Dr. Randy Barrack, Executive Director of VASSP has collected commentary from VASSP Board Members that will be presented to the State Board of Education meeting this week on November 21. During the October 24th State Board meeting, a vote for final review for the proposed A-F School Grading Formula was postponed until the November 21st meeting. The agenda item this week will be item G: Final Review of Proposed A-F Grading Formula in Response to the 2013 Acts of the Assembly.
It will be virtually impossible for the average person to determine from this blueprint what went into assigning a grade to a school and why. Much of the legislation that eventually passed was built around student growth measures. Where is the measurement for student growth? It will take very little, like falling short on a test, to doom a school to a sub-par grade. Complex does not translate to more transparent.
As educators, we are trained to use research based strategies to improve instruction. There does not appear to be any research based evidence to back up this or any other A-F evaluation of individual schools and certainly none to show that such a move will improve student achievement. This is contrary to education best practices.
How do non-academic aspects of the school play into the grade? Is any thought or credit given to schools that have outstanding arts programs or band programs for example? No. These are virtually ignored. Elementary and middle schools must encourage development of the “whole child.” There is nothing in this proposed system that supports this charge.
Our state schools have been rated as the fourth best in the nation. How can we have such a large percentage of schools that are “C” schools or below? For a statewide system that is so highly “graded” on a national level, you would think we would not have a bell curve, but a graph more skewed to the upper end.
By definition, this proposal sets arbitrary boundaries between the letter grades. There is a 325 point range for A (1200 – 875); a 149 point range for B (874-725); a 124 point range for C (724-600); a 74 point range for D (599-525); and a 525 point range for F. This is not even a normal distribution. There appears to be no justification or rationale for this grading scale.
Goal 1 states that approval of a school grading system will support accountability for student learning. Not true. This will be just another piece of data (report card, accreditation status, and federal accountability rating are already in place) that is likely to take precedence over the research-based and varied data already available. It’s like a sugar pill – easy to swallow without much effort.
One has to ask why bonus points are being considered. Generally bonus points are “add-ons” to reduce outcry. In this case, it appears that bonus points are arbitrarily being added to a flawed rating system. Is the state willing to admit they have a flawed system with arbitrary standards?
Through no fault or ownership of their own, some schools are more likely to include academic high achievers (location, location, location) – they are the A schools, and they won’t have to change a thing. Other schools, likewise through no fault of their own, will almost always have extreme challenges. Shouldn’t a quality proposal take these factors into account? Does the state ranked #4 in the nation, with high numbers of Blue Ribbon schools and schools with many other important distinctions, really have that many schools that just don’t cut it? We certainly outrank the other states that have adopted an A-F system, and the only evidence that is obvious is that several of those states have either dropped the program, are thinking about it or have vastly changed it. But it may be too late because once the public sees that first grade, that school – and community and state – will be marked. The goal of a grade should be to teach, to encourage and to inform. The proposed A-F grading system does none of these things.
Holding schools accountable is important; but it is equally important to recognize that struggling schools must be given the resources and support to accomplish that to which they will be held accountable. Holding schools accountable, without providing additional resources to overcome significant problems, doesn’t make sense, and it doesn’t make sense to brand a school with a grade that does not reflect their accomplishments as well as their challenges.
Neither the legislation nor the proposed grading blueprint encourages, aids or enhances student growth. The A-F proposal is not based on qualified or quantified educational research or experience, and it is neither transparent nor simple. It will not be easy for the average person to understand how the state arrived at these grades; however, it may be easier to accept than the fact that all school populations are not created equal, that many challenged schools have fewer resources and that failure is a shared problem.
.
