In this age of data worship, state education agencies seem to devote more time to rating schools than helping them. Many state legislatures have embraced a “damned by data” strategy to propel change in public education. As a result, school districts are neck-deep in data collection mandates.
In response to a state law passed by our General Assembly, Georgia has now introduced another category of school ratings, the Financial Efficiency Star Rating. The state Department of Education released the scores earlier this month.
My problem is the new ratings — these latest ones included — don’t help anyone, schools, students or parents. Some, like Georgia’s College and Career Ready Performance Index, are unwieldy and overly complex. For example, points awarded for student growth can mask low actual performance. Yes, students are improving but they may be a long way from proficient, which parents can only know if they look behind the final CCRPI score at all the contributing factors and bonus points.
Conversely, this new financial rating system is overly simplistic, yoking a three-year average of per-pupil spending and CCRPI scores to award a star rating of one to five, with one star being the worst and five the best.
The state Department of Education includes its own caveat: “While the star rating provides additional information about the relationship between Per Pupil Expenditure and student achievement, users should note its limitations. Although all districts follow the same reporting guidelines, inconsistencies in the use of school codes have resulted in the districts reporting similar expenditures in different ways to the GaDOE.”
Permit me to throw some shade on these new financial ratings. The academic challenges students bring to the classroom determine spending. More challenges require more resources. Also, location plays a role in salaries: Metro districts face higher costs of living than South Georgia so pay scales are higher.
As a result, it should be no surprise Atlanta Public Schools — with deep multigenerational poverty — spends more per student than Forsyth, which has become a county of choice for affluent transplants to Georgia. The per-pupil cost in Forsyth averaged $7,115 over three years, while APS spent $13,297 per student, according to the financial efficiency ratings. Forsyth earned the best score in the state, scoring the only 5 out of all 180 school districts. Atlanta scored 1.5 stars.
The state’s largest system with more than 178,000 students, Gwinnett County Public Schools, earned a high score of 4.5, in part because of the low-per-student cost derived from the district’s economies of scale. A stable and well-run district, Gwinnett has been able to raise student performance with larger-than-average schools. While it, too, is a stable and successful district, City Schools of Decatur earned only 2.5 stars, but it operates smaller and more costly schools so it doesn’t benefit from economy of scale.
Districts could respond to their scores and explain the reasons. Only a few did, including Atlanta, which noted it faces one of the highest costs of living in the state so it has to pay its staff more. The district also cited its large proportion of students in high-need and high-cost categories such as special education and poverty. And the district pointed out it maintains small neighborhood schools.
These financial efficiency ratings represent a blunt measurement that hinges on the validity of CCRPI, which, in turn, rests almost entirely on the validity of state tests. Given all the problems this year and last with the the new Georgia Milestones, that’s a shaky foundation
About the Author
