Chalkbeat reports that the rating agency GreatSchools has revised the way it measures school quality. Critics have long complained that its reliance on test scores as the measure of school quality disadvantages schools that enroll children of color and encourages housing segregation by steering white parents to white neighborhoods.
In the future, GreatSchools will rely on test score growth, not just scores alone.
This, of course, puts pressure on teachers and schools to raise test scores. Test scores thus continue to be the single most important criterion of school quality, instead of school climate, experienced teachers, class size, a rich arts program, and other consequential elements.
Matt Barnum writes:
America’s most widely used school rating system is overhauling its approach with a series of changes that will weaken the link between race, poverty, and school scores.
The website GreatSchools is rolling out the changes nationwide Thursday after introducing them for schools in California and Michigan in August. They are part of an effort by the site to make its ratings better reflect how much schools help students learn, rather than things like students’ prior academic achievement and poverty levels that schools don’t control.
“The new system is better because there is more of a focus on learning and growth and what’s actually happening in schools,” GreatSchools CEO Jon Deane said. “We know that’s more important.”
The move comes amid growing scrutiny of GreatSchools’ system of judging schools, including a Chalkbeat investigation that found that its ratings effectively steered families away from schools serving more Black, Hispanic, and low-income students.
GreatSchools says the average school will see only a modest score change. Still, the shifts mean that the tens of millions of people who find the ratings on real estate sites like Zillow will now see a different measure of school quality, potentially affecting enrollment patterns that contribute to school segregation.
Notice how the rating agency conflates test scores with learning. The changes for schools’ rating will indeed be modest because they are still measuring schools by test scores, which are highly correlated with wealth and poverty, special education status, and LEP status.
*sorry about the error in the original headline. I write most posts on my cellphone so I did not see the last words in the heading. My error and my apologies.
please correct this unfortunate typo
>
Actually thought it was funny as they are sucking off the data teat to come up with their ridiculous ranking.
Thanks! Fixed.
Parents should not let some algorithm decide what makes a quality school. The best way to get information about school districts is to visit them. Parents can get a sense of whether the district is child centered or not by talking to administrators, teachers and parents. Parents should consider the number of supports and activities for students, graduation rates and the general climate of the school culture more than test scores alone.
I taught in a diverse suburban district as an ESL teacher. My school district was rated in the middle of the county on the basis of scores alone. Two of my students moved to the highest rated district in the county. They returned after one year with stories of what a nightmare they had endured. They reported the following: many students were mean and only interested in what clothes students could afford. This brother and sister were also bullied in the “better” district. They complained nobody actually “saw” them, and they got more attention and better academics in our school district than in the “best” district in the county.
Visiting schools: YES!! I’ll never forget my brief visit to our county vo-tech. It wasn’t even a tour, was just accompanying my son to an interview where he’d get a look at the computer-graphics courses he could take as a PT-reg hisch, PT vo-tech student. The first thing I noticed was the smells: dough baking, hair products, fresh-cut wood, gasoline/oil [from the auto-mech section]. And then immediately, the feel in the halls. Kids happy and talking excitedly as they moved to the next class…
yes — a key factor in why protected public schools must exist for all populations: the long-term mental health benefits of being SEEN and having diverse cultures recognized/celebrated inside school buildings
A school really can’t be boiled down to a number. It’s dumb to do. It’s dumb to pay attention to those who do. If you are stupid enough to buy into the system of misrepresenting schools based on tests that purport to measure skills loosely related to content, please get out of education and find a more suitable profession, something less destructive. I hear they need to create a rating scale for America’s funniest home videos. Do that instead.
Data mongers end up looking dumb when their false assumptions lead to false conclusions. School, teachers and students are so much more than a test score.
Well, except, there was the data everyone always looked at before the testing era took over. Grad stats, what % went on to college, what colleges they went to. And if you had special concerns you could always look up course offerings including electives & extracurriculars. Today you can usually also check out guidance & SpEd staff levels/ qualifs. I can’t see that rankings based on test scores have added anything to this. A-F school grades ranking schools are particularly uninformative.
There have been many instances where “quality” schools based on test score growth are nothing more than student population shifts. In Oakland there is a wealthy district called Rockridge. It boasts multi-million dollar homes and some of the highest test scores in the district, because of all that wealth. 15 years ago, few wealthy white parents would send their kids to the local schools because of test scores. A lot of them went private or moved (this was before most charters). Then 2008 happened. All of a sudden, these same parents took a chance and starting sending their kids to the local schools. And voila! The test scores went up. Same school, same teachers, same programs. Isn’t that amazing? Not really, and it just shows you how meaningless the test scores become when used to judge any metric, including “growth.”
