School ratings: How are they done and why?

The history and purpose of school ratings

In 2010, the city began to rate schools, lyceums, private gymnasia and colleges. At that time, city authorities created equal opportunities for competition. Basic financing was pegged to the number of students alone, rather than to the status of schools and colleges. From now on, top-scoring schools, as determined by their objective ratings, receive additional funding in the form of Moscow Mayor grants. In addition, all high-scoring schools are exempted from scheduled checks.

The first ratings, done in the 2010/2011 academic year, hinged on Unified State Exam and Final State Certification scores and on students’ involvement in city-level and nationwide Olympiads. After that, rating criteria started expanding little by little. Education system priorities are refined each year, and the ratings calculation formula is also updated. As databases and independent measuring systems are developed, new requirements are added. School ratings have become more frequent since the 2015/2016 academic year, and they are now updated several times a year. This depends on the results of school Olympiads and professional skills competitions, including Junior Skills, being posted on databases.

Moscow’s Educational Skills Centre develops school-rating methods. “They invited our experienced analytical team because we know how to conduct mathematical modeling of sophisticated systems. The Department of Education and City Hall formulate specific guidelines of the education system’s development, and we provide them with quantitative characteristics and an algorithm for calculating final indicators,” Educational Skills Centre Director Ivan Yashchenko noted.

However, ratings do not just list all parameters in a specified order. On the contrary, they show how the achievements of any given school meet the city education system’s development guidelines. Most importantly, statistical parameters reflect key principles for assessing the performance of schools and colleges.

The main principles of school ratings

School ratings aim to record specific results, rather than school environments. It doesn’t matter whether a school has a swimming pool, computers or any other equipment. Academic scores, the skills and knowledge being displayed by students during exams and Olympiads are the most important thing.

The calculation of absolute indicators is another principle. In effect, a school’s rating depends on the performance of students, rather than on its size and the number of its students. Obviously, a large school can produce more students capable of winning Olympiads than a small one. But small schools can carve out their own niches, focus on specialised training and achieve remarkable results. In other words, a school’s competitiveness depends on its pedagogical and administrative efforts.

It’s also important that the rating survey aims to encompass all school parameters that can be measured and expressed in quantitative terms, independently of any specific school and without subjecting it to additional burdens. All indicators are compiled automatically from the city’s databases. Final ratings are posted on the Department of Education website, with each school receiving spreadsheets with a detailed calculation of all parameters. These analytical materials help school administrations and educators to evaluate their own performance in an unbiased way, to judge key development aspects and to modify them. Specific indicators are determined for the next 12 months, allowing schools to plan long-term and short-term aspects of their work.

Ratings stipulate a system of incentives, rather than sanctions. This means that every positive result, including high exam scores or victories at Olympiads, increase overall school scores. And, finally, overall scores are not reduced due to low scores and the absence of winners. The only “penalty” is for the number of students barred from taking the Unified State Exam which reduces the overall successful scores in this field. The rating survey’s parameters encompass a huge range of educational results, from Intermediate State Exam and Unified State Exam scores, multi-subject Olympiads, sport achievements and World Skills professional skills competitions. This method incentivises schools to work with every child, rather than reject him or her, to develop the skills and talents of its students and to determine the areas in which they can succeed. Instead of reducing a school’s overall rating, any student can increase it. By studying the most interesting subjects, any child can derive pleasure from the process, with his or her school scoring extra points.

How school ratings are calculated

During the 2016/2017 academic year, school ratings are based on eight different clusters, with each cluster stipulating its own indicators. They reflect school and college development guidelines that have been drafted by the Department of Education and City Hall.

Providing high-quality mass education: The efficiency of schools is gauged on the basis of Intermediate State Exam and Unified State Exam scores of ninth-grade and 11-grade students and also on the basis of fourth-grade and seventh-grade students’ scores in various subjects.

Fostering talents: This indicator is based on the results of city-level and nationwide school Olympiads and has a high specific value because, unlike Unified State Exam participants, it is much harder to train the winners of regional and federal Olympiads.

Almost every local school boasts high scores in this category, proving that the principle “Every Moscow school student is talented” is being effectively implemented.

Working with disabled children: This indicator was added in 2015 following the development of databases of the City Departments of Education and Social Protection.

Each score in this category does not merely reflect statistics but highlights the success stories of school students.

Each point scored by school students is multiplied by a coefficient during every stage of the academic process, from preschool education to Intermediate State Exam and Unified State Exam scores. The inclusion coefficient increases all other scores proportionately to the number of students with disabilities, and thereby provides top-scoring schools with a powerful incentive for this work.

Developing professional skills: The rating is calculated on the basis of results of Junior Skills Russia and World Skills Russia professional skills competitions, the nationwide professional skills Olympiad and the Abilympics championship for people with disabilities. What’s important is that colleges and schools that more actively implement professional programmes receive points for this, for example, when mathematics students score highly in “system administration.”

Using the city’s socio-cultural resources: This parameter is now calculated depending on the results of school students’ involvement in the Moscow Olympiads “Museums, Parks and Estates” and the "The Bond between Generations Can’t Be Broken.” Their total scores provide a coefficient that increases a school’s overall ratings. This shows the important link between socio-cultural and subject-related scores.

Preventing juvenile delinquency: This indicator fully reflects the incentivising principle on which the rating survey is based. For example, if a child registered with a police station has not committed any legal infractions over a period of 12 months, his or her school will score 100 more points than for other students.

Promoting sport: Schools score extra points when their teams win or receive prizes during amateur sport competitions. For example, the rating survey focuses on the results of the Winning Ball city-level basketball championship or the White Castle nationwide chess competitions.

Work of preschools: More and more parents move their children from the preschools of neighbourhood schools to the same schools’ first forms, which is a vote of confidence in the performance of these schools and shows trust in the work of preschools and schools in general.

“Of course, specific formulas and coefficients are the result of complicated analytical work that is based on an easy-to-understand principle: Final ratings are directly proportional to the complexity of educational tasks and the efforts of school administrations to accomplish them. Earlier, school administrations found it easier to expel underachievers or teenagers with difficult backgrounds for the sake of improved statistics. Currently, they find it much more profitable to work with every student, to develop their aptitudes and to help them find their calling in life. Schools would benefit from this policy, followed by the city and the entire country. In other words, the rating shows the efforts of schools aiming to turn children into professionals, including scientists, engineers and other skilled experts,” Mr Yashchenko stressed.

The detailed rating calculation methodology and previous rating surveys are posted on the Department of Education website.

Best in Moscow, among the best in the world

Although official Moscow school ratings were established only five years ago, they have already produced tangible results. Quite recently, the so-called elite schools accounting for just about five percent of city schools trained medalists and winners of final stages of nationwide Olympiads. Currently, 33 percent of local schools can boast similar results. Moscow school students achieve good results at international Olympiads as well.

Foreign delegates are always interested in school-rating presentations at international conferences. Moscow’s highly advanced educational databases meeting federal and global standards play an important role in this respect.

Moreover, the results of international surveys confirm the objective nature of the city’s school ratings. In 2016, Moscow’s school students were tested under the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Independent analysts later listed the city’s education system among ten best in the world in terms of reading and mathematical skills. The city’s top 100 schools accounting for 23 percent of students placed second in terms of the above-mentioned criteria.