Schools Improve By Way Of 'Safe Harbor'

Alternate Standard Confuses Parents

Thirteen of 33 public schools that were listed as having made adequate yearly progress on a new standardized test actually did not meet the academic targets but were "safe harbor" schools, meaning that they had reduced the number of low-performing students.

Under the federal No Child Left Behind Act, schools can be classified as having met academic benchmarks if they reduce the number of nonproficient students by 10 percentage points, even if they don't reach the targets.

For example, at Arts and Technology Academy, an elementary public charter school in the Grant Park section of Northeast, 28 percent of students were listed as proficient in reading. For an elementary school to meet targets without safe harbor, 47.3 percent of its test group must reach proficiency.

Arts and Technology made adequate progress under the safe harbor provision of the law because the school reduced the number of nonproficient students by 10 points, when a complicated formula was used to equate the results of a 2005 test with a different one administered this year.

The safe harbor provision is causing confusion among parents and educators who are trying to sort out the results of the new test, the D.C. Comprehensive Assessment, which was administered this spring. Some schools scored higher than others but were listed as not making adequate yearly progress because the school did not meet the academic targets or the safe harbor provision.

The KIPP DC: AIM Academy in the Congress Heights section of Southeast, for instance, failed to meet the benchmark, though it scored almost 10 points higher than Arts and Technology. Principal Khala Johnson said she is pleased that D.C. school officials introduced a more rigorous student assessment this year. But she is finding it difficult to explain to parents why AIM Academy, which has a reputation for academic achievement, did not make adequate yearly progress when some schools that performed lower did.

AIM Academy was not considered for safe harbor because as a new charter school it had no test data from 2005 that could demonstrate improvement in 2006.

"Parents are confused about when a school makes AYP through safe harbor versus the proficiency cutoff," Johnson said, adding that her fifth-graders showed vast improvement on another exam given at the beginning and end of the last school year. She said the school held a luncheon for parents this week and plans another forum for them next week to talk about the results.

"We know our children are making great gains, " she said.

Nona Richardson, spokeswoman for the D.C. Public Charter Schools Board, which has 37 charter schools under its authority, said even though safe harbor schools haven't met all of the targets, the board considers safe harbor a valid indication of student improvement.

"It demonstrates some progress, instead of just stagnation," Richardson said.

Four charter schools under the board's authority made adequate yearly progress, including two schools under the safe harbor provision. Richardson said the board will hold several training sessions this fall to help school leaders develop lesson plans and other instructional programs.

Of the 28 schools in the D.C. public school system listed as having made adequate yearly progress, 10 were under the safe harbor provision. Only one charter school of the 13 authorized by the Board of Education made adequate yearly progress, achieving it under the safe harbor provision.