Great example. Suspect others benefited from the influx of of higher-SES students as opposed to just adding in higher scores. Speaks to the advantages of integration– a baked-in advantage of one-tier [public] school systems.
This was baked into my high school, & the midschools too, to a degree, in an era long before charters/ vouchers. There were very few minority students, but the SES dichotomy between locals & just beyond city borders was stark. Elemschs were strictly local, but midschs drew in from bordering towns, & the hisch from many surrounding towns. The city was rural, but high-achieving because it hosted an Ivy League U & another large college. Private schools were almost non-existent (too far away). So lotsa prof’s kids, & a general attitude of high intellect is a good thing including among families of all the ancillary college staff. It was cool to be smart!
Growth data is worse than raw scores. Just ask the people where VAM is in use. A measurement is only as good as the ruler. What unit of measure are you using? All worthless, meaninglessness, vanity as the Book of Ecleasties says.
OH GASP!!! What will the crazy parents use to prove that they and their children are better if there are no test scores? How will parents be able to rank, rate and sort the children? REFUSE/OPT OUT of the tests if deformers won’t get rid of this garbage disguised as an education. Test prep all day, every day IS NOT and education! The unfortunate thing is that opting out/refusing doesn’t do anything about the test prep curriculum all year long….it just denies the data mongers of what they want/need to suck money from public education.
LisaM, please don’t blame the parents for the junk science policies of Bill Gates and the rest of the Billionaire Boys club.
One thought about this —
I think that public school parents are far more likely to rely on word of mouth than check out “Great School” rankings. If they already live in a suburb with babies, and all their neighbor’s kids are going to the one public school and it’s fine, they rarely peruse the rankings and obsessively put their house on the market if Great Schools only gives it a 3. Although I suspect that no matter what metric Great Schools uses, they will never dare to give any high school in an affluent suburb a low score. People wouldn’t say “why is our school so bad?” they would say “Why is Great Schools’ rating system so bad?” That actually happened in NYC when Bloomberg was giving failing grades to perfectly good elementary schools that served lots of affluent parents because they didn’t “show improvement”.
College are suffering much more from these rankings, because “consumers” — high school seniors and their parents — put far too much stock in them. The ones that famously ignored it — like Reed College in Portland — had a tougher time attracting students than they had in the past (although the students who were attracted to it were likely more interesting and independent-thinking, so maybe that’s a plus!)
I’m sure you’re right about that, nycpsp. In Bklyn we lived on the “wrong” side of block bordering two elemsch catchments (one of which was very highly-rated). But we’d been there yrs before having kids; we had annual block parties (& thus got the nbhd gossip); we were fine w/ “our” future elemsch. We had to move to NJ just before eldest’s K yr due to job change. Took a long time visiting to choose towns, but only dinged one for school reasons. (Montclair w/100% magnets). Choice made on basis of where we felt comfy. Do many families even look at reductive ratings for college? Affordability comes first, then a toss-up between location & type of program/ coursework desired. Then visits to determine “comfy” factor [culture].
Bottom line: ratings are just a marketing scheme.
Great Schools is supported by income from Scholastic, Zillow and other advertisers, who pay for packages that can push up their page views or allow them to license the school ratings. The whole website functions as a tool to perpetuate redlining, charter schools, and advocates forf school choice.
Here are the largest financial pushers of the dubious ratings:
Walton Family Foundation, Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies, Carnegie Corporation of New York, Einhorn Family Charitable Trust, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Trust, and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
These big funders are offered a display of their logos. Other supporters are: America Achieves, The Charles Hayden Foundation, Charles and Helen Schwab Foundation, Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation, David and Lucile Packard Foundation, EdChoice, Heising-Simons Foundation, Innovate Public Schools, The Joyce Foundation, Excellent Schools Detroit, The Kern Family Foundation, The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, The Ralph M. Parsons Foundation, and Startup: Education. These are not supporters of public schools.
This website is designed to market an ideology and a rating scheme. The Terms of use policy says: “Some information contained on the website may represent opinion or judgment… GreatSchools does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information on the website. As such, GreatSchools will not be responsible for any errors, inaccuracies, omissions or deficiencies in the information provided on the website. This information is provided “as is,” with no guarantees of completeness, non-infringement, accuracy or timeliness, and without warranties of any kind, express or implied.”
Great Schools also lists “Partners.” Sad to say, the Great Schools website, designed to steer parents away from most public schools has a partnership with the US Department of Education and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development.
“Community Action Partners” are: Choice Matters Oklahoma, Colorado Succeeds, Community Foundation of Atlanta, Delaware Department of Education, Families Empowered, Innovate Public Schools, The Indianapolis Mayor’s Office, and United Way of Central Indiana.
