Grading system: F
Published January 26, 2015
Editorial by Greensboro News-Record, January 25, 2015.
In a couple of weeks, some Guilford County schools will be wearing a big, fat F. The state will give them that grade based on last spring’s end-of-course and end-of-grade tests.
While it’s simple and attention-grabbing to grade a school with an A, B, C, D or F, it’s also misleading. So Guilford County Schools leaders and other educators around the state don’t like it.
They have a point. State assessments and accountability measures are constantly changing. Students who are deemed to be at grade level one year find themselves below grade level the next year, or the other way around, even if they’re doing just as well — or poorly. Wake County Superior Court Judge Howard Manning questioned state education leaders last week about “academic double-speak” when it comes to reporting student progress. He relented a little when he learned standards had been raised, but his skepticism probably reflects the public’s confusion. These A-F school performance grades won’t help.
Specific complaints focus on how they’re calculated. In grades K-8, everything depends on the outcome of the standardized tests. Raw scores count for 80 percent of the grade, while annual progress — how much students gain during a school year — counts for just 20 percent.
This means a school whose students come from advantaged families — living in comfortable homes with two well-educated parents — will almost automatically have higher scores than a school with disadvantaged children. The teachers in the second school might be miracle-workers, raising their students’ achievement level beyond expectations, but the school may still get a low grade. So annual growth should be weighted more heavily on the report card. It’s more important where children end up than where they start.
High schools are graded on more criteria — not just end-of-course test results but graduation rates, ACT scores and academic “rigor,” measured by how many students pass Math III. Letter grades generally will be better and likely more representative, although they still won’t account for students with special needs or other unique circumstances that create different challenges for different schools.
This year, a school grade of 85 and up will earn an A. Next year, it will require 90 points to get an A. Who knows about the year after that? This system is supposed to tell the public at a glance how well a school performs, but it doesn’t say what an A or an F really means or shed light on what happens inside the classrooms.
Schools ought to be evaluated, but assessments should be based on comprehensive criteria that make allowances for the challenges each school faces. Furthermore, schools should be given the tools to earn good grades. After years of funding cuts, Guilford County Schools can no longer provide the smaller classes and extra funding it once did for struggling schools, according to Superintendent Maurice “Mo” Green: “We’re moving away from the very things that we know make a difference for our children.”
It may be the politicians who created these circumstances and devised this grading system who deserve a big, fat F.
January 26, 2015 at 9:05 am
Richard Bunce says:
Schools ought to be evaluated... by an independent organization not in any way affiliated with the school and overseen by parents, employers, and postsecondary education officials.
Having schools assess themselves is the most serious of many flaws in government education.
January 26, 2015 at 9:07 am
Norm Kelly says:
I'm beginning to agree with government monopoly school supporters. It really does not make sense to grade schools. There should be no information available to parents or taxpayers indicating how well any public school is doing. This is irrelevant information. Parents are not provided an opportunity for choice, so grading the schools is simply misleading.
Of course, if one were to wonder about government monopoly schools, the first place to start is how the grading works. Kids, until the most recent change, were required to get a score of 93 to earn an A. However, when government monopoly schools are graded by government, anything above 85 rates an A! Imagine using a much less rigorous scale to grade yourself than you are willing to use to grade the kids you teach. What does that say to parents & kids (those who understand anyway!)?
There is merit, however, in taking circumstances of each school into account. If there are kids in a 'handicapped' class (don't know the PC term for this, won't use the same word that was used when I was a kid!) who barely speak, who can't hear, who have other physical restrictions, and are incapable of learning, then they should not be graded on the same scale. However, schools where 'disadvantaged' kids attend should be graded on exactly the same scale as schools where 'advantaged' kids attend. Do libs expect that when these kids graduate, or simply leave school, they will be graded in adulthood based on their family's 'advantaged' status? Of course not. But we all know that when you expect a lot from kids, kids tend to produce a lot. When you expect that your 'disadvantaged' kid is smart enough to be successful at calculus, then the majority of these 'disadvantaged' kids will perform well. When you expect 'disadvantaged' kids to perform poorly, you generally get what you want. So, the moral of the story is twofold. First, expect great things from ALL kids! Second, stop referring to kids as 'disadvantaged'. We all know this is lib code-speak for blacks, especially black boys. Why is it that when libs use code words it should be accepted, but libs ALWAYS claim conservatives are using code words even when said conservative is being as accurate as possible with the words chosen. It's ALWAYS libs that look at skin color first, and there may not even be a distant second. Martin wanted people to be judged on their character, their achievements, while libs want people judged on their skin color or 'disadvantage' status.
Let's be more specific in our government monopoly schools grading scheme, but let's continue to provide this information to parents and taxpayers. Let's also stop making excuses for why some schools are good and other not so much. Let's stop using the lack of funds as an excuse. Cuz lack of funds is NOTHING more than a lame excuse. THE FACTS, those thingys routinely ignored by libs, show without doubt that there is NOT a correlation between spending more and improving. There is SOME merit in the rule of diminishing returns in education as well as the rest of life. But the lib answer to every government problem is simply to spend more. It's about time SOME lib, somewhere, came up with a different solution to ANY problem. Next time your friendly neighborhood, for the children, lib opens their mouth, listen to their words. Are they proclaiming once again that if they are allowed to spend more money they will make a difference in whatever government program they are talking about? If they aren't talking about spending more, then they are talking about how disadvantaged blacks are, how conservatives are racist, and that the majority of the states'/nations' problems would be solved if only non-racist libs were allowed back in control of government once again. There are only 2 choices with libs, both involve conservatives/Republicans being the problem. Libs either want to spend more and whine that conservatives have cut the budget. Or the other lib rant is that conservatives are racists and that's why some specific budget item was cut or some law was changed. There are no other choices in the 'mind' of a die-hard lib. Which is why voters across the nation have put them in a minority position. Cuz the nation is looking for some other answer. The nations is looking for actual solutions instead of made up solutions from whiners! Will there be a viable lib running in 2016 or will there be a racist, skin-color-judging whiner nominated by the socialist party? Next time your neighborhood lib speaks, listen for code words. Also listen for how they don't care about deficit spending and that government should spend even if it puts the state/nation further into debt. If it's 'for the children' then debt is irrelevant.
