Report card

for Minnesota schools: A

useful, yet

imperfect, tool

By KREMENA TODOROVA

Journal Staff Writer

NEW ULM -- A new school assessment tool unveiled by state officials in late July has local school administrators both pleased and concerned.

When fully-functional, the tool, dubbed "a report card for Minnesota schools," will evaluate schools on academic achievement, academic opportunity, school safety, student participation, parent satisfaction and financial health.

Schools will be receiving star ratings, with the best scorers getting five stars and the worst getting one star, with a range of potential penalties involved.

The pivotal academic achievement section will assess yearly progress in math and reading for each ethnic or socio-economic subgroup of students, on the basis of state test passage rates. The test achievement bar will be raised each year, until it gets to 100 percent for all subgroups in 2013.

In preliminary academic achievement computations -- the only real-life school-specific numbers available at this time -- District 88 was rated "above target." This rating was based on the fact that 87 percent of District 88 third and fifth-graders passed state math tests, and 89 percent passed state reading tests. In comparison, the state's target percentages for this year, based on computation of averages, were 62 and 63 percent.

Superintendent Harold Remme says that the new reporting format is another way to communicate information to parents -- and, as such, is a commendable effort.

He draws a parallel between the report card and the Campus program being phased in at school sites in District 88, which helps parents track local students' academic performance, progress, attendance and other factors.

"As a tool that makes information available, [the report card] can be meaningful," Remme says.

The tool can be used for gathering information about the school a student is attending -- or school a student is considering attending because of a move.

On the flip side, the information is not always presented in an understandable way and may need further explanation, notes Remme.

Recently unveiled sample report cards have been perceived as difficult to interpret by lay people, because they use symbols and terminology familiar to educators only.

In addition, Remme notes, "there's more to the story than one page."

Many school-specific variables -- such as location or student demographics -- can skew the picture.

"Using the report card to compare schools would be an inappropriate use -- it would be like comparing apples to oranges," says Remme.

The tool is not totally objective even when tracking an individual school's progress from year to year -- since each year's report card contains data for a different class.

Another source of concern is the potential for computer and other errors, already manifested in samples. A tiny glitch can change results to a point where schools could be face penalties.

Educators have also questioned how realistic it is to expect every student, in every subgroup, to meet every achievement goal.

Remme invites parents who want to use the tool, to be made available on the Department of Education website (http://education.state.mn.us) before the beginning of next school year, to contact the local school office with any questions.