By 2024, more than 900 students—12.5 percent of the entering freshman class at UCSD—placed into these remedial courses.

I do not believe UCSD is unique; to the contrary, I believe that the degradation of student skills that the authors of the UCSD report had the courage to call out is endemic to our education system. In my earlier post, I wrote about this from the university perspective and used it as an example of the broad shift away from meritocracy.

Over at Chalkbeat, Matt Barnum just released an interview with a student enrolled in remedial math at UCSD, which gives a complementary and valuable perspective. Her name is Cecilia Lopez Alvarado, and you can read the full interview here.

The first part of the interview is what really struck me. It focuses on how Alvarado ended up in remedial math in the first place, based on what happened in high school. She earned mostly A’s and B’s in high school math but now questions what those grades really reflected. With generous retake policies, she says it was easy to improve her scores without fully understanding the material. When asked why she believes she was given so many opportunities to redo her work in high school, she responded: “I’m sure it’s because they wanted us to not have F’s and D’s on our transcripts. It was just wanting us to be able to move on to the next grade.” In retrospect, she believes stricter expectations would have encouraged more discipline and deeper learning.

In short summary, Alvarado’s high school failed her. She did not learn what she needed to know, and the adults in the building didn’t have the guts to tell her. The New Teacher Project calls this “The Opportunity Myth.” It’s sad because our school system is giving up on the hard work of educating our children, and it’s frustrating because no one seems interested in doing anything about it.

Have you had enough yet?

Show Me Institute researchers are pushing for big, fundamental changes to how our education system works. Namely, we want more school choice and more accountability. Alvarado’s story is a great example of why. Our schools show us again and again that they simply will not do the right thing without being pushed.

The post One in Eight UCSD Students Are Placed into Remedial Math: Here’s What One Had to Say About It appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Visit the site: moschoolrankings.org/

Susan Pendergrass and Avery Frank join Zach Lawhorn to discuss MOSchoolRankings.org, the Show-Me Institute’s website that assigns letter grades and GPAs to Missouri schools and districts using publicly available academic and spending data. They explore how the site works, why Missouri has lagged behind other states on accessible school report cards, and how the governor’s executive order requiring A through F grades may change that. They also discuss the most common objections to grading schools, how growth and proficiency data account for differences in student populations, the status of report card legislation in the 2026 session, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

 Episode Transcript

Zach Lawhorn (00:00): Welcome to the Show-Me Institute podcast. I’m Zach Lawhorn from Show-Me Opportunity, and today I’m joined by Susan Pendergrass and Avery Frank from the Show-Me Institute. Susan, welcome back to the podcast as a guest — we’re really making a habit of this. Today we’re going to talk about MOSchoolRankings.org, which is a website that was launched a few years ago now at this point. So we’re going to talk about some updates, some new data, some improvements that have been made to the site. But for the handful of people who haven’t yet visited MOSchoolRankings.org, Susan, just give us a primer. What is it? What’s the idea of the site, and then we’ll kind of talk about the upgrades.

Susan Pendergrass (00:35): Yeah, MOSchoolRankings has been the subject of a couple of ironic moments in history, one being that we decided to launch this in 2018-19. We decided that because we’ve complained a lot about how the state doesn’t do informative report cards that parents can understand — simple, ideally with a letter grade because everyone gets that. And we looked at this model that is used by the Fraser Institute in Canada, where they also rank order all the schools. So you can see this school compared to the rest of the schools in the state is number one and this one is number 2,500. So we decided we would rank order and assign letter grades to only academic measures, which is really pretty groundbreaking. In 2018-19 we picked the only academic measures really available, which is proficiency in reading, proficiency in math, proficiency in reading and math for only low-income students to get a measure of achievement gaps or how districts deal with low-income students, a measure of how a particular school or district would expect to do in reading and math based on the percentage of low-income students they serve, and the growth model that was developed and is used by the state. ACT scores and graduation rates. So a total of the most would be 10 measures for each school that we assign letter grades to using a very simple curve where we took the full range of scores. For example, graduation rates might go from 75% to 100%. We divided that into five equal sections and assigned letter grades. So an F would be 75% to 80% and an A would be 95% to 100%. Did the same thing for all 10 measures — took the range, divided by five, and assigned the letter grades that way, which is a curve, and you get most of the schools and districts in the middle: Cs, 2.0 grade point averages. And we decided that when we set those grade intervals, we wouldn’t change them so that we could see over time whether Missouri schools are doing better or worse than they did in 2018-19. Same for districts. And of course we had no idea there would be a global pandemic. The next year’s data in 2019-20 was not usable, and then we get into 2021, still difficult with schools reopening. There was some pressure at that time to recalibrate all the grades and make them more based on the COVID environment, but we didn’t. We stuck with our 2018-19 letter grades, and we currently have six years of data on there now. We kept 2018-19 so that we can see whether schools have caught up or not from what happened during COVID. And from the first year, we took 10 letter grades and combined them into a GPA, just like you would see on a college or high school report card. Very simple approach — an A is worth four points and an F is worth zero points. And we combine them into a GPA.

