*Edited for internet post
...I recognize that accountability is an important part of educational policy, and rightfully so, but how can we create a school report card system that more accurately reflects what is happening in the classroom and better serves the needs of our students?
The first public school report cards were released in November of 2007, having accumulated data from the previous school year. According to a press release signed by Major Michael Bloomberg and Chancellor Joel Klein, “Progress Reports are the centerpiece of the City’s effort to arm educators with the information and authority they need to lead their schools and to hold them accountable for student outcomes. The reports also provide parents with detailed information about school performance, both to hold their schools accountable and to inform family decisions” (Bloomberg & Klein, 2007). As the system is currently designed, the Department of Education uses a new Achievement Reporting and Innovation System (ARIS) to compare schools with a group of 40 peer schools that have similar student populations. Based on this comparison, schools are then given a grade of A-F dependent on school environment (15%), student performance (30%), and student progress (55%). Furthermore, the city maintains that ARIS will provide principals with important data that will allow them to see the areas where their school received a low score, find patterns among student performance, and locate successful peer schools to learn from their practices (Bloomberg & Klein, 2007). In February, the city was considering adapting changes to the system that would benefit schools with the highest performing students, as well as those with large numbers of special education students (Gootman, 2007).
Since its inception, the school report card system has been attacked by an overwhelming body of schools, parents, and education activists alike. One of the many criticisms suggests that a letter grade cannot accurately portray the amount of learning and improvement that takes place in particular school. As Diane Ravitch, a history of New York City schools explains, “It is reductive to give a school, which is a complex organism, a single letter grade. It doesn’t clarify, it oversimplifies” (Gootman & Medina, 2007). Like UFT president Randi Weingarten, she maintains that if schools are to be graded at all, they should be judged in individual categories and not on a holistic scale, as it will offer more direction for improvement. In addition, many of the city’s higher achieving schools also oppose the system, as the emphasis on yearly improvement is not beneficial to schools that already achieve at high levels. Even some principal’s whose schools have done well worry that “the city had overemphasized the Regents tests, potentially sending the message that those exit exams, rather than advanced course work, were paramount” (Gootman & Medina, 2007). Yet while many oppose this initiative, a 2007 survey conducted by Quinnipiac University suggests that 75 percent of the public school parents who knew the grade of their child’s school said they thought the evaluation was fair (Medina, 2007). Likewise, city officials have continued to defend school report cards and the policy will remain in effect for the foreseeable future.
From a research perspective, school report cards are often considered to be an increasingly effective and popular method for collecting program data in education. Inspired by the state accountability initiatives enforced by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as well the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), a recent study published by the Journal of Correctional Education state that there are four main reasons that states have implemented school report cards: school improvement, state quality initiatives, state mandates, and funding (Silverberg et. al., 2008, pg. 35). Kurt M. Landgraf, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Educational Testing Service, also maintains that the assessment and accountability designed by the school report card system are the best ways to improve student achievement. As he states, “Without solid and frequent information gathered from student assessments, it will be difficult for us to know if each child is mastering the material appropriate for his or her age and grade. Yearly assessments will help provide teachers and school administrators with the critical information they need to enable each and every student to learn” (Landgraf, 2003).
This trend of using report card system as a form of assessment is increasing across the political spectrum and is not limited to the field of education. As Larry Condelli of the American Institutes for Research points out, “report cards have been recently developed for community colleges, health care providers, hospitals, doctors, auto dealers, and insurance companies – even the City of New York’s subway system” (Condelli, 2005). Thus, the reality is that school report cards are not going to disappear anytime soon, and legislative bodies must find a way to ensure that these rating systems are accurate and reliable reflections of the classroom environment.
While praise for data-driven initiatives such as the school report system can be found across the academic spectrum, virtually all researchers have highlighted the importance of responsible practices and accountability on behalf of those implementing the reports. According to her Guide to Effective Accountability Reporting, consultant Ellen Forte Fast recognizes that “the variety of state and local accountability reporting requirements are placing states and districts under escalating pressure to produce a greater number of increasingly complex reports at the state, district, and school levels—and to do so more quickly than ever before. They pose particular challenges for accountability reporting because these reports convey high stakes information for schools and districts and are expected to serve multiple purposes for multiple audiences” (Fast, 2002). Stressing the importance of accuracy and reliability, she offers suggestions for how schools can refine their reporting system to meet these needs effectively. Some of her suggestions include having an independent contractor summarize the performance of the individual student, classroom, school district, and state level at the beginning of each school year, as well as having school report cards or profiles be linked to state accountability systems (Fast, 2002).
In my limited experience within the school system, I would suggest that it is in the field of accountability that the New York City Department of Education has gone wrong....
References
Bloomberg, M. & Klein, J. (2007, November 5). Mayor Bloomberg and
Chancellor Klein release first-ever public school progress reports. Retrieved July 27, 2008 from http://schools.nyc.gov/Offices/mediarelations/NewsandSpeeches/2007-2008/20071105_progress_reports.htm
Condelli, L. (2005). Demonstrating results: Developing state and local report
cards for adult education. Enhancing Performance through Accountability, 1-2, 13-14, U.S. Department of Education.
Fast, E. (2002). A guide to effective accountability reporting. Council of Chief
State School Officers, 11-12, 31.
Landgraf, K. (2003). Using Assessment and Accountability to Raise Student
Achievement. Educational testing Service Report.
Gootman, E. (2008, February 29). New York City education department proposes
changes in school grades. The New York Times, p. 22.
Gootman, E. & Medina, J. (2007, November 27). New York grades set off debate
on judging schools. The New York Times, p. 8.
Medina, J. (2007, December 11). Defending school report cards, over a chorus of
boos. The New York Times, p. 20.
Silverberg, D.A., Dowdell, J.J., & Sikula, J.P. (2008). An overview of school
performance reports in correctional education. The Journal of Correctional Education 59, 33-46.
No comments:
Post a Comment