We use the Value-Add methodology to rate schools. Other ratings sites use the Proficiency model.

Research has shown that Proficiency is more connected to socioeconomic status than school quality. The Value-Add methodology uses data science to account for socioeconomic status, and focuses on how a school community is impacting student performance.

But one methodology isn’t necessarily better than the other. It is up to consumers to decide which methodology makes sense for their family, and as a licensed professional, you can provide a choice and a more balanced view of school quality to consumers.

We don’t discount schools with an Achievement Gap.

The dominant school ratings platform measures the Achievement Gap and discounts schools where the Achievement Gap is high, under the theory that the school is not doing enough to help disadvantaged students. They call this their Equity Score.

This is a noble effort at taking into account other factors besides test scores. However, we think there is a danger that their Equity Score could be unfairly discounting schools with socioeconomic diversity, because those are the schools where an Achievement Gap is more likely to be high.  It IS very important to make efforts to lift up disadvantaged students, and while some schools are certainly doing this better than others, research has shown that public schools are not the reason an Achievement Gap exists.

We take in account Children with Disabilities (CWD).

Typically functioning students tend to have better performance. By including data about CWD students in our Value-Add regression analysis, we elevate schools that would be discounted because, for example, they have a higher than average population of CWD students.

Other ratings platforms do not do this.