|
State Board of Ed Trying to Determine At-Risk Schools Measures
Gongwer News Service, September 12, 2002
For more articles on disabilities and special ed visit
www.bridges4kids.org.
The State Board of Education spent much of the day Thursday
merely positioning itself for discussions that could take it
through two more meetings in October before members can iron
out which schools in the state are falling behind and need
assistance or sanctions to get them moving.
The board Thursday received an outline for a proposed grading
system under the new Education YES accreditation system to be
rolled out in December as well as proposals for determining
which schools should be placed on a list of schools identified
for improvement under the new federal No Child Left Behind
Act. And they heard why it may be difficult, if not
impossible, to meld the two together.
The Department of Education has fallen under criticism first
from school officials when an initial list of schools
identified for improvement included some 1,500 elementary and
middle schools out of about 4,000 buildings. But then
education reform advocates slammed the board for trying to
weaken state educational standards after discussions of
changing the state standard for adequate yearly progress (AYP)
to more closely mirror the federal minimum and so reduce the
number of schools on the list
But at least half of the eight-member board agreed Thursday
with a staff recommendation to change the yearly progress
standard, reducing the number of buildings on the improvement
list from 2,068 based on current Michigan Educational
Assessment Program results, to as few as 523.
The proposed standard would list only schools in the 20th
percentile, those whose average score is within the bottom 20
percent of all MEAP results. Staff also recommended using only
the mathematics and reading scores, the only tests required by
the federal law, and dropping the science, writing and social
studies scores. Putting those tests back in raised the number
of schools in the target to 575.
"It seems to me we need to set up some separate standard for
failing, otherwise we're saying if you're average you're
failing," said Board Vice President Sharon Gire (D-Clinton
Township). "We're not talking about changing our accreditation
standards. What we're debating is whether we give them what
they wanted."
But some board members still feared eroding the state's
academic standards. "We need to have a high school diploma
that means something," said board member Eileen Wieser (R-Ann
Arbor).
And department officials noted that the schools on the list
would share $2.7 million for teacher training programs, so
reducing the number would allow for more funding per school.
Board member John Austin (D-Ann Arbor) led the charge for
trying to join that standard with the Education YES standards
also being discussed next month, but at many points was shot
down. He argued that the state should be able to list only the
schools that would fall into the D-Alert and unaccredited
categories on the accreditation system as identified for
improvement on the federal list.
"Let's have one system that's the right system so we're using
the sanctions in the right place where we want them and we're
using the incentives in the right place," Mr. Austin said.
But Dorothy VanLooy with the department said the federal
statute cares only what a school's yearly progress is, not
what its state accreditation grade is. "The federal
legislation does not allow us to box them out like that," she
said.
The melding also is working from federal to state, as the
accreditation advisory committee is expected to present
proposals for grading schools that would in part be based on
the federal standards. Education YES looks at both a school's
current scores, averaged over three years, and its improvement
over time. Committee Chair Phillip Kearney said the committee
would be recommending grades for improvement based on the
12-year, 100 percent proficient standard in No Child Left
Behind.
While the grading for current scores will be similar to that
for students, Mr. Kearney said the change grades will be based
on how close schools can stay to the improvement slope needed
to reach all students scoring in the proficient range.
Consideration would also be given to grades from elementary
schools, where the first test is administered, feeding into
middle schools.
But while the MEAP portion of Education YES may be in place
for scores to be released in December, Mr. Kearney indicated
that the performance indicators, such as graduation rate and
parent participation, may not be ready in time. He said the
department staff has yet to develop a pilot document to
collect the information needed and to be sure that information
can truly be tied to school performance before questioning all
schools and releasing the information.
An official decision on how to proceed will come next month
after the board's Accreditation Advisory Committee makes its
official recommendation on cut scores for schools on the MEAP
portions of the accreditation system, but Board Secretary
Michael Warren (R-Beverly Hills) warned that not releasing
anything in December could mean the end of the board's
authority over accreditation.
While other board members appeared to agree with Mr. Warren on
moving forward, there also appeared a consensus behind
Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Watkins that if the
accreditation system is not defensible by December that it not
be released.
Mr. Warren, who noted the board set a December deadline for
reporting initial scores because of pressure from the
Legislature, said, "If we have to release scores on two-thirds
of the test, I would prefer to do that than wait another six
months." He argued that the new governor and Legislature
coming in January will look at the board's performance on
accreditation as an indicator of how much credibility and
authority it should get in the coming two years.
But Mr. Watkins said the department and board needs to look
carefully at the final product before releasing it, because
the governor and the Legislature are not the only ones that
could attempt to diminish the board's authority. "It needs to
be defensible and not something that we're going to be backing
away from," he said. "We can fully expect those communities
that think they're As, when they get their Bs, are going to be
back in here with the governor and the Legislature challenging
what we did."
And Mr. Watkins said it would not be fair to fault the
department for not making the December deadline given the
enormity of the task and the loss of budget and staff. "It's
disingenuous for people to talk about us not getting it done
in a year when it hasn't gotten done for years," he said.
|
