Improving Oklahomas A-F Grading System Gary W. Ritter, Professor of - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Improving Oklahoma’s A-F Grading System

Gary W. Ritter, Professor of Education Policy University of Arkansas, Office for Education Policy

OKLAHOMA HOUSE COMMON EDUCATION COMMITTEE SESSION ON A-F INTERIM STUDY, OCTOBER 4, 2016

Today’s P Pres esen entation

• 1. Why Grade (or Rate) Schools?
• 2. Boundaries
• Current Oklahoma Context
• Current (and existing) Federal Regulations
• Intersection
• 3. Desirable Goals for OK A-F
• 4. Principles of a Good School Grading System
• 5. Traps to Avoid!
• 6. Where Does OK go from Here?

• 1. I

Introd

• duction
• n: Why G

Grad ade S e School

• ols?

For Parents

Is this school a good school?

For School Leaders

Is my school performing well? Where can we improve?

For Policy Makers

Which schools are performing well and should be rewarded and which schools are not and need support? What goals do we want to incentivize schools to pursue?

• 2a. Bo

Bound undary: Cur Current O Oklaho homa Co Context

A-F grades assigned to schools beginning in 2011 Current Model: 50% achievement 50% growth + some bonus points Questions:

• Do the grades meaningfully differentiate among schools?
• How are the grades connected to federal accountability?
• Do the grades include what is important? (e.g. growth)
• Are the grades Truthful and Useful?

2b.

• b. Bo

Bound undary: Cur Current Na National Co Context

ESSA Required Annual Accountability Indicators

• Academic Proficiency: measured by annual state assessments
• Another Academic Indicator (ES/MS): must be valid and reliable; can be growth
• Graduation Rate (HS): 4-year adjusted cohort (can request extended rate)
• English Learners’ Progress in attaining proficiency in English
• School quality or student success indicator (At least one- less weight than others)

Career Readiness Equity and

• pportunity to learn

School culture and climate Deeper Learning Skills and Dispositions

• Completion of approved

CTE sequence or career pathway

• Earned certificates,

licenses or badges recognized by industry

• r Post-Secondary

institutions

• Course access
• Enrollment and completion of

rigorous coursework

• Ratios of students to highly

effective teachers, counselors, specialists

• Safe, adequate facilities
• Access to technology
• New teacher retention
• Teacher attendance
• Achievement Gap Closure
• Student and staff

perceptions of school

• fferings, instruction, trust,

etc

• Teacher, parent or

community engagement

• Chronic absenteeism
• Discipline
• Social-emotional skills
• Attitudes toward learning
• Performance-based

assessments of cross- curricular skills

Ot Other er P Possible e Meas asures es of School

• ol Qu

Qual ality

This is a new but important possibility

• 2c. C

Con

• nnecting Okl

klahoma an and Natio ional C l Con

• ntext
• ESSA allows states to developing their own accountability plans

within the framework (don’t be driven only by ESSA)

• Included data must be able to be disaggregated by student

groups (prior research in CA, NY, NC, SC, TX supports)

• Included data must must ‘meaningfully differentiate’ among

schools (Attendance rate won’t, but chronic absenteeism will)

3.

• 3. Desi

Desirable Go Goals f s for OK A K A-F

• Meaningfully communicate with stakeholders about how

schools are performing on metrics important to the state and community

• Serve as a part of continuous improvement process for schools
• Align with federal accountability- just one system

Be Truthful and Useful

• 3. Un

Under erlyi ying A g Assumption

• ns
• Good tests and good data management
• Growth measured at student-level over time (not successive

cohorts)

• School- level reports (for this discussion)
• Research doesn’t provide prescriptive guidance

10

Oklahoma: + Assigns overall grade + Includes Achievement and Growth + Letter grades for different areas + Includes advanced coursework (bonus) +Includes focus on lowest 25% of students

11

Louisiana: + Overall grade + Easy to understand change + College-going rates + Subgroup information

• Too Cluttered!

New York: + Separate scores for different sections + Focus on learning environment

• No information of prior

performance

• No context about

relative quality

California: + Performance and growth + Extended graduation rates + Chronic absenteeism

• No overall rating
• Difficult to tell if good or bad

Alberta: + Achievement and Improvement + Work Preparation + Color-coded

• A LOT of information!

Illinois: + Teacher retention + Financial info

• Difficult to determine

if good or bad?

16

Ohio: + Easy to read + Achievement + Progress + Gap + K-3 Literacy

17

• 4. Principles

es o

• f a Goo
• od S

School

• l G

Grad ading S g System em

• Transparent and Understandable for parents and community
• Focused on Growth, not simply “point-in-time” success
• Includes information on school context (perhaps in rating)
• Examines important student groups
• Reflects the priorities of the state and communities
• Aligned with outside ratings
• Includes key metrics, but not too many!
• Should include an overall score (or two)

18

• 5. T

Traps to to A Avoid!

• Too many indicators- obfuscation in the name of 100%

transparency (need clarity of message)

• Over-simplifying- Advanced is different than Proficient
• Stopping growth at Proficient
• Choosing indicators that aren’t aligned to state goals
• Putting data that is ‘informational’ into accountability model
• Don’t rate just on proficiency

19

• 5. T

Traps to to A Avoid!

• Unintended consequences- good indicators going bad
• Proficiency -> ‘teaching to the test’
• Graduation Rate -> watering down of criteria
• ACT scores -> decreased ACT participation
• Chronic absence -> increased in-school discipline

20

• What is meaningful to the state and communities?
• Consider what data are currently collected and available for use at

the state level

• Can it be disaggregated to school and subgroup level?
• Consider what data would need to be collected
• Exercise caution with untried measures
• Again, schools respond to incentives – what do OK policymakers

want to incentivize?

• 6. Wher

ere D e Does es OK OK Go F From

• m He

Here? e?

Questions?

21

Thank you!