In giving Minnesota a D, Students First hurt its own credibility
Beth Hawkins, MinnPost, January 30, 2014 – There are few emails I dread so much as those announcing the release of a new education report card. If I had a nickel for every one that lands in my inbox I’d be riding out the vortex in Maui.
It invariably takes either a psychometrician’s understanding of assessments or Machiavelli’s political chops to struggle through them. The majority measure only what the author wants to grade, and dress it up with crayons and apples and other school-themed kitsch just in case the conceit — report card, education, get it? — isn’t obvious enough.
I got a doozy the other day. Students First, one of the nation’s largest and most controversial education reform groups, gave Minnesota a D for its education policies — and an “overall GPA” of 1.19. I read it and mentally gave it a D for truthiness, but at the time decided writing about why — and the irritation it sparked in advocacy circles hereabouts — was serious inside baseball.
And it didn’t seem very meaningful. Fully 90 percent of the country earned low grades, arguably because the curve the group is grading on is made of pretty extreme policy prescriptions.
To deliver address at ed summit
But now it turns out that Students First founder Michelle Rhee, as close to a household name as any national education reform advocate’s, is scheduled to deliver the opening address at the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce’s 2014 education summit on Feb. 6.
She’ll be followed by a lineup of worthy speakers — local and national policy types whose ideas are backed by research. And who probably merit a previewing blog post all their own, where they don’t have to compete with Rhee.
Because she’s going to garner the headlines. She’s funny and trenchant — and a lightning rod for criticism. And yet if the report card is any indication it’s also going to be painful indeed because she’s going to talk about the state of our state — as she sees it.
How painful? Minnesota’s teacher evaluation law allows school districts and teachers unions to jointly establish performance-review systems provided they meet a particular standard. Put another way, a labor-management collaboration is free to do better than the state default, as is the case in Minneapolis.
The report card, however, seems to leave open the possibility that unions can negotiate down: “Minnesota allows a school board and an exclusive representative of the teachers in the district to develop a teacher evaluation and peer review process for probationary and continuing contract teachers through joint agreement. In order to help increase the quality of teaching in Minnesota, the state should require that evaluations are not subject to collective bargaining.”
Ignores accountability laws
It also gives short shrift to major changes made in recent years to the state’s charter school oversight system, wrongly asserting that charter authorizers are not held accountable for school performance. Advocates of better charter-sector quality nationwide envy Minnesota’s new accountability laws.
The report also dings the state for failing to provide vouchers, for failing to provide a mechanism for parents to demand the takeover of a failing school and for not allowing for mayoral or state control of failing schools — all policies under discussion in Minnesota only in echo chambers.
Bizarrely, Minnesota gets a B for establishing “high quality alternative certification routes to the classroom” — never mind the three years advocates have spent attempting to get the Board of Teaching to implement the laws in question.
Finally, the state gets an F for failing to issue A-F letter-grade report cards “that empower parents with accessible, meaningful information about their kids’ schools.”
This is a particularly painful irony given that in recent years the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) eschewed this crude measurement system (remember, we used to rate schools with stars) in favor of a Multiple Measurement Rating system that identifies schools that produce outsized gains in learning.
For the most part, MDE declined to participate in the preparation of either Students First evaluation. “Thank you for the opportunity to provide input into the Students First 2014 policy report card,” agency Chief of Staff Charlene Briner wrote in response to this year’s request for data.
“As was the case for the 2013 report card, we do not believe the policies your report card emphasizes are accurate indicators of states’ progress in advancing student achievement for all children,” she added. “We also do not believe your report card provides a complete or valid picture of the significant reforms Minnesota has successfully implemented, nor the results of those reform efforts.
“We have provided limited input on Minnesota’s teacher and principal evaluation efforts. Beyond that, we respectfully decline to provide further input.”
Literal volumes have been written about Rhee. You can peruse them on your own time. For the purposes of understanding why her giving Minnesota a D is so vexatious what you need to know is this: She was the chancellor of Washington, D.C.’s school system, which she was charged with overhauling.
Much discussion for and against
Did she succeed? Critics and boosters have spent more years than she was in office constructing cases for and against. Rhee cleaned house at the central office and offered the district’s teachers six-figure salaries in exchange for the ability to remove underperformers. (They turned her down.) She also continues to star in Erasuregate, a test-cheating scandal that threatens to generate more ink than the single-gun theory.
When Mayor Adrian Fenty, who appointed her, lost office Rhee announced plans to start a grassroots campaign for education reform that would raise $1 billion and have 1 million supporters. She followed Students First’s high-profile launch with a refusal to name the group’s funders that cost it and cost her credibility.
It remains to be seen whether the report card will use up the remainder of Rhee’s political capital.