What we did this year is we took the GPA and just made that a letter grade. Same GPA, same rank order, but for folks who don’t readily get the GPA thing, we just made the GPA also a letter grade. It’s kind of helpful and a little weird because you don’t get an overall letter grade on your high school report card or your college report card, but we took your overall GPA and turned it into a letter grade. At the same time, the governor in January signed an executive order requiring the state to create report cards and have a single letter grade on them. So we were already in the process of doing this, and our newest data on the website also reflect the single letter grade for each school and each district. We just happened to do it at the same time as the governor’s executive order. So it’s going to be really interesting to be able to compare our site and our letter grades to what the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education comes up with. It shouldn’t be the case that ours are dramatically different than theirs — we use proficiency, growth, and graduation rates just like they do — but ours is equally weighted, and time will tell how theirs are weighted.

Zach Lawhorn (04:49): All right, before we move on, I want to make one thing perfectly clear, because you used “we” and “our” a lot, and then you said “they” — we use the same data they use. So when people hear that Show-Me Institute has this website that grades schools and assigns GPAs, talk to me about the methodology, the data — what data are you using and where specifically did you get it?

Susan Pendergrass (05:11): So what we do is, when DESE releases test score data, we go to the DESE website and we download it. DESE does not release score data — we request it through a data request to DESE, they give it to us. We download the graduation rate data from DESE. We download the ACT data from DESE. That’s all of the data behind the letter grades. We simply take it from DESE. It’s the same data in the APR scores, the same data used for MSIP 6. It’s all the same test, same test scores. We don’t make any of it up. The only thing we do is put it on a curve and assign it a letter grade.

I should have mentioned that four years ago we added finance data to the website, so it’s kind of a dual website — one side is academic, one side is finance. That’s because every school district in the state does a massive comprehensive financial report to DESE every year called the Annual Secretary to the Board report, and it has so much revenue and expenditure data — like hundreds of lines of it. We decided to download those from DESE and convert them into something that a reasonable person could understand. It’s like 14 pages and very complicated. We convert that into just revenues and expenditures and donut charts, and we tried to make that as accessible to folks as well. So if you look at the academic data for a district, you can go over and look at the finance data and see how much they’re spending, how they’re spending it — down to the most granular detail: how much did they spend on substitute teachers, how much did they spend on advertising, how much did they spend on gas for the buses. So all of that is in there too, and we think that gives a really good comprehensive look at every school district.

Zach Lawhorn (07:00): And Avery has been heavily involved in this process, including the data checking. Tell me a little bit about what that process has been like. And Susan described what she hopes the website has accomplished — when you work on MOSchoolRankings.org, what do you hope it accomplishes? What’s your goal?

Avery Frank (07:18): Well, I hope it really makes it accessible to average everyday folks — for teachers, for administrators, for parents — because this data is very hard to interpret. It’s very messy. The Annual Secretary to the Board report she’s talking about — those things are very hard to compile together into one central location. It’s very hard to understand, there’s a lot of jargon. One of our missions is to make our education system as transparent and as accessible to parents and average citizens as possible. So we put it all together in one place and they can look at it and hopefully do some investigating themselves. Maybe it’s hard to find some of the outliers in spending, but if a parent who knows their district pretty well looks and sees they’re spending a lot on electricity, or buildings, or textbooks, they might think, wait, this seems way out of normal — and then they can go investigate and be more informed to hold their school districts and schools accountable, both on the grade side and the finance side.

Zach Lawhorn (08:30): And Susan, we so often do here in Missouri — let’s talk about what other states are doing. Is this idea of easily accessible, easily understandable report cards for schools a novel idea, or have other states been doing this for a while?

Susan Pendergrass (08:47): Well, Florida was kind of the leader in letter grades for schools and districts. They started in the 90s, so maybe 35 years ago. They started putting letter grades on schools and districts, and they immediately coupled that with: if a child goes to a D school for two years or an F school for one year, they don’t have to go there — they can choose a different public school, which makes a lot of sense.

During the last Trump administration, there was a big push for understandable report cards. Every state is required to produce report cards by federal law — if you take federal money, you have to make a report card for every school in the district. What those look like is kind of up in the air, and they’re supposed to meaningfully differentiate between schools and districts. Missouri has gotten by with, like Avery said, initially a school report card written at the 16th grade level, which is like graduate school — very jargony, a lot of acronyms. Box checked, we’ve got report cards. No one could understand them, but that’s fine. There has been a push at the federal level, and hackathons and websites to show you how to make good ones. There’s a large foundation called ExcelinEd that has devoted multiple resources to what makes a good report card. So there’s a push for this, and Missouri has really resisted it until the executive order by the governor this year.

