1. State Board Update: Accountability System March 2013

2. Current System is Confusing

3. No Child Left Behind Waiver

4. HB 555 Passed in December 2012

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

6. Measures Phased In 2012-2013 Up to 9 Measures 2013-2014 Up to 16 Measures 2014-2015 Up to 17 Measures 2015-2016 & Beyond Up to 18 Measures

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

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

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

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

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

12. Ohio’s New Local Report Card

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

18. March – Present April – Intent to Adopt May – Public Hearings & JCARR June – Final Adoption Timeline for 2012-2013 LRC rules

19. Review Recommendations for 2012-2013

20. Achievement Component Performance Indicators Performance Index Michael Collins

21. State Indicators 2012-2013 Report Card

22. State Indicators – 75% Proficient State Indicators Letter Grade State Indicators Percentage A90% - 100% B80% - 89.9% C70% - 79.9% D50% - 69.9% F< 50%

23. State Indicators Letter Grade State Indicators Percentage School Districts Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A90% - 100%36960.5% B80% - 89.9%9014.8% C70% - 79.9%6510.6% D50% - 69.9%487.9% F< 50%386.4% Total610100.0% NA

24. State Indicators Letter Grade State Indicators Percentage Traditional Buildings Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A90% - 100%165253.8% B80% - 89.9%35311.5% C70% - 79.9%2136.9% D50% - 69.9%2177.1% F< 50%63520.7% Total3070100.0% NA156

25. State Indicators Letter Grade State Indicators Percentage Community Schools Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A90% - 100%208.7% B80% - 89.9%83.5% C70% - 79.9%93.9% D50% - 69.9%2711.7% F< 50%16672.2% Total230100.0% NA34

26. State Indicators – 75% Proficient

27. State Indicators 2013-2014 Report Card Change in Law

28. State Indicators – 80% Proficient State Indicators Letter Grade State Indicators Percentage A90% - 100% B80% - 89.9% C70% - 79.9% D50% - 69.9% F< 50%

29. State Indicators Letter Grade State Indicators Percentage School Districts Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A90% - 100%24440.0% B80% - 89.9%8714.3% C70% - 79.9%10917.9% D50% - 69.9%9315.2% F< 50%7712.6% Total610100.0% NA

30. State Indicators Letter Grade State Indicators Percentage Traditional Buildings Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A90% - 100%126441.2% B80% - 89.9%30910.1% C70% - 79.9%2618.5% D50% - 69.9%34311.2% F< 50%89329.1% Total3070100.0% NA156

31. State Indicators Letter Grade State Indicators Percentage Community Schools Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A90% - 100%135.7% B80% - 89.9%41.7% C70% - 79.9%104.3% D50% - 69.9%229.6% F< 50%18178.7% Total230100.0% NA34

32. State Indicators – 80% Proficient

33. Performance Index Performance Index Letter Grade Performance Index Percentage A90% - 100% B80% - 89.9% C70% - 79.9% D50% - 69.9% F< 50%

34. Performance Index Letter Grade Performance Index Percentage School Districts Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A90% - 100%304.9% B80% - 89.9%44472.8% C70% - 79.9%11819.3% D50% - 69.9%183.0% F< 50%00.0% Total610100.0% NA

35. Performance Index Letter Grade Performance Index Percentage Traditional Buildings Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A90% - 100%2157.1% B80% - 89.9%183059.6% C70% - 79.9%64721.1% D50% - 69.9%36111.6% F< 50%190.6% Total3072100.0% NA154

36. Performance Index Letter Grade Performance Index Percentage Community Schools Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A90% - 100%31.3% B80% - 89.9%2811.7% C70% - 79.9%6828.3% D50% - 69.9%12451.7% F< 50%177.1% Total240100.0% NA24

37. Performance Index

38. Weighted Acceleration 3302.01(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

39. Questions?

40. 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

41. 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

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

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

44. Performance Index B Indicators B No Component or Overall Grade Example: 2013-2014 5 Year Grad Rate C 4 Year Grad Rate C AMOs C Value-Added: All Students B

45. 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: 2014-2015 First Year of PARCC Assessments

46. 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

47. 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: 2014-2015 – Safe Harbor Sanctions based on Adjusted Grade 2013-2014 PI grade used

48. Questions?

49. Graduation Rate 4 Year Rate 5 Year Rate Stephanie Dodd

50. 4 Year Graduation Rate Grad Rate – Four Year Letter Grade Grad Rate – Four Year Percentage A93% - 100% B89% - 92.9% C84% - 88.9% D79% - 83.9% F< 79%

