Let’s be clear on this point: Giving single letter grades to schools is a terrible, stupid, invalid idea. It has no scientific basis. It rewards affluent districts and stigmatizes poor schools.
Jan Resseger reports that the state’s letter grades performed as expected. The schools in the most affluent districts get the most A grades. The schools in the poorest districts get the lowest grades.
She concludes:
“Instead of branding Ohio’s poorest African American and Hispanic school districts with “F”s and punishing the state’s very poorest school districts with state takeover, the state should significantly increase its financial support for public schools in poor communities and encourage the development of full-service wraparound schools that provide medical and social services for families right at school. Ohio’s system of branding the state’s poorest schools with “F” grades and imposing sanctions like state takeover undermines support for public education in school districts that desperately need strong community institutions. The school district report cards also encourage segregation of the state’s metropolitan areas by race and family income.”
Stephen Dyer posts graphs showing that charter schools dominate the D and F grades. Of course, that will not sway the charter lobby in Ohio or cause them to rethink their devotion to the free market.
What fascinates Dyer is that ECOT—the virtual charter that collapsed in scandals a few months ago—somehow received an A in achievement because students were not chronically absent. Huh?
He writes:
“This year, ECOT got an A in the Achievement Component.
“How can this be when ECOT has historically been the worst performing school in the state? The answer lies in the fact that ECOT closed half way through the year. So the school did not get graded on several components that it traditionally bombed. The only Achievement category indicator it was graded on was meeting state indicators — raw test score information. Schools can be graded on up to 26 different indicators, depending on how many students the schools tested that are in each category. For example, if a school doesn’t have high school students, it won’t be graded on the performance of high school students.
“Last year, ECOT met 0 of the 23 indicators it was measured on. This year it met one indicator. And it was only measured based on one indicator. What was that indicator?
“I kid you not. It was chronic absenteeism.
“Last year, 13.5% of ECOT’s kids were listed as chronically absent. This year, it was 7.5%, which met the indicator and qualified as an A.
“That’s right. The school that ripped off taxpayers by at least $200 million because it charged for kids who were never there, or were absent for whole months and seasons of time got an A from the Ohio Department of Education because kids weren’t chronically absent.“
Proof positive that school grades are a hoax.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The Governor of Ohio Kasich is a complete bozo who thinks he should have won for President. Anything regarding education in the state of Ohio must be taken with a grain of salt as Kasich is a complete neophyte to education but will claim he knows what he is doing.
I remember during the presidential primaries, Kasich had this attitude like he knew everything and everybody else, including the other presidential candidates didn’t know anything. I feel for the people of Ohio in having to deal with this creepy governor who continues to hope for a charter school state. However, every time the numbers come out in Ohio charter schools there do as badly as they do in the state of Michigan and we all know who resides in Michigan.
“Proof positive that school grades are a hoax.”
Let’s substitute one word and the sentence will still be true:
“Proof positive that student grades are a hoax.”
The letter grade ratings of school districts often misrepresent schools and often lead to false conclusions about school districts, even if those letter grades are converted to a number through some algorithm. If districts really want a high score like ECOT, all they have to do is close half way through the school year! Stupid! Florida’s bad ideas, the home of this idiotic rating system, is now spreading its poison west to Texas too.
I agree with Resseger. This rating system operates exactly like “red lining,” an illegal real estate practice. It steers home buyers into purchasing homes in non-poor, non-minority areas since the scores correlate with socio-economic levels of those taking the tests.
They are a hoax. Our school dropped a full letter grade, last year to this year.
The population of this county had hardly budged in the last 25 years and we keep our teachers. It’s silly to believe it changed that dramatically.
We had one smaller district here go from a C to an A. In one year. It’s nonsense.
I hope no one relies on it – it’s just not a valid measure, year to year.
Under Bloomberg and Klein, NYC adopted letter grades.