What Missouri does — and I think it’s the opposite of leading — is it puts the word “accredited,” “partially accredited,” or “unaccredited” on districts, and out of 520 districts, about six — I mean, 98% are fully accredited. So they use this system where everyone passes; maybe six out of 520 don’t. And it’s really misleading for parents. And worse, when St. Louis became fully accredited even though individual school buildings weren’t, they put “fully accredited” posters on the buildings. I think parents want this information. Parents talk at soccer fields or after-school programs — they kind of know if their school is doing okay or not. But no one is helping them get really easy-to-understand information. Lots of other states do letter grades. States that stopped doing letter grades, like Indiana, are going back to letter grades. It’s the one thing that everyone understands. So we are not in any way breaking new ground here.

Avery Frank (11:23): And again, with transparency and accessibility — I think Susan is definitely right about DESE just following the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law, because they really do report just the numbers. There’s not a lot of context for them. Like if you see a district that says 40% proficient in English, is that really good? Is that bad? How does that compare to everyone else? You can’t just report the data flat out for just one district because you don’t know the context. Maybe 40% for a 100% low-income district would be excellent. But 40% for a Clayton or a Ladue would be horrible. So you have to have context both for the types of students that are there and the growth of that district. Are they doing better than they have in the past? And are they doing better in comparison to everyone? Because if everyone is failing, the scale is going to adjust. If you have a lot of people failing and some really succeeding, that breaks the curve, and we have to start looking at what those other districts are doing because it shows that good performance is possible. That’s why I really think a report card with relative context, based on how their students are and how the rest of the state is doing, is really important.

Zach Lawhorn (12:45): All right, so Susan, my understanding when we started this project a few years ago was that our hope was that the state of Missouri would kind of take the baton — that we would start this, but it would be great if the state was able to produce an easily accessible, understandable school report card that Show-Me Institute and Show-Me Opportunity had nothing to do with. Am I correct?

Susan Pendergrass (13:12): That’s right. It was like six or seven years ago when we started with 2018-19 data, and we just posted 2024-25. I didn’t want to be in the school report card business — I don’t work for DESE — but there was a vacuum of information in the state that we decided to fill. And we have said that we’re committed to filling it until the state takes over. That could happen with the new report cards. They have access to all the data, better data than we have access to — student-level data. They can do much more in-depth analysis and I suspect they will. The governor’s executive order includes something called “growth to proficiency,” which is a new model that the state is going to have to create using experts in the field. Maybe they’ll be better. I suspect that when DESE puts out the report cards for the first time with letter grades, there’s going to be a lot of conversation. There’s going to be a lot of pushback. I don’t think many people whose kids are in F schools will be shocked, but I think some people whose kids are in maybe C schools will be shocked because they’re under the impression their kids are in A schools. It’s going to be interesting. Typically when you survey parents, they give their own kid’s school very high marks, so it’s going to be a dose of reality for a lot of folks. And I think that’s the conversation that we’ve been wanting to start for a long time, because if you just listened to what the state and legislators say, you would think that Missouri is doing just fine — and we’re not.

Zach Lawhorn (14:42): And Avery, Susan mentioned pushback. As you’ve been working on this project and following the governor’s executive order for the state to produce A through F report cards, what are some of the common objections to putting letter grades on schools, or really just making school performance and spending data more accessible?

Avery Frank (15:07): Honestly, the most pushback I hear is against the Missouri Assessment Program, or the MAP itself. A couple of senators said that it’s a “useless autopsy” and that we shouldn’t tie any incentives to a flawed test, because a lot of people want a test that tests throughout the year — more of a formative assessment rather than a summative assessment at the end of the year. But the MAP is a good test at the end of the year because we get to have everyone take the same test at the same time and then compare the results. That’s what it’s really for, and there’s a lot of pushback on that idea in general.

If we don’t have those kinds of tests, we can’t see how everyone’s doing relative to one another. There wouldn’t be any context if we’re not comparing to one another. If everyone’s doing their own test and their own grades, they can see how they’re performing relative to themselves, but they can’t see how they’re performing relative to one another. Of course there’s also some pushback about which type of grade should be weighted more — should we weight growth more, total proficiency more, expected proficiency versus actual proficiency more? There are going to be arguments for which rating scale should be used and what the weighting should be, because that will favor different districts.