51. Grad Rate Four Year Letter Grade Grad Rate Four Year Percentage School Districts Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A93% - 100%24740.50% B89% - 92.9%17128.00% C84% - 88.9%10917.90% D79% - 83.9%437.00% F< 79%406.60% Total610100.00%

52. Grad Rate Four Year Letter Grade Grad Rate Four Year Percentage Traditional Buildings Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A93% - 100%27136.97% B89% - 92.9%18725.51% C84% - 88.9%12316.78% D79% - 83.9%577.78% F< 79%9512.96% Total733100.00%

53. Grad Rate Four Year Letter Grade Grad Rate Four Year Percentage Community Schools Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A93% - 100%11.80% B89% - 92.9%11.80% C84% - 88.9%35.40% D79% - 83.9%11.80% F< 79%5089.30% Total56100.00%

54. 4 Year Graduation Rate

55. 5 Year Graduation Rate Grad Rate – Five Year Letter Grade Grad Rate – Five Year Percentage A95% - 100% B90% - 94.9% C85% - 89.9% D80% - 84.9% F< 80%

56. Grad Rate Five Year Letter Grade Grad Rate Five Year Percentage School Districts Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A95% - 100%15225.00% B90% - 94.9%24540.20% C85% - 89.9%11919.50% D80% - 84.9%559.00% F< 80%386.20% Total609100.00%

57. Grad Rate Five Year Letter Grade Grad Rate Five Year Percentage Traditional Buildings Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A95% - 100%16723.00% B90% - 94.9%27037.20% C85% - 89.9%13418.50% D80% - 84.9%659.00% F< 80%9012.40% Total726100.00%

58. Grad Rate Five Year Letter Grade Grad Rate Five Year Percentage Community Schools Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A95% - 100%24.40% B90% - 94.9%12.20% C85% - 89.9%24.40% D80% - 84.9%48.90% F< 80%3680.00% Total45100.00%

59. 5 Year Graduation Rate

60. Questions?

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

62. Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) AMO Letter Grade AMO Percentage A90% - 100% B80% - 89.9% C70% - 79.9% D60% - 69.9% F< 60%

63. AMO Letter Grade AMO Percentage School Districts Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A90% - 100%284.6% B80% - 89.9%20733.9% C70% - 79.9%14223.3% D60% - 69.9%8313.6% F< 60%15024.6% Total610100.0%

64. AMO Letter Grade AMO Percentage Traditional Buildings Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A90% - 100%77625.5% B80% - 89.9%50716.7% C70% - 79.9%31010.2% D60% - 69.9%30310.0% F< 60%114337.6% Total3039100.0%

65. AMO Letter Grade AMO Percentage Community Schools Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A90% - 100%2412.8% B80% - 89.9%126.4% C70% - 79.9%63.2% D60% - 69.9%63.2% F< 60%13974.3% Total187100.0%

66. AMOs

67. Questions?

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

69. 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

70. Value-Added: Overall Value Added: Overall Letter Grade Value Added: Overall Gain Index School Districts Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A> = 2.021635.4% B>= 1 and < 28614.1% C>= -1 and < 115525.4% D>= -2 and < -16210.1% F< -29215.1% Total611100.0% NA3

71. Value-Added: Overall Value Added: Overall Letter Grade Value Added: Overall Gain Index Traditional Buildings Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A> = 2.070229.6% B>= 1 and < 233514.1% C>= -1 and < 167428.4% D>= -2 and < -12239.4% F< -243618.4% Total2370100.0% NA856

72. Value-Added: Overall Value Added: Overall Letter Grade Value Added: Overall Gain Index Community Schools Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A> = 2.05524.6% B>= 1 and < 22912.9% C>= -1 and < 16227.7% D>= -2 and < -12912.9% F< -24921.9% Total224100.0% NA40

73. Value-Added: Overall

74. Value-Added: Gifted Students

75. Value Added: Gifted Letter Grade Value Added: Gifted Gain Index School Districts Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A> = 2.07912.9% B>= 1 and < 29315.2% C>= -1 and < 127545.0% D>= -2 and < -18614.1% F< -2457.4% Total57894.6% NA36

76. Value Added: Gifted Letter Grade Value Added: Gifted Gain Index Traditional Buildings Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A> = 2.024412.9% B>= 1 and < 231116.5% C>= -1 and < 187746.4% D>= -2 and < -127214.4% F< -21869.8% Total1890100.0% NA1336

77. Value Added: Gifted Letter Grade Value Added: Gifted Gain Index Community Schools Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A> = 2.000.0% B>= 1 and < 200.0% C>= -1 and < 1250.0% D>= -2 and < -100.0% F< -2250.0% Total4100.0% NA260

