Teaching Tuesday: That's Rank

Do the kids still describe gross things as "rank"? 

Because my title is a lot funnier if they do. Anyway. . .

Recently the New Jersey school rankings came out. Well, in New Jersey they're called "performance reports" and schools aren't technically ranked, but you know what I mean. One thing that I really like about the New Jersey reports, as opposed to the reports in Kansas (where I taught), is that schools are compared with a peer group of schools as well as the rest of the state.

For example, my kids' school, when I see their percentages of kids at the proficient level on state tests, I can also see the percentages of kids at the proficient level at schools* with similar economics, demographics and resources. This is way more meaningful than comparing their scores to those at the state level - the state has districts even fancier than ours, but it also has a lot of districts with a lot of severe challenges. And I'm not saying that kids in those tough districts can't excel, because they absolutely can, but it's harder. I just think you can get a clearer picture of how well students are testing when you compare kids who get enough to eat/have beds/aren't woken up by gunshots/have enough books in the classroom with other kids who have the same privileges (not that those things should be privileges).

I find the sections which separate test takers into groups like race, gender and special education status not especially interesting. Unless there's a huge difference between genders or races, obviously that would be a red flag that the school has serious problems, regardless of their overall test scores.  As for special education, that's just frustrating. "Special education" is such a broad term incorporating kids who learn perfectly well, but may have physical challenges like blindness, and kids who may learn exceptionally well but have a challenge like Asperger's and kids who have serious challenges to learning, like Down Syndrome. So when you look at how the kids identified as "special education" test, you don't know what issues the kids have and whether the school is doing a good job meeting their needs or whether the kids just test very well.

Then you have to realize that as of right now, anyway, each state has different tests. In 2014-2015, all states that have adopted the Common Core will use the same assessments. Regardless of how you feel about the Common Core, this will be the first time that we can actually compare states fairly. Twelve (or so) years ago, I helped write practice tests for the Kansas 4th grade math assessments. One of the things we did was check out other state assessments; that was eye-opening. Kansas fourth graders had to know the same things as Pennsylvania's fifth graders, for example. No wonder our kids looked worse on paper!

Test scores cannot be the only way to rank a school - or a student, for that matter. Scores don't even tell you whether the school is educating students or training them to take the tests well. And they certainly don't tell you about the culture of a school; do the teachers care? Do the parents volunteer? Are the students taught to be kind to one another? Is it okay to exclude? Does everyone value learning? Or test scores?

I've yet to see a site where schools are ranked accurately and fairly, Great Schools and Schooldigger notwithstanding. And so many times the culture of a school can change quickly, depending on who the principal is or whether the school tested well the year before. The school experience can even vary from family to family, or kid to kid. But there are some things to look for, when you're ranking schools for a move or a change.

• The existence of a Parent-Teacher Organization, or PTO. This shows that parents are will to try to help the school and take an active part in what goes on there.
• The existence of a district educational foundation. This group focuses on raising money for extra programs like field trips and presentations and extra supplies like iPads. 
• Rising test scores. Unless the scores were very high to begin with, in which case you'd want them to be remaining steady. 
• Art. Music. PE. Recess. Reducing or eliminating these activities shows the district does not prioritize what's best for children and/or cares way more about test scores than actual learning. 
• High teacher retention. You may only be able to get this info for the district level - and you may have to call the board of education and ask - but it's still worth it. If teachers are quitting or fleeing to other schools/districts after a couple of years, there's probably a problem. 
• A principal who's willing to meet with you and hopefully give you a tour of the school. If the principal doesn't have time to meet with prospective parents, good luck talking to him/her if your kid has a problem. 
• School size and class size. I like an elementary school with fewer than 500 kids; I think you don't get as much cohesion and collegiality in bigger schools. I've never heard of any data that supports smaller schools and class sizes meaning higher scores, but they do make better experiences for teachers and students. 

*One of the schools in our peer group is Nut Swamp Elementary, which strikes me as completely hilarious. I can only hope the town's high school has the same name.