叠测听听-听
Here is the second part of an examination of听U.S. News & World Report鈥檚听annual ranking of high schools. It was written by Kevin Welner, director of the听at the 精品SM在线影片. In theand in this one, Welner examines the process by which the magazine ranked the schools and declared them the best in the country. Welner is an attorney and a professor education policy at the UC Boulder. He is also the co-founder of the听, an effort to identify and highlight high schools that use research-based practices to ensure that all students have rich opportunities to succeed.
A version of this appeared on听, and I asked听U.S. News听to comment. The magazine took issue with Welner鈥檚 argument in a statement, which you can find at the end of this post.
By Kevin Welner
PART TWO
听at the听U.S. News and World Reportranking of 鈥渂est high schools,鈥� the nation鈥檚 most influential high school recognition program. In addition to surprising instances of carelessness, I discovered that the publication had deleted evidence concerning the earlier mistakes, and I found a troubling pattern whereby the rankings, which are supposed to recognize quality schooling, actually reward elite enrollment instead.
The earlier piece [below this one] points out specific technical problems with the rankings. In this second piece, I explore more fundamental problems with the rankings that would remain in place even if the technical problems were fixed. I look at the results of the听U.S. News听ratings process, and I question whether it yields rankings that meaningfully identify 鈥渂est鈥� high schools.
Recognizing Great High Schools鈥擨s That What These Ratings Do?
As disappointing and troubling as the above-described problems are, a second set of problems looms even larger and affects schools in every state: how the rankings penalize schools that do not serve advantaged communities and/or do not enroll a selected group of students.
According to听U.S. News, the rankings听,鈥� the first of which is: 鈥渢hat a great high school must serve all of its students well, not just those who are college bound.鈥� Yet is this what the听U.S. News听ranking process actually does?
This year, the nation鈥檚 top-ranked high schools are: (1) Dallas鈥� 鈥淪chool for the Talented and Gifted,鈥� a magnet school; and (2) BASIS Scottsdale (AZ), a charter school. The Dallas schoo听that begins with a GPA screen and a test score screen, then the applicant student must 鈥渄esign and carry out a school-related or other project that demonstrates extended effort and creativity,鈥� and then the applicant student must attend an 鈥渁pplication session.鈥� At this session, the applicant student must complete a timed (1 陆 hours) hand-written, prompted essay; must complete a 鈥�30-minute timed logic and reasoning activity;鈥� and finally is given a 15-minute scored interview. This highly competitive process yields an entering class of 65 students.
The Scottsdale charter school is not selective in the same way; admission is by lottery. But the selectivity is arguably just as potent as with the Dallas school. Parents are听迟别谤尘蝉听and committed students will survive. Just a handful of students are admitted after the early grades (e.g., a parent was told that there would听open for entering eighth graders). Moreover, as described by the mother of a student in another BASIS charter,听听the extremity of the BASIS approach.
These top-ranked schools, and the Dallas school in particular, may indeed provide great learning opportunities, but they hardly exemplify the spirit behind the supposed key principle for听U.S. News: 鈥渁 great high school must serve all of its students well, not just those who are college bound.鈥�
There is an important lesson here about rankings in general鈥攏ot just the听U.S. News听rankings. A disproportionate focus on outcomes will always reward those schools that excel at enrolling high-achievers. Perhaps this is more obvious when we look outside the school realm. For instance, University of Kentucky basketball coach John Calipari听听that when looking at his success it鈥檚 almost impossible to disentangle his recruiting and coaching talents.
Yes, the school, teacher, or coach matters. Measured outcomes, which in theU.S. News听case are primarily test scores, are attributable听in part听to the teaching taking place after the recruitment, even when a school brings in the best athletes or students. But here鈥檚 the secret: if that teaching is of low quality, the results will still look pretty good. The听听that differences in what schools actually do will account for only about 20 percent of the variance in measured outcomes. The best way to听produce听high-scoring students is to听enroll听high-scoring students.
Top-ranked schools like those in Dallas and Scottsdale are expressly designed to serve only the most elite students. They cannot be scaled up and thus cannot serve as exemplars. This raises two questions. What does听U.S. Newsintend to tell its readers when it places these schools on its pedestal? What does听U.S. News听intend to tell school leaders when it downgrades schools for enrolling a cross-section of America or for challenging non-elite students?
There is another option. Approaches for identifying high-quality schools like those used by the听.
highlight schools and practices that can and should serve as exemplars to be replicated. In doing so, they provide an important alternative to what might best be called, 鈥淭he Calipari Recruitment Awards鈥� rather than the 鈥淏est High Schools鈥� in America.
This brings us back to the American Indian Public High School, the top high school in California according to听U.S. News. The formula used by the publication does not concern itself with what is actually happening at ranked schools; process isn鈥檛 important, only the numerical outcomes. Yet during the same year that this school was generating those great numbers (2012-2013), the school鈥檚 authorizer was attempting to revoke its charter. (Because California law makes test scores the primary factor for charter renewal decisions, the school brought a lawsuit and then reached a settlement allowing it to stay open, but with key problematic practices now changed.)
The authorizer鈥檚 serious concerns, based on fear and humiliation. This system is what the school鈥檚 former leader, Ben Chavis, called 鈥渆xtra embarrassment,鈥� meting out serious penalties for minor offenses, grounded in the 鈥渂roken windows鈥� theory of law enforcement. Chavis 鈥渙nce shaved the head of a student caught repeatedly stealing; some unruly students were forced to wear humiliating signs. And [he] often referred to black students as 鈥榙arkies.鈥� 鈥�
That, according to听U.S. News, is the best high school in California!
Schools, if the research is to be heeded, should be recognized as great when they truly do what听U.S. News听purports to embrace as a key principal: 鈥渟erve all of its students well, not just those who are college bound.鈥� In fact, the best schools support and challenge all students with the broad expectation that those students can excel and can choose to听become听college bound.听U.S. Newshas put a great deal of work into creating its brand and creating the infrastructure for telling parents across the nation about different schools. But those parents and the rest of us will be well-served by听U.S. News听only after it acknowledges and addresses its past mistakes, re-designing its approach to fit its rh
I asked听U.S. News听to comment on the version of this that appeared in. Here鈥檚 the response:
Thank you for reaching out. Mr. Welner鈥檚 overall argument is incorrect. Schools that do better and are awarded medals in the U.S. News rankings are the ones that are doing more (better than the average in the state or way better than the average in the state) than what is expected given their level of poverty or proportion of economic disadvantaged. In other words, the U.S. News rankings do reward schools that push students to do more than is normally expected of them, in fact it鈥檚 a key premise of the rankings.
听
Related Faculty: Kevin Welner