Susan Pendergrass (16:47): Here’s the pushback we get: schools aren’t letter grades, schools aren’t test scores, teachers do so many things that have nothing to do with how kids do on a test, letter grades are racist and classist because it’s mostly low-income children of color who go to the D and F schools, and if we point that out then we are being racist towards them. We are not acknowledging the hard work of teachers. There’s already a video circulating against school report cards because this is not how schools should be measured — because they do so much more. I hear the same tropes over and over.

On the other hand, I think it was President George W. Bush who said, if you don’t measure it, you can’t fix it. The reality is we might not want to look at our bank balance or the scale, but if we just say no, I’m so much more than my credit score, then we’ll never fix it. And this is what Missouri’s been doing for a long time — let’s not make anyone feel bad. We don’t want the kids to feel bad, the parents to feel bad, the teachers to feel bad. And somebody even said in the discussion around report cards happening right now, because the legislature is considering legislation on report cards in addition to the executive order: why couldn’t every school be an A? They really want to believe that we can create this environment where everyone feels good about what’s happening.

But in the states that have been doing this for a long time, like Florida — not only has Florida had letter grades for 30 years, but as too many schools and districts get A’s and B’s, they raise the bar. They move the goalposts further to push schools and districts harder. As a result, Florida fourth graders are top 10 in the country on the national test, where we’re in the low 30s, more like 36 to 38 out of 50 states. Florida is top 10 because they keep pushing themselves, and this is how you push. The pushback on report cards is basically: it makes people feel bad, it’s racist, and it doesn’t acknowledge all the work that schools do.

Zach Lawhorn (18:54): Okay, so let’s engage with the context argument that a school is more than a letter grade. As the legislature moves through this process now, moving on from the governor’s EO to actually forming legislation, Susan, as they design the criteria, what are some of the things they should keep in mind that can hopefully account for some of that context?

Susan Pendergrass (19:24): DESE in doing the executive order report cards is looking at proficiency, growth, and growth to proficiency. But it’s going to be really interesting, especially in how they weight them. What we found with our letter grades is some districts do really well on proficiency and not so well on growth, because their kids come in better prepared. In some of the higher-income districts, kids aren’t getting a year’s worth of growth in a year, and I would argue that they should. And then you see some real standouts that serve more disadvantaged students — their proficiency numbers are pretty low, but their growth is more than expected. Their growth is higher than the statewide average. Basically, the state reports growth in terms of whether it’s higher or lower than the statewide growth, and some of them have higher-than-average growth. Those are schools and districts we should be looking at really closely to see what they’re doing and how they’re doing it.

How they weight the measures is going to make a big difference, because if they weight growth really high, then some of the districts you think are the highest performing in the state will be B’s and C’s. They’re looking for schools and districts that are getting kids the furthest down the road, not just the benchmark of proficiency.

Zach Lawhorn (20:49): Okay, so it’s correct to say that for people who are not familiar with growth and proficiency, if the claim is it’s unfair to grade schools because they serve different student populations, that is acknowledged and accounted for in these models.

Susan Pendergrass (21:08): Yeah, and people who just believe their kids go to a fantastic school are going to have to keep believing it regardless of what the letter grade is. But it is going to find those high-flying performers that are doing really well with growth and growth to proficiency, even if their test scores are low. And then you’re going to have some schools that just don’t have good proficiency and don’t have good growth, and a lot of their kids are below basic. So this growth-to-proficiency model is about how you get the lowest performers to move hopefully up toward grade level, and it’s going to point those out as well. I’m looking forward to seeing exactly what they come up with. The executive order has some flexibility in it so that the experts and statisticians putting it together can determine the best mix. It’s going to be really interesting to see how it turns out and to see that first set of grades in September.

Zach Lawhorn (22:05): Avery, we’ve got MOSchoolRankings.org, then we’ve got the governor’s EO, and currently the legislature is working on legislation. So as we sit here in the second half of the 2026 session, what’s the status of the legislation?

Avery Frank (22:22): The legislation passed out of the House already and they’re hearing it in the Senate now. It’s undergoing some changes. We’ll see how it turns out in the Senate. There was a school climate survey that was attached to it that’s up in the air as well. We will see what the final bill looks like. Hopefully the legislation sticks close to the governor’s EO, which was really good in my opinion. There are a lot of great aspects to it. There’s going to be a lot of senators trying to advocate for their district — some are going to want more weight towards proficiency, some are going to want more weight towards growth, some are going to want no ratings at all because their districts are doing badly and they want to cover it up. So there are going to be a lot of different political moves trying to mess with the grading scale, and I hope it sticks as close to the EO as possible because I really do think it was a well-written EO.

