Home > Uncategorized > Missouri’s History of Evaluating Schools Illustrates How “Outcome-Based” Metrics Undercut State Departments, Emphasize Demographic Differences

Missouri’s History of Evaluating Schools Illustrates How “Outcome-Based” Metrics Undercut State Departments, Emphasize Demographic Differences

Saint Louis Post Dispatch writer Kristen Taketa’s column on potential changes to Missouri’s accountability system provides a history of accountability in that state which illustrates how “outcome-based” metrics undercuts the role of state departments, effectively dismisses the effects of poverty on school children, and provides a cheap and seemingly accurate means of differentiating “performance”. This shift away from a comprehensive but expensive means of evaluating schools to the simplistic and inexpensive method of using test results reinforces the notion that “throwing money” at the solution and imposing government oversight at the state level won’t help improve schools. Instead the message is that hard work by teachers and relentless grit by students alone will make a difference.

In her article on Missouri’s ongoing review of how best to assess the effectiveness of schools, Ms. Taketa describes the way schools in her State (and most states) was done in the 1970s and 1980s:

Two decades ago, Missouri rewarded school districts with good marks if they got parents involved, offered a variety of extracurricular activities and had safe schools. Districts were applauded if they had deep financial reserves, a competent staff and a school board that got along well with administrators….

When the state created the Missouri School Improvement Program in 1990, its primary goal was to ensure schools were providing the services and resources needed for a good education. Schools were graded not by calculating scores with complex formulas, but by in-person school visits by state education officials and educators from peer districts.

Ms. Taketa never says so in her article, but this system had at least three major problems:

  1. Those who value mathematical precision that provides the ability to rank schools found metrics like “parent involvement, competent staff, and highly functioning school boards” to be too soft. Moreover the narrative reports issued by visiting teams of colleagues and State Department officials often contained subjective descriptions of the districts that did not provide the capability of comparing one district to another in terms of student performance, which many taxpayers viewed as the ultimate determinant of school quality.
  2. For those who value complete local control, the notion of being judged by “outsiders” from the State Department and from “other districts with nothing in common” with theirs was an anathema. If local taxpayers and voters were happy with their schools they did not feel feedback from “outside experts” was worthwhile, even if those experts were assuring that the funds from the state were being invested wisely by the local school board and administrators.
  3. For those who want to limit spending, the cost for these periodic reviews was perceived s daunting and the fact that these comprehensive reviews required a robust state department (i.e. a fully staffed bureaucracy) was especially maddening.

Her analysis of how Missouri moved to testing is a solution to each of these “problems”:

Then in 1993, the Missouri Legislature passed the Outstanding Schools Act, which instructed state education officials to create a standardized test to measure student performance. Student performance began to count for the majority of a Missouri school rating by 2001, the same year the federal No Child Left Behind law was passed by Congress.

By 2012, Missouri school accountability was entirely based on student results, though not all of it on test scores.

Later in the second paragraph, Ms. Taketa describes how the state finessed the problem of helping low performing districts become accredited without having to spend a dime!

The inclusion of non-test criteria, such as attendance and graduation rates, is what enabled two high-poverty, previously unaccredited districts — St. Louis and Riverview Gardens — to earn accreditation upgrades, despite having a majority of students who are not proficient on state standardized tests.

Ms. Taketa then describes the downside of using standardized tests as the primary metric: the narrowing of the curriculum.

While most anyone will agree schools should have high test scores and attendance rates, relying on such outcomes when judging schools runs the risk of schools fixating on earning points and little else. It runs the risk of investing energies solely on students who are a few points below proficient, rather than all students.

And that “risk” is precisely what led to the State legislature revisiting the formula, a process that has taken five years of debate! Their solution, though, still relies on test scores, using “growth” instead of “proficiency”. While “growth” is better than “proficiency”, it still poses a dilemma:

In a 2008 Association for Education Finance and Policy survey, 68 percent of education researchers said growth is the best way to measure school quality. Only 9 percent said measuring proficiency is.

“It has been highly recognized as a more accurate representation of trying to isolate what schools are actually doing for kids,” said Michael Hansen, director of the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution.

Districts can already earn points for student growth in Missouri’s accreditation system, but they can’t earn as many points for growth as they can for straight test scores.

Prioritizing growth could give higher ratings to districts such as Riverview Gardens, Jennings and Special School District, all of which received zero points for reaching proficiency targets in 2016 but earned all the points they could for growth.

But Chris Neale, assistant commissioner for quality schools at the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, cautions that, in emphasizing student growth, the state shouldn’t lower expectations for students of color or students from low-income backgrounds.

What you have to be careful of is that you don’t even provide by accident an excuse to say children of poverty can’t achieve, people of a particular racial or ethnic background can’t achieve,” Neale said. “We don’t want the unintended consequence of stigmatizing a community.”

The best way to avoid offering an excuse to say that “children of poverty can’t achieve” is to offer those children the same chance to succeed that a student in an affluent school district has. But that would require more funding… and we don’t want the unintended consequence of stigmatizing the legislature as being cold-hearted and uncaring toward the children who were born into poverty.

 

Advertisements
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: