{"id":1819,"date":"2014-01-18T12:07:41","date_gmt":"2014-01-18T19:07:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/michaelclara.com\/?p=1819"},"modified":"2014-01-18T12:15:12","modified_gmt":"2014-01-18T19:15:12","slug":"school-grading-working-group-update-011614","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/michaelclara.com\/school-grading-working-group-update-011614\/","title":{"rendered":"School Grading Working Group Update (01\/16\/14)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Tami<\/a>

Tami Pyfer – Utah State Board of Education, Chair -attending the School Grading Working Group<\/p><\/div>\n

The manner and results of our new school grading system does not match the legislative intent.<\/strong> This is one of the things I learned this past Thursday, while participating in the school grading working group chaired by Senator Stuart Adams<\/span> (Senate sponsor of SB 271 School Grading Amendments [2013]).<\/p>\n

I was particularly intrigued with the presentation by Frank Anderson of Timpanogos Academy. Mr. Anderson demonstrated that the current manner in which school grades are calculated, utilizing the \u201ccomplex Algorithym\u201d from \u201cR\u201d program has a flaw that does not accurately reflect a school\u2019s ability to move \u201clow performing students forward\u201d.<\/strong> This in turn, skews the proficiency data and artificially drops the overall scores of a school. The discussion then turned to a static or more normative approach in school grading. There was a commitment from USOE to follow up with evidence that he presented.<\/p>\n

Here is a link to his PowerPoint presentation:<\/p>\n

Anderson Presentation<\/a><\/p>\n

We also agreed to forward the following recommendations to the legislature:<\/strong><\/p>\n