The Education Commission of the States has compiled a graph showing what states are measuring in the way of student data.
One interesting note is that the idea of A-F letter grades for schools started in Florida, the brain-child of Governor Jeb Bush. There are now 14 states that use letter grades. In my view, this is an especially pernicious form of data. Imagine how a parent would feel if their child came home from school with a report card that contained only one grade: A-F. The parent would be outraged and would demand a more expansive description of how their child is doing in school.
In the case of a school, which is an institution with many staff and students, a single letter grade is absurdly reductionist. There are many facets to a school, including its resources, teachers, support staff, curriculum, attendance, persistence rate, availability of physical education, facilities, etc.
Why take all these people and activity and reduce them to a single letter?
I personally saw how nutty this idea was in the form of my neighborhood school in Brooklyn. One year, it was rated A, and the mayor and chancellor came to the school to congratulate the principal and teachers. The school was so successful, they said, that it would be expanded. Then six weeks later, the new report cards were released, and the school was rated F.
I met the principal a few months later and asked him why the school’s grade had dropped so precipitously. He had no idea. Nothing had changed. The staff was the same. The curriculum was the same. It made no sense. Subsequently, the school grade went up to a B or C, and the principal confided that he wanted to keep it that way, hoping no one would pay attention to his school.
Note that the report was funded by the Walton Family Foundation.
Here is the press release:
New ECS database highlights letter grades for schools, trends in state accountability systems
DENVER — More than a dozen states are on track to assign A-F letter grades to schools, among the trends highlighted in a first-of-its-kind database published today by the Education Commission of the States.
The online database shows which indicators states are considering in gauging school performance and how state leaders are publicly reporting on that performance to parents and others.
Letter grades for schools, which have been controversial in some states, appear to be an increasingly popular tool for policymakers. In 2002, only one state — Florida — assigned letter grades to schools.
Among some of the highlights of the analysis:
- 14 states assign, or have passed legislation to assign, letter grades to schools. Ohio, Texas and Virginia are scheduled to begin letter grading systems in 2014 and 2015.
- All 50 states and the District of Columbia consider student achievement as measured by test results in their performance indicators.
- 37 states and D.C. factor in student growth or improvement on tests in deciding school performance. That’s up from 21 in 2002.
- 44 states and D.C. consider graduation rates in determining school performance while 12 states include dropout rates.
- 9 states weigh growth of the lowest-performing quartile of students in judging their schools.
Kathy Christie, ECS vice president and co-director of its Information Clearinghouse, said the database marks the first comprehensive look at how states are measuring and reporting school performance. Some data are comparable to previous years, when more limited analysis was completed.
“What we know from reviewing state policy is that the intent of these school accountability systems is to help parents make informed choices for their children,” Christie said. “So it’s important that what’s being measured and reported is an accurate depiction of a school’s progress.”
Support for this project was provided by the Walton Family Foundation. The views expressed are those of ECS, which receives the majority of its funding from the member states it serves.
Virginia’s new governor Terry McAuliffe (D) is weighing in against it:
McAuliffe dislikes letter grades for schools
The governor addressed many topics relevant in the state on his first weekly call-in radio show.
RICHMOND — Gov. Terry McAuliffe on Thursday strongly advocated for dismantling the letter grading system for rating public schools that his predecessor signed last year, saying it stigmatizes students and teachers and would have adverse economic impacts on the schools’ communities.
http://goo.gl/dtfGhY
that is probably the best thing I have heard about Terry McAuliffe in maybe . . . ever! Seriously, I assumed he was a typical CAP/Clintonista neo-liberal who just swallowed the nonsense whole. Glad that is not the case.
