Feds ask 'improvement' from 54 school districts No Child Left Behind list cites low test scores Wednesday, December 06, 2006 • BY JOHN MOONEY • Star-Ledger Staff Fifty-four New Jersey school systems and six charter schools have been labeled "districts in need of improvement" for falling short of test-score requirements under the federal No Child Left Behind act. Beyond the bad publicity, the immediate consequences are limited, as many of the cited districts -- many of them poor and urban -- have dozens of individual schools already sanctioned under the same law, including Newark, Paterson, New Brunswick and Elizabeth. But the list released by the state yesterday also includes a few districts not usually carrying the unflattering tag, including Hamilton Township, Warren Hills Regional and Northern Valley Regional. In Paterson, the state's announcement came the same day the district announced two schools winning national and state distinctions. The district's chief said the latest No Child Left Behind status sends a mixed message. "Sometimes these labels can lead the district to unfairly get a bad reputation," said Superintendent Michael Glascoe. "But it is also a signal for me as a superintendent that we have work to do." The districtwide status is similar to the better-known list of "schools in need of improvement" that was released in the fall, but applies the same test score requirements to the entire system as a way to bring broader accountability to districts and not just isolated schools. Under the law, students in every category -- including black, white, low-income and special education -- must meet the pre-set achievement levels on statewide tests, with a goal of 100 percent proficiency in reading and math by 2013. Districts can be sanctioned for missing just one of more than 40 categories. Those failing for four straight years face the sanctions, including the possible loss of federal funds and replacement of key staff. Thirteen districts are now in the third year, and state officials said they doubt they would be that punitive in districts reaching the fourth year. "What we're feeling is we wouldn't withhold the money, but maybe reallocate it in the areas of need," said Suzanne Ochse, director of the state education office that oversees implementation of the federal law. In addition, most of the districts furthest along have already been under tighter monitoring due to low performance or other concerns. Newark and Paterson, for instance, are both under state operation. Eight others in the third year fall under the Abbott vs. Burke school equity rulings, bringing resources but also mandates from the state. "A lot of the same districts that have bubbled up for us are the same ones that are on this list," state Education Commissioner Lucille Davy said yesterday. "But this is another way of looking at it, and it is the federal law." Nevertheless, the distinction will trigger outside reviews under the state's new monitoring system in each of the 13 districts, expected to launch after the new year. "We are really trying to bring a lot of this monitoring and accountability together, and this will really be the first time all of these pieces in place," Davy said. With the state maybe looking to do away with the Abbott funding, advocates said the latest report gives argument that some Abbott districts are making gains. Jersey City and East Orange are among eight districts that met achievement standards and fell off the list from last year. "What stands out are all the Abbott districts not on the list, and clearly making progress," said David Sciarra, director of the Education Law Center, which first brought the Abbott suit. "We must strengthen, not end, the state's commitment to our urban students and schools." Most of the other districts are in their first or second year on the list, and 19 actually met the requirements last year but need two successive years to be removed altogether. John Mooney covers education. He may be reached at jmooney@star ledger.com, or 973-392-1548. © 2006 The Star-Ledger. Used by NJ.com with permission.