State Board Update: Accountability System March 2013

Current System is Confusing

No Child Left Behind Waiver

HB 555 Passed in December 2012

Report Card Measures Grouped into 6 Components Component grades and overall grade begin in August 2015 New Report Card Based on Letter Grades

Measures Phased In Up to 9 Measures Up to 16 Measures Up to 17 Measures & Beyond Up to 18 Measures

Prepared for Success K-3 Literacy Graduation Rate Gap Closing Progress Achievement Overall Grade Overall Grade & Components

Report Card Components Achievement Performance Index Performance Indicators Graduation Rate 4 Year Graduation Rate 5 Year Graduation Rate

Report Card Components Gap Closing Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) Progress Value-Added Overall, Gifted, Lowest 20% and Students with Disabilities

Report Card Components K-3 Literacy K-3 Literacy Improvement

Report Card Components Prepared for Success College Admission Test, Dual Enrollment, Industry Credentials, Honors Diplomas, Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate

Ohio’s New Local Report Card

Accountability Committee Created Held Six MeetingsAdopt Rules for Report Card Role of the State Board

March – Present April – Intent to Adopt May – Public Hearings & JCARR June – Final Adoption Timeline for LRC rules

Review Recommendations for

Achievement Component Performance Indicators Performance Index Michael Collins

State Indicators Report Card

State Indicators – 75% Proficient State Indicators Letter Grade State Indicators Percentage A90% - 100% B80% % C70% % D50% % F< 50%

State Indicators Letter Grade State Indicators Percentage School Districts Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A90% - 100% % B80% %9014.8% C70% %6510.6% D50% %487.9% F< 50%386.4% Total % NA

State Indicators Letter Grade State Indicators Percentage Traditional Buildings Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A90% - 100% % B80% % % C70% %2136.9% D50% %2177.1% F< 50% % Total % NA156

State Indicators Letter Grade State Indicators Percentage Community Schools Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A90% - 100%208.7% B80% %83.5% C70% %93.9% D50% %2711.7% F< 50% % Total % NA34

State Indicators – 75% Proficient

State Indicators Report Card Change in Law

State Indicators – 80% Proficient State Indicators Letter Grade State Indicators Percentage A90% - 100% B80% % C70% % D50% % F< 50%

State Indicators Letter Grade State Indicators Percentage School Districts Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A90% - 100% % B80% %8714.3% C70% % % D50% %9315.2% F< 50%7712.6% Total % NA

State Indicators Letter Grade State Indicators Percentage Traditional Buildings Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A90% - 100% % B80% % % C70% %2618.5% D50% % % F< 50% % Total % NA156

State Indicators Letter Grade State Indicators Percentage Community Schools Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A90% - 100%135.7% B80% %41.7% C70% %104.3% D50% %229.6% F< 50% % Total % NA34

State Indicators – 80% Proficient

Performance Index Performance Index Letter Grade Performance Index Percentage A90% - 100% B80% % C70% % D50% % F< 50%

Performance Index Letter Grade Performance Index Percentage School Districts Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A90% - 100%304.9% B80% % % C70% % % D50% %183.0% F< 50%00.0% Total % NA

Performance Index Letter Grade Performance Index Percentage Traditional Buildings Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A90% - 100%2157.1% B80% % % C70% % % D50% % % F< 50%190.6% Total % NA154

Performance Index Letter Grade Performance Index Percentage Community Schools Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A90% - 100%31.3% B80% %2811.7% C70% %6828.3% D50% % % F< 50%177.1% Total % NA24

Performance Index

Weighted Acceleration (A) …the department shall assign additional weights to students who have been permitted to pass over a subject in accordance with a student acceleration policy… If such a student attains the advanced score… the department shall assign to the student an additional proportional weight, as approved by the state board. 1.3 Selected for Consistency

Questions?

Safe Harbor Not later than March 31, 2013, the State Board of Education shall submit to the General Assembly… recommendations to create a one-year safe harbor for districts and schools for the first year of the PARCC assessments. House Bill 555

Safe Harbor The recommendation shall include a method to exempt [schools and districts] from sanctions and penalties prescribed by law based on report card ratings. House Bill 555

Safe Harbor Sanctions Challenged School District Academic Distress Commission Educational Choice scholarships Community school closure Public school restructuring

Safe Harbor Recommendation Report actual grade If safe harbor is met, calculate adjusted grade Sanctions for schools and districts based on adjusted grades

Performance Index B Indicators B No Component or Overall Grade Example: Year Grad Rate C 4 Year Grad Rate C AMOs C Value-Added: All Students B

Achievement D Progress B Grad Rate C K-3 Literacy B AMOs C Prep for Success B Overall Grade C Indicators B PI F Drop in Performance Index (PI) grade, affecting overall grade Example: First Year of PARCC Assessments

Safe Harbor? Safe harbor statistical calculation (Met or Not Met) Maintain performance compared to other schools and districts? If Met, adjusted safe harbor grades used to determine sanctions

Achievement B Progress B Grad Rate C K-3 Literacy B AMOs C Prep for Success B “Safe Harbor” Overall Grade B Indicators B “Safe Harbor” PI B Example: – Safe Harbor Sanctions based on Adjusted Grade PI grade used

Questions?

