A-F grading system approved for districts using original calculation methods
BY ANDREA EGER World Staff Writer
Thursday, October 25, 2012
10/25/12 at 11:11 PM
See a spreadsheet of grades for schools in Tulsa County (5 pages).
See a spreadsheet of grades for schools statewide (44 pages).
Individual school report cards: See the report cards for each school in the Tulsa area on the Tulsa World's Education page. Note: The state Board of Education website links are now working.
OKLAHOMA CITY -- The state Board of Education on Thursday voted unanimously to approve school report cards based on the controversial, original method used to calculate grades for each of the state’s 1,752 public schools.
Many board members expressed both frustration with the recent criticism lodged by school superintendents against the Oklahoma State Department of Education, as well as a desire to move forward with the grading system, even though they acknowledged that it was likely flawed.
At a special meeting earlier this month, the state board voted unanimously to delay certifying the grades after hearing from concerned parents and representatives of a coalition of 313 superintendents from across the state.
At that time, several board members said there were valid questions about the method state education officials used to calculate average student growth -- the bar against which all schools are measured for nearly 20 percent of their grade.
Hours later, state education officials sent notices to every school district in the state stating that they were free to release their grades publicly -- even though in all previous communications the districts had been discouraged from doing so until the report cards were certified and considered final.
On Thursday, some of the same superintendents returned to tell the board that there had been no communication or attempt at collaboration by the state Department of Education in the weeks since then.
Union Superintendent Cathy Burden told the board that there remained “many threats to validity” of the new school grading system because it had not been properly analyzed or tested.
“But more than that, the process used to arrive at the system has left out and insulted the very educators who parents depend on to be the school leaders and opinion makers in their communities,” Burden said. “Your previous delay sent a message that concerns from 313 school districts should not be ignored. I hoped that the spirit of your decision was to listen to feedback, involve district specialists and take the time necessary to come up with an authentic grading scale that we could all support. … I was embarrassed for you that the very day you voted to delay, a message from the state department told districts they could send out the grades.”
Sand Springs Superintendent Lloyd Snow was emphatic that the superintendents are not opposed to an A-F grading system and simply want one that is fair and easier to explain to parents who will be the primary users of the ratings.
He offered as examples the grades calculated for two of his school sites – one recognized at the state board meeting as a national Blue Ribbon School through a U.S. Department of Education program had received a B, while another site with lower student indicators had earned an A.
“We’ve been trying to help and trying to get on board with a process that really might be productive and purposeful policy that might make sense to the average person,” he said. “Where can we find a page that we can get on together and work collaboratively for common sense solutions? This constant confusion and chaos does no one any good.”
Several board members said they considered the superintendents’ remarks a personal affront.
“It doesn’t add to the process to have this myth produced that superintendents needed to be brought to the table,” said Bill Price, a board member from Oklahoma City. “It is just appalling to me that instead of trying to figure out how we can approve the school system, instead we are attacking the messenger. … You’re talking about local control, but that’s the whole idea – getting local people involved in trying to improve their education system.”
He said the Academic Performance Index scores that had been used for the last 10 years for school accountability purposes had been largely ignored by local officials, despite the fact that hundreds of school sites across the state had API scores whose equivalent grades would be “Fs.”
Bill Shdeed, also of Oklahoma City, accused the superintendents of resisting reforms of any kind.
“We have a new administration. We have a new board. We have a new direction. We hear the same thing from the same people every time: Don’t change anything,” he said. “There are 520 of you. That’s got to be a national record. It takes a lot of money to keep most of you all up. What are you doing to help us other than coming out here and bellyaching? Let me tell you, it’s got to change.”
Lee Baxter of Lawton said he had difficulty sitting through the public comments offered at the meeting and felt that state board members were being attacked as “political pawns” in the process.
“This A-F system is not perfect, but by God, it’s going to be A-F and we’re going to have it,” he said. “What I hear today is not an appetite for change.”
State education officials showed the board a comparison of what the school grades would be using their original calculation method and the method advocated, which Assistant State Superintendent Maridyth McBee referred to as a “true arithmetic average.”
Board member Brian Hayden of Enid said he had closely studied the comparisons and calculation methods beforehand and determined that holding schools accountable against a true state average would set the bar too low for school districts.
