fectiveness score markers) that separate an “A” school from a “B” school and so on. Tese calculations are essentially arbitrary and changing from year to year, making designa- tions difficult to interpret. Finally, many of the things par- ents care about—social emotional school climate, richness of curriculum, access to rigorous coursework—are oſten excluded from school ratings, making these an arguably narrow indicator (Schneider, 2017).
Many have also questioned whether—and how—school quality ratings matter to the public, and whether schools can actually respond to low ratings. Interestingly, most parents consistently rate their own child’s school highly, but are less enthusiastic about school quality in general. In a 2018 Gallup poll, 71% of respondents were completely or somewhat satisfied with their own child’s school, but only 48% answered the same regarding American K-12 edu- cation in general (Brenan, 2018). Tis suggests that when exposed to the depth of a school’s character and offerings (as a parent), people are more encouraged than they may be based on general perceptions of schooling, or on a school report card of a school they know less about (Schneider, 2017). A recent report also called into question the rele- vance of report cards, with 42% of parents saying they had not recently checked a school report card, and half of those respondents not knowing the report cards existed (Klein, 2018). Researchers have also looked at schools’ responses to low ratings. Some research suggests that schools that are rated as very low (e.g., given an “F” grade or put on the PLA list) make slight improvements in the following year on some measures (Saw et al., 2017; Winters & Cowen, 2012). However, researchers have also found that being labeled as a failing school makes it hard to attract and retain teach- ers (Clotfelter, Ladd, Vigdor, & Diaz, 2004). Whatever the effect, meaningful change can be difficult, as improving test scores—the main indicator that belies most school rat- ings—requires increasing resources, capacity, ensuring trust among staff members, and much more (Bryk & Schneider, 2004).
Te concerns abound as ratings move from state systems to private, real-estate focused sites, as illustrated in the open- ing paragraph. Sites like Zillow and Trulia have partner- ships with
GreatSchools.Org, which rates schools. Similarly,
Niche.Com has a school rating formula and advertises that it provides “the best place to find your school, company, or neighborhood.” But many scholars have noted that these sites make it increasingly likely to segregate schools and exacerbate inequality as those searching for homes scan for schools with certain quality ratings by using a “slider” to include or exclude schools with different numerical ratings. Tese ratings, of course, are based mostly on test score proficiency markers that are correlated with socio-economic status (Schneider, 2017). Put simply, “when users slide the
rating bar up, toward higher scores, they oſten eliminate all but the wealthiest, and therefore whitest, neighborhoods and towns” (Strauss, 2017, n.p.).
What Does Music Have to Do with Tis?
Why should a music educator care about this? I think we can easily see several reasons for paying close attention to ratings systems. First, accountability systems since NCLB and school ratings have mostly ignored the arts, leading to a well-documented narrowing of the curriculum that squeezes time spent in music classrooms. Second, pres- sure to achieve school ratings (based on math/reading test scores) can combine with budget problems to mean a loss of elementary music across a district, as happened in Lansing in 2013 (see Shaw, 2018). Tird, the Every Student Suc- ceeds Act (ESSA) has opened up opportunities for states to redesign accountability systems. Mainly, this means at least one additional indicator (besides the traditional test score proficiency/growth indicators). Tus far, 19 states have in- cluded the arts as part of their ESSA plans (Mullen & Wolff, 2018). Tis includes Michigan, which has included access to K-8 arts/physical education instruction as in indicator, to be measured by teacher/student ratios. And in the recent phase two rollout of the Michigan dashboard, the arts are reported on as a “point of pride” (Michigan Department of Education, 2019).
While encouraging, these inclusions of the arts in school ratings systems need to be monitored to ensure they are meaningful. For example, if a school only has music once every few weeks, taught by a classroom generalist instead of an endorsed music specialist, this may be reported as access to music, even though many music educators would likely be concerned with that designation. Similarly, districts re- porting music as a “point of pride” have no specific standard for doing so, making it possible for such a report to (as in the aforementioned example) be misleading.
On a larger scale, it is important to consider alternative sys- tems for gauging school quality. Tere are some compelling examples, such as the 7-district Massachusetts Consortium for Innovative Education Assessment (MCIEA) that start- ed in 2014. Tis group’s system for school quality includes multiple measures, but ones that are quite different than those used in school report card systems. Te five categories include three inputs (teachers and the teaching environ- ment, school culture, and resources) and two outcomes (ac- ademic learning, citizenship and well-being). Participation in the arts, as well as valuing of the arts, is included in this last measure. Besides the obvious difference in the scope of these measures, MCIEA aims to acknowledge that not all schools need to be the same, and that community members may want and need different things. Interestingly, when
30
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40
