How are school ratings determined across different states?

How are school ratings determined across different states, especially given the significant variations in accountability systems, standardized testing requirements, and state-specific educational policies? With states using different metrics like graduation rates, college readiness scores, student growth percentiles, equity gaps, or even alternative evaluations like project-based assessments, how can families and policymakers effectively compare school quality when definitions of “success” differ so drastically? Furthermore, how do states balance quantitative data with qualitative factors like teacher experience, special education support, or community involvement in their rating frameworks, and what role does federal education law (like ESSA) play in standardizing or diversifying these approaches?

School ratings across the United States are primarily determined by each individual state’s Department of Education or equivalent governing body, utilizing frameworks mandated by state law and influenced by federal requirements under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). There is no single national rating system. The determination process involves collecting and analyzing multiple data points to evaluate school performance and assign accountability ratings. Key components typically include:

1. Academic Achievement & Proficiency:

   • Standardized Test Scores: Performance of students on state-mandated assessments in core subjects (English Language Arts/Literacy, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies) is a primary factor.
   • Proficiency Levels: The percentage of students scoring at or above the "proficient" benchmark on state tests.
   • Comparative Metrics: How a school’s proficiency rates compare to state averages or targets.

2. Student Academic Growth:

   • Value-Added Models (VAM) or Growth Measures: Evaluating the progress individual students make from one year to the next, accounting for prior achievement and other factors (though VAM has faced criticism). This shows how effectively schools are improving student outcomes, regardless of starting points.
   • Gap Closure: Tracking progress in reducing achievement gaps between student groups (e.g., low-income vs. non-low-income, minority vs. majority, students with disabilities vs. non-disabled).

3. Graduation Rate:

   • The percentage of students who graduate within four or five years (e.g., Cohort Graduation Rates).
   • Subgroup graduation rates (low-income, minority, students with disabilities, English Learners) are increasingly emphasized under ESSA.

4. English Language Learner (ELL) Progress:

   • Measuring the academic progress of ELLs in achieving English language proficiency and meeting academic standards.

5. College and Career Readiness:

   • Rate: The percentage of students graduating prepared for postsecondary success, measured by indicators like:
     • Completion of rigorous coursework (e.g., Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, dual enrollment).
     • Attainment of industry-recognized credentials or certificates.
     • Scores on college entrance exams (SAT, ACT).
     • Enrollment in postsecondary education or training programs.
6. School Quality & Student Success Indicators (ESSA Non-Academic Measures):
   • States must include at least one other "nationally recognized" measure of school quality or student success beyond test scores and graduation rates. Examples include:
     • Chronic Absenteeism: Percentage of students missing 10% or more of the school year.
     • School Climate/Safety: Surveys on student/parent perceptions of safety, engagement, and relationships; disciplinary incident rates.
     • Arts Access: Availability of arts education.
     • Postsecondary Enrollment/ Persistence: Rates of high school graduates enrolling in college and persisting beyond the first year.
     • Early Literacy: Progress in early reading proficiency.

The Rating Process:

1. Data Collection: State departments systematically gather data from districts and schools across all the above indicators, often annually.
2. Weighting: States assign specific weights or point values to each indicator based on their priorities (e.g., growth might weigh more heavily than absolute proficiency in some states).
3. Calculation: Schools receive scores or performance levels for each indicator. These are then combined, often using a complex formula, to generate an overall performance score or index.
4. Rating Assignment: The overall score/index is mapped to a predefined rating system, which varies significantly by state. Common rating labels include:
   • A-F Grades (Most common, e.g., Texas, Florida, Indiana)
   • Star Ratings (e.g., 1-5 stars, Tennessee, Colorado)
   • Descriptive Labels (e.g., "Distinguished," "Proficient," "Needs Improvement"; "Exemplary," "Commended," "Focus," "Priority"; California’s Smarter Balanced Results and Local Indicators Reporting)
   • Index Scores (e.g., school performance scores used for ranking, Louisiana)
5. Subgroup Accountability: States must also evaluate performance for specific student subgroups (low-income, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, White, Multiracial, Students with Disabilities, English Learners). Schools can be identified for support (like Comprehensive Support and Improvement – CSI, or Additional Targeted Support and Improvement – ATSI under ESSA) if one or more subgroups perform significantly below the overall school level or state standards.

Key Variations Across States:

• Specific Indicators Used: Not all states include identical measures (e.g., chronic absenteeency is universal under ESSA but how it’s weighted differs; some states prioritize college readiness metrics more heavily).
• Weighting: The importance given to proficiency vs. growth, graduation rates, etc., varies greatly.
• Rating Scales: A-F stars, descriptive labels, or raw scores.
• Growth Model Complexity: The sophistication of growth measures differs.
• Data Sources: Reliance on state tests vs. multiple measures like course completion, career readiness certifications, or college enrollment data beyond one year.
• State-Designed Accountability Systems: ESSA allows each state significant flexibility in designing its own accountability system within broad federal parameters.
• Local Factors: Some states incorporate measures of local context or allow districts to add their own indicators.

Examples of Implementation (Illustrative – Always Check State-Specific Plans):

• California: Uses the California School Dashboard, showing performance levels and progress on multiple state and local indicators (Smarter Balanced Assessments, graduation rates, college/career readiness, chronic absenteeism, English learner progress, suspension rates, local climate/culture survey data) rather than a single summative rating.
• Texas: Assigns A-F grades to districts and individual schools based largely on performance in three domains: Student Achievement (proficiency), School Progress (closing performance gaps and student growth), and Closing the Gaps (performance of disadvantaged student groups).
• Florida: Uses a school grading system (A-F) heavily weighted on standardized test scores (English, Math, Science, Social Studies) and Learning Gains (how much students improved on tests from the previous year).
• New York State: Uses a Multiple Measures Dashboard and identifies schools requiring support based on measures including state assessment results, graduation rates, chronic absenteeism, and English Learner proficiency.
• Colorado: Uses a star rating system (1-5 stars), calculated using performance in key areas: Academic Achievement, Academic Growth, Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness, and Language Proficiency for English Learners.

In summary, school ratings are state-specific accountability tools derived from analyzing a mix of academic achievement, student growth, graduation rates, college and career readiness indicators, and often non-academic measures like chronic absenteeism or school climate, weighted and combined according to each state’s unique priorities and methodology. The goal is to provide transparent information about school performance and identify those needing targeted support.