Susan Pendergrass (23:33): I agree. The legislature can do what they want — if they pass a really good school report card bill, that’d be great. But I wonder if it wouldn’t be smarter to let the executive order play out and get that first set of grades and see how they look. Then the legislature next January can start thinking about what would be a better way of doing it. They’re kind of jumping the gun by wanting to get it into legislation. And I suspect, like Avery said, it’s possible that some lawmakers are thinking they don’t like the EO and they can do something with the law to water it down. But I don’t think a watered-down version is going to end up getting to the governor’s desk. So I think the EO is probably the most watered-down version that would get to the governor’s desk, and what might make more sense is to reconsider it in the future when we know how it’s even going to work.

Zach Lawhorn (24:35): All right, well, it sounds like that as with all things, once the political process kicks in, there’s a lot to be considered and debated. For now, until the state of Missouri produces something great and Susan and Avery get to spend more of their time on other projects, you can go to MOSchoolRankings.org. You can find performance-level data, GPA, letter grades, and spending data. Susan and Avery, before we wrap up, is there anything we haven’t covered that you want to make sure we highlight?

Susan Pendergrass (25:17): Yeah, just one thing — when it first came out in 2020, it took folks a while to understand that when grades are curved, you get a lot of Cs. If the statewide average is a C, then a C means you’re at the statewide average. If you get a B, you’re better than the statewide average. If you get a D, you’re worse. I think people — maybe thinking of ourselves or our kids or our grandchildren — think the only good grade is an A and a B is okay. It’s really not that. A C is average. A C is a good grade. It means you’re at the statewide average. A B is better and an A is better than that. We didn’t use grade inflation where everyone gets an A.

Zach Lawhorn (26:07): And on the site you can find the full methodology — we post all that. There’s a glossary of terms. And you can download the full data set. So if you go to MOSchoolRankings.org and you say these people are full of it, you have access to the same data that Susan and Avery had.

Susan Pendergrass (26:29): Transparency was always our goal with this whole thing — it’s not my numbers. Our goal throughout has been just to make a transparent system. I’ve had members of the media writing stories who find it easier to just download our data set rather than go to 10 different DESE files. Our finance data set is like a lifesaver for folks because we took something very complex and made it accessible. I’ve had people use our data in lawsuits — people arguing about which school is better. I think a lot of folks have gotten comfortable with our method and now use our rankings when they come out. A lot of schools are doing better than they did before the pandemic — not every school is doing worse, so you can find those schools too. I’ve had school boards that want us to present on how it works, and I do think we’ve had a lot of buy-in on the method. And one thing I can say in our defense is we haven’t changed anything — everything is the same as it’s been for seven years. There was a time when DESE switched how they calculated the growth numbers from being centered on zero to centered on 50, or the reverse. So we have to make changes as DESE makes changes. But other than changes that DESE has made, we haven’t changed one thing. We now have line graphs so you can look at how your school was doing in 2018-19 and see how it’s doing six years later. That’s all really important.

Avery Frank (28:07): The website has a lot of cool features. It’s very interesting if you want to do some research on both the finance side and the academic side. There’s a misconception in education that more money equals better results. And this is just directly pulled from MOSchoolRankings — Valley Park has 34% free and reduced-price lunch students, they spend $36,000 per student, and they got a C. But then you look at Festus, which has 28% free and reduced-price lunch students, they spend $13,000 per student, and they received an A. There are a lot of districts like that. You can compare and ask: wait, these districts spend a lot more money, they have the same types of students, but they’re doing a lot worse. You can use that data to show that it’s not just about money. And the last thing I’d add is that we have both schools and school districts. So if you want to see how your district as a whole is doing, you can look at that. And if you want to look at your specific school within your district, you can compare schools within your district and across the state, which is also a very cool feature.

Zach Lawhorn (29:18): And you mentioned spending data — if you go to the home page of MOSchoolRankings.org, in the upper right-hand corner there’s a button that says “Rank by Spending,” and it’s a whole new world from the performance data to the spending data.

Susan Pendergrass (29:31): Any feedback is welcome, right?

Zach Lawhorn (29:34): Yeah, we take notes. We take comments. Okay, one more time: MOSchoolRankings.org. Go to the website, find your school. Susan, Avery, thank you very much.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Grading Missouri Schools with Susan Pendergrass and Avery Frank appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

QNS, a local news outlet covering Queens, New York, released an interesting article about a local high school under investigation by New York City Public Schools. Teachers at the school claim they are forced to pass failing students. Such blatant grade-inflation policies are uncommon, but I suspect softer versions of the policy are rampant in our public schools nationwide, including here in Missouri.

The quotes in the article speak for themselves, so I’ll just copy and paste them here without commentary:

“Students regularly fail tests and other assignments, teachers [said], but still receive passing grades.”

“‘Students have mentioned that it’s not fair that they’re trying and then they see classmates show up half the time and have nearly an equivalent grade,’ the teacher said. ‘They get frustrated, which will then demotivate them from doing work because they think it’s an unfair policy.’”

