Many changes were made to the School Report Cards from 2004 to 2005. In some cases, information was added. In others, information was taken away. In either case, parents should understand what the School Report Cards tell us, and what they don’t.
The following critique is provide to help parents understand the limitations of the print version of the School Report Cards, and how parents should be cautious in its use.
Tip: Download and print your child's School Report Card from the Minnesota Department of Education (find your child's school and click on "Printable School Report Card" in the right sidebar) to have on hand while reading this review.
|
Student Demographics |
| What the School Report Card tells us … |
The total number of students enrolled at that school and in each NCLB subgroup for the most recent reporting year. |
What it doesn’t
tell us … |
How many students took the test resulting in the first set of Stars (1-3), by grade level and subgroup.1
|
| Recommended change … |
See notes below.
|
|
5 Star Ratings for Academic Performance |
| What the School Report Card tells us … |
Whether or not a school made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) on the state reading and math tests (taken in grades 3, 5, 7, 10 and 11).
- One Star – The school did not make AYP in either of the two preceding school years.
- Two Stars – The school did not make AYP in the preceding school year.
- Three Stars – The school made AYP in the preceding school year.
|
What it doesn’t
tell us … |
On what basis a school made or failed to make AYP. Beginning in 2004-2005, schools and districts that did not make AYP towards their index target or qualify under the safe harbor provision had their students’ test scores averaged for up to three years. The report card gives no indication whether the current year’s scores or two- or three-year average scores were used to calculate AYP.2
|
| Recommended change … |
Add descriptive text to the AYP Subject Message to clarify what scores were used to calculate AYP, and add a Target column to the MCA Scores charts on page 2 of the Report Card.
|
|
Stars for Exceptional Academic Performance |
| What the School Report Card tells us … |
Whether or not a school met one or two of the following conditions:
- Fewer than 10% of students scoring in Levels 1 and 2 on the MCA tests.
- More than 30% of students scoring in Level 5 on the MCAs.
- Outstanding performance compared to schools with similar numbers of students receiving free and reduced price lunch.
- Outstanding performance compared to schools of similar size.
|
What it doesn’t
tell us … |
On what basis a school earned (or failed to earn) a Star for outstanding performance on one of the two comparison measures. The comparison measures are based on two factors: enrollment and performance. Each year, the comparison groups are recalculated based on student enrollment, making the measures problematic. A school could lose or gain additional Stars based on enrollment changes at that school or at other schools resulting in a shift between comparison groups from one year to the next. It’s not particularly a good idea to base performance measures on factors outside a school’s control. |
| Recommended change … |
Provide additional clarification on the comparison measures.
- What do you mean by “Outstanding Performance?” If it means in the Top 25%, why doesn’t it say so on the Report Card? If it means in the Top 10%, why doesn’t it say so on the Report Card?
- Compared to how many schools with how many students receiving free and reduced price lunch? In what comparison group? How are the comparison groups calculated and did this school’s comparison group change this year?
Closely monitor the impact of changes in student enrollment in comparison group assignments and the impact on Stars awarded for Exceptional Academic Performance. Make changes as needed.
On another note, why is “Fewer than 10% of students scoring in Levels 1 and 2 on the MCA tests” written in the negative? Wouldn’t it be much better to say, “At least 90 percent of students in the school scored at or above proficient (Achievement Level 3, 4 or 5)”?
|
|
Advanced Academic Opportunities |
| What the School Report Card tells us … |
The Report Card tells us whether or not …
- The school provides services to gifted and talented students during the school day.
- The school provides opportunities for academic acceleration.
- The school offers academic enrichment opportunities.
- The school offers competitive academic activities.
- Students can meet art standards in four of the following: dance, media arts, music, theater & visual arts.
|
What it doesn’t
tell us … |
How those services are provided and how many students are served.
- How are students identified for gifted and talented services?
- Do the demographics of the students receiving gifted and talented services reflect the demographics of the school community (by NCLB subgroup)?