Graduation Rate 4 Year Rate 5 Year Rate Stephanie Dodd

4 Year Graduation Rate Grad Rate – Four Year Letter Grade Grad Rate – Four Year Percentage A93% - 100% B89% % C84% % D79% % F< 79%

Grad Rate Four Year Letter Grade Grad Rate Four Year Percentage School Districts Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A93% - 100% % B89% % % C84% % % D79% %437.00% F< 79%406.60% Total %

Grad Rate Four Year Letter Grade Grad Rate Four Year Percentage Traditional Buildings Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A93% - 100% % B89% % % C84% % % D79% %577.78% F< 79% % Total %

Grad Rate Four Year Letter Grade Grad Rate Four Year Percentage Community Schools Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A93% - 100%11.80% B89% %11.80% C84% %35.40% D79% %11.80% F< 79% % Total %

4 Year Graduation Rate

5 Year Graduation Rate Grad Rate – Five Year Letter Grade Grad Rate – Five Year Percentage A95% - 100% B90% % C85% % D80% % F< 80%

Grad Rate Five Year Letter Grade Grad Rate Five Year Percentage School Districts Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A95% - 100% % B90% % % C85% % % D80% %559.00% F< 80%386.20% Total %

Grad Rate Five Year Letter Grade Grad Rate Five Year Percentage Traditional Buildings Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A95% - 100% % B90% % % C85% % % D80% %659.00% F< 80% % Total %

Grad Rate Five Year Letter Grade Grad Rate Five Year Percentage Community Schools Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A95% - 100%24.40% B90% %12.20% C85% %24.40% D80% %48.90% F< 80% % Total %

5 Year Graduation Rate

Questions?

Gap Closing Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) C. Todd Jones

Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) AMO Letter Grade AMO Percentage A90% - 100% B80% % C70% % D60% % F< 60%

AMO Letter Grade AMO Percentage School Districts Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A90% - 100%284.6% B80% % % C70% % % D60% %8313.6% F< 60% % Total %

AMO Letter Grade AMO Percentage Traditional Buildings Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A90% - 100% % B80% % % C70% % % D60% % % F< 60% % Total %

AMO Letter Grade AMO Percentage Community Schools Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A90% - 100%2412.8% B80% %126.4% C70% %63.2% D60% %63.2% F< 60% % Total %

AMOs

Questions?

Progress Value Added: Overall Gifted Students Lowest 20% Students with Disabilities Bryan Williams

Value-Added Letter Grade Value-Added Gain Index A> = 2.0 B>= 1 and < 2 C>= -1 and < 1 D>= -2 and < -1 F< -2

Value-Added: Overall Value Added: Overall Letter Grade Value Added: Overall Gain Index School Districts Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A> = % B>= 1 and < % C>= -1 and < % D>= -2 and < % F< % Total % NA3

Value-Added: Overall Value Added: Overall Letter Grade Value Added: Overall Gain Index Traditional Buildings Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A> = % B>= 1 and < % C>= -1 and < % D>= -2 and < % F< % Total % NA856

Value-Added: Overall Value Added: Overall Letter Grade Value Added: Overall Gain Index Community Schools Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A> = % B>= 1 and < % C>= -1 and < % D>= -2 and < % F< % Total % NA40

Value-Added: Overall

Value-Added: Gifted Students

Value Added: Gifted Letter Grade Value Added: Gifted Gain Index School Districts Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A> = % B>= 1 and < % C>= -1 and < % D>= -2 and < % F< % Total % NA36

Value Added: Gifted Letter Grade Value Added: Gifted Gain Index Traditional Buildings Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A> = % B>= 1 and < % C>= -1 and < % D>= -2 and < % F< % Total % NA1336

Value Added: Gifted Letter Grade Value Added: Gifted Gain Index Community Schools Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A> = % B>= 1 and < 200.0% C>= -1 and < % D>= -2 and < % F< % Total4100.0% NA260

Value-Added: Gifted

Value-Added: Lowest 20% in Achievement

Value Added: Lowest 20% Letter Grade Value Added: Lowest 20% Gain Index School Districts Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A> = % B>= 1 and < % C>= -1 and < % D>= -2 and < % F< % Total % NA1090

Value Added: Lowest 20% Letter Grade Value Added: Lowest 20% Gain Index Traditional Buildings Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A> = % B>= 1 and < % C>= -1 and < % D>= -2 and < % F< % Total % NA1090

Value Added: Lowest 20% Letter Grade Value Added: Lowest 20% Gain Index Community Schools Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A> = % B>= 1 and < % C>= -1 and < % D>= -2 and < % F< % Total % NA57

Value-Added: Lowest 20%

Value-Added: Students with Disabilities

Value Added: Students with Disabilities Letter Grade Value Added: Students with Disabilities Gain Index School Districts Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A> = % B>= 1 and < % C>= -1 and < % D>= -2 and < % F< % Total % NA25

Value Added: Students with Disabilities Letter Grade Value Added: Students with Disabilities Gain Index Traditional Buildings Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A> = % B>= 1 and < % C>= -1 and < % D>= -2 and < % F< % Total % NA1167

Value Added: Students with Disabilities Letter Grade Value Added: Students with Disabilities Gain Index Community Schools Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A> = % B>= 1 and < % C>= -1 and < % D>= -2 and < % F< % Total % NA207

Value-Added: Students with Disabilities

Questions?

