Skip to main content

Puzio explains 'School in Need of Improvement' designation for middle school

By Howard B. Owens

Earlier this week, Batavia City Schools sent a letter to parents of students at Batavia Middle School notifying them that school has been placed on a "School in Need of Improvement" list by U.S. Department of Education.

This morning, Superintendent Margeret Puzio explained to The Batavian what the letter meant.

As part of "No Child Left Behind," passed in 2001, schools that receive federal aid must ensure certain "subgroups" perform adequately on standardized tests.

Subgroups are groups of students considered disadvantaged, such as students with disabilities, minority students, students who speak English as a second language. 

If a school has 30 or more students qualifying for a subgroup, then the school must meet the standardized test requirements for that subgroup in order to receive continued federal aid.

None of the elementary schools, with only about 300 students each, are large enough that any of the so-called disadvantaged groups have 30 or more students, but the middle school, with 500 students, does.

One such subgroup is students with disabilities.

Within the past year, the state stopped giving schools 34 bonus points on standardized tests for students with disabilities, also the raw score to pass the test has been raised, and the test has been made longer.

Puzio called this a "Bermuda Triangle" for school districts and Batavia isn't alone in falling into the trap.

Because the middle school's students with disabilities subgroup didn't meet the requirements of the standardized tests the last two rounds, the district was required to notify all parents of middle school students that the school is now considered a "School in Need of Improvement."

Also, in order to continue receiving federal aid, called Title I funds, the district must divert some of its Title I money into a program to help disadvantaged students, and in this case help students who are economically disadvantaged.

The district will be required to hire a contractor -- perhaps Sylvan Learning Centers -- to come in and offer tutoring and other help to economically disadvantaged students.

Participation by economically disadvantaged students is optional and entirely up to the parents of the students as to whether their children will participate.

Kyle Couchman

I so glad Margaret explained this to us.....its so much clearer now. After hearing her explanation (which rather sounded more like a long excuse) and used the bermuda triangle metaphor I walk away with this. The board and superintendent seem to be more concerned with budgets and passing them before the public and million dollar renovations to facilities that something basic..... like educating the children in their charge is slipping from their grasp. I wonder if this will change their minds on consolidating the district as it would probably increase the elementary and high schools to the point that we might see the same results there and then all our districts schools will be "Schools in need of Improvement"

Sep 15, 2011, 1:44pm Permalink
Cheri Kolb

If the consolidation goes through would that then make the 2 remaining elementary schools large enough that they would qualify for a subgroup, which would then make them also required to meet the standardized test requirements to maintain federal aid? Won't that put an added stressor on an already unsteady adjustment time for the district? (meaning the first years of the consolidation are going to be difficult for everyone, it's like any big change that needs time to get the kinks worked out of it)

Sep 15, 2011, 6:09pm Permalink
Tara Pariso

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but is Puzio claiming that the only reason BMS was classified as "School in Need of Improvement" was due to studnets with disabilities? Way to blame innocent children for the failures in the school, because I'm sure every non-disabled student did perfectly fine on the bogus exams?

Sep 15, 2011, 7:38pm Permalink
Mark Potwora

Seems to me this about not doing their job in teaching these students..and now they are going to hire outside teachers to do the job the other teachers couldn't.....What does the school board think of this..Is this why money is so tight..Paying outside teachers to do the job of the teachers allready employed by the district...

Sep 15, 2011, 11:27pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Why isn't anybody outraged about more big government inflicting needless regulations on local governments?

Here you have a big government law (No Child Left Behind) created by the most non-conservative Republican in history (George W. Bush) being shoved down the throats of local school districts creating more burdensome regulations and mandates tying up teacher and administrator time -- and now with arcane rules about who and what is covered and how, along with changing the rules mid-process.

Nobody so far has even picked up on the fact that the supposedly substandard test scores were on one "subgroup" but the district must spend the money to improve the performance of an entirely different subgroup. How does that make sense?

Of course, it doesn't make sense, because it's being run and regulated by federal and state bureaucrats.

The real outrage here isn't anything the school district did -- it's big government.

Sep 16, 2011, 6:45am Permalink
Kyle Couchman

Well Howard I am very outraged, however what good is being outraged at something you can do nothing about. It's like punching the oak tree that just crushed you truck or garage...... you arent gonna hurt it but you will hurt yourself in getting enraged at it.

You and I may know that Govt needs to be reigned in, Hell our whole county could wake up and be so enlightened. But until people stop putting these career politicians in office, empowering them to leech off of us and our taxes the cycle will continue. The power is in our hands to wake up the system but its just not gonna happen until the entire public wakes up and engages that power.

But if you look at the stories Puzio has been involved with as of late, she has the same mentality as the big govt politicians, spend spend spend while the main job of which she is beholden to slips away. I'm sure she knows what these govt rules are and what changes have been made but oh how convenient for them to slip by and end up nibbling away at the budget creating more crisis smoke for her to apply her mirrors to. This situation is something we can effect.

Just saying is all.....

Sep 16, 2011, 8:10am Permalink
Lori Silvernail

It's easy to relate how students with disabilities or those who have English as a second language would probably have difficulty with standardized testing. But I don't see the correlation between economically disadvantaged students and poor test results. I don't really want to hear how the parents don't spend as much time assisting with homework or any other excuse like that. The amount of in-school instruction is the same for all students.

The REAL problem, as I see it, is standardized testing. How can a test truly be "standardized" when some students aren't fluent in English, or are physically disabled and require significant assistance from aides to complete assignments? Teaching to the test is wrong, but teachers must do it in order for the students to meet the requirements of the almighty test designers.