78. Value-Added: Gifted

79. Value-Added: Lowest 20% in Achievement

80. Value Added: Lowest 20% Letter Grade Value Added: Lowest 20% Gain Index School Districts Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A> = 2.010818.2% B>= 1 and < 28614.5% C>= -1 and < 126945.4% D>= -2 and < -16611.1% F< -26310.6% Total2163100.0% NA1090

81. Value Added: Lowest 20% Letter Grade Value Added: Lowest 20% Gain Index Traditional Buildings Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A> = 2.026812.5% B>= 1 and < 239318.4% C>= -1 and < 1102047.8% D>= -2 and < -127312.8% F< -21828.5% Total2163100.0% NA1090

82. Value Added: Lowest 20% Letter Grade Value Added: Lowest 20% Gain Index Community Schools Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A> = 2.04320.8% B>= 1 and < 23315.9% C>= -1 and < 17335.3% D>= -2 and < -12914.0% F< -22914.0% Total207100.0% NA57

83. Value-Added: Lowest 20%

84. Value-Added: Students with Disabilities

85. Value Added: Students with Disabilities Letter Grade Value Added: Students with Disabilities Gain Index School Districts Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A> = 2.011619.0% B>= 1 and < 210817.7% C>= -1 and < 124139.4% D>= -2 and < -17812.8% F< -2467.5% Total58996.4% NA25

86. Value Added: Students with Disabilities Letter Grade Value Added: Students with Disabilities Gain Index Traditional Buildings Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A> = 2.028713.9% B>= 1 and < 237918.4% C>= -1 and < 197847.5% D>= -2 and < -124511.9% F< -21708.3% Total2059100.0% NA1167

87. Value Added: Students with Disabilities Letter Grade Value Added: Students with Disabilities Gain Index Community Schools Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage A> = 2.01813.6% B>= 1 and < 21813.6% C>= -1 and < 16146.2% D>= -2 and < -11612.1% F< -21914.4% Total132100.0% NA207

88. Value-Added: Students with Disabilities

89. Questions?

90. K- 3 Literacy Tom Gunlock 2013-2014 – Measure Graded 2014-2015 – Component Graded

91. 2013-2014 – Measures Reported 2014-2015 – Component Graded Prepared for Success Debe Terhar

92. Communications and Feedback

93. Next Steps

94. March – Present April – Intent to Adopt May – Public Hearings & JCARR June – Final Adoption Timeline for 2012-2013 LRC rules

95. 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

96. 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

97. 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

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

99. Questions

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

101. HB 555 Passed in December 2012

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

103. Benchmarks for 7 Report Card Indicators No indicator ratings in 2013 2013

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

105. 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

106. High School Assessment Passage Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs)

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

108. Arizona California Colorado Florida Texas

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

110. Review Rule Recommendations for OAC 3301-102-10

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

112. DOPR Ratings 4 Year Graduation Rate Benchmarks Schools Based on 2011 Data CountPercentage Exceeds Standards 30% - 100%2125.3% Meets Standards7% - 29.9%4048.2% Does Not Meet Standards 0% - 6.9%2226.5% Total83100.0%

113. DOPR Ratings 5 Year Graduation Rate Benchmarks Schools Based on 2011 Data CountPercentage Exceeds Standards 39% - 100%1825.4% Meets Standards12% - 38.9%3549.3% Does Not Meet Standards 0% - 11.9%1825.4% Total71100.1%

114. DOPR Ratings 6, 7, 8 Year Graduation Rate Benchmarks Schools Based on 2011 Data CountPercentage Exceeds Standards 39% - 100% Not Available Meets Standards12% - 38.9% Not Available Does Not Meet Standards 0% - 11.9% Not Available

115. High School Assessment Passage

116. DOPR Ratings High School Assessment Passage Rate Benchmarks Schools Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage Exceeds Standards 59% - 100%2225.9% Meets Standards18% - 58.9%4148.2% Does Not Meet Standards 0% - 17.9%2225.9% Total85100.0%

117. Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs)

118. DOPR Ratings AMO Benchmarks Schools Based on 2012 Data CountPercentage Exceeds Standards 33% - 100%425.0% Meets Standards5% - 32.9%850.0% Does Not Meet Standards 0% - 4.9%425.0% Total16100.0%

119. 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

120. Next Steps

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

122. DOPR Report Card Rollout Timeline 2012-2013 - 4, 5, and 6 Year Graduation Rate - High School Assessment Passage - AMOs - No ratings 2013-2014 - 4, 5, 6, and 7 Year Graduation Rate - High School Assessment Passage - AMOs - Indicators rated - Growth reported, if available - Student outcomes reported 2014-2015 - 4, 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 2015-2016

123. Success for Each Student

124. Questions