I read this with interest: “37 states and D.C. factor in student growth or improvement on tests in deciding school performance…” Let us not forget that in addition to this, classroom teachers are forced to create data for selected sub groups of students in their classroom and must “show” through “data” that there has been growth for these students. The teacher’s evaluations (henceforth careers) depend upon the growth of these selected students. So basically a classroom teacher is likely to be paying “extra” attention to students in their sub group for the simple fact that their career depends upon it. The whole thing (also know as the “SLO”… Student Learning Objective)… is INSIDIOUS. If I were a parent, I would be asking a classroom teacher whether or not my child was selected to be part of the SLO and would BE COMPLAINING FORCEFULLY that this SLO insanity exists at all. Parents across the nation should have a problem with this – big time! I have disdain for Charlotte Danielson because I think her “FFT system” is being abused but she says nothing because it must be so profitable for her “company”! It is all well and good if her version worked for her but it is horrific to twist and alter “her system” and then shove it down the “classroom throats” of public school teachers across the entire nation in a one-size-fits-all system! I would love for Ravitch to have a candid interview with Danielson at this point in time!
SLOs are being implemented in Maryland. Use of them allows data to be collected on teachers who do not teach what is on the state NCLB tests.
However, teachers who teach those tested with NCLB tests, e.g., third grade math, still have to write two SLOs.
Yes, please a Ravich interview with Danielson. Tens of thousands of L.A. teachers are having to do “reflections” on computer as part of their evaluations. Resistance to this is high. I would not want my evaluator assessing me based on my reflections (confessions?) of being less than “highly effective”.
There’s a parallel, here, to what the Chinese did during the “Great Leap Forward.” They announced a new period of openness, encouraged people to come to meetings and voice their criticisms of the corrupt local party, and then, during the Cultural Revolution, they brought the hammer down on anyone who deviated a nanometer from the party line during that period of openness.
I think you’re right. Some corporate business models can be ruthless and the evidence here suggests that this will be the case as the private sector continues to attack public education and take it over.
It’s almost as if there is a master plan here that someone has outlined and they are working it one step at a time one a state by state basis.
However, there may be a way to get around this. If we could mobilize retired teachers who still care enough to fight back there isn’t much they could do. There must be millions of us out there.
How do we contact all the retired teachers and recruit as many as possible into an organized effort to defend public education and teachers who are still in the classroom?
I searched Google to see if I could find anything that would point the way but found nothing. In California, CalSTRS has a newsletter for us retired teachers. I wonder if they sell ad space. I’d contribute. There are several hundred thousand retired teachers in California now. CalSTRS has an annual report that lists how many are active and retired.
Most of the teachers I knew who taught for twenty years or more were very dedicated and cared about the profession and there was a lot of anger carried by all. I doubt that passion has cooled.
Yes, let’s hope we educators learn from that sad episode of history.
I caught a nasty cold this season. I should probably give my doctor an F.
FIVE LOL’S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Funny!!!
LOL. Well said!
What is “The Education Commission of the States”?
“Our Mission
The Education Commission of the States helps policymakers develop effective policy and practice for public education by providing data, research, analysis, and leadership; and by facilitating collaboration, the exchange of ideas among the states, and long-range strategic thinking.
What is the Education Commission of the States?
A national organization formed by states, for states, in 1965 to help improve their educational systems, from pre-kindergarten all the way through college and beyond
A commission guided by 371 of the nation’s education leaders who inform our work and share our resources with their peers
An unbiased contributor to the education policy discussion—we don’t advocate for particular education laws or policies and we don’t pick sides
A convener of education stakeholders from different perspectives, such as governors, state legislators, state superintendents, higher education leaders, state board members, and business leaders
A resource on issues across the entire education spectrum, from early learning to postsecondary and the workforce—we provide policymakers and leaders with the information they need to make evidence-based decisions
The intermediary through which states learn from one another to develop effective policies and practices for public education that improve student outcomes.
The Commission is currently comprised of forty-nine states, the territories of American Samoa and U.S. Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. Each state or territory is represented by seven Commissioners who are selected through a process specified in their statutes. Various committees guide ECS’ policy directions, oversee the budget and investments, and plan our annual meeting.
What Do We Do For You?
ECS keeps state policymakers on the leading edge of what’s happening by gathering, analyzing, and disseminating information about research, current and emerging issues, trends, and innovations in state education policy. We do the hard work of sifting and sorting—keeping the good information and throwing away the chaff. We give you what you need to make better decisions for your state. Whether you need basic talking points or every last detail of a particular policy, we can help.”
Funded by:
GE Foundation.
usa fundsUSA Funds
Amplify
at&t
Corinthian Colleges, Inc.
farmers insurance
National Association of Charter School Authorizers
Pearson
State Farm Foundation
verizon foundation
burns mcdonnell
College Board
gilmore bell
Lexile
Measured Progress
peabody energy
Renaissance Learning
Partners in Education
Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation
maxine clark and robert fox foundation
Thank poi for this scary information. So many avenues of attack against professional educators.
“Poi”? I meant “you”. I must have Hawai’i on the brain.
Thanks for this : “schools started in Florida, the brain-child of Governor Jeb Bush. There are now 14 states that use letter grades. In my view, this is an especially pernicious form of data. Imagine how a parent would feel if their child came home from school with a report card that contained only one grade: A-F.”
It is also what Kate Walsh does (NCTQ) when grading the teachers colleges; I keep reminding people Fordham Institute is behind that whole thing….. Fordham is a many headed hydra and their board members interlock with the NAEP governing board etc.
Jean Haverhill, NCTQ has zero credibility as a rating agency. Please google my blog on NCTQ and its founding. It was created by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation at a time when I was on the board, and its purpose was to destroy the ed schools.
“Imagine how a parent would feel if their child came home from school with a report card that contained only one grade: A-F.”
That’s how it is now except that one letter grade is six or seven depending on the classes taken. And that’s all thrown together into this magical number called GPA that supposedly means something.
Hey, why not flush the whole grading concept down the toilet to where it belongs???
A student’s GPA does have meaning; just not what most people think.
GPA correlates with the following in order of highest to lowest.
Effort/Persistence
Compliance
Time management
Attendance
Memory
Understanding
This is why un-weighted GPA is a much better predictor of college success than SAT scores
I certainly agree that compliance is very important in determining grades. That, apparently, is why boys on average do better on standardized exams than their grades suggest.
Well said, NY teacher! Very, very insightful!
Little thought is given to what these measurement systems ACTUALLY mean.
“Imagine how a parent would feel if their child came home from school with a report card that contained only one grade: A-F. ”
When Ohio bought this ridiculous hype that was sold by Jeb Bush’s huge pack ‘o lobbyists and paid consultants millions for our new A-F grading plan, they were grading the same schools we had under the old plan.
We know this, because we live here. Our kids are in these schools. If you have kids in the same public school over a period of years and the newest ed reform fad changes the grade of the school from one year to the next, in what seems to be a nearly random fashion, the various measurement systems simply become meaningless and useless.
Is there anyone in ed reform circles who ever says “no”? Why do these fads spread so fast and with so little real debate or discussion? Why did the whole gang jump onboard the A-F system to begin with? I can already tell this latest fad will soon be discredited and discarded, so why not use some prudence and discretion BEFORE selling it in state after state?
Sure, a single letter grade for a school is reductionist, to an extent, and that is the intent. What’s the objection to the process ranking schools?
Absolutely, it’s important to dig into the details. The fact of the matter is rankings like US News and World Reports ranking of schools is popular, and what’s wrong with that? At a glance it should be clear where schools rank. As many metrics as possible should be listed, including an overall metric — be that a number, letter or something else.
Obviously, if a rank changes from A one year to F the next, and it’s not clear how the ranking was arrived at, then that’s a problem. Obviously that should be detailed in a report, and maybe the ranking system needs work. That’s a far cry from saying “don’t rank public schools,” however.
This notion that the very act of ranking public schools is flawed is nonsense.
The real tragedy is that a public school would actually deserve an F, not the notion of grading the school.
All data about a school, as much as possible, should be public. Nothing wrong with summing up all that data into single number (or letter) for ranking.
Ranking public schools (K – 12), as most of us already know can be done most easily by simply measuring parent income/wealth, or using the old zip code method.
There’s a lot wrong with assigning a single letter grade to a school. For starters,in the case of a grade of F, it paints everyone that attends the school or works there as FAILURES. Now how would you like to be branded a failure based on completely unreliable, unfair, and inaccurate grading methods if applied to your work place?
