Can school rating sites end the achievement plateau?
The dark side of the Yelpification of education.
Two weeks ago I wrote about two graphs that really surprised me. One showed the correlation between overall school achievement and socioeconomic status of students in those schools. Spoiler: it’s strong. The other showed the correlation between schools’ learning rates and socioeconomic status. Spoiler: there is none.
These graphs surprised me because the dominant narrative is that “poor” schools suck and wealthier schools don’t. The first graph reinforces that. But, as the second graph shows, if we judge schools by learning rate, that dominant narrative gets refuted.
Sean Reardon, one of the very smart folks from EdOpportunity.org (the source for the graphs) and who’s also a professor at Stanford, wrote a piece that explores this counter-narrative more. Below are a few additional thoughts I have based on this data.
First, these graphs should put to rest any racist, classist, sexist, and eugenicist arguments that certain groups of students can’t learn. They can.
Second, we need need to invest in education for ages 0-4 (Grades 0 - PreK). I wrote more about this here.
In short, much of the inequity in educational outcomes is created well before students reach kindergarten, the de facto educational starting line in most of the US. Any practitioner who’s worked with kindergarteners will tell you they come with a huge range of skills — some students don’t know letter names while others can read independently.
Creating more equitable opportunities before kindergarten would be transformative in helping students reach the starting line ready to race. It would undoubtedly improve overall achievement outcomes, especially in schools that serve students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.
Third, we need to revamp our approach to grading schools. The Yelps of education, sites like Niche.com and GreatSchools.org, offer up school ratings that are still too heavily steeped in overall academic achievement.
Consider the case of Rio del Valle Middle School (RDVMS). If you click on that link, it takes you to Niche.com’s rating, which gives the school a C-. I think most parents would be disappointed to have their child in a C-minus-rated school. GreatSchools.org rates it a 5 out 10, which is basically an F (don’t get me started on grading). That’s awful!
But look here at their learning rates: students there learned 38% more each grade than the US average from 2009 - 2018. That’s amazing!
Some caveats: first, the ratings sites are using current data and the learning rates data is older. Schools undergo drastic changes so it’s possible RVDMS really does stink right now. But I don’t think that’s the case. Check out California’s School Dashboard — there’s plenty of evidence of great learning happening there. Second, and more importantly: academic progress shouldn’t be the only way we rate schools. Students’ safety, extracurriculars, student/staff satisfaction — even the quality of the food served in the cafeteria — all are important indicators of a school’s quality.
School ratings sites need to do better. GreatSchools.org even acknowledges this on their site: We recognize that how well a school serves students from historically marginalized populations goes beyond test scores. A mounting body of evidence suggests that in comparison to just end-of-year test scores, student progress — or growth — is a more accurate way to measure how much value a school is adding for its students. Yes, many now include some measure of academic progress, but it’s unclear to the casual visitor how that’s weighted in comparison to other measures, like overall achievement.
Giving schools these bad grades reinforces negative racial stereotypes and drives prospective parents elsewhere, furthering a cycle of socioeconomic and racial segregation in our schools. And that’s something we could do without.
Thanks for reading. Have a lovely Friday and an even better weekend.