Commentary; Posted: 9/8/04

Parents ultimate judge of good schools

By Don Heinzman

All this concern over the lists and stars for schools in Minnesota, because of the federal No Child Left Behind Law, may be missing the point.

Educators who complain about some of their schools that are on the under-performing list are fussing over the kinds of tests, the mislabeling an entire school on the basis of scores in one subgroup and the misperceptions the stateís listing is causing.

Like it or not, the process involved with the No Child Left Behind Law is working. Cheri Pierson Yecke, the former state education commissioner, hit the nail on the head in her recent written commentary.

Yecke says letís celebrate the achievement that 55 schools who were on the list last year improved their math and reading scores enough to be OFF the list.

Educators will say thatís just one year with one group of kids, but the fact is that building staff felt strongly enough to educate better the classes in those 55 schools. If it werenít for the process and the threat of the No Child Left Behind Law, youíre left wondering if resources and extra energy would have been targeted to those schools that needed to improve.

The staff of one of the elementary schools, Sorteberg in Coon Rapids, is relieved to be off the stateís list of under-performing schools. Principal Marcia Beyer says being on the list motivated her and teachers to make changes that resulted in more than 20 English-as-a-second-language third and fifth graders passing the math test. This achievement met the state and federal testing standard.

A total of 238 middle and high schools are on the under-performing list for the first time, because subgroups, such as special education and poor kids did not pass reading and math tests and had poor attendance.

Forty-eight schools were listed, because not enough disabled learners passed the tests. School people will contend that main-streamed special education kids canít perform as well as normal students.

Dr. Roger Giroux, superintendent of the Anoka-Hennepin School District 11, supports the accountability movement, but decries the labeling of schools based on how students in one subgroup, such as special education, do on a test.

He asks: ìIs it fair for the state to limit a high school of 3000 students to a two-star rating based on how well a few disabled learners do on a test? ì

Furthermore, he says even labeling a school based on one yearís testing is a disservice to the school and the kids, because he maintains three to five years of testing results are needed comparing students progress from one year to the next to label a school as not making adequate progress.

The federal law, however, does highlight students in income subgroups, who arenít passing math and reading tests. Now, the tax-paying public has reason to support more money for education to help these targeted youngsters.

The same can be said for schools where improvement is needed for kids who need English as their second language.

Another benefit of the No Child Left Behind Law is testing data for state legislators who have been looking for reasons to target funds. Rightly or wrongly, they are not convinced throwing more money at school problems produces measurable results.

If legislators have schools not making adequate progress in their districts, you can bet they will be advocates for targeting funds to help those kids.

Educators understandably are reacting to having their schools on the list of not making adequate progress, based on tests in one subgroup of their schools.

Parents, however, know a good school when they see one. They judge how well the school addresses their kidsí needs no matter what list the school is on and how many stars it has.

Top of Page