“Partners for Content” include the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence featuring Yale’s RULER program, a system of direct instruction in: (a) managing emotions by naming them and (b) thinking out loud about degrees of emotional intensity (energy) and pleasantness. Students learn to Recognize, Understand, Label, and Regulate their emotions at about $7,500 per school team.
The second “Content Partner” (believe it or not) is PARCC Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Career. As of the 2019-2020 school year, these tests were only used in Washington DC, Louisiana, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. New Jersey will stop using these tests in 2020-2021.
“Other Partners” are:
–Be a Learning Hero, offers parents a “roadmap” for school readiness and test prep. Key leaders worked for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
–Common Sense Media is a marketing website offering parents reviews and lists of kid-suitable videos, books, other media.
–Education Cities is a network promoting school choice in 24 cities in cooperation with 31 city based organizations. The network is funded by the Broad Foundation, Michael and Susan Dell Foundation, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and Walton Family foundation.
–National PTA which claims not “to endorse any commercial product or service.” But also says “Companies making a financial contribution to PTA may be entitled to promotional consideration and, in some cases, may have limited use of PTA’s marks and assets.” Deals for members are offered by PTA’s 18 Corporate Alliances.” The National PTA also markets Common Core resources with outdated claims about these “being fully implemented.”
–Understood is devoted to serving families and children with disabilities. It is funded by15 non-profits, not counting these recent supporters: The New Teacher Center, Relay Graduate School of Education, the Achievement Network, and New Visions for Public schools,.
Great Schools also lists Bellwether Education Partners, the Center for Reinventing Public Education, Thomas B Fordham Institute, and Public Impact as “Partners. All promote charter schools as if these are “public.”
Great Schools generates and leases data to “leading real estate, technology and media websites.” Great Schools claims to be “the nation’s leading source of school performance information…. with “more than 55 million unique visitors” last year and “over half of American families with school-age children.”
Great Schools is designed to forward three real estate practices associated with parents seeking a school. The first is block busting—a process designed to promote fear among white home owners or prospective buyers that a neighborhood school brings too many low income racial minorities to the community and devalues its real estate. The second is redlining, illegal, but the practice of denying loans or property insurance to applicants based on the racial makeup of a neighborhood, including school demographics. The third and most common is steering, the real estate practice of directing homebuyers to or away from specific neighborhoods and schools based on the prospective homebuyer’s race color, religion, gender (sex), sexual orientation, disability (handicap), familial status, or national origin.
Great Schools rating schemes for “school quality” are a case study in what Cathy O’Neal has called mathematical intimidation. If you are mathematically inclined, see if you can make sense of the rating schemes available here. https://www.greatschools.org/gk/ratings-methodology/
Laura,
Great comment on GreatSchools. A rating system like this reinforces the choice ideology.
I’ll say!
I’m taking an (unscientific) poll:
Have you ever checked out the Great Schools ranking of your kid’s school or any other school? Do you even care?
I haven’t. I have no idea what ranking Great Schools have given any school my kid has attended. I asked some relatives and they haven’t even heard of it.
Does anyone actually look at this except – maybe – new families who want a public school? And I find it hard to believe that those families trusted Great Schools over talking to real parents to hear their views.
Whoop de doo, Great Schools now rely not only on test scores, but also test score “growth,” give me a break. Here we go again. This is the obsolete corporate MBO (Mgt by Objectives) model premiered early in digital revolution—late ‘70’s– “just cuz” [just cuz computers can track your progress toward goals—IF you can translate your goals & data toward progress into 1’s & 0’s]. It didn’t work for the engrg/ constr co I worked for then, or other corps. That’s why it’s obsolete. Resuscitated from the dead in ‘90’s by ed-reformers determined to use biz models & apparently uninformed as to this one’s zombie status (& definitely oblivious to the non-sequitur of applying biz models to educational achievemet). Still trying to activate that dead meat Frankenstein-style 30 yrs later.
Test scores can be informative, if they are considered in the context of each school’s demographics. Otherwise, the scores simply describe relative wealth. Also, Greatschools attempt to deliver equity by delivering an “Equity Score” further penalizes schools that have socio-economic diversity. Consider the experience of the child in the home from 0-5 years old in an affluent family vs a family experiencing poverty. The child in the affluent family gets read to every night, hears more words, has more books, educational games, flashcards, expensive pre-schools that actually have a curriculum, maybe a parent that stays at home, is more likely to have two parents at home, gets trips to museums, vacations to foreign countries, etc. And when the child starts school the comparison is even more stark with access to private paid tutors, test prep, etc. The achievement gap is important to close but schools that have socio-economic diversity shouldn’t be discounted because the gap exists…that’s not the necessarily the school’s fault. Diverse schools get discounted due to test scores that are not evaluated in the context of each schools demographics, and an equity score that puts the achievement gap squarely on the shoulders of the school.