Some real talk about Level 3, Part I

During the past spring’s interviews for superintendent, much conversation focused on the fact that Wareham is a “Level 3 District”. The state places districts anywhere from level 1 (the best) to level 5. It is worth taking a few moments to look at the previous year’s data to figure out what exactly how Wareham ended up there. To begin with, the state feels that each district should be assigned a level based on its lowest performing school. Since one of Wareham’s seven schools is a Level 3 school, the district is a Level 3 district. Using an analogy – imagine basing a baseball team’s record on the win-loss stats of its worst pitcher. Make the Red Sox’s record match John Lackey’s win-loss stats.

►One truth of Level 3 – Wareham is only a “level 3 District” using a bizarre system of classification. Less than one-quarter of its students attend a Level 3 school. For discussion, let’s allow the state its foolish methods. Let’s focus on the Level 3 school and ignore the 76% of Wareham children studying in schools with higher ratings. That school is my past and once again present place of work: Wareham Middle School.

Why is WMS a Level 3 school? According to an arcane MCAS-based formula* the department of education debuted last year, Wareham Middle School was among the lowest-performing 20% of middle schools in Massachusetts. Using only four or five days of testing in two subjects, WMS is placed in the bottom fifth. And just where is WMS in that group? Just below the line. Of the 58 middle schools in the Commonwealth at Level 3, WMS is ranked ninth. Eight schools or three percentile points away from Level 2.

►A second truth about Level 3 – while nobody is happy with the current level of performance, WMS is barely on the wrong side of the arbitrary line that divides Level 2 and Level 3. Under this cockamamie system, how does one get out? That’s the subject of next week’s post.

*This formula doesn’t rank actual test scores, or rate of improvement, or comparisons with other districts. It purports to do it all at once through weighting, averaging, and scaling. The best comparison is the Bowl Championship Series formula used in college football. The formula is purposely confusing, vulnerable to manipulation, an attempt to substitute complexity for authenticity, difficult to relate to what actually occurs. So is the BCS.