Local administrators voice opinions on Minnesota’s new rating of schools

Joe Nathan
ECM Contributing Writer

Potentially misleading, probably more reasonable and hopefully, helpful. That’s how families may view a new system of accountability that was just released by the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE).

1. Confusing. Why won’t you find some of Minnesota’s highest performing Schools in the 125 top ranked “reward” list of schools that MDE just released? Because, according to Sam Kramer, Minnesota Department of Education Policy Specialist, it’s because they don’t receive federal “Title 1” funds to serve low-income students. Kramer said, “federal law prevents us” from listing schools on this list unless they are “Title One.”

As Corey Lunn, Stillwater superintendent pointed out that while “identifying succeeding Title I Schools is a positive message, it also creates confusion for how schools that are not identified as Title One are recognized and fit into this new system. If a non-title I school is not recognized as a “reward” school, yet performing well, does this create unwarranted confusion for these families and schools?” I’d say “yes.”

Shouldn’t Congress consider modifying this? Yes. Shouldn’t the 2013 Minnesota legislature explore ways to honor outstanding schools that don’t receive federal dollars to serve low-income students? Yes.

2. Will the changes produce improvements? Maybe. Mark Ziebarth, principal at Isanti Intermediate School and School for All Seasons reported, “Our professional development for next year is directly related to the needs identified in the reports.”

Mitch Clausen, Cambridge-Isanti High School principal believes that “the new system may work out to be better. The down side is that we test a different group set of students each year. (9th writing, 10th is reading, and 11th is math. Time will tell.”

Cambridge Superintendent Bruce Novak, told me, “The new classification system has the intent of removing excuses for schools failing based on target sub-groups, such as ethnicity, poverty, special education, etc. It focuses on reduction in the overall Achievement Gap and shows academic growth of all students across the spectrum, (low achievers as well as high achievers). I also think this will be easier for non-educators, parents, etc. to understand.”

Braham Area School District Superintendent Greg Winter wrote, “Although it does factor in other viable attributes of a school to make a more authentic determination of success or failure, it offers no solutions to address the specific issues to combat failure within a school system nor does it offer any real reward to those school that have found success.”

3. No the information just released is not about how well students or schools did during the 2011-2012 school year that is just concluding. The test results reported  are from the 2009-10 and 2010-11 school year. This fall the Minnesota Department of Education will release results for the 2011-12 school year.

And no, this is not a farewell to the federal “No Child Left Behind” law that required states to establish standards in reading, and math, and required schools to test students in various grades, with state reports. Minnesota still requires students in grades 3-8 and in high schools to be tested in reading, writing and math. The state will continue to report test results, along with graduation rates.

Also, there is no “reward” right now for being a top rated school.  Kramer and Keith Hovis, MDE Deputy Communications director say the department hopes to establish some form of “public private partnership” (which means an individual, company or foundations will help provide a cash reward to the “reward” schools). But these schools are proclaimed, “reward” schools.

4. Finally, Yes, the information about schools is being released in a different way. Until this year, Minnesota schools could be on a “needs improvement” list if even one small group of students did not make required “annual yearly progress.”  Last year about half of the state’s schools were on the needs improvement list. The current system does seem more reasonable than that system which educators hated.

Each public school with more than 20 students in a “subgroup” will now receive a “Multiple Measurement Rating”—a number between 1 and 100. Those are available now for most (but not all public schools in the state). The new system uses four factors: what percentage of subgroups in a school met their “state-wide proficiency targets,” how much growth did students make, how do a school’s low income students do compared to other students around the state, and (if a high school), did the students reach 85 percent or more graduation rate?

Charlie Weaver, Executive Director of the Minnesota Business Partnership, is concerned that student gains weigh as much as percentage of students who reach standards. “Businesses care not just about improvement, but whether the employees meet standards and can do their jobs.”

Thanks to MDE’s Hovis and Kramer, who answered many questions I asked about the new system. I think the Multiple Measure system needs refinement, but will give families a broader view of what’s happening in public schools.

Joe Nathan, formerly a public school teacher and administrator, directs the Center for School Change. Reactions welcome, joe@centerforschoolchange.org.

up arrow