Thufir, do you have children? Do you rank and rate them? Do you have an A child and an F child? Have you thought about firing your F child? You could do a turnaround and just keep the high-scoring child or children.
Exactly!
In Utah, school grading just came out this year. My school, with about 40% free and reduced lunch, received a C. ALL of the other schools statewide in our income bracket, save one that got a B, got a C or lower. The schools that got As and Bs were nearly all higher income. I don’t know if all states that “grade” schools do it this way, but Utah’s is on a bell curve, so that every school could score high and there would still be “failing” schools. Absolutely a waste of everyone’s time and money.
People generally do not read beyond the headline or research beyond the “sound bite”. It’s the same as rating a potential date or friend as 1-10. You have to dig beyond the superficial and obvious. How much we miss in our lives by quantifying everything? Try rating Shakespeare’s sonnets or someone’s child on a scale of 1-10. The same can be said for schools or neighborhoods. A number os just that, a number.
What ever happened to trying to paint your state, your town, your schools in the best light possible? Don’t states and towns want new businesses and people? Why would any politician try to downgrade their own local schools, it only serves as a deterrent to positive growth. I though local government was about trying to better the areas they were governing. None of what they are doing with this grading system helps the people they were elected by (but it probably really helps the people who are really paying them, eh?).
Speaking of lobbyists and revolving doors and Jeb Bush and how I ended up with Florida’s dumb A-F public school grading plan in Ohio, I’m hoping the Chris Christie situation ignites a discussion on who our elected officials are really working for. I think that would be a good theme for the 2014-16 elections.
This situation is completely out of control:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/02/01/law-doesnt-end-revolving-door-on-capitol-hill/?hp
I don’t care what happens to Chris Christie, but someone has to rein this in, and none of the self-interested players are going to act against their own financial interests. Maybe Christie’s tribulations can spark a bigger discussion of what is really corruption, even if we’re not talking about a strict legal definition of (actionable) “corruption” pursuant to a statute.
Reblogged this on Transparent Christina.
In OK, we’ve seen a new system every year, with strong criticism from education researchers dismissed with arrogance.
NOW, in Moore, OK, an email is circulating complaining about redistricting that will take some kids from their A+ school, and transfer them to…horrors!…a C school. That C school is the school that was destroyed in the May 20 tornado, and teachers physically shielded their students with their own bodies, trying to keep them safe.
“Letter grades for schools, which have been controversial in some states, appear to be an increasingly popular tool for policymakers. In 2002, only one state — Florida — assigned letter grades to schools.”
Jeb’s ideas are kinda like the bird flu. No one pays much attention at first, as the bad ideas spread out to other susceptible victims. Then the disease is suddenly everywhere.
Schools are made of concrete, steel, brick and mortar. Unless you are rating the health and safety of those buildings, there is no way to assign a letter grade to a school.
Those buildings do not learn; do not read; do not do classwork, and don’t do homework. Schools do not watch TV; do not play video games or send text messages.
Teachers teach. Therefore, if you’re going to grade teachers, a trained judge of team of judges must be in each classroom judging the teaching methods and how effective they appear.
Students learn. Therefore if we are to judge/grade students, we must know if the child pays attention to the teacher in class;
if the child reads in class and at home [if the child doesn’t read outside of school, the child will steadily fall behind students who are avid readers];
if the child’s parent/s read at home where the child sees the parent/s reading;
if the child does homework;
if the child studies for quizzes and tests;
if the child has learning disabilities and how those disabilities affect learning;
if the child comes to school hungry;
if the child is addicted to alcohol or drugs;
if the child is addicted to sugar and eats pounds of candy and/or drinks several sodas a day [sugar is addictive and effects memory and mood—it doesn’t take a study to prove this. Most teachers know how sugar affects a child because we spend more awake time with children than parents or scientists do];
If a child has diabetes [diabetes attacks every organ in the body and can take your legs and arms];
If a child is fat or obese;
if the child come from poverty and/or a dysfunctional home environment;
if the child is abused psychically or sexually.
Instead of a letter grade for schools, there should be a way to grade and rank politicians.
