Viewpoint It's Time to Stop Ranking the Worth of a District Based on State Assessments
The days of relying on the aggregate score of how students fared on state assessments as an indicator of the success of a school district are over. The lack of equity in so many other areas can no longer be overlooked, especially as we continue to recover from the drastic learning loss realized on a national scale in a post-pandemic world. One can easily argue that the equity hurdles become even more painstakingly apparent as we see specific districts recover quicker than others due to the sustainability of programs established through federal funding and then continued based on the monies available through the local tax levy. As the federal funding provided for learning loss through state departments of education are no longer available, districts that find themselves spending below adequacy, absent of teachers, and still struggling to update and maintain aging facilities and infrastructure must attenuate or even remove learning recovery programs and other post-Covid initiatives that other districts can still maintain with “local” dollars. In the last fifteen years of serving communities that rest on the "urban rim" in the assistant superintendent and superintendent roles, I can attest first hand to how certain districts, rife with overwhelming and increasing barriers, will never (and I mean never) have the ability to compete with affluent districts - in consideration of percent proficient scores - where those same hurdles are limited. However, those challenges and outside factors are in no way an indication of the progress, growth, and other pupil performance indicators that districts must be recognized for when preparing students to be upstanding citizens, leaders in business, entrepreneurs, and productive members of the workforce. What’s even more egregious is when both public and private polls and ranking systems utilize these assessment scores and other elite programs as factors to enhance competitive rankings among schools in dissimilar groupings. For example, the ranking indicators described in the methodology section of certain ranking reports claim that states and localities look closely at student performance on standardized tests while taking into consideration student backgrounds to determine whether learning in core subjects is achieved and to review how well schools are educating their students. However, in many state and private district ranking scales, no special dispensation is given or consideration afforded to schools in higher poverty areas or with larger percentages of special populations with respect to ranking or performance indicators. The only factors considered for those subgroups are growth. Other important metrics to boost state and national ranks include districts that run the International Baccalaureate and dual college enrollment programs and have larger enrollment numbers of Advanced Placement students taking AP exams. These
potential enhancements to ranking scales are directly tied into additional funding needed by the district. But what is far worse is when districts in individual states are compared and ranked based on aggregate numbers of students who reach proficiency levels without taking into account unavoidable factors that must also be considered by those same districts on a daily basis. Some rankings include chronic absenteeism as a coefficient in the ranking equation regardless if a district has followed every possible protocol to return a student to school or not. Further, one can argue that as chronic absenteeism would presumably lower proficiency rates, for a district to be penalized a second time for those students - even after the district has exhausted all possible avenues of assisting a family and a child - is very questionable. Furthermore, students, who move to one district/state from another, may not have assessment scores counted towards the aggregate data sets the year they transfer, but the fact remains that the "new" district/school inherits not only the scores for that particular student in the following year, but the curriculum and assessment preparation from that student's former district for a number of years. As many communities across the country appreciate local control for their school boards, the preparation, interventions, lesson objectives, and pertinent resources are seemingly different from one district to the next as we lack any type of standardized educational component across the United States. There needs to be a movement in education to only support reports and ranking structures that focus on district indicators that are fair, equal, and relevant to the growth of every student. Such true methods would include pre and post testing data analysis for students; investment for continued teacher professional development; inclusion of social emotional/wellness program opportunities; extracurricular programs; and graduation rate that signifies a student’s competency in mastering a standard level of basic skills. Also, school systems should not be penalized for students who choose to enter a trade or the workforce in lieu of a 2- or 4-year post-secondary experience, especially with skyrocketing tuition increases and greater access to college courses on a part time/online basis. What must happen is a true look at where an individual “is” at the beginning of a school year, and what he/or she “has” accomplished 10 months later. The work performed during that time shows the true worth and work ethic of that district, its students, faculty, administration, and all stakeholders. Richard Tomko, Ph.D., M.B.A., M.J
NJAEL Leader’s Edge Magazine 9
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator