Data

Best High Schools
Demographics
Discipline
Finances
Graduation Rates
National Comparisons
Performance on State Assessments
School Recognition & Letter Grades

Performance on State Assessments

The following link contains district and school level achievement based on the following state assessments:

ACT / AP
ACT Aspire
ATLAS (Arkansas Teaching, Learning & Assessment System)
Benchmark (Spring, Grades 3-8, Subtests in Mathematics, Literacy, and Science for grades 5 and 7 only)
Norm Referenced (Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), Stanford Assessment Test (SAT))
End-of-Course (Spring/Winter, Algebra, Biology, Geometry and Literacy (Grade 11 only))
PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, grades 3-12, Math and Literacy, replacing the Benchmark and End-of-Course Exams that were previously administered for these subject areas.)

All data is publicly available through the Arkansas Department of Education.

New Letter Grades Reward Growth!

, , ,

2025 A-F letter grades are out, and here at OEP we were super interested to see how our state schools performed and what we can do to help kids learn.

Overall, there as wide distribution, with 12% of schools getting As, and 13% getting F’s. It looks about the same for all Grade Spans too.

Compared to 2023, which was the last time school letter grades were release due to a pause for the first year of the new assessment system (ATLAS), In 2025, Arkansas schools were more likely to receive an “A” or “B” rating in 2025. The likelihood of a school receiving a “C” or “D” was lower in 2025, but there was an increase in the percentage of schools receiving an “F”.

But 2023 seems like forever ago, so let’s check out how schools moved since 2024, when letter grades were simulated but not made public based on the new assessment. It helps us understand how schools are moving between letter grades. Historically, schools stayed the same, but some moved up or down by one letter.

Wow! That’s a lot of schools getting different grades than in 2004! What’s going on?

Well, 2025 grades are based on the new A-F framework, which includes a new way of looking at the data, and leverages GROWTH.   The new system looks simply at:

  • The percent of students that scored “Proficient” or better on state assessments in ELA, Math, and Science (anyone else having NCLB flashbacks?)
  • The percent of students that Met or exceeded Growth\on state assessments in ELA, Math, and Science
  • The percent of students at the school that performed in the bottom quartile in achievement the prior year that Met or exceeded Growth\on state assessments in ELA, Math, and Science
  • For high schools, there is also a success readiness component

So, let’s check out how the main components are related to the (inevitably influential) percentage of students at a school that are economically disadvantaged.

Figure 1: 2025 School Achievement and Percent FRL

As usual, there is a strong negative correlation between the percentage of students who “Pass” grade-level achievement test, and the percentage of students at a school who qualify for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch. On the upper left hand side of Figure 4, we can see that schools who enroll fewer than 25% of students facing economic disadvantages are more likely to have students “Pass” the test, whereas school in the lower right hand side are less likely to have students “Pass” the test.  There are some schools that don’t fit the pattern perfectly, but while we all can wish it wasn’t so, it generally is.

Growth (our favorite!) is a different story: there is much less of a relationship between  the percentage of students at a school who meet typical growth, and the percentage of students who qualify for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch.

Figure 2: 2025 School Growth and Percent FRL

On the upper left hand side of Figure 2, we can see that schools who enroll fewer than 25% of students facing economic disadvantages are somewhat more likely to have students meeting or exceeding typical annual academic growth. However, while schools in the lower right hand side (>75% FRL) are somewhat less likely to have students meet growth, the relationship isn’t as strong as it is for achievement. This is because growth is not about the kids who walk in the classroom, but about the quality of instruction that happens once inside!

So what about this new measure- Growth Among the Lowest Quartile? 

The idea is that the kids in your schools that are farthest behind academically RELATIVE to the other kids definitely need to make AT LEAST typical growth.  In some schools, these kids may already be “passing” the test, but they still were the lowest performers in the school in ELA, math or science. Y’all know that here at OEP we support growth for ALL students, but we get the idea of this.

Figure 3 shows how growth is related to FRL for these students who were the  relatively lowest achievers in the school at the start of the year. Note that schools that only serve kids grade 3 or under didn’t have information about prior student achievement (because kiddos take the state test for the first time in 3rd grade) and so are not included in this measure. Again we see that growth is not very related to the percentage of students at a school who are economically disadvantaged.  Because (say it with me): growth is not about the kids who walk in the classroom, but about the quality of instruction that happens once inside!

Figure 3: 2025 School Lowest Quartile Growth and Percent FRL

Then we wondered, how does growth for this lowest quartile of achievers in a school relate to the growth for all kids? Check it out in Figure 4 – a strong correlation!  If teachers are growing kids learning, they are also growing the lowest achievers in the group! Which makes sense, because…. growth is not about the kids who walk in the classroom, but about the quality of instruction that happens once inside!

