Why does the state continue to insist on punishing schools?

I have to say that I am very disappointed that the state may not take the recommendations of the Accountability Framework Working Group who met for over a year and a half. Instead, they are doing exactly what Donna Johnson with the State Board and the Governor’s Office wanted which was stronger penalties for schools who fell below the 95% Smarter Balanced state assessment participation rate.

I was at the last two meetings of the AFWG and I heard first hand what the Governor’s Office wanted; stronger penalties to be placed on our schools. Donna Johnson stated that the State Board was probably not going to approve the final recommendations that the group made. She indicated that the State Board would want stronger penalties as well. Really, how did the State Board come to that conclusion because they were not at the meetings. How would Donna know that they would not agree with these recommendations because the group just decided on the recommendations?

The AFWG recommended that if a school fell below 95 percent it would be required to submit a report explaining why that happened and how to improve participation and that school could not be named a reward school. The group decided on this penalty because it would cause the least amount of damage to a school. The group would have preferred not to put any penalties in place, but the state told the group it was mandated by the feds.

The group members consisted of school administrators from charter and traditional schools, the Delaware PTA , the Delaware State Education Association, and the State Board. The entire group, except for one, did not want to punish schools because the administrators at a school have no control as to whether or not a student takes the state assessment. If a parent wishes to opt their child out of the state assessment, a school has no control over that, so why does the state want to punish that school for something a school has no control over?

In an effort to ensure as many students as possible are taking the state standardized test, the state Department of Education is recommending schools lose points on a new “scorecard” if fewer students than expected take the exam.

That’s a harsher penalty for schools with low participation rates than a panel of administrators and teacher and parent advocates recommended.

Their plan, which the Working Group had previously rejected, would multiply a school’s score by its participation rate if that rate fell below 95 percent.

“The state feels this is a fair proposal that takes into consideration participation, crediting schools that work to ensure every child’s learning growth is considered,” May wrote.

Click here to read the entire Delaware Online article.

Accountability Framework Working Group Update Interesting Meeting

I attended the AFWG Meeting Number 16 yesterday. There were 10 committee members present and 3 members of the public in attendance. Secretary Godowsky popped in and sat in the meeting for a while and thanked everyone for participating. It was really nice seeing the Secretary of Education at this meeting, this was the second time I have seen the Secretary popping into a meeting.

The next steps: share the recommendations with DESS Advisory Committee (stakeholder group), which happened today, State Board will review and hopefully accept recommendations as presented (State Board representative indicated the board may not accept the recommendations as presented), and then the approved recommendations from the State Board are sent to US DOE.

The members stated again to DOE, what supports are going to be provided to the schools once a school is labeled? We label the schools but there are really no supports in place.

A school can become a Focus, Focus Plus, Priority, Action, Watch, Reward, Recognition, or a Blue Ribbon School.

• DOE reported they must add a consequence for not meeting participation rate. The group decided on the following:
  • School must write a plan for how they will address low participation rates.
  • Cannot be a reward school if the participation rates is less than 95% using NEAP.
• DOE did state the Governor recommended and would prefer the multiplier for schools that are below 95% only, as the consequence the participation rate, but members stated they did not agree with that choice.
• The group decided on using a 0 to 500 point system.

The group was made up of district and charter administrators, a PTA, a DSEA, and a State Board representative. Most of them really did not like labeling the schools especially with no permanent supports in place. I really appreciated the conversation of the group. The group made it clear over and over that they did not like the system but knew most of it was being driven by the feds.

During the conversation, I got the impression that the Governor wanted certain things to come out of this group and I got the same impression from the State Board representative. Why do you put these committees/groups in place and waste their valuable time away from their schools if we are not going to listen to them, they are the experts. I hope the Governor and the State Board will respect the opinion of the experts and keep the final recommendations from the Accountability Framework Working Group as is. It will be interesting to see what the State Board does at their October 15th meeting.