The impact of school letter grades on schools, school leaders, teachers, and students has largely unfolded as anticipated. It's not just a coincidence that letter grade legislation often serves as a catalyst for voucher programs across numerous states. By simplifying school accountability into easily digestible grades, we risk oversimplifying a complex system that even experts grapple with. We must urge a more comprehensive understanding of educational quality that goes beyond mere letters, ensuring that real progress is made for our students and educators alike.
To understand how the computation of these letter grades affects schools, I took a preliminary look last year at the grade distribution. The improvement of achievement percentages is fundamental to federal accountability, but it has been entirely removed from these state letter grades.
In the second year, I was confident we would witness significant improvements. Given the wealth of experience that many educators possess, having navigated through the complexities of school accountability, I believe we would have effectively deciphered the strategies needed to enhance our performance and elevate those letter grades.
Let’s compare the two years.
Data Sources
2024 School-Level Profile Data
Out of the 1,905 schools listed for letter grades in Tennessee, 215 schools (11.29%) were ineligible to receive a grade. These schools were excluded from the analysis to focus on the distribution of grades among eligible schools. This is similar to 2022-2023 where 210 out of 1900 schools were ineligible. To see how this is determined, you can visit the TN DOE Webpage on letter grades here.
Distribution
In 2023-2024, the letter grades were distributed as follows:
A: 320 (17%)
B: 450 (24%)
C: 500 (27%)
D: 330 (18%)
F: 80 (4%)
Compared to 2022-2023, the distribution has shifted, highlighting some key trends:
Increase in A Grades:
The percentage of schools receiving an A increased slightly from 17% to 17% (294 to 320 schools).
Slight Decline in C Grades:
C grades decreased from 30% (513 schools) to 27% (500 schools), with schools likely moving into higher or lower grade categories.
Reduction in D and F Grades:
D grades fell from 21% (350 schools) to 18% (330 schools), and F grades dropped from 5% (92 schools) to 4% (80 schools). This is a positive trend, suggesting fewer schools are struggling at the lowest levels.
This year's distribution continues to resemble a normal curve, with a slight skew toward A grades. While last year, 77% of schools fell into the B, C, or D categories, this year that number has dropped slightly to 75%, reflecting improvements at both the top and bottom of the grading scale.
Generated by ChatGPT
Performance Trends Across Metrics (2022-2023 vs. 2023-2024)
The comparison of average scores across metrics provides insight into how schools in Tennessee have performed over the past two years. Here’s a breakdown of the trends by letter grade:
Average Achievement Scores by Letter Grade
2022-2023:
A: 4.85 | B: 3.95 | C: 2.96 | D: 2.00 | F: 1.02
2023-2024:
A: 4.84 | B: 3.99 | C: 3.04 | D: 2.06 | F: 1.05
Key Changes:
Grades B and C saw slight improvements, with C grades showing a noticeable increase from 2.96 to 3.04.
Grades A, D, and F remained relatively stable, with minor differences that do not indicate significant shifts.
Average Growth Scores by Letter Grade
2022-2023:
A: 4.96 | B: 3.92 | C: 2.80 | D: 1.62 | F: 1.00
2023-2024:
A: 4.92 | B: 3.82 | C: 2.73 | D: 1.60 | F: 1.03
Key Changes:
A Grades dropped slightly from 4.96 to 4.92, although they remain well above the threshold for full growth points.
Grades B and C also saw modest declines, while F Grades slightly improved from 1.00 to 1.03.
Average Growth25 Scores by Letter Grade
2022-2023:
A: 4.45 | B: 3.58 | C: 3.10 | D: 2.64 | F: 3.21
2023-2024:
A: 4.40 | B: 3.54 | C: 2.99 | D: 2.64 | F: 2.69
Key Changes:
F Grades dropped from 3.21 to 2.69, reflecting a notable decrease in the lowest-performing schools' progress for students in the bottom quartile.
Grades A, B, and C showed small decreases, while D Grades remained unchanged at 2.64.
Grade-by-Grade Observations
Grade A:
Continues to represent the highest levels of achievement and growth. However, small declines in both growth and growth25 scores may warrant further investigation into sustaining top-tier performance.
Grade B:
Slight improvements in achievement but minor decreases in growth and growth25 suggest consistent performance with room for growth.
Grade C:
The improvement in achievement (from 2.96 to 3.04) is encouraging, though declines in growth and growth25 could indicate challenges in maintaining momentum.
Grade D:
Minimal changes across metrics show stability but limited progress in improving scores.
Grade F:
While achievement scores improved slightly (1.02 to 1.05), the sharp decline in growth25 (3.21 to 2.69) highlights ongoing difficulties in addressing the needs of the lowest-performing students.
