Every Student Succeeds Act

Identification is building-level — the unit of account is a school, not a district:

• CSI — the lowest-performing 5% of Title I served schools on the overall rating; for schools with fewer than three rated components, the lowest 5% by chronic absenteeism; high schools with a federal graduation rate at or below 67%; and schools that have not exited ATSI within three years. Identified every three years, next in 2027-28.
• TSI — a subgroup consistently in the bottom 2% of its subgroup rank order, with a 2.5-star-or-lower subgroup rating.
• ATSI — a subgroup at or below the CSI identification threshold score.

verified as a statement of Ohio’s plan as it stands to be amended — Ohio's Consolidated State Plan under ESSA, and the April 2026 School Improvement amendment

Its fiscal content is thin and real. Identification carries no formula money. What it carries, under the April 2026 amendment, is the department’s proposed annual approval of expenditure of all federal funds — Title IA, IDEA, and 1003 School Improvement — for schools that miss exit criteria, and approval of district expenditure plans across Titles I through IV and IDEA. verified Whether the amendment has been approved is not established. open

Three of the proposed interventions move a building out of the district sector: conversion to a charter school operated by an approved school management organization, merger with a school operated by one, and closure. Those are funding events in the community-school channel, which is the channel the deduction stub records as unmodellable — so the corpus can name the pathway and cannot yet follow the money along it. inference

Who is in it, as of the current lists: 231 CSI, 117 ATSI, 60 TSI. verified dispersion::identified Forty-two of the CSI schools arrived by escalation, having been ATSI and failed to exit within three years, which makes the subgroup route a sixth of the whole-school tier rather than an edge case. A hundred carry identifications from 2018, against exit criteria that allow three years.

What this repository computed # ↑ Contents

Not what Ohio publishes. Figures derived here from committed fixtures, each one citing the test that reproduces it.

What the published rating accounts for, and what it does not # ↑ Contents

The regime’s coupling to Ohio’s report card is this node’s thesis, and both halves of it have been committed since the building extract was wired — 408 identifications keyed on building IRN, and 3,318 buildings on the 2024-25 report card. Nothing joined them until now, and every identification names a building the report card carries. verified crates/dispersion, which is also the first reader the building extract has had

What the join cannot do is reproduce the department’s cut. Neither published building file carries the overall rating, which is the measure the plan identifies on; what is published is the achievement component — a star rating and the Performance Index behind it. So the question below is the weaker one: how much of the list the published rating accounts for. Much less than this node’s own summary would lead a reader to expect.

The list is three cycles deep and is not a bottom-five-per-cent snapshot # ↑ Contents

A reader who takes the 231 CSI schools as “the lowest 5%” is reading a cumulative list as a current cut. The arithmetic refuses that reading without needing a Title I count at all: five per cent of every building in the state is 165, and there are 231, so the 231 cannot be a five per cent cut of anything. verified It does not on its own say what the excess is — the graduation-rate and low-component routes above could carry a single cycle past the threshold. What says it is the year_identified column, which puts three cycles on the list at once —

100  identified 2018, never exited
 27  identified 2022, never exited
 62  identified 2025, directly
 42  ATSI 2022, escalated to CSI 2025

verified crates/dispersion

The 2018 cohort is an attendance population, not an achievement one. Its median Performance Index sits within three points of the cohorts identified since, but its median chronic absenteeism is 80.7 against a statewide building median of 20.8, both in percentage points, and 81 of the hundred are above half. verified Seven years of comprehensive support against exit criteria that allow three, and what distinguishes the schools that have not exited is whether their students are present. inference

The two routes into the tier hold two different kinds of school # ↑ Contents

Every CSI school rated three stars or better arrived by subgroup escalation — 11 of them — and not one of the 189 direct identifications is rated above two stars. verified Four of the 41 rated escalations fall in the bottom five per cent of buildings, against 75 of 185 direct ones, and the highest-ranked escalation sits above the state median. Sheridan is the exemplar and the pattern is the file’s: a tier holding both is holding two findings under one name, and any consequence attached to membership falls on both. verified

Between the worst unlisted building and the best listed one lies most of the state # ↑ Contents

The lowest Performance Index on none of the three lists is 30.3; the highest on the CSI list is 89.9, which is Sheridan. Between them sit 1,958 of the 3,151 rated buildings, and inside that band the published achievement rating does not say who is identified. verified

The sharpest form of it is exact agreement. 113 published index values carry both a CSI school and a building on no list at all, and six of those pairs share an operating district — Cleveland once, Toledo and Columbus twice each, Akron once — so the same superintendent runs both. verified

And the state’s own worst achievement rating and the federal list agree on two fifths of it: Ohio rates 347 buildings at one star on that component, the CSI list holds 140 of them, and 164 are on no federal list at all. verified The tier itself splits 140 at one star, 86 above it, and five the department did not rate.

None of this shows the department erred. The rating that identifies is the overall one and this is one component among the six R.C. 3302.03(D)(3) names; the eligible population is Title I served schools and this is every building. What it bounds is what the published rating can support — which is what a corpus quoting the published rating needs to know, and what the corpus was assuming rather than measuring. inference

And the three lists do not tilt the same way by sector # ↑ Contents

Community schools operate 310 of the 3,318 buildings the report card carries, 9.3%, and hold 45.5% of the comprehensive support list — 4.86510 times their share. Read alone it is a finding about the sector. It is not, and what says so is in the same file: they are 4.3% of ATSI and 5.0% of TSI, under-represented at 0.45740 of their share. verified crates/dispersion A sector that simply performed worse would be over-represented on all three; two opposite signs in one regime are a fact about the criteria rather than about what lies behind them.

The comprehensive tilt is carried by a designation. Ohio’s plan identifies every high school with a federal graduation rate at or below 67%, and that criterion carries no Title I gate. Dropout recovery schools enroll pupils who have already left school once, and 73 of the 76 dropout recovery identifications in the state are community-operated. verified crates/dispersion The designation is 75 of the 231 CSI schools, one of 60 TSI and none of 117 ATSI — the shape of a criterion only high schools can fail.

It does not explain all of it. With dropout recovery off both sides, community school buildings are still identified at 0.13924 against 0.0409 — more than three times, and a floor rather than a rate, because the designation is published only on the identification lists and the unidentified dropout recovery schools cannot be taken out of the denominator. verified crates/dispersion

The reverse tilt is one subgroup. Students with Disabilities alone puts 86 of the 177 subgroup-tier buildings on a list and not one of them is a community school. verified crates/dispersion Holding the comprehensive list constant and closing that door on both sides moves the comparison from 3.90% against 5.86% to 3.90% against 2.88% — the sector inverts from under-represented to over, and the community figure does not move at all, because there is nothing there to remove.

Size is not the explanation, which was worth testing and is wrong. Community school buildings are half the size of the rest, a median of 206 pupils against 411, and a subgroup needs pupils to be reportable. The under-representation nonetheless holds inside every enrollment band, including buildings of 700 and over. verified crates/dispersion Whether these schools enroll fewer pupils with disabilities or merely too few to make a reportable subgroup cannot be settled here: the report card publishes those counts at district grain and only for the 607 traditional districts. open

The intervention ladder has no node # ↑ Contents

The intervention ladder itself has no node. It is sixteen items ranging from revised improvement plans to closure, and modeling it needs the intervention class instantiated per rung rather than once. open