It was insane. In my neighborhood, the local public school received an A. Much excitement, Klein agreed to add an annex to this wiponderful school. The next year, the school received an F.i spoke to the principal. He said nothing changed. Same teachers. Same pedagogy. Same kids.
The system was wacky, and the school probably failed because scores did not go up.
Letter grades for schools are MISLEADING. The deformers know how to deceive.
The Common Gore should have something about “HOW TO SPOT A LIAR.”
Ohio charters in urban areas should actually be doing much better than district schools. They take fewer children with disabilities and they have a bigger “draw” area- they can (and do) draw from outside the district.
The grading system masks their underperformance because it’s not an apples to apples comparision.
But it doesn’t matter. The Jeb Bush grading systems were never meant to offer actual information. They’re a mechanism to lobby against public schools.
It’s politics.
Als an ed reformer to look at one of these schools that went up or down a couple of grades.
Ask them to show you something specific that caused that change.
They won’t be able to tell you, because no one can.
Unfortunately Ohio lawmakers got suckered into following every dumb fad and gimmick that came out of the ed reform lobby, so they haven’t added any real, lasting value to the state’s public schools in almost 2 decades.
We’re hoping we can fire some of the underperformers in the next election and replace them with people who can think for themselves, so stay tuned.
The A-F grading system was another dumb. expensive gimmick that came out of one of the tens of ed reform lobbying groups. It was dreamed up by political people and slapped on half the states in the country by lazy lawmakers who refuse to do their own work and are easily swayed by marketing campaigns.
A-F grading was Jeb’s idea. It labels schools so they can be handed over to charters. There will always be a bottom 5% and F-rated schools when you grade on a curve. A la standardized tests.
I don’t think lawmakers in Ohio got “suckered.” The GOP lawmakers who are mostly controlled by ALEC knew exactly what they were doing every time they voted for disastrous Ed policy. Teachers, kids and communities have suffered the consequences.
Until we change Columbus, nothing will change. I am actively working in my community to elect PRO public education legislators (Nikki Foster and Sarah Bitter) and a PRO public education Governor (Cordray). As an OhioBAT I also use social media platforms to promote our endorsed PRO public education candidates around the state. We’ve ALL got to get involved in changing Columbus if we want our public schools to survive and thrive.
This attack on public schools has been a multi-faceted and a multi-dimensional one with big money at the helm. These deformers hire marketers to spin their lies.
Vote!
In Utah, the Big Standardized Tests are ONLY given for school grades. They don’t figure in anything for teachers or students. I have argued for years that the state could save millions of dollars if we just lined up the schools by poverty rate, “graded” the schools that way, and call it good.
And for the next two years, the scores won’t even be counted for grading, as there is a moritorium on using the scores, because we’re getting a new BS test system. SO, WHY ARE WE TESTING AT ALL????
Juztapositions
Begin Quote Cincinnati’s poverty rate up, higher than pre-Great Recession at 27.7 percent, Census says
Mark Curnutte and Max Londberg, Cincinnati EnquirerPublished 5:55 a.m. ET Sept. 13, 2018 Begin Quote
Cincinnati’s poorest residents saw their ranks grow by more than 13,000 from 2007 to 2017, as the city recorded one of the biggest poverty rate increases among America’s largest cities, new Census estimates show.
The city’s 2017 poverty rate also is among the five highest for U.S. cities with at least 250,000 residents. The rankings come despite an economic recovery that has left the city’s economy with fewer unemployed workers and a lower jobless rate than in 2007 before the Great Recession took hold.
Cincinnati’s poverty rate stood at 27.7 percent in 2017, up 4.2 points from 2007, according to American Community Survey estimates released Thursday by the U.S.Census Bureau. The increase was the third highest among the nation’s 81 largest cities, an Enquirer analysis of the new estimates shows. Only New Orleans and Mesa, Arizona saw their poverty rates rise more from 2007 to 2017.
…..