“My initial impression was it was a pretty small group (of students whose scores were in question).
What was surprising to me, was I didn’t realize that it was 35 percent of the students who score unsatisfactory or limited knowledge. I heard several comments that it’s not that big of a deal, but when you’re talking about 35 percent of the students, it is a big deal,” he said. “What I think ends up happening from calculating average using all scores is we get an extremely low hurdle to cross over – really an uncomfortable level to me.”
Joy Hoffmeister, the board member from Tulsa, said it was important for the public body to hear from all those concerned, including those with whom board members don’t agree. She added that she would like to see greater collaboration in the future so that the grading system could be improved.
State Superintendent Janet Barresi had previously criticized school leaders claiming that their concerns were really masking a resistance to public accountability. She said she was relieved that the board’s action would finally get the grade cards into the hands of parents and other concerned community members who are invested in improving all schools.
Holding up a guidebook for parents titled, “Raise the Grade Together,” Barresi said: “I didn’t take this job for politics. I took this job because my core belief is that the only way out of poverty is through an education.”
She also thanked the superintendents for their input over the last six month.
“We have some very good comments. We have already brought some of those to the Legislature because we will need some legislative adjustment and we understand some of those adjustments can be made through the rules,” Barresi said. “We are ready to go to work and constantly make this system and everything we’re doing the best we can.”
After the meeting, superintendents said they were surprised by the about face of some board members and thought their concerns were being misconstrued.
“I don’t blame them from being ready to move on. I had held out hope for collaboration over the last two weeks, and then again, there was none,” said Burden from Union Public Schools. “What I think they misunderstood is I was not criticizing the board, but the process.
"The state Department of Education cannot lead or push reform efforts without the involvement of educators across the state. It would be so easy to invite them to the table. We don’t want to continue to be rebuffed.”
Jenks Superintendent Kirby Lehman said he thought board members’ objections to hearing opposition “would have a rather chilling effect relative to the process of representative democracy and their willingness to hear citizens.”
He also said several board members were ill-informed about the state’s standings in national rankings of public school academic performance when they referred to it as being in the upper 40s.
Lehman said in actuality, Oklahoma ranks “in the 20s” in academics, but in the upper 40s in state funding for public schools.
Oklahoma City Superintendent Karl Springer said: "We appreciate the diligence of the Oklahoma State Board of Education, but we are deeply disappointed in the calculation. The current calculation does not adequately reflect the growth average of all students."
Norman Superintendent Joe Siano said the state's A-F grading formula "suppresses the success teachers -- certainly those in Norman -- are having in the classroom. Other states with A-F grades for schools have different formulas than that devised by the Oklahoma Department of Education. To not properly account for the academic growth of all students from one year to the next on the state’s grade level tests is not only inappropriate, it runs counter to the very intent of the law that mandated the grades in the first place -- to provide the public a transparent, fair and easily understood method for reporting school performance."
He urged lawmakers to return to the issue in the coming months.
Associated Images:
State Superintendent Janet Barresi and members of the Oklahoma State Board of Education listen to speakers during a meeting at the Oklahoma State Department of Education Thursday in Oklahoma City. GARETT FISBECK/For the Tulsa World
A chart that shows an example of three different tests scored on the same scale to show growth was handed out during a State Board of Education meeting at the Oklahoma State Department of Education Thursday in Oklahoma City. GARETT FISBECK/For the Tulsa World
State Superintendent Janet Barresi calls time on a speaker during a Oklahoma State Board of Education meeting at the Oklahoma State Department of Education Thursday in Oklahoma City. GARETT FISBECK/For the Tulsa World
State Superintendent Janet Barresi and members of the Oklahoma State Board of Education listen to speakers during a meeting at the Oklahoma State Department of Education Thursday in Oklahoma City. GARETT FISBECK/For the Tulsa World
Todd Nelson of Union Public Schools speaks during a State Board of Education meeting at the Oklahoma State Department of Education Thursday in Oklahoma City. GARETT FISBECK/For the Tulsa World
Cathy Burden, superintendent of Union Public Schools, speaks during a State Board of Education meeting at the Oklahoma State Department of Education Thursday in Oklahoma City. GARETT FISBECK/For the Tulsa World
|