“Last year’s mastery grading policy stated . . . that any grades a student receives that are not 100 would not be included in their [final] grade.”

“While teachers maintain the ability to draft their own syllabi, they said that many teachers have been forced to adjust their expectations over time due to the current school administration. ‘I was guided in trying to avoid failing students,’ [one] teacher said.”

“The teacher . . . said that if they did not reach a certain percentage of students passing the class—80%—they would be called into a meeting with the administration to discuss how they could improve the grades of students.”

“One teacher said out of around 100 students, they haven’t seen over 20 of them all school year. If they must pass 80% of the students, that means anyone who shows up to class must pass in order to achieve that goal, regardless of whether the students do any work.”

—————–

I know I just copied and pasted this whole assignment. It seems lazy, but in my defense, this is A-level effort in many of our schools.

The post More Evidence on Grade Inflation in Our Schools appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Evidence of grade inflation continues to mount in K-12 education and at universities (e.g., see here and here). The rising grades reflect a degradation of academic standards. There is clear evidence that when expectations of students are lowered, they (intuitively) respond with less effort.

A recent example of a low-standards grading philosophy is equity-based grading. The philosophy, intended to promote equity by recognizing the varied circumstances and challenges students face, emphasizes measures of student engagement rather than results. However, by de-emphasizing important skills such as turning in assignments on time and demonstrating skills on assessments, it lowers academic standards, reducing effort for true mastery. Cory Koedel recently wrote in this space about how the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) backed away from a “Grading for Equity” plan when too many community members complained.

A new low-standards philosophy, Labor-Based Grading (LBG), is also gaining traction in higher education. LBG is an alternative grading style in which students and teachers establish a grading contract that allows students to earn a default grade if all the work outlined in the contract is completed, no matter the quality of the work.

Notably, departments at prominent universities such as Penn State University and New York University have recently begun implementing LBG (mainly humanities departments—here and here). Practices at prominent universities often trickle down to less-prominent ones, and ultimately into K-12 classrooms as future educators who are exposed to these practices in college implement them in their own classrooms. LGB could come to a school near you, and sooner rather than later.

The key concern is that LBG does not set up students for success. In the real world, effort is not rewarded if it does not generate productive outcomes. In fact, it is a critical life skill to be able to apply effort in a productive manner. But LBG rewards effort for effort’s sake.

LBG exemplifies the continued push by some to lower academic standards. It is well intended, but this doesn’t make it any less harmful. It is important to remain vigilant and continue to advocate for rigor in a system where rigor is constantly under assault.

The post The Rise of Labor-Based Grading and the Continuing De-emphasis on Skill Development at U.S. Universities appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For my take on why equitable grading policies are illogical and misguided, see my previous post about San Francisco’s recent bid to introduce a sweeping Grading for Equity policy. It ultimately failed under intense public pressure once families understood what was happening, because most people do not support these ideas.

It turns out most teachers don’t support them either. That’s the main conclusion from a new report by David Griffith and Adam Tyner at the Fordham Institute. The report draws on a nationally representative survey of teachers to examine their views. Key findings include:

• Equitable grading practices are widespread: About half of teachers say their school or district has adopted at least one “equitable” grading practice, and a third report multiple such policies.
• Most teachers believe these practices are harmful to academic engagement.
• Most teachers want high standards for students but feel pressured to inflate grades.

I encourage interested readers to take a look at the full report. Among other things, it’s a good reminder that teachers aren’t so different from everyone else, and they’re also frustrated by policies that lower expectations.

(Note: In a previous post about the San Francisco policy, I indicated that I hadn’t heard of any “Grading for Equity” policies in Missouri, but a reader reached out to explain that many Missouri districts have adopted them. It is hard to know how many, but their widespread use nationally—as documented in the Fordham report—suggests it could be a lot.)

The post Most Teachers Don’t Like Equitable Grading Practices Either appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

• Homework and weekly tests would no longer count toward students’ final semester grades.
• Semester grades would depend entirely on a final exam, which students could retake multiple times.
• Tardiness and absences would have no impact on grades.
• Cheating or copying would carry only non-grade-based consequences.
• The threshold for earning an A would fall to 80 percent.
• The threshold for a D would fall to 21 percent.

My first reaction was to laugh out loud. I suspect many others feel the same. Still, it’s worth pausing to consider where these ideas come from and why they resonate with some educators. Like many flawed policies, these changes are rooted in good intentions. Proponents of “Grading for Equity” see grade gaps between students from different backgrounds—by race, poverty status, etc.—and are trying to reduce those gaps. I see the same gaps, and I want them reduced, too.

But here’s the reality: grade gaps reflect real gaps in skills and knowledge. And when school ends, it’s not the letter grades that shape students’ futures—it’s the underlying skills and competencies those grades are supposed to reflect. “Grading for Equity” is just wishful thinking. It is a refusal to grapple with the truth.