The 2018 federal poverty rate for a single person is an annual income of $12,140. For a household of three people, it is $20,780. End Quote
More at https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2018/09/13/cincinnati-poverty-rate-27-7-percent-higher-than-before-great-recession-census-estimates-show/1277390002/
Begin Quote State report cards: How did your school do?
Byron McCauley, Cincinnati Enquirer Published 4:24 p.m. ET Sept. 13, 2018 | Updated 9:33 a.m. ET Sept. 14, 2018 Begin Quote
If your kids attend schools in the Mason, Lakota or Indian Hill school districts, (suburbs of Cincinnati) you are probably feeling pretty good about your school’s performance on the latest Ohio State Report Cards.
If they are attending schools in Cincinnati or Princeton — well, perhaps not as much.
Cincinnati Public Schools earned a “D” grade on Ohio school report cards released Thursday, but the district improved its performance in elementary literacy, four-year graduation rate, and in closing the achievement gap, the district reported.
The “D” ranking is an aggregate of six state criteria for success: achievement, progress, gap-closing, graduation rate, Improving at-risk K-3 readers and prepared for success. CPS earned a “C” in “improving at-risk K-3 readers. It earned a “D” in achievement. It earned an “F” in the other categories.
In a spat on Twitter last week between Cincinnati Public Schools board member Mike Morowski and Hamilton County GOP, the GOP account wrote, “Thoughtful people have to send their kids to private schools or move to Sycamore, Indian Hill or anywhere NOT Cincinnati. Everybody knows this.”
The 2018 report card marked the first time the state issued letter grades for school districts, a move originally seen as controversial.
The State Board of Education said letter grade report cards are designed to give parents, communities, educators and policymakers information about the performance of districts and schools – to celebrate success and identify areas for improvement.
CPS, like nearly every urban, high-poverty district in Ohio, did not do well on the ranking. Cleveland Municipal, Columbus City Youngstown City all earned “F” ratings. Akron earned a “D.”
Wealthier school districts in greater Cincinnati fared better. In Hamilton County, four school districts earned “A” rankings. They are Indian Hill, Madiera, Mariemont and Wyoming.
…….Columbus-based Thomas B. Fordham Institute, an education advocacy group who supported the grade-based assessment, praised the first report card.
“Issuing a single prominent rating, much like an overall GPA, will provide families and communities a summary of a school’s overall level of academic achievement,” said Chad L. Aldis, vice president for Ohio Policy and Advocacy. End Quote
Here is the deal. Chad L. Aldis and the Thomas B. Fordham Institute love charter schools and also love to see public schools and districts fail to meet the absurd criteria for “a single prominent rating.” That singe rating is concocted from six state criteria for “success.” Achievement, Progress, Gap-closing, Graduation rate, Improving at-risk K-3 readers and Prepared for success. All six categories have multiple metrics and convoluted grade assignments for components.
The state grading scheme needs to be thoroughly deconstructed and exposed as a fraud, not only for the mathematical assumptions being made but also for the unethical attributions of educational significance being attached to bad math, including the multiple conversions of numbers into letter grades and especially the continued use of value-added metrics (VAM). You can see the absurdity of the VAM measures, provided by the contractor, SAS here. Perhaps there is a legal case worthy of muster here in Ohio to get rid of VAM , kill it, stamp it out. Take a look for yourself here. https://ohiova.sas.com/accountability.html?as=a&aj=a&w4=19&ww=98352
I suggest paying a fee to a high profile expert, to tell Aldis and friends at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute what’s wrong with Ohio’s grading scheme.
Take a look at the mischief behind the summary scores. Here just two examples:
The Achievement Component represents whether student performance on state tests met established thresholds and how well students performed on tests overall. A new indicator measures chronic absenteeism. The grade for “Achievement” is based on two components.
1.1 The “Performance Index” measures the test results of every student, not just those who score proficient or higher. There are seven levels on the index and districts receive points for every student who takes a test. The higher the achievement level, the more points awarded in the district’s index. This rewards schools and districts for improving the performance of all students, regardless of achievement level.
