Ohio's school district rating system has been getting criticism lately, and for good reason: the category of Continuous Improvement (a "C" rating) is so broad that it is nearly meaningless.
The graph below illustrates how many indicators were met by 79 school districts receiving a "C" on the 2008-09 state report card. Districts can meet up to 30 indicators, which are based on achievement test scores, graduation and attendance rates.
Number of performance indicators met by Ohio districts with a "C" rating, 2008-2009
Source: Ohio Department of Education
While nearly a fifth of "C" districts met barely any indicators (0-8), another four percent met nearly all of their performance indicators yet still received the same letter grade.
Confused? So are a lot of people. ??
Kettering City Schools met 29 out of 30 performance indicators while Marion City Schools met zero indicators, yet both received a "C" from the state. The reason for Kettering's low grade, as Emmy describes, is that they failed to make AYP with English language learners and special education students. Without this AYP provision in Ohio's rating system, Kettering would have ranked four categories higher, or Excellent with Distinction ("A+"). ??
Conversely, districts such as Columbus, Akron, and Cincinnati get a bump up in their ratings because they did make AYP, despite only meeting 6 indicators.??????
In a recent letter to the Dayton Daily News, Terry cautions that even though this portion of the rating system is confusing and potentially unfair, we shouldn't resort to throwing out the entire accountability system. Still,
"the fact that Kettering received a state rating identical to school districts with far inferior academic achievement across the board is a genuine problem. The rating confuses parents, students, teachers, business and community leaders, and it could put the district at risk of losing students and the trust of voters and supporters."
The backlash following the August release of the report card results (Kettering was not the only district to unfairly get a "C") has spurred lawmakers in the Ohio Senate to propose legislation that would safeguard such districts from falling to a "C," and would limit the ability of districts like Marion City Schools to rate so highly unless they meet a minimum of 10 indicators.
We can predict that some Democratic lawmakers representing large, urban districts may not support the bill because it will depress their constituents' ratings. But there is hope for bipartisan support for the measure. These blatant discrepancies in performance between "C" districts have reminded Ohioans just how important it is that our rating system accurately portrays academic achievement.
Correction (10/20/09): Thanks to the reader who pointed out that Columbus City Schools did not make AYP for the 2008-09 school year (neither did Akron or Cincinnati). Yet, these districts only met 6 out of 30 indicators and still received a "C" rating because of their pass rates. The comparison between these "C" districts and those such as Kettering and Lebananon, who met 29 out of 30 indicators, is still stark and the "C" category too broad. Regardless of AYP status, Ohio Senate Bill 167 would change the rating system such that districts meeting fewer than 10 indicators would not score as high as a "C;" if passed, the law will penalize districts like Columbus, Akron, and Cincinnati while safeguarding districts like Kettering and Lebanon from falling below Effective ("B" rating).