**State of Ohio**

**Ohio Department of Education**

**PROPOSAL TO THE**

**UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION**

**FOR EMPLOYING A GROWTH MODEL FOR**

***NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND***

**ACCOUNTABILITY PURPOSES**

**Submitted October 31, 2006**

**Ohio Contact:**

**Mitchell D. Chester**

**Senior Associate Superintendent for Policy and Accountability**

**Ohio Department of Education**

**25 South Front Street -- Mail Stop 708**

**Columbus, Ohio 43215**

**Phone: (614) 728-4510**

**Fax: (614) 728-2627**

**E-Mail: Mitchell.Chester@ode.state.oh.us**

**Introduction**

Ohio was among the first states to embrace the opportunities that the No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act provided. Ohio's legislature, in an omnibus
education reform act that was passed in June 2001, had already adopted
many of the building blocks that are found in NCLB. The features of
state law that were later incorporated in NCLB included the requirement
for the development of academic content standards, the creation of
assessments aligned to those standards and the extension of Ohio's
accountability and reporting system to school buildings as well as
districts. In some ways Ohio law went further than NCLB. For example,
Ohio tests in science, social studies, and writing in addition to
reading and mathematics, and assesses for diagnostic purposes in grades
K-2.

The subsequent enactment of NCLB prompted Ohio to build on the
foundation set by state law in several ways. In particular, NCLB
provided Ohio with the opportunity to strengthen our pre-existing
accountability, reporting and school intervention systems.

Prior to NCLB, Ohio classified districts into one of five ratings
(Excellent, Effective, Continuous Improvement, Academic Watch, Academic
Emergency) based on a single set of indicators that focused on the
proportion of students who are proficient, with a target of 75 percent
proficiency. There was strong evidence that this system was limiting in
several ways. First, the indicators were insensitive to gradations of
achievement. For example, both school districts -- one with 25 percent
and the other with 70 percent of students proficient or higher in fourth
grade reading -- failed to meet the indicator. Second, the performance
indicators did not provide incentives to work with low- and
high-achieving students, since they only attend to the proportion of
students who are at or above "proficient."[^1] Anecdotes abounded
regarding schools that focused on students who were "on the bubble" of
demonstrating "proficient" performance. Additionally, the performance
indicators did not account for improvement. For example, a school
district that moved from 30 to 60 percent "proficient" in mathematics
over several years was not distinguished from a district that had a flat
60 percent proficiency level over the same period. Many districts that
were demonstrating incremental gains were not registering improved
classifications in Ohio's accountability system. Further, the fact that
the performance indicators did not represent individual student learning
gains over time was an issue that was raised frequently.

In light of the need to incorporate the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
requirements into Ohio's system, Ohio moved to a system that utilizes
multiple measures to determine each school and district's effectiveness.
This unitary system incorporates AYP into the larger state system.
School and district classifications are now determined by combining
results from four measures of effectiveness -- performance indicators,
performance index, growth calculation, and adequate yearly progress.
AYP's unique contribution to Ohio's system is the focus on subgroup
performance. We believe that Ohio's multiple measures system has
improved the consistency and validity of the inferences we make about
the effectiveness of districts and schools, which, in turn, has
contributed to the acceptance and legitimacy of Ohio's accountability
system and promoted desired policy outcomes.[^2] There is a high level
of certitude that districts and schools classified Academic Emergency or
Academic Watch are, in fact, those for which the state should have the
greatest level of concern. Conversely, those classified as Excellent or
Effective are districts and schools that are demonstrating the strongest
levels of attainment.

As with the opportunity that NCLB provided to improve Ohio's
pre-existing accountability system, we believe that Secretary Margaret
Spellings's November 21, 2005, invitation presents an opportunity for
Ohio to build on the existing accountability architecture to improve the
consistency and validity of AYP determinations. As such, Ohio proposes
to use a projection model as an additional method of meeting AYP. Not
only will the incorporation of this growth feature enhance the AYP
model, it will also complement recent Ohio legislation aimed at
accelerating the performance of low achieving schools and districts as
well as contribute to the development of a pre-Kindergarten through
post-secondary system.

This proposal is divided into six sections:

> • summary of the proposal for using growth models (pages 2-4);
>
> • Ohio efforts to turn around low performing schools and districts
> (pages 4-6);
>
> • contribution to the development of an effective pre-K through
> post-secondary system (pages 7-9);

-   process of developing the proposal (page 9); and

> • how Ohio's model will meet the core principles (pages 9-23); and
>
> • additional issues (page 24).

**Summary of the Proposal for Using Growth Models**

Ohio proposes to employ a projection model to augment the traditional
AYP calculation. The projection measure will calculate student
trajectories toward proficiency as a second look, once the conventional
assessment of whether all subgroups are meeting the status or Safe
Harbor goal for percent proficient is made. Under this provision, if one
or more subgroups (including the *all students* group) falls short of
the status goal and safe harbor, but the school or district demonstrates
that students are making gains such that they are on track to reach or
remain proficient by the next grade beyond the school's grade
configuration (for example, a K-5 school would use the projection
measure to determine the likelihood of students reaching proficiency by
grade 6; for high schools, the value-added projection will determine
whether students are on-track to meet proficient levels on the OGT by
the end of 11^th^ grade), then the district or school will meet AYP.
Schools and districts that fall short of the conventional AYP measure
*and* are failing to make gains necessary to be proficient by the next
grade level will fail to meet AYP.

The diagram that follows illustrates the proposal. Essentially:

> • The initial examination of each school and district's achievement
> employs the conventional AYP calculations. If students in each
> subgroup are (1) at or above the state's annual measurable objective
> (quadrants A and B) or (2) have met the traditional Safe Harbor
> standard (10 percent reduction in the proportion of students who are
> not proficient), then the school or district has met AYP.
>
> • For schools and districts not located in quadrants A or B, the state
> proposes a second look to determine whether the gains that individual
> students are making are sufficient to project that students will
> demonstrate proficiency by the next grade level beyond the school's
> grade configuration (or by 11^th^ grade in high schools). If
> insufficient numbers of students in each subgroup are failing to make
> such gains (quadrant D), then the school or district misses AYP. If
> insufficient numbers of students in each subgroup are making such
> gains (quadrant C), then the school or district meets AYP. The
> proportion of students who must be making sufficient gains to reach or
> remain at or above proficient must be sufficient to achieve Ohio's
> annual measurable objective.

![](media/image1.pct){width="0.42430555555555555in"
height="0.3388888888888889in"}![](media/image1.pct){width="0.42430555555555555in"
height="0.3388888888888889in"}

The essence of Ohio's proposal is that schools and districts can meet
AYP in any of three ways -- through a point-in-time demonstration that
each subgroup has met the state's annual measurable objective; for
subgroups that have not met the annual measurable objective, by
achieving a 10 percent reduction in the proportion of students who are
not proficient (Safe Harbor); or in the case of schools or districts
that fail to meet AYP through the first two methods, if the individual
students in every subgroup are demonstrating sufficient progress such
that they are on track to proficiency by the next grade level beyond the
school's grade configuration (or by 11^th^ grade in high schools).

One of the principle benefits of this model is that it allows Ohio to
focus on the schools and districts where performance is of greatest
concern -- those in which proficiency rates are low *and* in which
students are failing to make gains sufficient to achieve proficiency
during their enrollment (quadrant D). At the same time, this option
honors those schools and districts in which point-in-time achievement is
low but in which there is clear evidence that individual students are
making strong gains -- gains sufficient to move them to proficiency if
they remain enrolled in the school or district (quadrant C). We expect
that we will find schools and districts in Ohio that enroll students who
are well below grade level (schools and districts where the proficiency
levels fall short of Ohio's annual measurable objectives for AYP) in
which students make the kind of progress that gets them to proficiency
sooner rather than later. These are schools and districts that do not
need to be "fixed" -- they are getting the job done.

**Ohio Efforts to Turn Around Low Performing Schools and Districts**

Ohio continues to refine its approach to low-performing schools and
districts at the same time that we have heightened the sense of urgency
to implement promising strategies and withdraw support for strategies
that have failed to yield strong improvement in achievement. These
initiatives include both capacity-building efforts and administrative
and statutory tools to intervene in the lowest performing schools and
districts.

Ohio requires that schools and districts create a school improvement
plan that encompasses the use of federal funds (including ESEA and
IDEIA) and certain state funds, and that demonstrates that expenditures
are consistent with need and best practice prior to releasing funds.
Additionally, Ohio harnesses the capacity of regional service providers
and turn-around specialists to provide assistance to low performing
schools and districts. The state has created regional school improvement
teams that include individuals with expertise in curriculum, literacy
instruction, mathematics instruction, special education, professional
development, coaching, leadership training and resource management.
These teams conduct both a needs assessment and capacity inventory of
districts missing AYP and of schools in school improvement status.
Regional school improvement teams work with district leadership to
identify existing programs that are getting results, those that are not
contributing to improved achievement, and areas of need. The teams help
identify and broker products and services that will address the areas of
need. The Ohio Department of Education coordinates and oversees the work
of the regional school improvement teams.

In addition, the state is working with districts that have schools at
the corrective action or restructuring stage to identify turn-around
partners that have a track record of working successfully with low
performing schools. We are promoting an approach for schools that are
not accelerating progress that requires them to eliminate ineffective
programs and services and instead apply school improvement and other
federal and state funds to partnerships that have greater likelihood of
promoting the turnaround of achievement results. Initially we worked
through the superintendents to secure the districts' involvement. We are
now working with statewide and local union leadership, as well as with
local school board members, to secure a commitment to discarding
practices and investments that have not paid off and to engage
partnerships that offer the potential for accelerating achievement
results.

Our approach to working with lowest performing schools and districts is
to secure commitment to putting new practices into place and reinvesting
current expenditures. State law provides the Ohio Department of
Education with a number of tools to support state intervention in
district practices. These include:

> *NCLB Sanctions* (Section 3302.04 of Ohio Revised Code (ORC)) --
> Ohio's statutory requirements incorporate all of the NCLB-required
> sanctions. Of note is the fact that under Ohio law, schools and
> districts that do not receive Title I funds are responsible for all of
> the NCLB-identified sanctions except choice and supplemental
> educational services.
>
> *Spending Order Authority* (Section 3317.017 of ORC) -- The state
> superintendent has authority to issue spending orders to Academic
> Emergency and Academic Watch districts (all of which have missed AYP)
> regarding specified components of the state funding formula. These
> orders can range from requiring that districts account for the
> expenditures of these revenue streams to directing the expenditures to
> which the funding streams will be applied.
>
> *Academic Distress Commission* (Section 3302.10 of ORC) -- This law,
> which is effective with the 2007-08 school year, requires the creation
> of a five-member commission (three appointed by the state
> superintendent and two by the local board of education president) to
> oversee operations of Academic Emergency districts that have missed
> AYP for at least four consecutive years. The commission has authority
> over the local board and superintendent regarding appointment and
> assignment of administrative personnel, budget and expenditures, and
> ability to contact out for management services. Once a commission is
> established, local boards may not enter into collective bargaining
> agreements that relinquish the authority of the commission.
>
> *Regional School Improvement Teams* (Section 3312.01(A)) -- This law
> codifies existing practice whereby the Ohio Department of Education
> harnesses the resources and expertise of regional service providers to
> carry out school improvement and intervention efforts. Under this
> statutory provision, the Ohio Department of Education is able to align
> regional resources with the needs and priorities established through
> Ohio's accountability system. AYP determinations along with school and
> district ratings are the key drivers under state law for consequences
> and interventions.

In addition to the statutory tools, the Ohio Department of Education
has, for the past five years, identified schools that are achieving at
high levels where many other schools with similar students are not
succeeding. Our Schools of Promise serve high levels of poverty and our
Schools of Distinction are buildings where students with disabilities
are achieving at rates of 75 percent or higher proficiency. We have
sponsored research studies of Schools of Promise and Schools of
Distinction, and we have disseminated our findings through meetings,
conferences, literature, and our website. We facilitate visitations by
lower-achieving institutions to these high achieving schools. Schools of
Promise and Schools of Distinction are important both as a source of
technical assistance to schools that are not succeeding and as powerful
existence proofs that high achievement is possible for low income
students as well as for students with disabilities.

Based on AYP determinations and ratings the Ohio Department of Education
determines the level of concern and intervention that will be applied.
This process is paying dividends as Ohio's achievement results are
improving statewide as well as for each of the AYP subgroups. Of
particular encouragement are the successes in narrowing achievement
gaps. For example, reading and mathematics proficiency rates on Ohio's
tenth grade graduation test have increase for all groups, with those of
African American and Hispanic students improving at the fastest rates.
At the same time that the graduation rate for all Ohio students has been
improving, the gap between black and white students has narrowed by 4.3
percentage points in the past two years alone. A recent Fordham
Foundation report used NAEP results to examine the progress that each
state has made for African-American, Hispanic, and low-income students
in three subjects (reading, mathematics, and science) since the
1990s[^3]. Fordham identifies Ohio as one of only 17 states that has
made significant progress in one subject by two subgroups or in two
subjects for at least one subgroup.

The incorporation of a growth dimension to AYP is of critical value to
Ohio. We want to be certain that the schools and districts in which we
intervene most directly and to which we commit resources are those for
which we should be the most concerned -- those where not only
achievement levels are low and achievement gaps large, but also those
where students fail to make the kinds of gains that give us confidence
that they are on their way to proficiency.

**Contribution to the Development of an Effective Pre-K through
Post-Secondary System**

Ohio has an active statewide effort to connect pre-Kindergarten,
elementary and secondary education, post-secondary education, and
workforce through an articulated and coordinated system of human
development. To this end we have several initiatives underway, each of
which relies on connected data systems and effective analysis of what is
working well and what is not, as well as what is worth investing in and
what is not. This policy direction is codified in statute (ORC Sections
3301.41 and 3301.42) which establishes the Partnership for Continued
Learning (PCL). The PCL, headed by the governor, includes the state
superintendent, the chancellor of the board of regents, Ohio's director
of development, the chairpersons and ranking minority members of the
education committees of the senate and house of representatives,
representatives of elementary and secondary schools, representatives of
institutions of higher education, a member of the state workforce policy
board, and representatives of the private sector.

The Partnership is charged with facilitating collaboration among
providers of preschool through postsecondary education and for
maintaining a high-quality workforce. Early work by the Partnership has
built on efforts by the State Board of Education and Ohio Board of
Regents to better articulate the expectations through 12^th^ grade with
the requirements for credit-bearing coursework in college; to hold high
schools accountable for graduating more students who are ready for
post-secondary education and the workforce; and to hold colleges and
universities accountable for improving their graduation rates. The use
of growth models to better understand which programs and investments are
paying dividends is key to this initiative.

To better enable educators to make use of data, the Ohio Department of
Education is transforming the statewide legacy data-collection network
into a data exchange system. We are in our fourth year of collecting
individual-level data, thus providing longitudinal records on each of
Ohio's 1.8 million students. This project is designed to position the
maturing statewide database to intersect with locally collected data.
The new system will provide districts with the capacity to track student
progress over time and across district and school boundaries. Through
the end of the 2004-05 school year there are three years of records for
each student -- the 2005-06 data will be the fourth year of information.

To take advantage of the increasingly robust longitudinal record system,
Ohio has undertaken a statewide program to provide training in the use
of data, including information from value-added and projection models
for instructional decision-making. Through a trainer-of-trainer model,
the Ohio Department of Education and Battelle for Kids, an Ohio
non-profit organization, are ensuring that each of the more than 600
Ohio school districts has at least two staff members with advanced
training in using the data from Ohio's accountability system to identify
what is working well and what is not, and to be analytic and diagnostic
with respect to determining which school programs and practices are
accelerating academic growth and which are not. By using the value-added
and projection models, schools will have better capacity to interpret
the strengths and weaknesses of their curriculum, instructional methods,
programs and practices. With this information, educators can make
data-driven decisions about where to focus resources, and about which
practices and programs to promote and which to extinguish. As teachers
and administrators become more adept at using data from the value-added
model, projection model and other sources, they will become more
effective at monitoring each student's progress and ensuring growth
opportunities for all students.

In addition, efforts are underway to ensure that teacher-preparation
institutions produce high-quality educators for Ohio's elementary and
secondary classrooms. Ohio has a unique initiative to systemically
connect learner academic growth, teacher quality and teacher preparation
through the broad partnership and research capacity in the statewide
Teacher Quality Partnership. Launched in 2003, the Teacher Quality
Partnership (TQP) is a comprehensive, longitudinal study of the
preparation, in-school support, and effectiveness of Ohio teachers. As a
research consortium of Ohio\'s 50 colleges and universities providing
teacher-preparation programs, the TQP is identifying how the preparation
and development of new teachers affect their success in the classroom as
measured by the academic performance of their students.

The TQP is identifying Ohio teachers who successfully add value to their
students' academic performance and growth and then to tie this
achievement to particular classroom teaching practices, to school
supports and to teacher preparation experiences. An overarching goal of
the P-16 accountability system in Ohio is to explicitly link higher
education accountability for producing qualified and effective teachers
to schools' accountability for effective instruction and pupil success.
To increase overall system capacity, high quality data must be used to
improve teaching. Using student-growth data to indicate school and
teacher performance provides a powerful window into the classroom
practices that enable all children to become successful learners. The
TQP is assembling the necessary data to make this connection and using
this information to refine teacher preparation programs so that they
provide competent and qualified teachers for Ohio's school children.

Ohio's efforts to ensure the quality of teaching in every classroom has
recently been affirmed by the United States Department of Education
acceptance of Ohio's teacher equity plan. In an August 2006 independent
review of Ohio's plan, Ohio was one of two states that were identified
as presenting "both solid data and well-developed, targeted strategies
to resolve the inequitable distribution of unqualified as well as
inexperienced teachers in their states."[^4]

Recognizing the need for preservice and inservice teachers to receive
training on data and value-added analysis, the Ohio Board of Regents,
and Battelle for Kids have entered into a partnership designed to link
the preparation and inservice training of teachers to use data
successfully. Building upon existing materials, including the *Journey
Through Data* toolkit and the *Value-Added* toolkit, the Ohio Board of
Regents, institutions of higher education, and Battelle for Kids are
developing additional modules for teacher preparation to support the use
of value-added data for instructional use. These modules are being
developed as on-line, modular course materials that can be accessed
through the Ohio Resource Center's Web-based portal. All Ohio public and
private institutions that prepare teachers will have access to the
materials. To ensure the successful integration and consistent
preparation of teachers, a statewide training program for the continued
education of teachers in the understanding and use of the above
value-added concept and modules will be established.

**Process of Developing the Proposal**

The Ohio Department of Education worked with a number of parties in the
development of this proposal. Initial discussion involved the Ohio
Accountability Task Force, a broadly-representative body established
through statute (ORC Section 3302.021) and charged with advising the
Department, the legislature, and the governor on matters of school
accountability. Subsequent discussions involved the State Board of
Education. At their January 2006 meeting, the State Board of Education
initially approved the submission of this growth model proposal.

Additional discussions have involved leadership from the Buckeye
Association of School Administrators (statewide superintendents'
association), the Ohio Board of Regents, institutions of higher
education, and Battelle for Kids. In addition, the Ohio Department of
Education has initiated conversations with legislative leadership about
the growth model proposal.

The State Board of Education reaffirmed their support of this submission
during the October 2006 meeting.

**How Ohio's Model Will Meet the Core Principles**

**Overview**

Ohio proposes to use a projection model as outlined by Wright, Sanders,
and Rivers (2006)[^5]. The projection model uses up to five years of
available test scores for individual students, merged longitudinally, to
provide the best estimates of future student achievement trajectories.
Ohio proposes to incorporate a measure of projected student growth to
include students who are on a path to reach proficiency by the end of
the first year at their next school in the percent of students counted
as proficient for AYP. Conversely, proficient students whose projected
growth indicates that they will fall below proficient by the end of the
first year at their next school will be subtracted from the number of
students counted as proficient for AYP. Ohio's longitudinal database
will include state developed and administered achievement and graduation
test scores for students in grades 3-8, 10, and 11, starting with school
year 2003-04.

The projection model uses all available test scores for each child to
create an individual growth trajectory in the appropriate subject.
Student-level projections can be created for any subject and any test
metric; however test scores for all subjects, including science and
social studies, are analyzed to improve the precision of the estimates.
The primary assumption upon which successful modeling rests is that past
test achievement is a good predictor of current and future achievement.
By using all of an individual student's previous achievement data to
make these projections, the need to adjust for a student's socioeconomic
condition, ethnic background, prior knowledge, etc. is not necessary.
This ensures that students with the same prior academic achievement will
have the same projection regardless of the neighbor in which the
attending school is located or the student's demographic
characteristics.

While the proposed projection model uses multivariate longitudinal data,
this application is fundamentally different from many value-added
models. Value-added methodology typically has been applied to compare
expected gains to observed gains. Because expected gains were derived
from historical achievement patterns of similar students, expected gains
differed for different students -- the expectations were "conditioned"
on the patterns of past performance for similar students. In other
words, past applications of value-added methodology compared a student's
academic gains to the typical achievement gains of similar students.
Thus application of value-added modeling approaches is at odds
fundamentally with the spirit of NCLB. The core expectation of AYP is
that all students reach proficiency and that achievement expectations
not differ based on historic performance of similar students.

With the proposed projection model, past performance is employed to
identify the likely achievement trajectory for students with similar
academic histories. This projected trajectory is then compared to the
trajectory needed to reach proficiency by the target grade. For students
already proficient, the projected trajectory is compared to the
trajectory needed to remain proficient by the target grade. In other
words, the power of the model is harnessed to compare each student's
expected trajectory to the trajectory needed to be proficient.

**Timeline and Data Assurance**

The growth projections will be employed to help determine school and
district AYP designations in 2006-07. In this initial year (2006-07),
Ohio also will employ the growth model for purposes of gathering data,
examining impact and refining features as appropriate.

Ohio assures the U.S. Department of Education that we will share data
about the properties and impact of the growth calculations on AYP with
the Department, including comparison of the AYP determinations based on
the traditional status approach, Safe Harbor, and the projection model.
Ohio will cooperate fully with any parties that USDE retains to evaluate
the implementation of growth models as part of AYP. Based on the data
from the 2006-07 administration, Ohio will identify potential
refinements to the methodology and report any intended modifications to
the Department prior to implementation of the trajectory model in
2007-08.

**Core Principal 1. The accountability model must ensure that all
students are proficient by 2013-14 and set annual goals to ensure that
the achievement gap is closing for all groups of students.**

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Element**                                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *How does the model ensure that schools and districts are held        |
| accountable for getting all students to proficiency by 2014? A        |
| proposed growth model that only expects \"one year of progress for    |
| one year of instruction\" will not suffice, as it would not be        |
| rigorous enough to close the achievement gap by 2014.*                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **State Response**                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| Ohio's proposal is that districts and schools may meet AYP in any of  |
| three ways: (1) through a point-in-time demonstration that each       |
| subgroup has met the state's annual measurable objective (current AYP |
| calculation); (2) for subgroups that have not met the annual          |
| measurable objective: by achieving a 10 percent reduction in the      |
| percentage of students who are not proficient (current Safe Harbor);  |
| or (3) in the case of schools that fail to meet AYP through the first |
| two methods: if the percentage of students in every subgroup is on    |
| track to be proficient or, in the case of students who are            |
| proficient, is on track to remain proficient, by the next grade level |
| beyond the school's grade configuration (or by 11^th^ grade in high   |
| schools). For those districts and schools that fail to meet AYP       |
| through one of the two previously approved methods, Ohio will for     |
| each subgroup (a) identify the non-proficient students who, based on  |
| the projection method, are on track to be proficient, (b) add this to |
| the students who are proficient or above *and* are expected to remain |
| proficient by the chosen endpoint, (c) divide this sum by the total   |
| number of students in the subgroup to obtain the percent of students  |
| who are non-proficient but on track to proficiency or are proficient  |
| and are on track to remain proficient, and (d) compare this percent   |
| to Ohio's annual measurable objective.                                |
|                                                                       |
| Under Ohio's proposal, districts may meet AYP in any of three ways    |
| described above for schools: (1) through a point-in-time              |
| demonstration that each subgroup has met the state's annual           |
| measurable objective: (current AYP calculation); (2) for subgroups    |
| that have not met the annual measurable objective: by achieving a 10  |
| percent reduction in the percentage of students who are not           |
| proficient (current Safe Harbor); or (3) in the case of districts     |
| that fail to meet AYP through the first two methods: by summing the   |
| school-level data to calculate a district-wide percentage of students |
| in every subgroup who are proficient or above and are expected to     |
| remain proficient (based on the school-level rules) and determining   |
| if this percentage meets the state's annual measurable objective.     |
|                                                                       |
| Being able to use the growth measure as an additional way to meet AYP |
| allows Ohio to distinguish between schools and districts that are low |
| achieving but projected to have low student gains and those that are  |
| low achieving but are projected to make substantial student gains.    |
| Recognizing the progress and improvement of schools projected to make |
| strong gains will allow for more accurate classification of schools   |
| in need of school improvement.                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Element**                                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *How does the model set reasonable, challenging, and continuously     |
| improving annual expectations for growth? Growth models that rely on  |
| substantial increases in the growth rates of students or schools in   |
| the last few years are not acceptable, but the Department is open to  |
| models that set a point in time as the goal (e.g., end of grade in a  |
| particular school; within four years). In setting these standards,    |
| the State should demonstrate how accountability is distributed among  |
| all grades and not postponed to this point in time. The Department is |
| concerned that if the State\'s growth model allows attainment of the  |
| proficiency standard by individual students to be delayed or is tied  |
| to standards that are not considerably more rigorous with each        |
| consecutive grade, then it becomes too easy to minimize or delay the  |
| importance of accelerated growth.*                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **State Response**                                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ohio proposes to set the goal timeline for student proficiency as the |
| year following the last year in the grade span of the current school. |
| Thus, the achievement projection for a fourth grader in a             |
| kindergarten through 5^th^ grade school will be judged against the    |
| 6^th^ grade-year proficiency target. One advantage of using a goal    |
| that is tied to a school's grade configuration is that it creates a   |
| clear and easily communicated timeline to the field while maintaining |
| each school's accountability and sense of urgency. By establishing    |
| this expectation for growth, schools and districts will be pressed to |
| accelerate the achievement of all students scoring below proficient   |
| as well as attend to the achievement of students who already have     |
| attained proficiency.                                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Element**                                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *How does the proposal incorporate the growth model into measures of  |
| status and Safe Harbor? States receiving approval to implement a      |
| growth model will be expected to provide data showing how the model   |
| works compared to the current AYP model. As a possible condition for  |
| implementing a growth model, the State may need to explain how it     |
| plans to focus its school intervention efforts incorporating the      |
| results from a growth model. For instance, a State should be prepared |
| to explain how a school that does not meet either traditional AYP     |
| goals or growth-based accountability goals might be subject to more   |
| rigorous intervention efforts than schools not making AYP on only one |
| accountability measure.*                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **State Response**                                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| As identified earlier, Ohio believes that the addition of the growth  |
| component to the AYP calculation will help the state identify the     |
| schools and districts for which we should be most concerned. Our      |
| practice is to exercise the greatest sense of urgency with those      |
| schools and districts that not only have low proficiency levels and   |
| large achievement gaps, but also those where students are failing to  |
| make accelerated progress. This differentiated sense of urgency is    |
| executed through Ohio's Regional School Improvement Teams as outlined |
| in the second section of this proposal, entitled, "Ohio efforts to    |
| turn around low performing schools and districts."                    |
|                                                                       |
| In addition to state and district intervention efforts, Ohio's        |
| proposal using the projection model creates incentives for schools to |
| examine their impact on individual students. Students who are far     |
| below proficient and students near proficient will have variable      |
| growth requirements, with the least proficient students having        |
| steeper, required trajectories. Specifying the growth expectation for |
| each student's performance encourages and reinforces high growth      |
| needs for the lowest-achieving students. The projection model creates |
| an incentive to focus on all levels of students, especially average   |
| or below average students, since the accountability measure rewards   |
| the progress of getting students to the proficient level. Students    |
| who are further from proficiency will have a steeper growth           |
| requirement, reflecting a lower starting point in their prior         |
| achievement. This trajectory will make apparent to teachers, parents  |
| and the student both how rigorous work can benefit students and how   |
| much growth can be elicited from effective curriculum, teachers and   |
| schools.                                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Core Principal 2. The accountability model must establish high
expectations for low-achieving students, while not setting the
expectations for annual achievement based upon student demographic
characteristics or school characteristics.**

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Element**                                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *How does the model ensure that student growth expectations are not   |
| set or moderated based on student demographics or school              |
| characteristics? The model must have the same proficiency             |
| expectations for all students while setting individual growth         |
| expectations for students to enable them to meet that grade level     |
| standard.*                                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **State Response**                                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| As identified earlier, the projection model compares a student's      |
| likely future progress (based on the past performance of students     |
| with similar achievement histories) to the progress needed to reach   |
| proficiency. Unlike traditional uses of value-added models where the  |
| standard for how much growth is good enough is conditioned on the     |
| past performance of similar students, Ohio will compare the projected |
| growth to the growth necessary to reach proficiency. The projection   |
| model predicts individual student growth trajectories based solely on |
| student's past performance on state tests. No demographic             |
| coefficients are used to moderate the calculation.                    |
|                                                                       |
| The projection methodology creates a high bar for students who are    |
| achieving below the proficient level. Once individual student         |
| projections are compared to the proficiency standard in the future,   |
| all of the regular AYP rules are deployed. Schools must meet all of   |
| the subgroup projected percent requirements. Since the anticipated    |
| growth is based on the past performance of other low achieving        |
| students, a student who is projected to be on track to proficiency is |
| a student who truly is exceeding typical gains for similar students.  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Element**                                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *How does the model ensure that growth is measured relative to        |
| achievement standards and not \"typical\" growth patterns or previous |
| improvement?*                                                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **State Response**                                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The accountability model that Ohio proposes will use the target goal  |
| of reaching the "proficient" standard on state assessments, thus      |
| setting a standards-based, non-normative measure of acceptable        |
| student growth. Using Ohio's achievement standards as a goal          |
| reinforces the expectation that all students are expected to meet     |
| grade-level content standards. The projection model predicts the      |
| likelihood that a student will reach the proficient level on state    |
| assessments by a certain grade. Thus, when each student makes         |
| superior academic progress each year, the probability of that student |
| being proficient in the future is improved. Thus, an incentive is     |
| built in so that the progress of all students is considered. However, |
| students farther behind will have to make more progress for their     |
| projected proficiency to exceed the future growth standard. In        |
| addition, students who are proficient or above in the current year,   |
| but who are projected to fall below proficiency will be counted       |
| against the school or district in the projection measure. This should |
| ensure that schools and districts will not ignore the needs of        |
| students once proficiency is reached, but must look at all students'  |
| growth trajectories.                                                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Core Principal 3. The accountability model must produce separate
accountability decisions about student achievement in reading/language
arts and in mathematics.**

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Element**                                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *How does the model ensure that students are improving in their       |
| achievement in reading/language arts and mathematics? How does the    |
| model hold schools accountable for such achievement? The growth model |
| proposal should include separate decisions for reading/language arts  |
| and mathematics, although we recognize that it is also important to   |
| design accountability systems that maintain validity and reliability, |
| minimize measurement error, and support empirical integrity in the    |
| accountability system. How does the model achieve these               |
| specifications, especially in small schools or schools with high      |
| mobility?*                                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **State Response**                                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The projection model allows for separate projections for each student |
| in each subject, based on the student's accumulated test history in   |
| all subjects. Ohio will apply the projection methodology to reading   |
| and/or mathematics, depending upon whether the school or district has |
| missed AYP based on the traditional calculation in one or both        |
| subjects.                                                             |
|                                                                       |
| One of the advantages of the projection model is the ability to       |
| accommodate missing and fractured data. The methodology employed to   |
| provide the individual student projections enables these projections  |
| without direct imputation of missing data while providing robust      |
| projections. For further technical information about the projection   |
| model and its treatment of missing data, see the Wright, Sanders, &   |
| Rivers attachment (2006).                                             |
|                                                                       |
| The projection model in combination with Ohio's statewide,            |
| student-level databases, is particularly suited to the challenges of  |
| missing data, which often are associated with student mobility. The   |
| incorporation of all prior test results from all subjects for each    |
| student, along with the shrinkage procedures to account for error     |
| variance, makes the projection model particularly stable for students |
| with missing records.                                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Element**                                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *Does the model include assessments for other content areas? If so,   |
| the state should demonstrate that achievement on those other          |
| assessments does not compensate for low achievement in                |
| reading/language arts and mathematics tests.*                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **State Response**                                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The projection model uses all available test scores in reading,       |
| mathematics, social studies and science to make individual level      |
| projections separately in reading and mathematics. The assessment     |
| data in other subject areas are used to estimate a more accurate      |
| reading and mathematics trajectory for each student by dampening      |
| measurement error based on fewer student observations. Scores from    |
| the subject for which the trajectory is being estimated are given the |
| greatest weight in the model since they have the greatest predictive  |
| power.                                                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Core Principal 4. The accountability model must ensure that all
students in the tested grades are included in the assessment and
accountability system. Schools and districts must be held accountable
for the performance of student subgroups. The accountability model,
applied statewide, must include all schools and districts.**

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Element**                                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *How does the model maximize inclusion of students, particularly in   |
| light of missing data problems or student mobility? Because of these  |
| concerns, and depending upon the proposed State model, the Department |
| may expect States to continue calculating and using the \"status\"    |
| approach to AYP.*                                                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **State Response**                                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The projection methodology used to produce the school or district     |
| growth scores uses up to five years of available test scores for each |
| student (merged longitudinally) to provide the best projection of     |
| student growth over time. For students for whom insufficient prior    |
| test data are available for projections, their current proficiency    |
| status will be used in the projected percent proficiency calculation, |
| thus ensuring that all students will be included. Additionally,       |
| alternative assessment status results will be used for those students |
| for which alternative assessments have been deemed appropriate in the |
| projected percent proficiency calculation.                            |
|                                                                       |
| For schools with grade configurations that end with 3^rd^ grade, AYP  |
| results will be calculated based on proficiency rates and traditional |
| safe harbor -- growth trajectories will not be calculated.            |
|                                                                       |
| For schools with grade configurations that end by 2^nd^ grade, the    |
| school's AYP determinations will be tied to the AYP status of the     |
| feeder school (consistent with current policy). Students who have     |
| been enrolled for less than a full academic year (defined as being    |
| continuously enrolled between the October count week, and the Spring  |
| testing administration) will be excluded from the analyses.           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Element**                                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *If appropriate, how does the State proposal address the needs of     |
| students displaced by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita? In particular, the |
| Department will need details on how this proposal interacts with any  |
| State plans to develop a separate subgroup of displaced students,     |
| consistent with the Secretary\'s guidance of September 29, 2005.      |
| [[http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/                                     |
| guid/secletter/050929.html]{.un                                       |
| derline}](http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/050929.html)* |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **State Response**                                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ohio does not have sufficient numbers of displaced Hurricane Katrina  |
| and Rita students (either statewide or in any single district) to     |
| warrant separate accounting for this group.                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Element**                                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *How does the State measure growth of students who are in the first   |
| tested grade? How do these issues interact with the State\'s \"full   |
| academic year\" definition? How do the Department\'s policies about   |
| assessing limited English proficient students and students with       |
| disabilities affect missing data policies?*                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **State Response**                                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Student-level projections will be made for 4^th^ through 8^th^ grade  |
| students.                                                             |
|                                                                       |
| For schools with grade configurations that end with 3^rd^ grade, AYP  |
| results will be calculated based on proficiency rates and traditional |
| safe harbor -- growth trajectories will not be calculated.            |
|                                                                       |
| For schools that include third as well as other tested grades, 3rd    |
| grade students' tested proficiency levels will be included with the   |
| projected percent proficiency calculation from students in the other  |
| tested grades since the third grade students will not have sufficient |
| prior scores to allow projections. The denominator for the            |
| calculation of percent proficient will be total full academic year    |
| students in the combined tested grades (including third grade) and    |
| the numerator will be the sum of the third graders who score          |
| proficient to higher and the students in the other tested grades with |
| trajectories that will result in proficiency in the grade following   |
| the terminal school grade (or 11^th^ grade for high schools).         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Element**                                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *How does the model hold schools accountable for the achievement of   |
| all student groups?*                                                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **State Response**                                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Schools or districts that fail to demonstrate achievement for each    |
| subgroup in reading and/or mathematics based on the traditional AYP   |
| calculations (proficiency rates compared to the annual measurable     |
| objective or Safe Harbor) must demonstrate for each AYP subgroup      |
| sufficient numbers of students on track to be proficient by the       |
| target grade in the relevant subject(s). This will reinforce the      |
| expectation that acceptable growth must be made for all students      |
| without exception of subgroup membership.                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Element**                                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *How does the model ensure that all schools receive an AYP            |
| determination each year? The Department expects that States will      |
| implement the accountability model in a consistent fashion across the |
| State. Subject to that requirement, the Department is open to States  |
| using one model for schools with consecutively tested grades (i.e.,   |
| elementary/middle) and a different AYP model for schools without      |
| consecutively tested grades (i.e., high schools).*                    |
|                                                                       |
| *How does the model ensure that all schools and districts are         |
| accountable for student achievement, even when the number of tested   |
| students in the school or district is small or constantly changing?*  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **State Response**                                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Because the projection model exploits all available data and accounts |
| for missing records, Ohio anticipates that the projection will be     |
| applied to all schools and districts with tested grades. Highly       |
| mobile populations can be tracked through Ohio's data system.         |
| Additionally, measures of percent projected proficiency can be        |
| produced for any school whose students have at least one year of      |
| prior test records regardless of previous building location ensuring  |
| that new and reconfigured schools will be included in the             |
| accountability model.                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| The projection model will be applied to all subgroups that fall       |
| within Ohio's minimum group number (45 students with disabilities, 30 |
| for all other subgroups) as an additional method of meeting AYP.      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Core Principal 5. The State\'s NCLB assessment system, the basis for
the accountability model, must include annual assessments in each of
grades three through eight and high school in both reading/language arts
and mathematics, must have been operational for more than one year, and
must receive approval through the NCLB peer review process for the
2005-06 school year. The assessment system must also produce comparable
results from grade to grade and year to year.**

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Element**                                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *How does the State\'s assessment system support the use of a         |
| growth-based accountability model? Please provide evidence explaining |
| how students will be assessed with tests that produce comparable      |
| results from grade to grade and year to year, such as through         |
| vertical scales or vertically moderated achievement levels.*          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **State Response**                                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| As of the 2005-2006 school year, the complete list of assessments     |
| presented below were administered statewide -- some for the first     |
| time and others for the second year. Each of these assessments will   |
| have at least two years of data as of the 2006-07 administration:     |
|                                                                       |
| -   Ohio Achievement Tests, 3rd grade, Reading, Math                  |
|                                                                       |
| -   Ohio Achievement Tests, 4th grade, Reading, Math, Writing         |
|                                                                       |
| -   Ohio Achievement Tests, 5th grade, Reading, Math                  |
|                                                                       |
| -   Ohio Achievement Tests, 6th grade, Reading, Math                  |
|                                                                       |
| -   Ohio Achievement Tests, 7th grade, Reading, Math                  |
|                                                                       |
| -   Ohio Achievement Tests, 8th grade, Reading, Math                  |
|                                                                       |
| -   Ohio Graduation Tests, 10th grade, Reading, Math, Writing,        |
|     Science, Social Studies                                           |
|                                                                       |
| In addition to the assessments identified above, Ohio is              |
| administering the following assessments for the first time in         |
| 2006-07:                                                              |
|                                                                       |
| -   Ohio Achievement Tests, 5th grade, Science, Social Studies        |
|                                                                       |
| -   Ohio Achievement Tests, 7th grade, Writing                        |
|                                                                       |
| -   Ohio Achievement Tests, 8th grade, Science, Social Studies        |
|                                                                       |
| Universal field tests are employed in the first year of new test      |
| implementation, adding robustness to the data and assuring the        |
| validity of test construction.                                        |
|                                                                       |
| Ohio has gone to great lengths to ensure the systematic articulation  |
| of achievement standards across the grade levels. We began with the   |
| development of grade-specific content indicators tied to              |
| subject-specific benchmarks at intermediate grades and 12^th^ grade   |
| standards. Test development was aligned closely to the indicators,    |
| benchmarks, and standards. Performance standards on the reading and   |
| mathematics tests were established using a modified bookmark          |
| procedure to identify upper and lower grade cut scores followed by a  |
| moderation procedure to identify cut points for the intermediate      |
| grades that present a smooth progression from 3^rd^ to 8^th^ grade    |
| expectations.                                                         |
|                                                                       |
| One advantage of the projection methodology is that it is not         |
| dependent on the vertical scale to produce accurate projections for   |
| individual students. Projection based on past achievement has proven  |
| to be quite robust, even in the absence of a vertical scale. The      |
| resulting projections are therefore reliable across grades and tests  |
| and avoid a dependency on the validity of vertical equating           |
| methodologies.                                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Element**                                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *How does the State demonstrate that its assessment system is stable  |
| and produces reliable and valid data?*                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **State Response**                                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ohio participated in the Standards and Assessments Peer Review        |
| process in May 2006, which yielded a more complete description of the |
| process.                                                              |
|                                                                       |
| Ohio relies on state-of-the-art test development, piloting, field     |
| testing, administration and equating processes to ensure that its     |
| data are stable, reliable and valid data. In addition to the          |
| technical documentation provided by our test vendors, we employ       |
| quality assurance consultants to independently verify and validate    |
| the technical specifications -- including validity, reliability and   |
| equating evidence.                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| Ohio also convenes a technical advisory panel of national testing     |
| experts to review and critique the state assessment and               |
| accountability program, including the work of our test vendors. Among |
| the tasks that the technical advisory panel completes is the review   |
| of the test equating procedures and results for each new              |
| administration of our assessments. In addition, the technical         |
| advisory panel is overseeing the adoption of Ohio's projection        |
| methodology.                                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Core Principal 6. The accountability model and related State data
system must track student progress.**

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Element**                                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *How does the State demonstrate that its data system can track        |
| student growth over time, across schools, and across districts? The   |
| State should provide evidence on the capacity of its data system to   |
| implement a growth model.*                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **State Response**                                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| A key step in securing individual, longitudinal student-data          |
| reporting system is the Statewide Student Identifier system (SSID).   |
| This system assigns (through an independent vendor) a unique student  |
| identification number to all 1.8 million K-12 public school children  |
| in the state. This mandatory identifier is associated with each       |
| student as s/he moves between schools and districts within Ohio. The  |
| SSID system, designed to monitor student progress and track more      |
| closely performance trends and student mobility over time, was fully  |
| operational for the first time in the 2002-2003 school year. The goal |
| of the system is to capture historical information about the use of   |
| student identification numbers. Only in rare cases will an SSID be    |
| deleted from the system (i.e., upon verification of a duplicate       |
| SSID). Otherwise, every effort is expended to maintain the SSID of    |
| students who move out of state, transfer to private schools, die,     |
| withdraw or graduate. This ensures that longitudinal records remain   |
| in the system. The Ohio Revised Code (ORC §3301.0714(D)(2)) provides  |
| the following guidance:                                               |
|                                                                       |
| "Each school district shall ensure that the data verification code is |
| included in the student's records reported to any subsequent school   |
| district or community school in which the student enrolls and shall   |
| remove all references to the code in any records retained in the      |
| district or school that pertain to any student no longer enrolled.    |
| Any such subsequent district or school shall utilize the same         |
| identifier in its reporting of data under this section."              |
|                                                                       |
| Districts may elect to use the routines provided by the State         |
| Software Development Team to electronically transfer SSIDs (through   |
| secure mechanisms) between districts when multiple entities are       |
| responsible for student EMIS data. Since its inception, the SSID has  |
| proven to be a powerful tool for auditing the accuracy of data in the |
| statewide system. The SSID provides the Ohio Department of Education  |
| with a tool to reconcile data discrepancies (for example, students    |
| being funded for whom there is no test record) at a level that did    |
| not exist in the past. The longitudinal database grant awarded to     |
| Ohio by the USDE in November 2005, is allowing the state to enhance   |
| the utility of its K-12 data system. This is being accomplished       |
| through the creation and implementation of data standards that allow  |
| different systems to talk to each other through the use of a common   |
| set of data naming conventions. Additionally, funds from this grant   |
| are being used to expand and enhance the State's data warehouse and   |
| business intelligence environment. Not only will this help to         |
| facilitate longitudinal data analysis of student achievement, but     |
| eventually warehouse will be able to link students to teachers via    |
| course while ensuring appropriate and secure access to data by        |
| districts, legislators, general public, and researchers.              |
|                                                                       |
| A table of SSID Match Rates follows:                                  |
|                                                                       |
| <table style="width:100%;">                                           |
| <colgroup>                                                            |
| <col style="width: 9%" />                                             |
| <col style="width: 10%" />                                            |
| <col style="width: 7%" />                                             |
| <col style="width: 11%" />                                            |
| <col style="width: 7%" />                                             |
| <col style="width: 7%" />                                             |
| <col style="width: 7%" />                                             |
| <col style="width: 10%" />                                            |
| <col style="width: 15%" />                                            |
| <col style="width: 6%" />                                             |
| <col style="width: 6%" />                                             |
| </colgroup>                                                           |
| <tbody>                                                               |
| <tr class="odd">                                                      |
| <td></td>                                                             |
| <td><strong>All Students</strong></td>                                |
| <td><strong>Black</strong></td>                                       |
| <td><strong>Multiracial</strong></td>                                 |
| <td><strong>White</strong></td>                                       |
| <td><strong>Asian</strong></td>                                       |
| <td><strong>Native Am.</strong></td>                                  |
| <td><strong>Hispanic</strong></td>                                    |
| <td><p><strong>Economically</strong></p>                              |
| <p><strong>Disadvantaged</strong></p></td>                            |
| <td><strong>SWD</strong></td>                                         |
| <td><strong>LEP</strong></td>                                         |
| </tr>                                                                 |
| <tr class="even">                                                     |
| <td>Match Rate between 2005 and 2006</td>                             |
| <td>0.959</td>                                                        |
| <td>0.938</td>                                                        |
| <td>0.941</td>                                                        |
| <td>0.968</td>                                                        |
| <td>0.891</td>                                                        |
| <td>0.917</td>                                                        |
| <td>0.909</td>                                                        |
| <td>0.951</td>                                                        |
| <td>0.959</td>                                                        |
| <td>0.879</td>                                                        |
| </tr>                                                                 |
| </tbody>                                                              |
| </table>                                                              |
|                                                                       |
| Note that White students are 77 percent of Ohio's student enrollment; |
| Black students are 17 percent; Multi-racial, Hispanic, and Asian are  |
| 2 percent each; while Native American are a very small number of      |
| students. For example, out of a typical statewide grade level cohort  |
| of approximately 135,000 students, fewer than 200 are Native          |
| American. Students with disabilities are about 14 percent of the      |
| enrollment, while limited English proficient students are about one   |
| percent of the enrollment. About one out of three Ohio students is    |
| economically disadvantaged.                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Element**                                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *How does the model use individual student growth (such as through an |
| individual student identifier)?*                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **State Response**                                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ohio is able to match student records across districts and schools    |
| using the unique State Student Identifiers. All past test records     |
| will be located, merged, and employed as the basis for projection     |
| modeling. It is important to note that the projection modeling is     |
| capable of producing valid results for students who may be missing    |
| any data points. Thus, students who have incomplete test records      |
| still will be used in the analyses.                                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Core Principal 7. The accountability model must include student
participation rates in the State\'s assessment system and student
achievement on an additional academic indicator.**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Element**

  *How does the model ensure that students participate in the assessment
  system and that schools are held accountable for such participation?
  School and district accountability must continue to take participation
  into consideration. Calculation of participation rates must be based on
  all students enrolled in the grades tested during the testing window.*

  **State Response**

  A school or district must still meet the 95 percent participation rate
  requirement in order to be eligible to meet AYP using status, Safe
  Harbor, or the projection model dimension. Ohio will maintain the 95
  percent participation goal as a requirement for meeting AYP in both
  subject areas.

  **Element**

  *How does the model ensure that schools are accountable for performance
  in one other academic indicator besides reading/language arts and math?
  School and district accountability must take another academic indicator
  into consideration, as is the case with current systems.*

  **State Response**

  A school or district must meet the goal established for attendance
  (93%) or graduation rate (73.6%), depending on grade span, or make
  progress toward the goal, in order to meet AYP overall -- as well as
  for each subgroup, as appropriate, in conjunction with Safe Harbor.
  Ohio will continue to require these goals as a requirement for meeting
  AYP with the growth measure.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**Additional Issues**

***Confidence Intervals*** -- Ohio does not employ confidence intervals
or tests of statistical significance when determining percent proficient
or safe harbor for purposes of AYP determinations. Consistent with
current Ohio practice regarding the determination of percent proficient
and safe harbor, Ohio will not employ confidence intervals to determine
the group percent on track to proficiency in the future.

***Uniform Averaging*** -- Ohio will continue to employ uniform
averaging when determining AYP using status and Safe Harbor. Ohio will
not average when applying the growth model to the AYP determination.

***AYP Formula Issues*** -- Ohio employs a minimum group size of 30 (45
for students with disabilities), which it will continue to apply to the
status and Safe Harbor calculations (see the response to Core Principle
4).

***Assessments*** -- Ohio employs alternate assessments for the most
severely cognitively disabled students. Ohio does not employ native
language assessments. Ohio's projection model will employ projected
scores based on alternative assessments against the alternative
assessment scale and add these into the appropriate subgroup, school,
and district calculations in the same manner that the projection for
students based on the regular assessment are included (see response to
Core Principle 1).

***Higher-achieving Students*** -- As identified in Core Principle 1,
when applying the growth model, a trajectory will be calculated for
students who are proficient and projected to the target grade. If the
already-proficient students are projected to remain proficient, they are
counted as proficient for purposes of calculating the percent
proficient. If the already-proficient students are projected to fall
short of proficient, they are not counted as proficient.

***Reporting*** -- Ohio will report the projected scores for each
subgroup, school, and district consistent with the format employed to
date for reporting AYP results. Ohio will make individual student
projections available to parents as requested, and will provide
web-accessed reports that allow the public to view district, school, and
subgroup aggregate trajectories, and allow district officials to drill
down to the individual student level.

[^1]: Booher-Jennings, J. (2005). Below the bubble: "Educational triage"
    and the Texas accountability system. *American Educational Research
    Journal*, *42*(2), pp. 231-268.

[^2]: For a detailed description of Ohio's accountability system and its
    impact, see Chester, M. D. (2005). Making valid and consistent
    inferences about school effectiveness from multiple measures.
    *Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices*, *24*(4), pp. 40-52.

[^3]: "How Well Are States Educating Our Neediest Children?" The Fordham
    Report 2006. The Fordham Foundation.

[^4]: Education Trust, "Missing the Mark: An Education Trust Analysis of
    Teacher-Equity Plans," p. 3.

[^5]: Wright, S. P., Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (2006). Measurement
    of academic growth of individual students toward variable and
    meaningful academic standards, Robert Lissitz, Ed., *Longitudinal
    and Value Added Models of Student Performance*. Maple Grove, MN: JAM
    Press.