Fortunately, I’m not aware of any Missouri school districts as extreme as SFUSD, and I haven’t heard of any “Grading for Equity” initiatives here. But this episode is a useful reminder that some educators seem to misunderstand what it takes to prepare students for success. Lowering expectations to conceal skill gaps will not help anyone in the long run.

This is also a powerful example of why we need high-quality, comprehensive tests in our public schools. Standardized tests compel schools and districts to confront the reality of student performance. They offer families and the public reliable, externally benchmarked data about what students have—and have not—learned. In an ideal world where we all prioritized student learning, such tests might not be necessary. But in the world we live in, they’re a vital safeguard.

The post Grading for Equity in San Francisco, and What It Means for Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This is problematic because grades tend to carry more weight with students and parents than test scores. Many parents assume that the grades their children receive are accurate indicators of academic progress.

But this assumption is increasingly incorrect. Grades have become more and more disconnected from actual achievement. This may help explain why 90 percent of parents believe their children are performing at or above grade level in reading and math, even though only about one third of 4th- and 8th-grade students in the United States score at a proficient level on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

Who is to blame for the widening honesty gap? I believe we all bear responsibility. We seem to have collectively lost our appetite for bad news. Parents don’t want to hear that their children are falling behind, and schools are reluctant to deliver that message. Meanwhile, states face little pushback when they lower testing standards and inflate proficiency rates.

Unfortunately, the reality is that the cognitive skills students learn in school really matter for later-life success, and glossing over declining test scores—our best measures of these skills—will not change this fundamental fact. Sending our children to school and pretending that they are learning is not a path to prosperity. It is a path to lower economic growth and a lower quality of life. We should demand high standards from our educational institutions, even if the truth hurts.

The post The Honesty Gap in Education appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

What may be even more concerning is performance on the Missouri End-of-Course Exam (EOC) testing. EOC results are “(The) information used to diagnose individual student strengths and weaknesses in relation to the instruction of the Missouri Learning Standards (MLS), and to gauge the overall quality of education throughout Missouri,” prior to graduation. Unfortunately, the results showed that in 2018–19 a quarter of high school students tested in Algebra I, the ninth-grade math level, scored below basic on state standards. This means that more than 15,000 students showed “minimal understanding.” The number of students scoring below basic in Algebra I has risen slightly in the years leading up to 2018–2019.

What happens to the students who score below basic? Their classroom grade, not the state tests, determine whether they are promoted or not. Most of the time they move on to the next math class required for graduation, leading to many students unprepared for the more difficult math courses and to schools not being held accountable for addressing achievement gaps.

If the EOC tests really are used to “diagnose individual strengths and weaknesses” and to gauge “overall quality of education” in Missouri, then it is time we do something with that information.

Schools must be held accountable. Students who score below basic should not be passed on to a higher-level math course. Instead, individual schools must be responsible for reteaching that student until they have demonstrated the basic level of content mastery in state standards. Students may demonstrate basic proficiency by retaking the EOC after a school has retaught the material. Options include a summer school reteach or a 10th grade retake that would not delay graduation as the state only requires 3 years of high school math.

A doctor would not just diagnose a patient with a condition and leave them untreated. Why should our schools be allowed to pass students on when scores clearly indicate they are falling behind?

The post Accountability for Algebra appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Okay, I guess you would start by grading on a curve. Then, you would want to make sure that there is a lot of extra credit available. Finally, you would give credit for things like showing up, finishing, and being ready to take another class the next semester.

So, here’s what you might come up with for a grading scale:

• Two tests worth 16 points each, with two ways to earn up to 12 extra credit points on each of them, and one test worth 8 points with up to 6 extra credit points.
• Three homework assignments worth a total of 10 points, but with two ways to earn up to 7.5 points of extra credit.
• Showing up at least 90 percent of the time gets you 10 points, but there’s up to 7.5 points of extra credit if you show up more than you did the last time.
• Finishing gets you up to 30 points – almost as much as the tests! And, there’s up to 24 points of extra credit. Plus – and this is the kicker – you can finish in one semester, or take an extra month, an extra two months, or even finish in two semesters, whichever works out best for you.
• Finally, proving (through a variety of ways) that you’re ready for the next class, is worth 30 points, with up to 22.5 points of extra credit.

Now, to get an A, a student needs to get at least 84 of the “real” 120 points—but since there are 90 extra credit points to work with, a student really just needs 84 points out of a possible 210 to get that A.

Great news! At the end of the semester, you give out 512 A’s (86 A+’s with perfect scores!), 5 B’s, and just one C. That ought to keep the parents happy. As far as they know, everyone learned an A’s worth of material.

