Mercedes Schneider, who has been writing up terrific statistical analyses of Louisiana’s fudging of school data, read the New York Times account of Rhee’s report card on education reforms and makes a great observation:
“The ratings, which focused purely on state laws and policies, did not take into account student test scores.” Ironic, ain’t it?
Rhee wants teachers to be evaluated and fired by test scores; she wants schools to be closed by test scores. But when she ranked the states, she didn’t look at test scores! If she had, her number one state–Louisiana–would have been at the bottom of her rankings.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Reblogged this on Transparent Christina.
I heard about the grades on our local NBC affiliate. On the morning broadcast they did mention that Students First was a controversial organization and that California called its low score a badge of honor. On the evening broadcast all that was mentioned was that Students First gave Connecticut a score of D. I think we need to give Rhee a report card as well. Unfortunately, no network will air it. It frustrates me that people give this woman so much credence.
Apparently the media need report cards as well.
NYC Parents did give Rhee and StudentsFirst a report card, which Diane noted:
http://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/2013/01/our-parent-report-card-for-michelle.html?m=1
Rhee earned an F for every measure that would lead to actual benefit for student learning. I’m looking forward to watching tonight to see what Frontline has to say about her.
I posted my comment before I read the thread about the report card for her. I sent a link to the local NBC affiliate asking them to report on it in the interest of fairness, which we all know will never happen.
We all know that Michelle and other “reformers” use dubious and irrelevant data to make their rankings come out in the order they want. “How to Lie with Statistics” was copyrighted in 1954, so what Michelle and others are doing is nothing new.
What I feel we need to do come up with a way to rank schools based on solid and irrefutable data, a way that becomes as well-known as PISA or NAEP. By “we”, I mean public school teachers, staff, superintendents, teacher/staff unions and associations, college education professors, and others.
How should schools be ranked? What is most important, and why? Graduation rates (which one)? Standardized test scores? Rates of progress on scores? Degrees held by teachers? Diversity of students? Number of students that go on to college? Number of students that get a job (if not go to college)? Poverty rate of surrounding community? Funding levels of schools? Retention rates? Attendance rates? Classes offered? Demographic data (e.g., this kind of data ia available on every Montgomery County, MD school: http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/04757.pdf)?
How could we get all of the aforementioned people to come together and define the best way to rank schools?
Why are must we spend time an money to rank schools?
Because other people are, and we know their methodologies are worthless. Because we can do a much better job.
I agree. Trying to find a “better” ranking method would just be buying into the whole misguided and deleterious notion of “ranking” in the first place. It’s like trying to find a “better” standardized test by which to evaluate teachers. It’s not the specific method that’s the problem, it’s the whole concept.
But I don’t think ranking schools will go away, just because we don’t believe schools should be ranked. (Which I agree with by the way.) The reality is that the opposition will keep on ranking schools, and PISA and NAEP and Newsweek will keep on ranking schools.
The ranking is pointless, especially when anyone can create their own criteria.
Ranking of schools has been around for decades. It is not the ranking per se, but the ranking system, the intentional panicking of the public, the undue value placed upon the ranks (including financial decimation of traditional public schools, teacher/admin job losses, and, ultimately, community destruction).
The use of letter grades to rank schools and districts is an ALEC creation. In the information on ALEC released to the public by Common Cause in March/April 2012, I read the actual sendouts to legislators where Florida insisted that the ranking system be letter grades and referred to applying the letter grading system to schools as “the lynchpin of the reforms.” ALEC admitted that reform “success” depends upon this specific type of ranking. ALEC knew it could panic the public by using a letter grade system (as opposed to, say, a five-star system).
To continue my previous post: The letter grade system works two ways; it can be used to undermine the “success” of the charters, for example. That is why self-named “reformers” are selective in the publicizing of the letter grades, as has happened in New Orleans. The state-run schools are failing miserably, and the “reformers” are calling the system successful while hiding the actual letter grades from public view on the state-run school website.
Brookings’ ridicilous choice & competition index was the same. They ranked DC high and next-door Montgomery County low. Ask any DC area parent where they would rather have their kids in school.
I love it. ________________________________
She had a senior moment, not her fault. Right.
Trying to educate the poor. Better NOT try something new.
Teachers and administrators NEED their huge salaries and why should RHEE make them feel bad about themselves.
Progressive Educators: “Ensuring the poor stay in their place!”