Figure 4: 2025 School Lowest Quartile Growth and Overall Growth

So, here’s the deal- you grow kids’ learning and you get a better grade! That is something we should all support

Some Growth-Getting Schools that stood out to us:

  Oden Schools Exalt Academy KIPP  Blytheville College Prep Haas Hall Bentonville Mountain Springs Elementary
% FRL 78% FRL 96% FRL 88% FRL 1% FRL 36% FRL
2023 Grade C D F A A
2025 Grade A B B A A
Growth Percentile 97th 86th 82nd 99th 99th
Lowest Quartile Growth Percentile 76th 96th 88th 99th 99th

You can check out all the schools (with lots of helpful info!) in this dataset. Note that schools are allowed to appeal their 2025 letter grade if 2023 letter grade was higher, so those are marked “Pending” until DESE makes a determination.

Speaking of growth- it’s almost OEP awards time!

We are sooooo excited to celebrate the schools that are helping kids grow!!

Want to dig deeply into your data and get some actionable insights? Reach out to us at oep@uark.edu. 

ATLAS Year 2: Proficiency Progress

,

by Denise Airola

It is Year 2 for Arkansas Teaching, Learning, and Assessment System (ATLAS) results for Grades 3 through High School. In an earlier blog we noted celebrations for overall increases at the state level and a few areas to watch.  We were curious to know how achievement looked at the school level since this is the first year to compare apples to apples in school achievement. Remember, under the new A – F school rating formula it is the percent of students meeting proficient or above and not the weighted achievement used prior to 2024.  

  • How did schools change in the percent of students proficient or above (proficiency rate)? 
  • Which schools saw the biggest increases or decreases? 

We focus on the change in a school’s proficiency rate from 2024 to 2025 because we know that some of a school’s proficiency rate can be related to economic advantage or disadvantage of its student population. Regardless of the students a school serves, our hope is that schools improve each year compared to themselves, especially now that we have a test aligned to the standards students are expected to meet.  

Our expectations for improvement differ a little based on where a school started last year. Think about it like improving your time for running the 400 meters. If you are running pretty fast already, your time can still improve, but it will probably be in small increments. If you are starting out at the slower end for the 400 meters, you may improve in bigger increments until you get to a competitive speed.  

What We Did

We directly compared each school to itself giving each school a change score. The change score is simply difference in proficiency rate from 2024 to 2025. We combined Algebra and Geometry under math and Biology under science. We calculated the percent of students proficient or above in 2024 and in 2025. We subtracted each school’s 2024 percent proficient or above from its 2025 percent proficient or above.  

This change score lets us look at the change in percent proficient for each school and how that change is distributed across all schools within a grade span and subject.  

  • A positive change score means the school increased the percent of students proficient or above.  
  • A negative change score means the school decreased the percent of students proficient or above. 

What We Learned 

Overall: Most Arkansas schools showed slight improvement, with math leading the way. Outliers—both positive and negative—highlight schools which may be worth taking a closer look. 

The real story is in the spread: some schools jumped, some slipped, some stayed flat.  See Figure 1.  

 The colored bars indicate positive average change in proficiency rates because they are above the zero line. Because the real story is in the spread of the change scores, we marked the spread with vertical black lines on the chart. The values on the lines show you how far the size of the schools’ change scores  (+ or -) are from the average. Back to our analogy. If we all ran the 400 meters, most of our times would fall within the darkest shaded area (± 1 standard deviation). Nationally competitive runners’ times might fall within the next lighter shaded area (± 2 standard deviations), with World and Olympic Champions’ times falling in the lightest area along the vertical spread (± 3 standard deviations). 

What does it mean for our schools? Think of the lines and the values as telling us about the number of schools that fall within certain distances from the average change score.  

  • Around two thirds of schools would be within the darker shaded area around the average (± 1).    
  • Another 15% would be in the next lighter shaded area above or below the average (± 2). 
  • Less than 1% of schools would be in the outer, lightest shaded area above or below average (± 3).   

We are highlighting the schools whose proficiency rate gains are in that top 16 percent of all schools. We spotlight schools with at least 100 students tested to ensure the change reflects a meaningful number of students (20 of 100 versus 4 of 20).  We also remove schools consisting of a single tested grade level since their change in proficiency may be due to a different group of kids each year.   

Top Improving Schools (2024–2025) 

We want to be clear that we aren’t making assumptions about why these improvements occurred (changes in strategies, leadership, alignment, absenteeism, discipline, etc.). The why is best informed by conversations at the local level and some good old-fashioned root cause analysis (e.g. Ishikawa fishbone analysis or the five-whys). It is important to understand how you improved so you can continue it in the future! 

