5 Problems
It’s tough to know where to start. Is anything working well?
Will changes help or just make things worse?
What's the problem with Ohio report cards?
​
5 Problem Areas affect our districts. Download the 1-page summary or read on.
​
These results have been presented at the Ohio Joint Education Oversight Committee.
​
* Analysis not endorsed by Fordham Inst., Rep. Brenner, or Ohio School Boards Assn.
5 Problems
JEOC testimony
Coverage
(Performance Index)
“All that is shown is that we get D's and F's 
and everyone else gets A's and B’s." (ESSA feedback)
In 57 districts,
over 25% of students
score at the lowest level.
Students are left out.
Better:
Allow
below-grade
testing.
Fidelity
(Indicators Met)
“The multiple ratings that signal similar things about student achievement
could be seen as unnecessarily severe…” (Fordham Inst.) *
198 districts missed
an indicator by a fraction
(less than 1 point).
Information is lost.
Better:
Give partial
credit by subject.
Transparency
(Value Added)
“You're now giving them an F for a
minor statistical blip.” (State Rep. Brenner) *
74 districts are sensitive
(letter grade change) to the value added calculation error
(index is extra growth / error).
Actual progress is not clear.
Better:
Report expected
and actual growth.
Stability
“How is "progress" determined?” (ESSA feedback)
(Value Added)
94 districts changed by 2 letter grades or more
(2015-16 to 16-17), with 17 from A to F / F to A.
The calculations are not stable.
Better:
Use a stable
calculation method.
Representation
(K-3 Literacy, Gap Closing)
Better:
In small groups, track individual goals.
52 districts were graded on progress of 9 or fewer kindergarteners.
63 districts had no data.
A group may be too small.
"We’re hearing from a lot of our districts that it’s
not a fair representation of the work going on.”
