I have to agree with all the Catherine Shreves wrote. As I said this am
on MPR, we need to look at growth over a period of years. We assess our
kindergarteners to evaluate many basic school readiness skills. If the
state were to expand the reporting to measure children when they enter a
school system, and assign that child a record that follows them anywhere in
the state, then look at growth over a period of time, say from K to 3 and
then to 5, we would have a much more accurate picture of growth and
progress, both for districts, schools and individual children.
But at this writing, it is my understanding that the state has refused to
look at that type of assessment, even though researchers across the country
are recommending testing that shows more accurately growth over time. When
we take one year's 3rd graders and compare it to last year's second
graders, now third graders, we only see a very tiny piece of the puzzle.
As list members know, many of our children lack the social capitol of those
in more affluent schools. Children from affluent areas come to school with
the skills to begin learning. We have children who have no stable housing,
family life, healthcare or adult relationships. We have children who have
never held a writing tool or had a book read to them of have never spoken
english. So we take children from a much lower level of school readiness.
That's why early education funding is so critical.
The MCA tests on which the Title 1 report is based, have 4 levels. The top
levels range from 75% up. The bottom level is from 0% to 33% and the
biggest level is the second one up, it goes from 33% to 75%. The number of
chilren in MPS doesn't seem to have gone up in the very limited manner it's
reported. But in fact there have been tremendous gains for kids going from
the bottom level to the second level and kids going from 33% to 70%, close
to the 1420 mark imposed by the state. So even the state is now looking at
breaking the 4 levels into 5 because they are beginning to see that it is
not an accurate way to evaluate progress.
I also believe Minneapolis should be compared to like school districts with
similar demographics. The current system will always mean, in this state,
Mpls and St. Paul will never look as good as Minnetonka, or Apple Valley or
North Oaks. Our demographics are completely different and the system is
skewed to make the affluent school districts look successful and urban
centers as failures. I say compare us, if we are to be judged at the
national level, to Charlotte-Mecklenburg or Seattle, etc.
I understand that this information is to be used to help school districts
in need, but that hasn't really been the case in the past. It's mostly
been used or threatened to be used in a punitive manner. In DC, this kind
of information that is so limited, is used to bash and undermine public
education. And who is keeping the test makers and test scorers
accountable? That isn't foolproof!
Audrey Johnson 10th Ward
MPS BOE Dir.