Wait, there may be a way to do this, and it’s called vote smart. The sad fact is that you have to be able to read to rank and grade politicians. Letter grades for schools are a sound bite that appeals to lazy, ignorant, easy to fool biased voters. Grading schools is designed to fool people.
http://votesmart.org/
I work in Florida. I have never fully understood the A-F system. The rules seem to change as we go along. What was really fun was when Pres Bush implemented NCLB, and JEB had his grades. Many schools were a schools yet failing NCLB. Go figure. I currently work at what could be considered an inner city school. There are many young, dynamic, hardworking teachers here doing great things. We had always been an A school. Rick Scott changed the scoring criteria, and we dropped to a C. The idiots from downtown came to observe us for a day and tell us what we need to do. A total waste of time. It was a disgrace to do this to these hard working teachers and students,
To the children of America
“If you always do the very best that you can do …then you will succeed…”
The F these people slammed on your school means as much as a whip cream topping on a pizza…..It evaporates into nothing of value..
My last comment on the dangers of ranking, of any kind. A must read–Gladwell’s article in New Yorker on the problem with rankings in general and college rankings in particular. Bottom line—whether you are using letter grades, or some form descriptor–superior, excellent–a human being/ committee, not a Platonic declaration from a dark cave—will decide on the criteria for the ranking and how that criteria will be weighed. For this reason pure statisticians oppose ranking systems because they take pure mathematical constructs and apply them to various political agendas and then claim they reflect the former, not the latter.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/02/14/110214fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all
I give Jeb an F-.
Another example of business-think… Businesses are used to having simplistic indexes to measure all kinds of complicated things like, say, mortgages! It creates opportunities for consultants to help investors determine what the true value of a stock or bond is… that is ASSUMING the rating agency isn’t getting paid by the organization being rated… but of course that would NEVER happen in the business world because they are efficient and effective…
LOL. Well said.
These kinds of rankings, including the hysterical “Great Schools dot com” might as well skip the euphemisms and just list the schools in order of richest to poorest– maybe they do and just cut and paste the rhetoric. Silly I know, but hey it’s “authoritative” Ugh.
A Student Learning Objective (SLO) or Student Growth Objective (SGO) icomes to use from Peter Drucker’s The Practice of Management (1954) and old-school behavioral objectives. The version in many schools comes from a group in charge of implementing the Race to the Top of agenda. See http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/implementation-support-unit/tech-assist/slo-toolkit.pdf
Teachers are required to write one or more SLOs/SGOs for their classes, typically using a computer template. A trained external evaluator assigns a grade to each SLO/SGO using a checklist of about 26 criteria in eight categories: Rationale, Population, Interval of time, Assessments, Expected growth, Learning Content, Teaching Strategies.
Teachers must analyze baseline data on students (prior year tests, pretests) and set “targets” for pre-to-posttest gains in scores,Teacher’s must list their teaching strategies and cite research or other evidence for their “targets” and instructional strategies..
A “trained” external evaluator (not usually the principal) rates the SLO/SGO using a four or five point scale—“high quality” to “unacceptable” or “incomplete.” The rating may also be planned to show the gains in scores that teachers must record in order to be judged “ highly effective,” “effective,” and so on. Later in the year, teachers who have similar district-approved SLOs are rated and ranked on the gains in test scores they have produced.
Bottom line: “Growth” is a euphemistic name for a gain in test scores from one point in time to another. Meeting “growth targets for learning” is like meeting a sales target or a production quota by a date certain.
A student is said to have achieved “a year’s worth of growth” if his or her gain-score on a proficiency test is equal to, or greater than, the gain-score made by a 50th percentile student. Teachers in some districts are rated “highly effective” only if all or most of their students have gain-scores of “more than a year’s worth of growth.”
A 2013 review of research bearing on SLO/SGOs documented unresolved issues in the validity, reliability, efficiency, and fairness of these measures for high-stakes evaluations of teachers in a wide range of subjects and job assignments Gill, B., Bruch, J., & Booker, K. (2013). Using alternative student growth measures for evaluating teacher performance: What the literature says. (REL 2013–002). U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
Another USDE policy for teacher evaluation that qualifies for a Ravitch award as junk science.