Arkansas has a new formula for grading schools. It was shared privately with districts last week—but due to a new state law, the public won’t see new grades until next year unless a school or district decides to share their own grades publicly like our friends at LISA Academy did recently.
These grades help tell us how well schools are supporting student learning. They are intended to guide families, shape decisions, and spotlight both challenges and successes.
Let’s take a closer look: What’s in this new formula? What’s good about it? And what should we keep an eye on?
What’s Being Measured?
1. Achievement: As with the prior formula, this is student performance on state assessments. This new formula measures the percentage of students who reach or exceed grade-level expectations on state tests in English Language Arts, Mathematics, and Science.
Why it matters:
It sends a clear message: students should be expected to reach grade-level expectations. According to the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), fewer than 1 in 3 Arkansas students are proficient in reading or math. We are glad to see science given more visibility than under the prior formula.
What to watch:
The new formula gives credit for students who meet or exceed that mark—and only those students. Unfortunately, achievement is more likely for some kids than for others, and schools serving less advantaged populations will have a more difficult time meeting this goal.
In the previous formula, schools received 1/2 points for students that were almost meeting grade level, and extra points for those that were well above grade level. We liked this because ALL students counted. And it aligned with ATLAS performance levels where Level 2 was considered at grade level—just not demonstrated proficiency.
In older systems (NCLB), schools were held to this yes/no proficiency standard and sometimes focused effort on students who were almost meeting the goal—the so-called “bubble kids”—to try to get them over the proficiency line instead of helping every student move forward.
We need to make sure we don’t repeat the mistake of ignoring the learning of students who are well below, or well above, grade level.
2. Growth: Growth measures how much progress students make in a year, based on where they started. Growth adds fairness because it doesn’t matter how the student achieved in the past—it matters what they learn in their current classroom. Under the new formula, growth in English Language Arts, Mathematics, and Science count equally.
Why it matters:
Here at OEP, we think Growth is the most important indicator of a successful school.
Fortunately, meeting growth is just as likely for all kids so schools serving less advantaged and more advantaged populations are just as likely to meet this goal. This communicates how well schools are educating the kids that walk through the door.
Every student can grow based on where they started the year, and this gives schools credit for moving kids forward, even if they aren’t quite at grade level yet and even for students who are already high achievers.
What to watch:
We don’t want to put limits on how much kids can grow, so students’ “targets” are based on how much other students throughout the state with similar prior test performance ACTUALLY grew. That means schools don’t get a specific “target point” for kids in advance. This ensures schools don’t focus on certain kids that are close to the line and encourages schools to focus on supporting the learning of all students, no matter where they begin the year. Because growth is now measured as met yes/no, however, it is harder to differentiate between schools where lots of kids are growing just enough, and lots of kids are growing like crazy!! We think the actual amount of growth in a school results in big differences for kids and we will continue to give OEP Growth awards and OEP Beating the Odds awards to schools demonstrating the highest levels of student growth.
3. Growth for Students Who Are Struggling the Most: A new indicator in the formula is what percentage of students at their school in the bottom 25% of prior year achievement met growth. This means schools are expected to help their most behind students grow, not just the ones already doing well.
Why it matters:
If students who are already behind aren’t meeting growth, they fall farther behind their peers. This indicator makes it clear that schools are expected to help their most academically struggling students grow, not just the ones already doing well.
What to watch:
Because the likelihood of meeting growth isn’t related to prior achievement, this measure is an indicator of how well schools are making a difference for those furthest behind. This is another guardrail to protect against focusing on just “bubble kids”. When we identify schools that are seeing great growth with their lowest-performing students, we can dig in to see what’s working so well and see if others, who aren’t evidencing similar success can learn from them.
4. High School Success: For high schools, the formula adds graduation rates and whether students are prepared for life after school. That could mean being ready for college, employment, and/or military service.
Why it matters:
Graduating is important—but being ready for what’s next is a better measure of high schools providing students the learning experiences they need to be successful afterwards graduation.
What to watch:
Not every school has equal access to advanced courses or career programs, so we’ll need to make sure those opportunities grow over time. The passage of ACCESS aligns scholarship opportunities for students completing Success Ready Pathways incentivizing more students and families to push for opportunities in their schools.
What we like about the new formula:
- It’s simpler. Parents and communities may more easily understand what’s being measured.
- It values growth. Like the old formula, this model gives schools credit for student learning that may not show up in an achievement score alone. And, it increases the value of growth within the formula because growth counts twice as much as achievement (all students and lowest quarter) for elementary and middle schools and more than any other indicator at high schools. This signals to schools that every student’s growth counts and that students who come through your door already high achieving also need to grow and continue to accelerate.
- It’s a step toward fairness. By looking at how all students grow, especially those furthest behind—it aims to reflect the real work schools are doing under very different circumstances—and to elevate the value-added by those efforts. The new formula does a better job of this than the prior formula.
- It sets up simpler reporting. This may lead to better communication with parents and communities. For example, reporting separate grades for each indicator, especially achievement and growth, can signal to families and communities what schools are doing well.
What limitations we see:
- Simple comes with some trade-offs. It is still an index that results in an overall letter grade. High achievement can compensate for low growth and high graduation rates can compensate for low achievement, low growth, or low postsecondary readiness. We’ll need to watch and see. Does the new formula elevate the schools doing the right things for their students and differentiate them enough? Does it provide a fair opportunity for schools with greater challenges to achieve the highest rating?
- Growth is “Yes or No”. Where schools used to be able to demonstrate Outstanding Growth, the new model just measures whether kids met a target or not, which will make it harder to tell which schools are growing students’ learning the most.
- Achievement is “Yes or No”. Where schools used to get some recognition for students who were just below or well above grade level performance, the new model just measures whether kids met or not, which may disincentivize schools from focusing efforts on those who are well behind or well ahead of performance expectations.
- It’s new. Even with strong modeling behind it, we won’t really know how well it works until we see it in action over time. Does it have the intended impact of improving outcomes for Arkansas students? Is it measuring well the things that are important? Does it provide parents with the information they need to understand how well their school is doing?
Final Thoughts
The new formula isn’t perfect— but it’s clearer and fairer than the prior rating, and it recognizes that learning is about more than just an achievement score. The hope is that it encourages schools to focus on real learning growth for every student—whether they’re ahead, behind, or somewhere in the middle.
As we wait to see the results next year, we’ll need to stay engaged and watch closely. How we measure schools’ contributions to learning matters—and it should always result in what’s best for kids.