I have received many comments about this blog, and there are two recurrent themes. The first is to question my fairness in comparing Snoqualmie Valley student results to those of other Eastside school districts. The other is to thank me for finally speaking out. Today's blog entry is to address the first theme.
Is it "fair" to compare Snoqualmie Valley student achievement, college and career preparation, and dropout statistics with a peer group of the following Eastside schools: Bellevue, Issaquah, Lake Washington, Mercer Island, Riverview and Tahoma? I chose these districts not only because they are neighboring districts, but because they are areas where Valley residents work and shop and where Valley kids compete in athletics and performing arts. To me, this peer group is a much more reasonable group with which to compare results than with the entire state. Not only do I believe that it is fair to compare results with this peer group, I think it is imperative that we do so.
The main reasons (assumptions) that some give me as to why we can't have the same expectations for students as those in other districts are that the Snoqualmie Valley School District (SVSD):
· Is more economically challenged,
· Has a higher rate of English language learners, and
· Has much less funding per student.
First, let's analyze whether these claims are true. Second, I must ask whether these provide sufficient reason to lower expectations for our students. Let's take a look.
An important measure of a district's economics is the percentage of students who qualify for a "free or reduced price lunch" (FRL). Out of the seven peer districts, the SVSD has had the 5th lowest FRL for the last three years. Therefore the SVSD appears to be closer to being an economically advantaged district. Bellevue, for one example, has a much higher FRL rate, yet has consistently scored higher on most of the state assessment tests in 4th, 7th and 10th grade reading and math over the last three years and has a much lower dropout rate than the SVSD. So, for those of you who believe that the SVSD should not be compared with this peer group because of poverty levels, I believe that you need to do some homework.
Regarding the percentage of students who are English language learners, the SVSD ranks as having the 6th lowest rate of English language learning students in this peer group. So, again, this is not an excuse.
With respect to funding, the SVSD does rank 6th lowest in "per pupil expenditures". However, one reason for this is because the SVSD has a lower rate of FRP eligible students and a lower number of English language learners. Simply put, districts with higher rates of poverty and English learners get more funding. Should less funding translate to lower education expectations? Issaquah, for example, has lower per pupil spendig than the SVSD. Yet, Issaquah has consistently outscored the SVSD on all of the state assessments in 4th, 7th, and 10th grade math over the last three years. Issaquah also has a much lower dropout rate. (As a side note, the SVSD has increased its "per pupil expenditures" by 19% over the last 3 years -- a rate of increase much higher than any of the other districts.)
I believe that our student success differences are not because we are more economically challenged, have a higher rate of English language learners, or suffer from lower per pupil funding. Even if all of these measurements were equal amongst this peer group, I would have to question whether this district's lack of clear vision, specific goals, and strong accountability measures would still result in less than average student achievement and college and career readiness when compared to students in this peer group.
Why would parents, community members, and educators want to expect less of students in this Valley than those in other districts? Let's stop the excuses, believe in our community's young people, and help them meet their potential. Let's acknowledge that this district could and should do a better job at helping kids learn, achieve, and succeed. Our demographics are comparable, and in some cases better, than our neighboring districts. Why are we treating our kids different and setting the bar lower? Will this type of attitude help or hurt Valley students when they enter the real world and have to compete with these "other" kids for college admissions and jobs?
