among California’s underachieving campuses when the state released its first set of rankings Tuesday. So why was Supt. Robert Fraisse smiling Wednesday morning?

The reason is that no Ventura County district did better than Hueneme when compared with communities of similar income, education and English-language proficiency.

Credit good, well-paid teachers, Fraisse said, and extensive after-school instruction in English for the predominantly Latino district, where nearly half the students speak halting English.

Filled with uniformed students, Hueneme schools--located in south Oxnard and Port Hueneme--are also marked by strict discipline and extensive use of computers, he said.

Four Hueneme campuses received the state’s top ranking of 10 when compared with similar schools. Four more had similar-school rankings of 8 or 9 on a 1-to-10 scale.

“I’m just delighted they’re looking at these rankings from two different angles,” Fraisse said. “I’m extremely proud of our ranking relative to similar schools.”

Districts throughout the county were reacting Wednesday not only to their overall state rankings but also to the separate ranking that attempts to reflect how districts--rich and poor--compare with their own kind.

And some administrators were not happy.

In Thousand Oaks, where 14 of 26 schools received the state’s top ranking of 10, officials had to explain why their high-performing campuses did so poorly against schools in other well-educated, affluent communities. They concluded that the similar-school rankings were bogus because data the state used to make the comparisons were incomplete.

“Those results are sort of spurious,” Conejo Valley Supt. Jerry Gross said. “But the state is now saying they’re going to rerun those rankings with complete data and revise our rankings.”

The problem in Conejo and several other districts was that educators did not provide information on two key variables used to determine the similarity of schools--student movement in and out of school and the number of students whose families are poor enough to receive subsidized lunches.

That background information was listed as optional on last year’s Stanford 9 basic-skills test, the cornerstone for the first-time rankings of California schools, so many districts did not take the time and considerable effort to provide it, Gross said.

State education officials said Wednesday that they will require complete data the second time around, and that will be reflected in reports next fall.

They said they had received dozens of complaints--most from affluent districts--about the similar-school rankings and are considering rerunning them this spring once complaining schools provide the extra information.

But Bill Padia, director of policy and evaluation for the state Department of Education, said he believes that the similar-school rankings are already a good indicator of relative performance because so many variables were used. Even if one or two measures were off, the others would tend to balance out the equation, he said.

“Here’s the deal--the data are not perfect because it’s the first time we’ve ever done anything like this,” Padia said. “But when you add in eight variables and you get three or four back, then you have a pretty good idea of where these schools are and which ones you can compare.

“Schools that always get these high rankings are not used to being compared with other schools like them that are out of the area,” he added. “So suddenly the competition heats up, and it’s uncomfortable. It’s like when you graduate and go to Stanford or Berkeley and suddenly you’re not the smartest in the class anymore. So we’re getting a fairly disturbed reaction from the high-level schools.”

*

Among the eight variables used to determine the similarity of schools are pupils’ mobility, ethnicity, socioeconomic status and whether they speak limited English. The other variables are class size, and the percentage of teachers who have full credentials and those with only emergency credentials.

Responding to Conejo’s specific complaints, Padia said the number of students who move into and out of a school--so-called student mobility--is one of the least important variables if data are otherwise complete.

Determining how many students receive subsidized lunches can be more crucial, he said, because it is one of only two variables used to determine a student’s economic status. The second is parents’ education level. If one of the two is provided, he said, the second is not necessary to fill out a school’s profile.

But Gross wasn’t buying Padia’s explanation.

“I’m anxious to see how Conejo really ranks relative to similar schools,” he said.

Around the county, other administrators were left either scratching their heads about similar-school rankings or celebrating them.

At the Oxnard High School District, it was mostly celebration.

The district’s four high schools where income and education levels are lowest--Oxnard, Channel Islands, Rio Mesa and Hueneme--scored well compared with similar schools.

Oxnard High, which scored only average on the overall state rankings, was the county’s only high school to receive a 10 in similar-school rankings. Conversely, the district’s fifth high school, Camarillo, ranked a high 9 overall, but only a 5 when compared with similar affluent schools.

“We provided all the background information for all five schools,” Assistant Supt. Gary Davis said. “And this just shows that compared to like-kind schools, we performed very well. But we certainly want to engage in conversation with Camarillo. I’m sure the staff there is as concerned as the district staff.”

*

Across town, Oxnard elementary’s Rose Avenue School, partially a magnet for gifted students, also stood out. It scored a 10 compared with similar schools, but only a 5 compared with all state schools.

In the nearby Ocean View Elementary District, where about half the students speak limited English, three of four schools rated only average against all schools. But they received 9s or 10s compared with comparable schools, even though the district did not report low parent education levels or mobility rates.

“We’re not quibbling with these rankings,” said Jeff Chancer, associate superintendent. “When kids are required to take this test and they can’t read English, how are they going to compete with these affluent districts?”

But they did compete with peers, he said, because of extraordinary teaching.

In upscale Camarillo, Pleasant Valley elementary district officials were celebrating their high overall rankings, but also looking hard at why some high-ranking schools ranked low compared with similar campuses.

“We’re still trying to get a handle on it,” said Barbara Wagner, director of instructional programs. “We talked about it today with the principals. We’re looking at the background data from each school to see if it is clean.”

*

So far, she said, she’s discovered that parent education data are not as good as it should be, since that information is voluntary and is returned at different rates at different schools.

“But we’re not looking for any excuses,” Wagner said. “We want to work with this information.”

Officials in the white-collar suburban enclave of Oak Park, where all five schools exceeded the state target for high performance, questioned the reliability of the data to determine its ranking against similar schools.

That was partly because of the rankings of Oak Hills Elementary, which ranked a 10 for performance compared with all California schools, but only a 1 when compared with schools like itself. The other two district elementary schools scored 10s overall, but just 5 against similar schools.

District curriculum consultant Sharon Morgan said the results raise serious questions about the validity of information used to decide what schools are similar. All three elementary schools are alike in demographics and all scored high on basic skills tests, but had divergent similar-school rankings, she said.

“It just begs questions,” she said. “I’ve had two calls today [from parents] saying the same thing. They were pleased with our performance, but curious about the difference in the two sets of rankings.”

*

One problem Morgan said she found was that the state shows no Oak Park children with subsidized lunches, and that is just wrong.

“I don’t know enough yet to say if it was [the school’s] error or the state’s error in not picking it up,” she said.

Regardless, Morgan said the district is pleased with its top statewide ranks compared with all schools.

“So the [similar-school] rankings really become a curiosity more than a concern,” she said. “The bottom line is that it’s a number, not a thorough analysis of the quality of the program.”

*

* EDUCATION GAP

The gulf between the best and worst is the same as between rich and poor. A3

* UPBEAT REACTION

Some officials with schools at bottom of rankings remain upbeat. A3

* MORE COVERAGE

See today’s Our Times section.