VIDALIA — The 2008 school performance scores were released Friday, and one parish school was noted as having “recognized academic growth” while another was rated as a “school in decline.”

School performance scores are based on a number of factors, including academic success, attendance and dropout rates.

The goal — as mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act — is to have every school performing at a score of 120 by 2014.

“The scores were better in some areas than we had projected,” Concordia Parish Superintendent Loretta Blankenstein said.

The school district’s overall score improved from 83.1 to 86.7.

The school district knows roughly the formula that the state uses to determine school performance scores, but some factors — such as if transfer student scores will be counted — are determined by the state.

From their knowledge of what factors the state considers when calculating scores, they calculated earlier this year that school performance scores would likely decrease from last year.

But Vidalia Junior High School not only met its score growth goal — it exceeded it.

“I sent a note around to all the teachers, and they were elated,” Principal Whest Shirley said.

VJHS expected some growth, but not as much as they saw, Shirley said.

“We were hoping to grow four points, but we grew six points,” he said.

The VJHS score of 6 points exceeded the growth target of 4.2 points to ultimately grow their score from 89.8 to 95.8.

The flip side of that, however, was Vidalia Lower Elementary, which was labeled as a “school in decline,” dropping 5.9 points from 93 to 87.1 on its score.

The reason for that decline did not just have to do with academics — it also included attendance.

“We knew our attendance was down, and we have already taken some steps to improve it,” Principal Doris Polk said.

Another thing that is factored into the Vidalia Lower score is how well the third graders from Vidalia Upper do on their testing, and last year that group did not perform as well as in the past, Director of Academics Paul Nelson said.

“All of their eggs are in one basket with one group of kids, so the third grade’s scores hurt both schools,” Nelson said.

Ferriday Lower and Upper Elementary Schools and Ferriday Junior High School all saw growth for 2008, though they did not meet their growth goals.

Part of the reason they did not meet their growth goals was because as the 2014 deadline approaches, the growth formula is back-loaded to require schools to have more and more growth every year, Nelson said.

“That’s not really a realistic expectation,” he said. “When we look at a school that grows five to six points a year, we are very pleased with that — that’s good, sustainable growth.

“I think we can do a little bit better, but it is going to be very tough to get nine points and beyond for some of these growth targets.”

Ferriday Lower’s five points of growth didn’t meet the 7.6-point growth target, but it raised the school’s score from 62.6 to 67.6.

Likewise, Ferriday Upper did not reach the 7.7-point growth goal, but nonetheless grew 5.9 points to raise their score of 61.7 to 67.6.

Ferriday Junior High had a growth goal of 7.9 points. The school’s score inched up another 3.9 points from 61.1 to 65.0.

“All three of those schools made great growth, but because they did not meet their growth target, they were labeled as having minimal growth,” Blankenstein said. “The faculty, staff, parents and students are to be commended at all of those schools that have shown that improvement.”

Ferriday High School, Monterey High School, Ridgecrest School, Vidalia High School and Vidalia Upper Elementary School all saw slight decreases in scores.

The state labeled them as “no growth” rather than “in decline.”

Ferriday High fell one point to 71.1, Monterey lost 0.6 points to stop at 107, Vidalia High fell 2.5 points to end at 95.8 points and Vidalia Upper’s score dropped 0.8 points to 92.3.