Or we could not rate schools at all and use a more comprehensive analysis, rather than trying to jam the effectiveness of a complex system into a single letter of the alphabet. Letter grades don't accurately reflect the scope of learning for individual students, so they certainly cannot encompass the effectiveness of a school.
"...or we tell high poverty schools that they have no chance of getting A grades no matter how amazing they do at helping kids make progress from one year to the next."
That's a tad fatalistic, no? Not to say they have provided a blueprint for effective replication, but 90-90-90 schools do, in fact, exist.
Thanks John. First, I'm not sure that 90/90/90 schools still exist, now that we've made the tests a lot harder than they used to be in the NCLB era. But I'd love to be wrong!
I hear you re: letter grades. There are plenty of states that don't rate schools (mostly blue states). The downside is that any of the benefits of accountability pressure don't materialize, and parents are left in the dark. (Or they turn to GreatSchools, which does rate schools!)
Hey James. Yes, some are worse, and some don't even attempt to come up with a final rating or sub-ratings. But you point out the problem of smooshing everything together.
My take has always been that WA needed to comply with federal legislation but wanted to do so in a way that would have the least impact. It's hard to get people in the profession to really understand what the ratings are saying, let alone the general public.
Option 4, then make sure parents know what each means and can filter by them.
Or we could not rate schools at all and use a more comprehensive analysis, rather than trying to jam the effectiveness of a complex system into a single letter of the alphabet. Letter grades don't accurately reflect the scope of learning for individual students, so they certainly cannot encompass the effectiveness of a school.
"...or we tell high poverty schools that they have no chance of getting A grades no matter how amazing they do at helping kids make progress from one year to the next."
That's a tad fatalistic, no? Not to say they have provided a blueprint for effective replication, but 90-90-90 schools do, in fact, exist.
Thanks John. First, I'm not sure that 90/90/90 schools still exist, now that we've made the tests a lot harder than they used to be in the NCLB era. But I'd love to be wrong!
I hear you re: letter grades. There are plenty of states that don't rate schools (mostly blue states). The downside is that any of the benefits of accountability pressure don't materialize, and parents are left in the dark. (Or they turn to GreatSchools, which does rate schools!)
Honest question: Does any state have a more opaque rating system than WA? https://ospi.k12.wa.us/policy-funding/grants-management/every-student-succeeds-act-essa/washington-school-improvement-framework
For K-8: 50% of a school's score is growth, 40% proficiency, 5% for EL progress, and 5% for regular attendance rate
For 9-12: 50% of a school's score is graduation, 30% proficiency, 5% regular attendance rate, 5% dual credit rate, 5% ninth grade on-track
Each indicator is based on a rolling three-year average that is then placed in deciles based on state data from that year to feed into a single score.
In the end, the scores track poverty rate pretty closely…
Hey James. Yes, some are worse, and some don't even attempt to come up with a final rating or sub-ratings. But you point out the problem of smooshing everything together.
My take has always been that WA needed to comply with federal legislation but wanted to do so in a way that would have the least impact. It's hard to get people in the profession to really understand what the ratings are saying, let alone the general public.