Last fall, Terry wrote a piece for the Dayton Daily News highlighting a bizarre consequence of Ohio's academic rating system, namely that otherwise high performing districts failing to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) with particular student subgroups (for three consecutive years) could fall somewhat dramatically in their ratings.? Case in point: Kettering City Schools met 29 out of 30 academic indicators in 2008-09 but didn't make AYP in reading with students with disabilities and those that are limited English proficient. This was the third year in a row they failed to make AYP with any two subgroups, thus they earned a ?C? or Continuous Improvement. (Without the AYP provision, they would have earned an A+.) Meanwhile, Marion City Schools met 0 out of 30 academic indicators and also earned a ?C.?
Do you find your state's rating system to be confusing and complex? What would make it better?
This comparison is appropriate because despite the complexity of Ohio's rating system (which gives one of five ratings A-F to schools and districts based on a combination of test results, AYP provisions, and value-added growth) it seems intuitive that these two districts shouldn't receive the same rating. It undermines the legitimacy and fairness of the whole system. And a ?C? lacks any semblance of gradation or precision at all.
Realizing the fallout from this (this loophole affected or threatened mostly middle class, suburban districts last year), Ohio Senator Gary Cates proposed a bill (SB 167) last fall that intended to provide a safeguard to those districts, like Kettering, that fell from great heights. The bill stipulated two things: a district could only fall in ratings if it missed AYP with the same two subgroups (not just any two subgroups) for three consecutive years, AND it would only fall one category to Effective (?B?).
Cates' changes to the AYP provision recently were tucked into another piece of legislation on abandoned land mines (because let's not make this bill any more confusing than it already is)? which has been passed by both houses of the Ohio General Assembly.
Bottom line: While this might sound like a lot of quibbling about details, it has hugely important implications for Ohio districts. Lots of high-performing districts that don't make AYP with hard-to-reach subgroups will be happy. They're not just protected from the reputation tarnish of a ?C? but also can still be eligible for waivers to some of the state's most expensive mandates. Recall that upcoming class-size reduction mandates and full day kindergarten will cost Ohio districts millions of dollars. This insidious little AYP provision, had it not been addressed, could have cost those otherwise ?A? districts a big chunk of change.
Now, whether districts should be penalized more for not reaching subgroups- especially LEP kids, or kids with disabilities, or minority students ? that's another matter. Putting suburban, high performing schools that fail to make progress with students in the same camp as those that perpetually fail most tests is appealing in its own way. But here in Ohio, where a district's or school's academic rating affects its eligibility to opt out of costly and nonsensical requirements ? it's clear that these changes to AYP are a good thing.
Flypaper readers, are there similar loopholes/flukes/unintended consequences in your state's rating system? Do you find your state's rating system to be confusing and complex? What would make it better?
- Jamie Davies O'Leary