K- 3 Literacy Tom Gunlock – Measure Graded – Component Graded

– Measures Reported – Component Graded Prepared for Success Debe Terhar

Communications and Feedback

Next Steps

March – Present April – Intent to Adopt May – Public Hearings & JCARR June – Final Adoption Timeline for LRC rules

LRC Rollout Timeline August 2013 New Graded Measures Performance Indicators Performance Index 4 Year Graduation Rate 5 Year Graduation Rate Annual Measureable Objectives (AMOs) Value-Added: All Students Value-Added: Gifted Students Value-Added: Lowest 20% in Achievement Value-Added: Students with Disabilities New Graded Component None

LRC Rollout Timeline August 2014 New Graded Component None New Graded Measure K-3 Literacy Improvement New Reported Measures College Admission Test Dual Enrollment Industry Credentials Honors Diploma Advanced Placement International Baccalaureate

LRC Rollout Timeline August 2015 Overall Grade Calculated New Graded Components Achievement Progress Gap Closing Graduation Rate K-3 Literacy Prepared for Success New Graded Measure None New Reported Measure College & Career Ready Assessment

LRC Rollout Timeline August 2016 Overall Grade Calculated New Graded Measure Value-Added: High School New Reported Measure None New Graded Component None

Questions

Dropout Prevention and Recovery Academic Performance Rating and Report Card System March 2013

HB 555 Passed in December 2012

Enact rules for dropout prevention and recovery (DOPR) performance levels and benchmarks

Benchmarks for 7 Report Card Indicators No indicator ratings in

Add benchmark for 1 additional indicator Prescribe Overall Rating Designation (not to be used until 2015) 2014

Graduation Rates: 4 Year Graduation Rate 5 Year Graduation Rate 6 Year Graduation Rate 7 Year Graduation Rate 8 Year Graduation Rate 2013 Rule Report Card Indicator Benchmarks

High School Assessment Passage Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs)

Additional HB 555 Charges Review Ohio dropout prevention and recovery data Consult with Ohio stakeholders Consult with other states’ departments of education

Arizona California Colorado Florida Texas

Ohio is the only state establishing a report card system that includes high stakes consequences

Review Rule Recommendations for OAC

Graduation Rate 4 Year Rate 5 Year Rate 6 Year Rate 7 Year Rate 8 Year Rate

DOPR Ratings 4 Year Graduation Rate Benchmarks Schools Based on 2011 Data CountPercentage Exceeds Standards 30% - 100%2125.3% Meets Standards7% %4048.2% Does Not Meet Standards 0% - 6.9%2226.5% Total %

DOPR Ratings 5 Year Graduation Rate Benchmarks Schools Based on 2011 Data CountPercentage Exceeds Standards 39% - 100%1825.4% Meets Standards12% %3549.3% Does Not Meet Standards 0% %1825.4% Total %

DOPR Ratings 6, 7, 8 Year Graduation Rate Benchmarks Schools Based on 2011 Data CountPercentage Exceeds Standards 39% - 100% Not Available Meets Standards12% % Not Available Does Not Meet Standards 0% % Not Available

High School Assessment Passage

DOPR Ratings High School Assessment Passage Rate Benchmarks Schools Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage Exceeds Standards 59% - 100%2225.9% Meets Standards18% %4148.2% Does Not Meet Standards 0% %2225.9% Total %

Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs)

DOPR Ratings AMO Benchmarks Schools Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage Exceeds Standards 33% - 100%425.0% Meets Standards5% %850.0% Does Not Meet Standards 0% - 4.9%425.0% Total %

By March, 2015 Based on analysis of 2013 and 2014 dropout prevention and recovery data Review performance levels and amend benchmarks if warranted Statement of Intent

Next Steps

March – Intent to Adopt April – JCARR Filing May – Public Hearings June – Final Adoption Timeline for 2013 DOPR rule

DOPR Report Card Rollout Timeline , 5, and 6 Year Graduation Rate - High School Assessment Passage - AMOs - No ratings , 5, 6, and 7 Year Graduation Rate - High School Assessment Passage - AMOs - Indicators rated - Growth reported, if available - Student outcomes reported , 5, 6, 7, and 8 Year Graduation Rate - High School Assessment Passage - AMOs - Growth - Indicators rated - Student outcomes reported - Overall Designation Schools first identified for closure

Success for Each Student

Questions