A- F Grading System Concerns and Recommendations A- F Component Overall GPA Unintended consequences The overall GPA is derived The

conversions at through multiple multiple levels mask a conversions and averaging of schools performance averages that limit the value, and ability to show meaning, and usefulness of improvement. By the grade. Most of these converting all of the conversions are arbitrary components and and dont consider the measures to a grade, relative performance of the the grading system measure. In addition the actually improves the weights assigned to each of achievement of schools the components do not align on the lower end of a with the possible values of scale and limits the the conversion scale. The achievement of schools weights of the grading on the higher end of a system for each of the scale. (e.g. A school components are .33-.17-.17achieving an 80% on .33, .33-.34-.33, or .50-.50 the performance index depending on schools having receives a B (3 points) enough scores to calculate a just the same as a component. These weights school that achieved an with any combination of 89%.) When these grades will never compute to conversions are a 3.75, 2.75, 1.75, or .75 as incorporated over identified as the bottom limit multiple levels as in of the conversion scale. (e.g. Oklahomas A-F possible results of averages grading system the for an A with all usefulness and true components goes from a 3.67 performance of a to a 3.83 based on the given school is lost. weights. A 3.75 is not possible to compute.) Concerns Recommendations Develop a common scale or points for each of the components and convert to a grade based on the total points obtained on all of the components. Note: Floridas A-F grading system awards schools an A if they have met 67% of the total points.

A- F Component Student Achievement

Concerns The student achievement performance index awards points for each of the performance levels in unequal intervals. This limits the meaning of the results and promotes unintended practices.

Unintended consequences Instead of promoting achievement for all students, schools will focus on those students that impact the performance index the most.

Recommendations Award points in equal increments for the performance index and convert to a common scale by subject and grade not by grouping them all together. This will also allow for comparisons when changes to the subjects tested are different across years as is the case for 2013. (Grade 5 and 8 History and Grade 7 Geography results will not be included in 2013) Develop Pre- and Post- tests to measure growth or identify a growth model that does not require vertically aligned content and scales. Weight the growth in terms of overall growth and bottom 25% growth to more accurately reflect the representation of scores that each reflects. (e.g. 80% for overall growth and 20% for bottom 25%) The bottom 25% should be inclusive of all bottom 25% scores not just those scores that are limited knowledge or unsatisfactory.

Growth

The measure of growth is As long as a school has completely invalid. The high achievement they current tests are not are not expected to developed or designed to show growth. measure growth. Content and reporting scales are not The growth model is so vertically aligned which is flawed and inaccurate necessary to validly measure it misleads the schools growth. In addition, the and public about the points awarded do not even true learning that may vaguely represent growth. or may not be (e.g. The OPI scores are used occurring in schools. inappropriately and a student whose performance falls from Advanced to Proficient is awarded a point for growth.) Further, to determine growth the model only includes two years (to validly measure growth three or more years should be considered) and does not take into account measurement errors inherent in the one time snap shot of a students performance.

A- F Component Whole School Performance

Concerns Whole school performance just as the overall GPA is derived through multiple conversions and averaging of averages that limit the value, meaning, and usefulness of the grade. Most of these conversions are arbitrary and dont consider the relative performance of the measure. (e.g. For some measures, the state average performance will convert to an A and for others, state average performance converts to a D or F.) In addition the weights assigned to the majority of the indicators have no effect on the grade based on the overall conversion scale. For elementary and middle schools the attendance indicator is what determines the grade and for high schools it is the 4 year graduation rate all of the other indicators have no effect. In addition, the definitions for a majority of the indicators have not been clearly defined and therefore the calculations have been inconsistently and arbitrarily applied. (e.g. Some schools were allowed to include honors courses as an advanced course for the advanced course performance and participation and other schools were not allowed to include those courses .)

Unintended consequences The conversions at multiple levels mask a schools performance and ability to show improvement. By converting all of the components and measures to a grade, the grading system actually improves the achievement of schools on the lower end of a scale and limits the achievement of schools on the higher end of a scale. The weights on the majority of indicators are so small they do not contribute to the grade. The model instead of being transparent is misleading the public who are informed that a schools grade is effected by the defined indicators, however, the indicators to not have a significant contribution to the grade or component and might as well not be included.

Recommendations Develop a common scale or points for each of the components and convert to a grade based on the total points obtained on all of the components. Define weights for all indicators that will have an impact on the grade and therefore be meaningful.