Behind the grade
So, your child’s school got an 82 on the College and Career-Ready Performance Index and the district got a 77. What went into those grades? What do they mean?
Well, it means your school and district are performing reasonably well in the areas the state Department of Education looks to in calculating the grades: achievement, academic progress and closing the achievement gap between different groups of students. Each school and district can earn up to 100 points through those areas and an additional 10 points by enrolling students in high-level academic courses and through strong academic performance from poor students, special education students and those still learning English. Academic achievement – how students fared on end-of-course and standardized tests – accounts for up to 60 points. Progress – moving students from one level of performance to a higher level – accounts for up to 25 points. Closing the gap in academic performance between groups of students accounts for up to 15 points. And then there are those additional 10 points schools and districts can earn.
Nobody gets fired if a school’s grade is low, and there aren’t automatic raises if the grade is high. However, officials at the state Department of Education have said they will make assistance available to schools that are struggling in a particular area.
Changes in how the grades were calculated
After grades were released last year, several superintendents complained that not enough credit was being given for academic progress and too much emphasis was being given to tests scores. State Department of Education officials decided to allow schools and districts to get a maximum of 25 points in that area, up from the previous maximum of 15. The maximum number of points for academic achievement was reduced to 60 points from 70 points. Other changes included giving more weight to a school’s four-year graduation rate than its five-year grad rate. Before, the two were given equal weight. Now, the four-year rate accounts for two-thirds of the points schools and districts can earn in that area. There were also technical changes in how achievement gaps are defined, and third-grade standardized test scores are now used instead of other data schools submitted to describe a student’s readiness for the next grade.
Changes in how the grades were calculated
After grades were released last year, several superintendents complained that not enough credit was being given for academic progress and too much emphasis was being given to tests scores. State Department of Education officials decided to allow schools and districts to get a maximum of 25 points in that area, up from the previous maximum of 15. The maximum number of points for academic achievement was reduced to 60 points from 70 points. Other changes included giving more weight to a school’s four-year graduation rate than its five-year grad rate. Before, the two were given equal weight. Now, the four-year rate accounts for two-thirds of the points schools and districts can earn in that area. There were also technical changes in how achievement gaps are defined, and third-grade standardized test scores are now used instead of other data schools submitted to describe a student’s readiness for the next grade.
Changes in how the grades were calculated
After grades were released last year, several superintendents complained that not enough credit was being given for academic progress and too much emphasis was being given to tests scores. State Department of Education officials decided to allow schools and districts to get a maximum of 25 points in that area, up from the previous maximum of 15. The maximum number of points for academic achievement was reduced to 60 points from 70 points. Other changes included giving more weight to a school’s four-year graduation rate than its five-year grad rate. Before, the two were given equal weight. Now, the four-year rate accounts for two-thirds of the points schools and districts can earn in that area. There were also technical changes in how achievement gaps are defined, and third-grade standardized test scores are now used instead of other data schools submitted to describe a student’s readiness for the next grade.
Georgia's elementary and middle schools performed better in 2012-2013 than they did the year before, according to long-delayed data released this morning by the state Department of Education.
High school performance was down slightly.
Schools and districts are receiving grades today through the state's College and Career-Ready Performance Index, which uses factors like student test scores, academic progress and closing the gap in performance between groups of students to spit out a numerical grade of zero to 110.
Among districts in the heart of metro Atlanta, Atlanta Public Schools got higher grades on the elementary, middle and high school level. Cobb was up on the elementary and middle school level and down on the high school level. DeKalb was down on all three levels. Fulton was up on all three levels. Gwinnett was down on the elementary level and high school level, but its middle school grade was up.
State officials expect the grades to become a key indicator of how schools and districts are performing. Some, however, have questioned whether any single grade could adequately capture the performance of schools and districts. Others complain that the grades rely too heavily on standardized test scores and don’t give enough credit for improving student performance.
Grades from the 2012-2013 school year were supposed to be released in November, but department officials pushed that date back as they changed the way the grades are calculated. Now, more emphasis is given to academic progress.
Parents can see how their school fared using the interactive database at MyAJC.com.
The index is supposed to be a straightforward, simple way for parents to know if a school or school district is doing a good job.
The first batch of grades, covering the 2011-2012 school year, were released in May.
But before grades covering the 2012-2013 school year were released in November, the state Department of Education made several changes in how the grade is compiled. And instead of releasing 2012-2013 grades that couldn't be compared to those of the previous school year, it recalculated the 2011-2012 grades using the updated formula.
Changes in how the grades are calculated produced lower 2011-2012 grades. And the changes raise the question of whether the index can be what its creators touted it as: an enduring, reliable way of knowing from one year to the next how schools and districts are faring. Indeed, some wonder if any single grade can adequately describe the performance of a school or district.
“It is vital to be patient with DOE as they work toward making the CCRPI an effective tool in telling the story of school performance,” said Tracey-Ann Nelson, government relations director for the Georgia Association of Educators. “But as with so much in education, it is hard to use numbers as the only way to tell the story as different districts have different missions and student bodies. Fairness is hard to achieve numerically, and I think parents will use the CCRPI as well as other information in understanding their schools and school districts performance.”
After the first set of grades were released in May, many superintendents complained that the grading relied too heavily on end-of-course tests and the Criterion-Referenced Competency Test. That gave an unfair edge to affluent schools and districts whose students tend to perform well on such tests, they said.
Superintendents argued that not enough credit was being given for progress in moving students to a higher level of academic performance.
The new formula gives more weight to academic progress and to a school or district’s four-year graduation rate.
Hall County Superintendent Will Schofield was among those who urged the state to give more weight to academic progress. He praised the state for moving in that direction.
“However, we continue to express significant concerns regarding actual CCRPI calculations,” he said, adding that there is still too much reliance on the CRCT and not enough on academic progress.
“We implore the state to limit further changes as our teachers and communities struggle to embrace and understand the new metric,” he said.
“CCRPI is a work in progress,” Schofield said. “It will improve over time.”
But will changes make year-to-year comparisons invalid? Georgia Superintendent John Barge said that won’t be the case.
“It is my expectation that in the future there would only be minimal changes to the CCRPI to keep it current so parents and the community can use it as a measure of progress from year to year,” he said.
Barge is running for governor and will not serve as superintendent next year. His chief academic officer and acting chief of staff, Mike Buck, is a candidate to succeed him.
“If elected superintendent, I would not propose major changes because I believe it currently serves as a roadmap for school improvement,” Buck said. “However, if there is overwhelming evidence that an indicator is ineffective then certainly it should be changed. But, as long as the indicators prove to be effective student achievement measures then I would not propose any major changes.”
About the Author
