September 1, 2013

Our View: School grading system gets an F: Time for state to try something else

Education officials know what's wrong, but they need more help to fix the problems.

The A-F school grading system unveiled in May by Gov. Paul LePage is meant to identify underperforming schools and hold them accountable for improvement.

click image to enlarge

Education Commissioner Stephen Bowen unveils the state’s A-F grading system at the Maine State Library on May 1. Struggling schools need support as they work to improve performance.

2013 Kennebec Journal File Photo/Joe Phelan

But the formula used by the state tells very little of value about schools, and more than three months on, educators say the program has merely highlighted problems they already knew existed while failing to provide sufficient help to fix them. In some cases, it has unfairly branded schools as inferior.

Mostly, the grading system has had little impact beyond the initial shock and confusion for schools that did poorly.

Public schools should be held to high standards. But a simplistic rating system based on a few questionable data points does a disservice to everything that goes into a successful school. Worse, it misallocates precious resources and gets in the way of real improvement.

The A-F grades should be scrapped. The state should explore a more comprehensive evaluation system, with the input of local school leaders, who the Maine Education Association said weren't consulted the first time around. Educators now have the advantage of seeing how the grades affected efforts on the ground.

More importantly, struggling schools have to be supported in the real work of raising achievement. For the state, this means finding out why successful schools are successful, and matching them up with not-so-successful districts with similar demographics. And it means finding money for the actions that come as a result of those conversations.

INEFFECTIVE EQUATION

The state's grading system factors in standardized test scores in reading and math, as well as individual improvement in those subjects. For high schools, graduation rates are considered, while for grades 3-8, improvement in math and reading for the bottom 25 percent of students is part of the equation. Schools that record less than 90 percent of their students taking state assessments, such as the SAT in high school, receive an automatic F, while those below 95 percent are docked a grade level.

With few exceptions, affluent school districts performed well in the first grading report, while poorer districts received low marks. That came as no surprise, since the link between standardized test scores and income levels is well established. It also provided no guidance or insight to school districts already well aware of their test scores.

"We feel very strongly that we already knew our weaknesses; the grades were not news to us," Heather Perry, superintendent of Unity-based Regional School Unit 3, told the Kennebec Journal last week. "The grades didn't really do anything other than distract parents and others politically that this was some huge change in the system, when it wasn't."

QUIRKS IN SYSTEM

In a number of cases, schools received low marks because of the quirks of the scoring system. High schools in both Gardiner and Skowhegan were knocked from C's to D's after slightly missing the test participation threshold, the latter by 1 percent and the former by even less.

The grade of a D labels a school as "underperforming" and draws a meeting from the state Department of Education. The state should be centering its attention and resources on truly underperforming schools, not those that received that designation because a few kids didn't show up for the SAT, a test that is not compulsory.

Not that the state conversations amounted to much. Funding to implement programs or provide instructional support was nonexistent. LePage had included $3 million in the latest two-year budget for an Office of School Accountability within the education department. The Democratic-controlled Legislature removed that funding, citing the lack of a detailed plan for how the money would be used.

(Continued on page 2)

Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form

Send question/comment to the editors




Further Discussion

Here at PressHerald.com we value our readers and are committed to growing our community by encouraging you to add to the discussion. To ensure conscientious dialogue we have implemented a strict no-bullying policy. To participate, you must follow our Terms of Use.

Questions about the article? Add them below and we’ll try to answer them or do a follow-up post as soon as we can. Technical problems? Email them to us with an exact description of the problem. Make sure to include:
  • Type of computer or mobile device your are using
  • Exact operating system and browser you are viewing the site on (TIP: You can easily determine your operating system here.)