HB352: Growth Model for AYP

SUMMARY:  This bill would amend Article 6 of Chapter 2 of the O.C.G. A. to include a growth model as a primary factor in calculating AYP.  It would also require individual school A,B,C.D and F ratings annually, based on designated tests; bonuses for schools (if appropriated); consequences; transmission of data to SDOE on penalty of audit exceptions; elimination of the CRCT in grades 1 and 2;  and replacement of the GHSGT with EOCT’s beginning in ‘10-’12.

REQUIREMENTS:

• The proposed new growth model for AYP would begin in 2010-2011:
  • It would have to include gains in individual student assessment scores.
  • The SBOE would have to determine the % of students who meet the “year of learning” and “acceptable growth thresholds” that would be defined by the Office of Student Achievement.
  • The SBOE would be required to request an amendment to its plan with the USDOE to implement this newly required model by October 1 of 2010.
• Schools housing grades 4-12 would be graded using A,B,C,D or F [like Florida], based on criteria established by GOSA and would have to be released by January 1, 2011 for the ’09-’10 school year; after that the reports would be issued August 1 for the previous school years.
• A “year of learning” for individual students (4-8) would be defined by the GOSA.
• Schools’ ratings on a “year of learning” would be calculated so that:
  • For ’09-’10 no more than 20% of schools could receive an “A”, and no more than 20% could receive a “B”.
  • After that year, the definition could be changed, but only if no more than 60% of schools were to receive an “A” or a “B.”  If that 60% were surpassed, by law the proportions would have to return to no more than 20% for an “A” and 20% for a “B”.
• The calculations for school grades in 4-8 are by each subject area and are mandated as:
  • Step 1:
    • Take the # students meeting the threshold and add them to the # students exceeding standards / total # test takers who were FAY;
    • Sum the results of each subject area / number of subject areas.
    • Students exceeding the threshold could only be counted once.
  • Step 2:
    • Take the # of students who scored in the bottom 25% from last year and determine the # of students from that bottom group who met the “year of learning” threshold.  Add that result to the # of students meeting and exceeding;

• • Step 3:
    • Add the results of Step 1 and Step 2 / 2 = Score for the school.
• Grades would then be calculated as follows:
  • 90% or above = A
  • 83% or above = B
  • 76% or above = C
  • 70% or above = D
  • Below 70% = F
• “Acceptable Growth” would be calculated for individual students in grades 9-12 by the GOSA, but must be based on EOCT’s as compared to 8^th grade CRCT’s.
• Schools ratings for “acceptable growth” would be as follows:
  • For ’09-’10 no more than 20% of schools could receive an “A”, and no more than 20% could receive a “B”.
  • After that year, the definition could be changed, but only if no more than 60% of schools could receive an “A” or a “B.”  If that 60% were surpassed, by law the proportions would have to return to no more than 20% for an “A” and 20% for a “B”.
• The calculation of  “Acceptable Growth” for schools would be as follows:
  • Step 1:
    • Take the # of students who met “Acceptable Growth” and add the # of students who exceeded the standard on each subject’s EOCT.
    • Divide the sum by the # of students who took the EOCT in that subject and met FAY and also met FAY in their 8^th grade year.
    • Students who exceeded could only be counted once.
  • Step 2:
    • Take the # of students who scored in the bottom 25^th percent on their 8^th grade CRCT for each subject area of the EOCT’s and determine the # of those students who met the threshold on the EOCT.
    • Add that number to those who met and  exceeded standards on the EOCT
    • Divided by the # students who took the EOCT in that subject area who met FAY this year and met FAY in 8^th grade
    • Students who exceeded could only be counted once.
    • Add the results for each subject and divide by the number of subjects calculated.
  • Step 3:
    • Determine the high school graduation rate based on SBOE criteria.
    • Take the sum from steps 1, 2, and 3 / 3 = Score for the School

• Grades would then be calculated as follows:
  • 90% or above = A
  • 83% or above = B
  • 76% or above = C
  • 70% or above = D
  • Below 70% = F
• If funds are available, “A” schools would receive $50 per FTE to be spent as the school council determines to benefit the school:
  • Bonuses for personnel,
  • Computers,
  • Equipment,
  • Materials, and
  • Classroom supplies
• “F” schools for one year would not be eligible for any waivers of state law previously received.
• “F” schools for two years would have a 3-member oversight board appointed by the Governor who may recommend to the SBOE intervention or sanctions up to and including complete restructuring the school’s governance arrangement and internal organization.
• The SDOE would have to provide all necessary data to the GOSA for the calculations by certain dates, or they could receive an audit exception for failure to do so.
• CRCT tests in grades 1-2 would be eliminated, and by the 2013-2014 school year, EOCT’s would replace the GHSGT for graduation requirements.
• Early intervention would be eliminated for grades 1-2 and would be available only for grades 3-5.
• State promotion requirements for grades 1-2 would no longer apply.

NOTES:

• The definitions of “year of learning” and "adequate growth" set up schools across the state so that 60% of them would, by definition, receive grades of C,D, or F, even if they had improved their test scores dramatically but could not compete with systems of higher economic status or higher resources.  [See Grading Education  by Richard Rothstein]  In addition, after that time, no more than 60% would ever get an “A” or a “B”.  What would that do to incentives to improve schools consistently rated in the lowest 40%?
• EOCT’s do not exist for each subject taught in high school, and the cost for developing them would be astronomical.
• EOCT scores could not be compared to 8^th grade CRCT scores in a valid and reliable way.
• Could 2-year “F” schools be removed from the authority of a local board of education?
• All of this proposal is based on Florida’s model which is discredited in its entirety by Richard Rothstein in Grading Education: Getting Accountability Right.