It’s misleading to present this information in a simple “Yes/No” format. A criticism of the 2003-04 version of the School Report Cards was that it caused people to make judgments about a school without digging deeper into the data. A school could conceivably receive a star for each one of these types of academic enrichment, but in reality provide very little service to very few students.
|
| Recommended change … |
Report the number of students being served by each type of program by NCLB subgroup, including the number of students within the subgroups participating in multiple programs.
|
|
School Safety Policies and Programs |
| What the School Report Card tells us … |
That a school has each of the following in place:
- Crisis Management Policy
- Harassment Policy
- Dangerous Weapons Policy
- Alcohol/Drug Education
- Anti-Violence/Anti-Bullying Programs
|
What it doesn’t
tell us … |
Again, having a policy or program in place and a) knowing whether or not it’s a good policy/program and b) actually using the policy/program to guide interventions/decision-making or provide services to students are wholly separate matters.
|
| Recommended change … |
Find a way to make this section meaningful (since it’s required by NCLB).
|
|
Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment (MCA) Scores |
| What the School Report Card tells us … |
What percent of students scored at each level on each test.
|
What it doesn’t
tell us … |
What the Target was for that test in that testing year.
|
| Recommended change … |
Add a column for Target as described above.
|
|
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) |
| What the School Report Card tells us … |
Whether or not each NCLB subgroup met AYP in participation and proficiency.
|
What it doesn’t
tell us … |
How many students in each NCLB subgroup took the test and how they scored. This information is needed to provide a sense of scale, “How do we know when a school failed to make AYP based on the scores of 1-4 students versus 140 students?”
|
| Recommended change … |
Using current year data:
- Provide for All students and each NCLB subgroup the number of students tested with the Yes/No (e.g., “33-Yes” and a color-coded bar chart to indicate the distribution of students within that subgroup among the five Achievement Levels.)
- For the proficiency definition, input the basis for the AYP determination, e.g, current year test scores; 10% gains from Levels 1-2 to Levels 3+ from the preceding year; two- or three-year average scores, etc. Do the same for participation (report the current year participation rate, as well as whether two- or three-year averages were used as the basis for the AYP determination.)
- For attendance/graduation, provide the actual AYP attendance and graduation data (e.g., move the attendance information provided under School Opportunities to the space available in the “Other” AYP column.)
|
|
Additional Recommendations… |
|
- Move Extra Curricular Activities described under School Opportunities to below the Advanced Academic Opportunities (there’s really no difference between a box with a Yes in it and a box with a Yes and a Star beside it).
- Report Degrees earned (Bachelors, Masters; add PhD) under Staff Preparation and Experience as a percent of total, e.g., 100% Bachelors, 61% Masters, 3% PhD.
|
|
Notes
- People with Internet access can view a school’s most recent and trend MCA results by gender and NCLB subgroup at the MDE Web site. By looking at MCA results by student group one can find the number of students by grade level and subgroup that took the test resulting in the first set of Stars (1-3). What’s not clear on either the MDE Web site or the printable School Report Card are the current AYP Targets and whether or not they were met in the current testing year. This is especially important now that the Targets change every year. A way to address this at the MDE Web site would be to add a line for AYP Target to the data table (above or below the district or state scores) and highlight (in red or bold) any group(s) that did not make the Target.
- “Minnesota negotiated a more flexible standard with the U.S. Department of Education, 'Beginning with school year 2004-2005 schools and districts that do not make adequate yearly progress towards their index target nor qualify under the safe harbor provision, will have their student’s test scores averaged for up to three years,'" Minnesota Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook, U.S. Department of Education. Revised July 20, 2005. Accessed October 2005.
References
Minnesota Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook, Revised July 20, 2005, U.S. Department of Education.
AYP 2005 Calculations Illustrated, General Formulas for AYP 2005, Minnesota Department of Education.
2005 School Report Card Reference, Minnesota Department of Education.
2005 Star Rating Guide for Academic Achievement (Excel file), Minnesota Department of Education.
Helpful pages at the Minnesota Department of Education:
[circa 2002-2003] Reaching New Heights: Turning Around Low-Performing Schools - A publication of the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, this guide offers governors succinct policy options for turning around schools and highlights best practices from states, districts, and schools. It also provides specific information about the merits of various strategies, summaries of research findings, and recommendations for policy actions.
The guide recommends that governors should dispel the notion that all schools identified as low-performing are the same or that all are failing schools. "Not all low-performing schools are the same, and now, due to NCLB requirements, many more schools will be identified as low-performing than in the past. Consequently, governors and other state leaders will have to make strategic decisions on how the state should prioritize technical assistance resources and communicate to the public about these schools." (page 10)
July 2003 - Statewide Educational Accountability Under NCLB, Council of Chief State School Officers. Summarizes how states are implementing NCLB based on a review of the state accountability workbooks.
Return to Top
|