Subgroup Performance
One of the most revealing pieces of data from 2022-2023 was the high percentage of economically disadvantaged (ED) and Black/Hispanic/Native American (BHN) students in F schools. I wondered if that trend would stay the same or change, and for ED students, it has improved.
Generated by ChatGPT
Key Insights
Increase in Economic Disadvantage for Higher Grades:
Schools with an A grade saw an increase from 18.34% (2022-2023) to 22.27% (2023-2024) in economically disadvantaged students. This suggests a positive trend toward equity in top-performing schools.
Slight Increase for B and C Grades:
B grades rose from 28.92% to 31.10%, and C grades increased from 36.49% to 38.90%. These shifts indicate a growing representation of disadvantaged students in mid-tier schools.
Reduction in D and F Grades:
The percentage of disadvantaged students in D grades dropped from 41.97% to 45.93%. Similarly, F grades saw a reduction from 54.52% to 49.64%.
This may reflect targeted interventions or progress in struggling schools.
This trend is further reflected in the correlation between the percentage of economically disadvantaged students and letter grade scores. In 2022-2023, the correlation was -0.50, while in 2023-2024, it decreased slightly to -0.44. Although still significantly negative, the weaker correlation suggests a modest reduction in the impact of economic disadvantage on school performance.
BHN Improvement
One of the most disturbing and glaring trends from 2022-2023 was the high percentage of BHN students in F schools. This has improved dramatically in 2023-2024. Here is a comparison graph.
Generated by ChatGPT
Key Insights
Increases in A and B Grades:
BHN representation in A-grade schools increased significantly from 21.82% to 35.79%.
B-grade schools also saw a large jump from 27.74% to 48.72%, reflecting positive strides toward equity in higher-performing schools.
Consistent Growth Across Grades:
BHN percentages rose steadily across all letter grades, with C and D schools showing increases of ~20 percentage points each.
Marginal Change in F Grades:
BHN representation in F-grade schools increased slightly from 80.05% to 82.20%, indicating persistent challenges for the most disadvantaged schools.
The Pearson Correlation Coefficient between BHN student percentages and letter grade scores remained virtually unchanged, increasing slightly from -0.37 in 2022-2023 to -0.39 in 2023-2024.
Students with Disabilities Populations
The impact of Students with Disabilities (SWD) on letter grades felt counter-intuitive in 2022-2023. Schools with A and F grades had nearly identical percentages of SWD students, raising questions about how disability representation aligns with school performance metrics. In 2023-2024, this pattern shifted slightly, with SWD representation increasing across all letter grades.
Notably, the largest growth occurred in F-grade schools, where SWD percentages rose from 12.24% in 2022-2023 to 15.96% in 2023-2024. This sharp rise highlights a growing concentration of SWD students in the lowest-performing schools, emphasizing systemic challenges that disproportionately affect these populations.
Meanwhile, higher-performing schools also experienced modest increases in SWD percentages, with A-grade schools rising from 12.87% to 13.53%. Despite these gains, the gap between high- and low-performing schools widened, underscoring the need for equity-driven interventions to support SWD students more effectively.
This evolving dynamic invites further exploration into the role of SWD representation in shaping school letter grades and how policies can better address the unique challenges faced by these students.
Generated by ChatGPT
The Pearson Correlation Coefficient between SWD percentages and letter grade scores remained relatively weak, with a value of -0.13 in 2023-2024, compared to -0.09 in 2022-2023, indicating no significant relationship between the two.
Interestingly, the SWD distribution graph for 2023-2024 more closely resembles the patterns observed in the ED and BHN graphs, aligning with expectations and suggesting potential connections between these demographics and school performance metrics.
Conclusions
Schools in the state performed better in 2023-2024 on their school letter grades than they did in 2022-2023. The percentage of ED, BHN, and SWD students increased, reflecting a positive shift toward greater inclusion and representation across various demographics. However, disparities persist, particularly in the correlation between economic disadvantage and letter grades, as well as the overrepresentation of BHN and SWD students in lower-performing schools.
While the overall improvement in letter grades is encouraging, these results underscore the need for targeted interventions and support for schools serving disadvantaged populations. Policies should focus on addressing systemic inequities to ensure all students, regardless of background, have access to the resources and opportunities needed to succeed.
Future analyses should continue monitoring these trends to assess the long-term impact of accountability measures and demographic shifts on educational equity and performance.
AI Disclaimer
I used ChatGPT to generate comparative bar charts since I had them in two different Jupyter Notebooks. It was easier to send screenshots of them and have it create new ones. I also used ChatGPT to clean up my writing and formatting.