Ohio report-card deep dive: CPS officials say ratings reflect mixed gains, attendance and subgroup gaps

Amanda Vargo, a CPS testing manager, presented a detailed walkthrough of the Ohio Department of Education 2024–25 report card components at the board meeting Sept. 22, explaining how the state calculates achievement, progress, early literacy, gap closing, graduation and the new college-career readiness component.

Vargo described the technical calculations behind each component: the achievement component is a weighted performance-index percentage based on the distribution of test scores across state performance levels; the progress component is a three-year composite growth model that uses a growth index and an effect-size threshold; gap closing measures subgroup achievement and progress across many indicators; early literacy includes third-grade reading proficiency and promotion to fourth grade; graduation is a weighted four- and five-year cohort rate; and the college-career-workforce-military readiness measure counts the share of graduates who meet at least one of 11 readiness indicators.

Vargo reported improvements in multiple areas but also said the district’s composite progress and gap-closing results held it back. She stated that the district’s achievement performance index percentage rose compared with the prior year and that 16 of 20 performance indicators improved (she noted substantial improvements in several tested areas). Vargo also said the district’s college-career readiness percentage rose substantially to about 63% of graduates meeting at least one indicator (which corresponds to a three-star score on that component).

On progress, Vargo explained that the district’s three-year composite growth index remained on the low side (she gave the three-year composite growth-index figure as negative 2.98 for the current composite, noting improvement versus a deeper negative number the prior composite). That composite placed the district in the state’s two-star band for progress and limited the points contributed by progress to the overall rating.

Gap closing remained a weak spot: Vargo said CPS scored 18 out of 72 possible points in gap closing (about 25%), producing a two-star rating in that component. She said the district met subgroup graduation goals for three of nine subgroups for the four‑year cohort (an improvement over the prior year) but did not meet the state’s English-learner proficiency indicator or the chronic-absenteeism goal for the report year.

Board members asked multiple technical and policy questions. They sought clarity on how Ohio sets long-term goals and percentage thresholds, how chronic absenteeism is calculated (Vargo: chronically absent = missing 10% or more of instructional hours, and the measure counts students enrolled at least 100 hours), and how alternate assessment caps and English-learner rules affect inclusion. Vargo and board members discussed how the state uses the performance-index denominator anchored to the top 2% of Ohio districts as a moving target for the maximum index.

Several board members urged clearer public messaging to help the community understand why the district’s star rating and component scores differ from simple intuition (for example, a weighted graduation-component score can map to two stars even when the weighted graduation percentage is in the mid‑80s).

Ending: Leaders agreed to prepare clearer, public-facing explanations for the community and to provide disaggregated and school-level data (for example, chronic absenteeism by grade/school and component percentages by school) to help the board and the public understand where gains occurred and where work must continue.