By Dr. Al Roberts
Clarkston School

The State of Michigan has implemented a new accreditation system for public schools. The purpose of the new process is noble and timely. After all, citizens do want to know how the schools in their community are doing! Measuring student performance, the effectiveness of staff, the quality of instructional strategies, and the participation or involvement levels of the school family (pupils, parents/guardians, and school personnel) are tasks that any educator should welcome. Who would argue with the premise that no child should receive an inferior education?
No, you won’t hear any whining from me about the need to make our schools, and schools across the nation, better for all students. Nonetheless, it is important that citizens be put in a position that enables them to decide for themselves – to differentiate between rhetoric and reality. School reformers generally believe in stronger accountability for results, local control, expanded options for parents and an emphasis on teaching methods that have been proven to work. My guess is that most readers would agree.
So, what is the problem? As Michael Fullen, an expert on the change process might say, change is being hindered by faulty strategies and squandered opportunities. In this regard, I believe the Education Yes Accreditation Model adopted by the State Board of Education is flawed. First of all, the model is much too reliant upon the results of one measure, the MEAP Test. When taking a closer look at a statistical analysis of that test, it is difficult for me to understand how one test will be the driving factor of whether or not a school is considered “Passing.” Please understand that our Clarkston students do very well on the MEAP test. Frankly, I cannot tell you that mandating readiness or demanding that 100% of a student body pass a particular test on a particular day is possible.
Most people understand that children learn at different rates and in varying ways. Any parent with more than one child can attest to the fact that each youngster is unique. For example, within a normal developmental time frame, some children learn to walk earlier than others do, while others learn how to talk. Would it be right to label those who are at the back end of a typical growth sequence as failures? I see such strategies as blatantly unfair and somewhat self-defeating. Furthermore, the high stakes testing mentality can result in some school systems adopting practices that are more about testing than they are about learning.
Of course, I am also concerned about schools being graded. Since I firmly believe in assessments that evaluate effectiveness, that might sound strange. Allow me to explain. The proposed process would label some schools that are presently performing at a very high standard lower than other schools that are achieving at much lower rates. That just doesn’t sound right to me. Statistically, I don’t believe we can hold onto the bell curve mentality on one hand, while expecting 100% performance on the other.
In Clarkston, we accept the challenge to prepare all of our students for successful lives. We want students who speak limited English, have special needs or disabilities to accomplish great things. Our expectation is clear in our mission to, challenge all individuals to exceed their own expectations. We have implemented strategies designed to raise the academic bar and will continue to do so. Despite our proactive stance, the implementation of this state accountability model will be somewhat frustrating because the consequences of failing to be perfect are punitive and costly. It is very possible that quality school districts will be hurt most by the distorted design of this model. I encourage readers to become familiar with the Education Yes and No Child Left Behind Legislation. Please ask questions and understand the consequences of this mandate. Most importantly, support any strategies that are reliable, valid and have the genuine ability to help all students succeed.