You may
have heard claims that Arlington's "accountability score for our
Students with Disabilities is a shocking 51 percent.” The
implication is that an accountability score of 51% is the
equivalent of a score of 51% on an algebra test. This is not
true.
The
accountability measure being described is what the state calls a
“cumulative criterion-referenced target percentage.” The
foundation of the rating is a state system of setting ambitions
improvement targets, which get more ambitious every year.
It is a calculation based on a collection of measures scored on
a five point rubric, where 0 indicates a decline, 1 indicates no
change, 3 indicates meeting the target, and 4 indicates
exceeding the target. The calculation is based on the percentage
of possible points, so meeting an improvement target results in
a score of 3 out of 4 or 75% of the possible points. Arlington’s
overall score of 71% is just shy of meeting (on average) all
targets, and we are in the top 20% of districts statewide.
When a
51% cumulative criterion-referenced target percentage for
Students with Disabilities is portrayed as “shocking,” it is
clearly a misrepresentation of the meaning of that statistic.
The state’s interpretation is that, “a district is reported as
making substantial
progress toward targets if it has a cumulative
criterion-referenced target percentage from 50 to 74 percent.”
This is the second
highest classification out of six levels in the
accountability matrix. A criterion-referenced target percentage
as low as 25% is classified as making moderate progress toward
targets.
The accountability system is designed to differentiate between
schools and districts that aren’t making progress (target
percentage scores below 25%) and categorize them for state
intervention. These categories include schools and districts
with limited or no progress toward targets, those requiring
focused or targeted support, underperforming schools or
districts requiring broad or comprehensive support, and
chronically underperforming schools or districts requiring state
receivership.
-------------------
Paul Schlichtman is a member of the state Board of
Elementary and Secondary Education’s School & District
Accountability & Assistance Advisory Council. The
Council reviews and recommends changes to the state's
accountability system. He spent the past 20 years analyzing
school and district performance and accountability data to
help principals and teachers to understand the levers of
change that improve their schools.
He understands that measures like the MCAS are just indicators
that inform our work, not desired outcomes that drive our
decisions. Too much emphasis on MCAS and accountability scores
takes time and resources away from art, music, world
languages, social studies, social-emotional learning, and
other essentials not tested by the state.
Return
to schlichtman.org