More By Author
November 04, 2010
November 12, 2010
January 05, 2011
September 03, 2009
September 09, 2009
For the last two weeks we've been doing various analyses of school performance in Ohio's Big 8 district schools and charter schools. Today we dive in a little deeper and look at what happened to low- and high- performing schools over time. Ohio's reporting system makes it possible to look at both a school's academic achievement and growth. The highest performing schools make above expected growth (more than a year's worth of gains) and achieve a performance index score above 100 (out of 120), the state's goal, while the lowest performing schools make below expected growth, and achieve a performance index score below 80.
Looking back two years and using 2008-09 as our baseline year, Chart 1 below looks at how high-performers from 2008-09 faired in the most recent release of achievement data.
CHART 1: 2010-11 Performance Index and Growth in Reading and Math for 2008-09's High-Performing, High-Growth Schools, Ohio 8 Charter Schools vs. Ohio 8 District Schools
As seen in the chart, a majority of those high-performers in 2008-09 only demonstrated expected growth in 2010-11, instead of above expected growth (remember that the highest performing schools are located in the upper right corner of the matrix). It should be noted though the decrease in the number of schools making above expected growth may be a result of the changes to the state's value-added system. As Terry explained, in 2010-11 Ohio made it more difficult for a school to achieve above expected growth, and we would expect to see fewer schools achieve the highest growth category. While high-performing schools might have taken a step backward in the growth category, a majority of them still received a PI score of 100 or above, indicating that they are still performing well.
On the contrary, Chart 2 looks at lowest-performing schools from 2008-09 (schools that made below expected growth, and achieved a performance index score below 80) to see how they performed in 2010-11.
CHART 2: 2010-11 Performance Index and Growth in Reading and Math for 2008-09's Low-Performing, Low-Growth Schools, Ohio 8 Charter Schools vs. Ohio 8 District SchoolsAs was the case with the high-performing schools the chart shows that a majority of schools fall into the middle boxes achieving expected growth. Again this increase in schools making expected growth could reflect the changes to the state's value added system as the new formula makes it more difficult for schools to achieve below expected and above expected growth.? Unfortunately, when we look at the PI scores for these schools a majority of them still fall below 80 suggesting that they are still performing poorly. We should however give special attention to one charter school and 11 district schools that had been labeled low-performers in 2008-09, but made above-expected growth in 2010-11. This is a substantial change that they should be proud of.
The charts above focus on the lowest and highest performing schools, but what about those schools that landed somewhere in the middle in 2008-09? How did they perform in 2010-11? The tables below show the percentage of charter and district schools in each category for 2008-09 and 2010-11, and the changes between the two years.
Table 1: Percent of Schools in Each Performance and Growth Category, Change from 2008-09 to 2010- 11, Ohio 8 Charter Schools
Table 2: Percent of Schools in Each Performance and Growth Category, Change from 2008-09 to 2010- 11, Ohio 8 District Schools
Table 1 shows that urban charter schools haven't demonstrated much change from 2008-09. A much higher percentage of schools achieved expected growth, but this is again most likely attributed to changes in the value added system. Table 2 shows a similar trend. Fewer traditional schools achieved above expected growth, and instead slipped to the expected growth category.? On the whole, the state's highest and lowest urban schools have not seen much change from 2008-09. Most of the highest-performing schools kept that honor in 2010-11, while the same can be said for the state's lowest- performing schools.
Analyses by Dana Brinson, Daniela Doyle, and Tom Koester
- Bianca Speranza