Hunt: Cardinal Schools Report Card Grades Misleading
The grades on the state report card for the 2014-2015 school year at Cardinal Schools are not only confusing, they are misleading, said Cardinal Superintendent Scott Hunt.
“People think kids can’t read at Cardinal,” he said during a work session with the board of education Oct. 26, adding that perception is false.
The district received a D for literacy in kindergarten through third grade, according to the state’s website, but that is not the whole story.
The website shows 100 percent of Cardinal students met the minimum reading requirement to graduate to grade four. The D reflects only 64.9 percent of students scored proficient on the state reading test, which is a different measure derived from the new testing.
The state-testing program measures six categories: achievement, gap closing, K-3 literacy, progress, graduation rate and prepared for success.
Cardinal received component grades of a B in progress and a B in graduation, Ds in achievement, K-3 literacy and prepared for success and an F in gap closing.
“It’s not quite fair to have this out there,” Hunt said. “It makes it look like something it’s not.”
Hunt said a grade of C on the state test is not the same as “average,” like most people believe.
“Expected growth by a student group gives the school or district a C grade,” he said, adding a B is a good grade.
That is not disappointing, especially considering the state has changed the test process twice.
Last year, the state changed contractors, which meant the test standards shifted and no information was available to teachers under the new regime, Hunt said.
Under the previous testing company, value-added calculations used to be taken over a three-year period, giving broader results, so the figures may not be as reliable on the one-year model, he said.
As a result and on a more positive note, the grades don’t officially reflect badly on the districts, according to the state, Hunt said, adding schools are in a “safe harbor” in that the report cards will not penalize a district for low grades.
However, the public perception and, on a local level, the testing results, are a concern, the superintendent said.
The D component score in achievement was a combination of a D on the performance index (a 66.8 percent) showing the number of students who passed the state tests and an F in indicators met — that is, how well students performed.
Scores in math and English were not as high as they should be, Hunt said.
“We know we have work to do on this,” he said.
Ohio achievement assessments measured student progress for years, Hunt said.
Then teachers received testing tools, such as practice tests, in advance so they could prepare students on the mechanics of testing and be sure they generally covered in class the body of knowledge to be tested, he added.
Last year, none of that was available to teachers, the superintendent said, adding he hopes that will change in the future.
“We don’t want to teach to the test,” Hunt said.
However, the object is not for the students to feel they have been tricked, he said.
“They need to learn what’s important and be able to demonstrate they know it,” Hunt added.
The B in progress was a composite of an A in progress among the district’s gifted students and a C when measuring overall student progress — including progress of those in the lowest 20 percent in achievement and students with disabilities.
The gap closing component grade of F has to do with annual measureable objectives among students who are disadvantaged due to income, race, ethnicity or disability. Hunt said that measure is a “moving target.”
The district has very few students in those categories, he said, so if a few in special education classes, for instance, cannot be brought up to the reading and math targets, it is difficult to achieve a “proficient” rating, he said
“It is challenging, especially when the test keeps changing,” Hunt said, adding the state continues to evaluate the report card program.