ELA Elementary 

  • Elm Tree Elementary: 52% to 68% (+16) Grades K-4.  Bentonville School District 
  • Murrell Taylor Elementary: 21% to 37% (+16) Grades K-5.  Jacksonville North Pulaski School District 
  • Armorel Elementary: 35% to 50% (+15) Grades K-6.  Armorel School District 
  • R.E. Baker Elementary: 43% to 58% (+15) Grades K-4.  Bentonville School District 
  • Manila Elementary: 36% to 50% (+14) Grades P-6.  Manila School District 
  • The International School at Mary Mae Jones: 44% to 57% (+13) Grades K-4.  Bentonville School District 

ELA Middle 

  • East End Middle: 39% to 51% (+12) Grades 5-8.  Sheridan School District 
  • Rivercrest Junior High Preparatory Academy: 24% to 35% (+11) Grades 7-8.  Rivercrest School District 
  • Swifton Middle: 24% to 35% (+11) Grades 5-7.  Jackson County School District 
  • Greenwood Junior High: 43% to 53% (+10) Grades 7-8.  Greenwood School District 
  • Wynne Junior High: 24% to 33% (+9) Grades 6-8.  Wynne School District 

ELA High School

  • Lavaca High*: 25% to 45% (+20) Grades 9-12.  Lavaca School District 
  • Southside Charter High School: 30% to 48% (+18) Grades 10-12.  Southside School District (Independence) 
  • Benton High School: 41% to 58% (+17) Grades 10-12.  Benton School District
  • Valley View High School: 35% to 49% (+14) Grades 10-12.  Valley View School District 

Schools marked with an asterisk were among the top 1% for school gains in proficiency in their grade span statewide. 

Math Elementary 

  • Eastside Elementary: 42% to 64% (+22) Grades K-4.  Cabot School District 
  • Alpena Elementary: 37% to 58% (+21) Grades K-6.  Alpena School District 
  • Jessieville Elementary: 52% to 73% (+21) Grades P-5.  Jessieville School District 
  • Mountain View Elementary: 38% to 59% (+21) Grades K-4.  Benton School District 
  • The International School at Mary Mae Jones: 41% to 61% (+20) Grades K-4.  Bentonville School District 
  • Acorn Elementary: 35% to 55% (+20) Grades K-4.  Ouachita River School District 
  • Northside Elementary: 27% to 46% (+19) Grades P-4.  Cabot School District 
  • Mountain Springs Elementary: 47% to 66% (+19) Grades P-4.  Cabot School District 
  • West Fork Elementary: 26% to 45% (+19) Grades K-4.  West Fork School District 
  • Malvern Elementary: 10% to 27% (+17) Grades K-4.  Malvern School District 
  • Melbourne Elementary: 52% to 68% (+16) Grades K-6.  Melbourne School District 
  • Joe Mathias Elementary: 39% to 55% (+16) Grades P-5.  Rogers School District 
  • Centerton Gamble Elementary: 45% to 61% (+16) Grades K-4.  Bentonville School District 
  • Barling Elementary: 33% to 49% (+16) Grades P-5.  Fort Smith School District 

Math Middle 

  • Bald Knob Middle *: 28% to 48% (+20) Grades 6-8.  Bald Knob School District 
  • Rivercrest Junior High Preparatory Academy: 31% to 49% (+18) Grades 7-8.  Rivercrest School District 
  • Cabot Junior High South: 38% to 56% (+18) Grades 7-8.  Cabot School District 
  • Swifton Middle: 37% to 54% (+17) Grades 5-7.  Jackson County School District 
  • East Hills Middle: 41% to 54% (+13) Grades 5-6.  Greenwood School District 

Math High School 

  • Glen Rose High*: 10% to 35% (+25) Grades 7-12.  Glen Rose School District 
  • Benton High*: 19% to 44% (+25) Grades 10-12.  Benton School District 
  • Bradford High: 7% to 26% (+19) Grades 7-12.  Bradford School District 
  • Quitman High: 21% to 40% (+19) Grades 9-12.  Quitman School District 
  • Yellville-Summit High: 11% to 29% (+18) Grades 9-12.  Yellville-Summit School District 
  • Centerpoint High: 16% to 34% (+18) Grades 6-12.  Centerpoint School District 
  • Lisa Academy Arkansas Hybrid: 16% to 33% (+17) Grades K-12.  Lisa Academy Charter School District 
  • Drew Central High: 15% to 32% (+17) Grades 9-12.  Drew Central School District 
  • Graduate Arkansas Charter High: 1% to 18% (+17) Grades 9-12.  Graduate Arkansas Charter School District 

Schools marked with an asterisk were among the top 1% for school gains in proficiency in their grade span statewide. 