This is effectively the grading scale that the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) uses to hold schools and districts accountable. It’s called the APR, and its loaded with opportunities for extra credit. Let’s just look at academic achievement, the area we’d all probably agree is most important. Districts are evaluated out of a possible 40 points, divided among math, reading, and social studies. However, a district can get up to 30 extra points if students show growth or progress in these scores. That means to get a “perfect” score, a district only has to get 57 percent of the possible points available to it. That’s a heck of a curve.

There are four other areas in which schools earn points, and those areas are rife with the same problems.

So what does this mean, practically speaking? Using this scale, Kansas City got 82.9 percent of the 120 points, even though, on average, almost half of their students scored “Below Basic” across grades and subjects. The district clearly topped up its score with various extra credit opportunities. St. Louis Public Schools got 78.5 percent of its points, again with almost half of students scoring Below Basic. In the Ferguson-Florissant school district, just 3 percent of 8th-grade students scored Proficient or above in mathematics, and yet the district received 92.1 percent of its APR points.

Kids are more than the sum of their test scores, and accountability systems should consider more than rates of proficiency. But getting students proficient in grade-level subject matter should count for something. And a system that gives passing grades to 512 out of 518 school districts with academic achievement all over the map is not an accountability system at all. Its’ a way to make everyone feel good.

The post Failure Is Not an Option for Missouri School Districts-but Is That a Good Thing? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But you want to know the truth?

I could have been better.

The sad thing is, I didn’t have to be.

The structure of public education is such that anyone with a decent head on their shoulders can become a teacher and, with minimal effort, remain a teacher for rest of their career.

Compared to many other professions, becoming a teacher is relatively easy. In fact, many consider an education degree one of the easiest degrees to obtain. On average, students going into education as a college major have lower scores on college placement tests. In 2014, prospective educators scored an average of 20.4 nationally on the ACT, below the national average of 21.0. The people entrusted with educating our children scored more than three points lower, on average, than individuals going into engineering or English and foreign languages.

Despite having lower aptitude as measured by college admission tests, teachers receive incredibly high marks in their college courses. According to Corey Koedel, an economist at the University of Missouri, the average grade point average for undergraduate education courses is 3.8. What’s more, Koedel found that 20 percent of undergraduate classes in the college of education gave every student an “A.”

Students who graduate and get teaching jobs are rarely challenged to grow, because they rarely receive the types of evaluations that will truly motivate them and help them improve. In many districts, new teachers are only evaluated a handful of times. In most cases, these formal observations are announced in advance. Thus, teacher evaluations are based on snapshots of what should be a teacher’s best lessons. Little wonder, as a report by The New Teacher Project noted, that almost all teachers are given superb marks.

While the fear of losing his or her job may motivate a teacher to work hard, social norms and school staffing policies effectively counter this motivation. Teachers, unlike most workers, are typically paid according to a predetermined salary schedule. No matter how hard they work, a teacher cannot earn a raise. Truly motivated teachers who go above and beyond face considerable pressure to conform. Nobody likes a rate buster.

Over time, the fear of losing one’s job fades. A teacher who reaches tenure—after three years in most states— has what state statutes call an “indefinite contract” or a “permanent job.” Of course, those terms, “indefinite” and “permanent,” come with a small proviso that a teacher doesn’t do anything egregious to a student. Barring that, the job is basically secured.

These were the realities when I was a teacher, and they are the realities today. Had the structures of education been different; had I been motivated and challenged by administrators; had my performance been really evaluated; or had I had the opportunity for advancement, recognition, and raises, things may have gone differently. Maybe I would have improved from a good teacher to a great teacher. In fact, I might still be in the classroom. 

The post I Was a Good Teacher. I Could Have Been Better appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The assignment was to explain some differentiated instruction techniques I planned to use in the classroom—by drawing a cartoon. This is what I turned in:

Clearly, I’m not an artist, but still, this is absolute nonsense—I received minimal points off. This is the kind of assignment the NCTQ would refer to as criterion-deficient. Criterion-deficient assignments are broad in scope and may be difficult for instructors to give high-level feedback. Unlike assignments that allow instructors to measure mastery of knowledge or skills, criterion-deficient assignments are subjective. How could an instructor give high-level feedback to the above garbage?

The NCTQ found that on average 71 percent of grades in teacher preparation courses rely heavily on criterion-deficient assignments. The study also found there is a correlation between the percentage of criterion-deficient assignments and high grades—teacher candidates are 50 percent more likely to receive honors at graduation than candidates with other majors.

I hope these embarrassing findings are a sign to universities that they should stop focusing on reflective assignments that are subjective in nature and, instead, build an environment of rigor that will ultimately draw more quality students to the teaching profession.

The post Why a Teaching Degree Is Easy as 1-2-3 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.