Oregon’s process for identifying schools is unclear and complicated.


The state will provide schools with a Level 1-5 designation on each indicator based on meeting goals and interim targets, but it does not describe what those goals and interim targets are for English-language proficiency, growth, or school-quality/student-success indicators.


Given all these uncertainties, it’s difficult to determine how many schools Oregon will identify for additional supports. It’s also concerning that Oregon doesn’t appear to identify schools with consistently underperforming subgroups annually for targeted support and improvement, nor does it clearly define what constitutes a consistently underperforming subgroup.


Oregon’s weighting of indicators is uneven across grade levels.  

The balance between academic and school-quality or student-success indicators makes sense in elementary and middle school, where academic indicators clearly receive “much greater” weight, as required by ESSA. However, in high school, academic achievement is weighted less than the school-quality or student-success indicators. Once final assessment decisions are made at the high school level, the state may want to consider a growth component at the high school level.




Louisiana’s A-F school rating system provides stakeholders with a single, clear, summative rating to understand school performance and demonstrates how it will identify close to 17 percent of its schools for comprehensive support and improvement, well above the 5 percent required under federal law.



Choose a state to see their plans for identifying schools: