Sabrina Moreno reports that Richmond's Open and Community high schools ranked very high on the U.S. News and World Reports rankings [2 Richmond high schools among top 10 in Virginia].
Immediately I looked askance at these rankings and wanted to dig deeper. As educators, we need to not just reflexively accept these at face value.
Even still, like anyone, I was curious about schools I had attended, schools where friends and family have children in attendance, schools near where I live, and of course, schools I have taught in.
I was really taken aback at some of the "low" rankings on the list, including that of a very high achieving school system in the Northeast.
I immediately called one of my oldest friends, the chair of that district's school board to discuss her take on these rankings.
Questions we discussed include:
- What do these rankings mean?
- Why was the list compiled?
- What biases inform this list?
- What agenda is served by these rankings?
- How are these rankings used to sort students, and reinforce the status quo?
- Do the rankings drive policy, reflect it, or have no effect?
- Are the metrics used reasonable and unassailable?
- Do these rankings merely mirror or confirm a given school's, or school district's socio-economics?
- The obvious question - are these rankings of most expensive zip codes?
I began combing the intertubes for any critiques of these rankings before I do the heavy lift of interrogating this data myself.
IN BRIEF: there is much to side-eye in the U.S New and World Report rankings. Examining this does not take away from the hard work, passion, and dedication of our colleagues.
The most obvious point of interrogation: school districts (and individual schools) have lots of strategies to manipulate these rankings, made simple by the ham-fisted, superficial/simplistic metrics used. Does this help our students?
People may make life-altering decisions for themselves and their children based on these rankings.
Politicians might craft policy based on this kind of amorphous "data."
CLICK THROUGH LATER TODAY FOR PART 1:
Comments
Post a Comment