Science Elementary 

  • Oak Grove Elementary: 27% to 47% (+20) Grades 2-4.  Paragould School District 
  • Caldwell Elementary: 42% to 62% (+20) Grades K-4.  Benton School District 
  • Oscar Hamilton Elementary: 38% to 57% (+19) K-6.  Foreman School District 
  • Northside Elementary: 25% to 43% (+18) Grades P-4.  Cabot School District 
  • Westwood Elementary: 52% to 68% (+16) Grades P-4.   Greenwood School District 
  • Murrell Taylor Elementary: 17% to 33% (+16) Grades K-5.  Jacksonville North Pulaski School District 
  • West Side Elementary: 35% to 51% (+16) Grades P-6.  West Side School District (Cleburne) 

Science Middle 

  • Rivercrest Junior High Preparatory Academy: 19% to 34% (+15) Grades 7-8.  Rivercrest School District 
  • Pea Ridge Middle: 37% to 51% (+14) Grades 5-6.  Pea Ridge School District 
  • Corning Middle: 37% to 50% (+13) Grades 5-8.  Corning School District 
  • Danville Lower Middle: 45% to 56% (+11) Grades 5-6.  Danville School District 

Science High School 

  • Dardanelle High: 35% to 56% (+21) Grades 9-12.  Dardanelle School District 
  • Spring Hill High: 35% to 56% (+21) Grades 7-12.  Spring Hill School District 
  • Greene County Tech Junior High: 31% to 51% (+20) Grades 8-9.  Greene County Tech School District 
  • Heber Springs High: 45% to 64% (+19) Grades 9-12.  Heber Springs School District 
  • Benton High: 46% to 65% (+19) Grades 10-12.  Benton School District 

Schools marked with an asterisk were among the top 1% for school gains in proficiency in their grade span statewide. 

Most Declining Schools (2024–2025) 

We reiterate that we aren’t making assumptions about why school declines occurred (changes in strategies, leadership, alignment, changes to grade configuration, absenteeism, discipline, etc.). That is best informed by conversations at the local level and some good old-fashioned root cause analysis (e.g. Ishikawa fishbone or the five-whys).  

Rather than list these schools we provide you with the change scores that were in the lowest 16 percent of all schools. We know that if you are in this section, it is important to engage in root cause analysis and many of you may already be doing just that. 

The range of percentage point declines are provided below.  

ELA 

  • Elementary: -12 to -13  
  • Middle: The middle schools with the largest losses in ELA were either a single grade level school (different students in 2024 and 2025) or they were schools that changed configuration or students served.  
  • High: -11 to -16  

Math  

  • Elementary: -14 to -22 
  • Middle: -9 to -15  
  • High: -10 

Science

  • Elementary: -10 to -15 
  • Middle: -7 to -11  
  • High: -16 to -25 

Looking Ahead: Why Growth Scores Matter 

Changes in school proficiency rates have some limitations. We aren’t comparing the same group of students because the students tested each year aren’t the same. A new group of 3rd graders enters, and the oldest grade exits. That can make percent proficient go up or down simply because of who’s being tested. That is why we excluded schools that only serve one tested grade level such as K-3s and freshman academies. 

We also know that schools with higher proficiency rates don’t tend to increase or decrease to the extent that they end up in the top or bottom 16% of change—back to that 400-meter analogy—their improvements and declines tend to be smaller increments.

Proficiency rates in one year strongly predict scores the next year. That is why we highlight the bigger changes. Critically, that’s why we look forward to Arkansas’s value-added growth school scores. Value-added school growth scores help us see how much each student learned during the year compared to what we expected. Because their expectation is based on how the student has achieved in prior years, it controls for things like the economic advantage or disadvantage of a student or the student population as a whole. Growth scores take into account whether the student is a seasoned competitive 400-meter runner or a new track athlete trying to catch up to compete. It gives us a more nuanced and fair view of change within the student. Over time, high student growth leads to increased proficiency but it can take more time than one year.  

Have questions? Want support understanding or explaining your data? Reach out to us at oep@uark.edu 

Stay Tuned! OEP awards will be out soon and still calculated the same way to showcase schools with the greatest growth in student learning last year.   

 

 

 

 

 

Contact Us

Phone: 479.575.3773

Fax: 479.575.3196

201 Graduate Education Building

Send us a message

The Office for Education Policy

Arkansas-focused education research for Arkansas’ education stakeholders. Let us answer your questions.

College of Education and Health Professions
University of Arkansas