Delaware’s school awards spark data debate

A recent dispute over Delaware’s school recognition program highlights the growing challenge of measuring and communicating educational progress in an era of increasing data complexity. 

The Delaware Department of Education recently awarded 17 schools with state and national recognition for achievements in student growth, closing achievement gaps, and serving special populations. 

However, education policy expert Tanya Hettler, Ph.D., from the Caesar Rodney Institute raised questions about whether the data supports these awards, sparking immediate pushback from the state’s education department and a broader discussion about transparency in educational metrics.

RELATED: Two DE schools receive national praise, while 15 others get state recognition

Concerns with data

The controversy centers particularly on Rehoboth Elementary School’s national recognition. 

While the school demonstrated strong improvement among its low-income students – with 13% growth in English Language Arts and 5% in math – it appears to fall short of the 35% poverty rate requirement for eligibility. The school’s current poverty rate stands at 20%, according to available data.

“When I first read the DOE report on the schools receiving national and state awards, I thought that we might be able to look at what these schools are doing successfully and copy that in other districts,” Hettler said. “However, after looking up the assessment scores, I found these awards are not consistently aligned with performance in their designated categories.”

The disagreement stems partly from complex calculation methods, a huge student performance database with numerous redactions, and varying definitions of key metrics. 

Here’s how the recognized schools are selected, based on eligibility and data requirements:

The state considers Medicaid recipients in its low-income counts and uses specific definitions for achievement gaps and English language proficiency that aren’t immediately apparent in publicly available data. 

The Department of Education vigorously defends its awards while acknowledging the need for better communication. 

“The award categories are based on federal designations,” said Alison May, public information officer for the Delaware Department of Education. “The results announced are accurate.” 

However, the department concedes that the calculations behind the identifications are incredibly complex and could be challenging for the general public to understand without better definitions and more transparency.

State Sen. Eric Buckson, R-Dover, sees merit in both positions. 

“The interpretation of data in the educational space has always been a problem because it does not always portray what is actually going on in the classroom,” he said. “I would argue that the same holds true when you collect data that inaccurately criticizes the educational system solely on test scores.”

Buckson praised the Caesar Rodney Institute’s watchdog role while also expressing support for Delaware’s public school teachers and their daily efforts to improve outcomes. 

“The focus should be on clean data that accurately portrays outcomes and not data that misconstrues results,” he said. “In the end, we all want what’s best for our students.” 

The debate comes at a crucial time for Delaware’s education system, where only 41% of students read at grade level and 31% meet grade-level math standards. 

The Department of Education plans to review how it presents this information in the new year, aiming to make the recognition process more transparent and easier to understand.

Hettler acknowledged that many of the schools that received the above awards did show overall performance higher than the average for the state.

She believes North Smyrna Elementary School deserved the award and praised the school’s excellence.

The school scores higher than the average school, with 53% proficiency in ELA and 56% in math, and the improvement from last year was 43% to 53%  in ELA and 45% to 56% in math, which Hettler says are both significant. 

 This discussion reflects a broader national conversation about how best to measure and communicate educational progress in ways that are both accurate and accessible to the public.