It's a sad state of affairs when new teachers graduate with the idea that they'll be given topics to cover and then they find out that their best laid plans are all swept under the rug because they have to teach to the test. We teach our children their ABC's and counting by rote, and now it seems that all other learning will be by this method rather than by using critical thinking. I am SO glad I grew up in the era that I did.

Sep 16, 2011, 8:50am Permalink
Billie Owens

Lori, you're right about "teaching to the test." I think this saps creativity in the classroom and takes some of the fun out of learning. Everything these days is about test scores, as if nothing else matters. Trying to make the same cookie by using different ingredients. Some children are good test takers yet lack analytical skills, some perform poorly on tests and the pressure they create, but are otherwise capable students. Government tying big purse strings to "standardized" testing has not proved helpful to overall student performance in my view.

Sep 16, 2011, 12:52pm Permalink
Phil Ricci

Howard and Billie are so dead on!

I loathe standardize testing, and find those who support it as a means to judge actual performance is just silly. I cannot stand that people who are hundreds or even thousands miles away can decide what's best for my kids.

Sep 16, 2011, 1:50pm Permalink
C. M. Barons

If one reads the article carefully: the statement as noted, "One such subgroup is students with disabilities." ...And the blame was not placed on the 'students with disabilities;' it was placed on the state for not applying "34 bonus points" toward the ranking as had been prior practice. So Puzio was not blaming students, he was explaining a change in the scoring that affected the school's rating.

One can be realistic about performance expectations without denigrating disabled students. It goes without saying; performance improvement goals cannot be the same for every student. Disabilities not-withstanding, age, alone, is a defining characteristic governing learning ability. Brain development (such as Brokaw's area) is critical to reading, writing and speech skills- yet can vary by years among different children. And, yes, socio-economic situation implicates both learning rate and test performance. Cataloging the disparities between children growing up in homes with little or no disposable income Vs homes with significant disposable income should not require vast imagination or a PhD to envision. Head Start was a program validated by such disparities.

Sep 16, 2011, 2:31pm Permalink
Frank Bartholomew

Howard, I agree with most of what you stated, but this school district needs someone looking over their shoulders.
Sometimes they tend to push students through, regardless of whether or not they are ready, or academically mature to transition from middle school to high school. I knew of a student who transitioned from middle to high school with a 5th grade reading comprehension, to me, that's unacceptable.

Sep 16, 2011, 5:03pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

A school district doesn't need anybody but the local voters looking over its shoulders.

A federal oversight isn't perfect.

A local system wouldn't be perfect.

But at least our mistakes would be our mistakes.

And it would be a lot cheaper.

Sep 16, 2011, 11:37pm Permalink
bud prevost

Frank, where are the parents of these kids? That may be part of the issue. We've become a society that looks to the government to guide our kids, instead of families and villages doing the job. I'm with Howard, nothing will be perfect, but allow us to make our own decisions for our kids. Local control and local accountability, and cut the federal government's bloated bureaucracy out of the picture.

Sep 17, 2011, 8:23am Permalink
Frank Bartholomew

The parents were telling the district changes were needed, but no one from the district wanted to hear it, including Puzio. It took 3 years to finally get this student in an environment more condusive to the students handicapping conditions.
Howard, are you saying oh well if a handicapped student misses out on a chance at a free education, because the district tried to go on the cheap and push them through?

Sep 17, 2011, 9:56am Permalink
Frank Bartholomew

Howard, I connected what you said,"At least our mistakes would be our mistakes". Maybe I inferred the statement the wrong way. I took it to mean that if we make mistakes, it would be okay because we made the mistake, even if that mistake involved a student not getting the education each and every student is entitled to.

Sep 17, 2011, 1:49pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Where did I say mistakes are OK?

However:

And why is it the federal government's job to ensure "getting the education each and every student is entitled to"?

The major problem with this country is a too-big federal government.

Ever hear the phrase, "life is tough, and then you die"?

Everybody deserves an opportunity for a good education, but not everybody is going to succeed. Failure and mistakes are unavoidable and for a variety of reasons that no government program can solve. But the impulse to try to use the government -- especially the federal government -- to try and make everything perfect is a major reason the country is circling the drain and headed toward oblivion. Big government is evil, but people keep turning to it expecting it to solve problems it can't solve, just making it bigger and bigger.

Education is a local issue. It's not a state issue. It's not a federal issue. We don't need any more federal government-imposed mistakes. The local district makes mistakes of course -- it's a human institution, but with more local control they would be easier to fix and in a manner better suiting the community rather than one-size-fits-all imperial degrees for the U.S. Department of Education. We should own our mistakes rather than having them imposed on us by big government.

And to make it clear, no where am saying "a handicap student" should miss out on a education. I'm saying it's a local issue, not a federal issue.

Sep 17, 2011, 5:30pm Permalink
Frank Bartholomew

Howard, I'm saying until someone can prove a better mousetrap,I'll stick with what has benefitted me the most.
I have first hand knowledge of attempting to make a change in a students placement within the district. I tried working it out with the district, even met with Ms. Puzio, and finally had to file a formal complaint with NYSED. If it takes three + years for the district to finally do the right thing, and only becuase of state intervention, which,by the way was a last resort, then I for one, believe government belongs in public education.
I hope I didn't insinuate you were saying anything negative about any student group, unintentional, if I did.

Sep 18, 2011, 10:41am Permalink

Authentically Local