Friday, March 7, 2014
By Noel K. Gallagher firstname.lastname@example.org
PORTLAND -- Education experts say it's no surprise that Maine's new A-to-F school grading system shows that schools in wealthier communities generally have higher grades while those in poorer communities have more D's and F's.
Research has shown that correlation for decades, and critics say the school report cards released Wednesday are more indicative of the students' socioeconomic status than the performance of any particular school overall.
"The grades released show that those (high) schools receiving A's have on average 9 percent of students receiving free and reduced lunches (a measure of students living in poverty) and those schools assigned F's have 61 percent of their students participating in the program," said Rebecca Millett, D-Cape Elizabeth, the Senate chairwoman of the Legislature's Education Committee.
The grades show that elementary schools that got F grades have an average of 67 percent of their students eligible for free and reduced-price lunch, while the schools that got A's have an average of 25 percent of students on free and reduced-price lunch.
In general, the grades are based on standardized test scores in math and English, students' growth and progress, and the performance and growth of the bottom 25 percent of students. For high schools, graduation rates are another factor.
More than a dozen other states use similar grading systems. Maine intentionally kept the criteria simple, say Gov. Paul LePage and Education Commissioner Stephen Bowen.
"What this has already done is create a discussion across the entire state, and that's not a bad thing," said LePage's spokeswoman, Adrienne Bennett, on Thursday. "We welcome the discussion."
Advocates say the system, backed up by a new comprehensive "data warehouse" on the education department's website, provides transparency and gives parents a snapshot of how their children's schools are doing.
Critics say a single letter grade doesn't capture the totality of a school's work and community.
"There's a saying that 'Simplicity is the enemy of fairness.' This strikes me as one of those situations," said David Silvernail, director of the Center for Educational Policy, Applied Research and Evaluation at the University of Southern Maine. "We know there is a relationship (between poverty and lower test scores) there. It's been well-established. This grading system, unfortunately, just highlights it."
He said a system that included socioeconomic data and expenditures would give a clearer picture of a school's performance.
Grading schools A to F is "an extremely blunt and crude way to approach such a complicated topic," said Donald Hernandez, a demographer and sociology professor at Hunter College of City University of New York.
Families who live in poverty are more likely to live in neighborhoods with lower-performing schools, he said. Those schoolchildren are more likely to be hungry, lack adequate medical care, lack the language or social skills they need to succeed, or miss school frequently because of health or family concerns.
Overcoming those external factors to score higher on standardized tests can be daunting for schools. Maine officials say the grading system will help them target state resources in the right places.
"This is an accountability system," said Samantha Warren, spokeswoman for the Department of Education. "The status quo is not acceptable."
Warren noted that about 20 elementary schools in Maine where more than 50 percent of the students get free or reduced-price lunch received A's or B's.
Education officials must visit those schools and see what they're doing to learn best practices, she said.
"Now that we have the data, we can really look at that data to understand what is happening," Warren said.
Some of that work has already begun. Silvernail wrote a report for the Legislature last year that identified and documented the practices of higher-performing, more efficient schools in Maine. He found that a school's culture and efficient use of teaching time are key factors in success.
(Continued on page 2)