1.2 “Indicators Met” measures the percent of students who have passed state tests. It also includes the gifted indicator and the chronic absenteeism indicator. Test results are reported for each student in a grade and subject. The passage rate for each test indicator is 80% and the End of Course (EOC) Improvement Indicator is 25%. Each of these components has a calculated score.
GRADE KEY A = 90.0 – 100.0%, B = 80.0 – 89.9%, C = 70.0 – 79.9%, D = 50.0- 69.9 F = 0.0 – 49.9%. (It not clear how the grade key is applied to the two sets of scores. Grade keys in other categories anre not the same and differences are not explained).
The Progress Component “looks closely at the growth that all students are making based on their past performances. For more detailed data on Progress and Value-Added, click here. “ This is the link to the shameful and continued use of value-added metrics (VAM) in Ohio.
2.1 The Overall Grade: This measures the progress for all students in math, ELA, and science using tests in grades 4-8 and some end-of-course exams. 2.1.1 Gifted Students: This measures the progress for students identified as gifted in reading, math, science, and/or superior cognitive ability. 2.1.2 Students in the Lowest 20% in Achievement: This measures the progress for students identified as the lowest 20% statewide in reading, math, or science achievement. 2.1.3 Students with Disabilities: This measures the progress for students with disabilities.
2.2 Progress Details: These tables show the Progress scores by test grade and subject for students in grades 4-8 and some end-of-course tests, and includes up to three years of data as available. (These are not tables but color-coded blocks for tested grades and subjects). The Progress Component measures how groups of students made progress as compared to the statewide expectation of growth. The expectation of growth is based on how students in the group performed, on average, compared to other students like them across the state: Colored coded dots are next to these sentences: Students made more progress than expected – significant evidence; Students made more progress than expected – moderate evidence; Students made progress similar to the statewide expectation – evidence; Students made less progress than expected – moderate evidence; Students made less progress than expected – significant evidence. Definitions of “moderate” and “significant” are not given. GRADE KEY A = 90.0 – 100.0%, B = 80.0 – 89.9%, C = 70.0 – 79.9%, D = 60.0- 69.9 F = 0.0 – 59.9%.
The Gap Closing component shows how well schools are meeting the performance expectations for our most vulnerable populations of students in English language arts, math, and graduation. It also measures how schools are doing in helping English learners to become proficient in English.
3.1 Annual Measureable Objectives (AMOS) compare the performance of each student group to the expected performance goals for that group to determine if gaps exist. These charts show how well each group compares to the state average in ELA, math and graduation. A fourth AMO measures whether English Learners are making progress towards becoming proficient in English. The ultimate goal is for all groups to achieve at high levels.
3.2 Performance Index by Subgroup: Each student subgroup has its own interim goal. Meeting the subgroup goals is one of the ways to meet Annual Measurable Objectives. Subgroups with fewer than 25 students are not rated and do not appear on the graphs. There are four bar graphs: English Language Art, Math, English Learners, and Graduation Rate. Each bar graph can be examined to see the performance or goal for: All Students, Black, nonHispanic / Multiracial / Economic Disadvantage / Students with Disabilities / Asian or Pacific Islander/ Hispanic/ White, Non-Hispanic/ English Learner (Each of the nine categories has an assigned color-code) GRADE KEY A = 90.0 – 100.0%, B = 80.0 – 89.9%, C = 70.0 – 79.9%, D = 60.0- 69.9 F = 0.0 – 59.9%.
If you think this is bad, look at the rest of the peformance ratings, these are for Cincinnati Public Schools…. Cincinnati, where poverty only counts if it shows up in grades for schools.
Chad Aldis writes what he is paid to write and says what he is paid to say.
How many years was he in the classroom?
How about we do away with teachers Union’s for 6 years? If they do worse than before reinstate the union. If they improve. You have your answer.
Steve, your experiment is unnecessary. We already have many states that eliminated collective bargaining. They happen to be the lowest performing states.
The highest performing states—Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey—have strong teachers unions.