Consider these findings from the Center for Education Research at the University of Wisconsin. Sara Kraemer and Elisabeth Geraghty analyzed eight Milwaukee public schools between October 2008 and February 2009. They grouped schools by test scores, low and high.

Then they evaluated non-school factors that can affect achievement, things such as how well students did in the past, how often a family moves, race and income. They grouped the same schools again, this time by whether the school contributed to students' growth and achievement. They called schools that really contributed to student growth "high value-added." Schools that had little effect on student growth were called "low value-added."

They found schools fell into one of four categories:

• Some were high value-added and had high test scores. Faculty members welcomed the additional measurement. It showed that their efforts made a difference, and that their test scores could not be explained simply because they had "good" students.

• Some were high value-added schools but still had low test scores. These faculty members also welcomed the evaluation. They felt validated, recounts the newsletter "WCER Research Highlights." Even though many students failed to hit the state's proficiency mark on the annual test, students in those schools showed great improvement because of what schools were doing.

• Some were low value-added schools, but still had high test scores. Staff members here were in disbelief, researchers found. Their students scored well, but not because of what the school was doing. Despite appearances by test scores alone, they were not high-performing schools. Faculty at these schools wanted to learn how to improve.

• Finally, there were low value-added schools with low scores. These teachers tended to believe students were the problem, and they did not accept the evaluation as valid.

A Kanawha County elementary school principal described essentially this exact condition to me a decade ago, just before the No Child Left Behind Act took effect.

If you run a school with a high proportion of children with serious problems outside of school -- kids who are always moving, not getting good food or sleep, possibly victims of or witness to violence -- your students start out with a lot of challenges to overcome. They can learn, and improve, but even working hard with the best instruction, they might not score as well as kids who do not face such grievous problems every day. It is easy, even stylish, to beat up on those schools for low test scores, or even decent test scores that aren't quite high enough.

But if you run a school where most of the children are in stable, secure homes, well-fed and rested, ready to learn and encouraged every day, those children may test well no matter what the school does. And the few highly disadvantaged children who are enrolled in that school can be obscured by the higher test scores school-wide.

So which is the better school -- the one working hard to supply what children are missing, moving toward but not necessarily hitting the mark, or the one coasting on the skills and abilities children bring with them to school?

That was one thing the principal liked about the No Child Left Behind law. It required schools, counties and states to look at categories of students -- low-income, minority, special education and English language learners. Schools had to show students in those groups were proficient, as well as the overall school.

It's far from perfect. Schools with very few students in those groups still get a pass. It also creates some bad incentives -- to keep children out of special ed, for example. But for many more schools, the law caused people to look at struggling students, even if they were too few to flunk the whole school.

Since then, states, schools and maybe the public have become more sophisticated in how they test and use test data. As Congress works on renewing the federal education law, and as West Virginia works on more rigorous content and tests to match, the Wisconsin lessons about evaluating schools are relevant to West Virginia educators.

***

Speaking of educators, the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History in New York has extended until Feb. 22 its application deadline for this year's teacher seminars.

Social studies, language arts and English teachers of kindergarten through 12th grade may apply for the one-week seminars taught by respected historians on college campuses. They promise to give teachers a chance to deepen their knowledge of American history and literature and to gain practical resources and strategies for their classrooms. The institute provides books, room and board for the week and up to $400 in reimbursed travel expenses.

Details for applying, and a list of 40 seminars, is available at gilderlehrman.org. Access to complete details may require signing up, but joining is free.

*** 

Also, nominations for the 2012 Governor's Service Awards are due April 13.

Awards to recognize extraordinary volunteer service during 2011 are awarded in the categories of youth, young adult, adult, senior, National Service, lifetime achievement, family organization and business.

The award is administered by the state Commission for National and Community Service. More information on how to nominate is available at volunteerwv.org.