GRAD-score-based At-risk identification shows larger proportional year-to-year churn than direct certification would¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2028: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Between 2022/23 and 2023/24, 27 percent of students lost and 30 percent gained At-risk eligibility due to GRAD score changes, versus 12 percent and 9 percent under a hypothetical direct certification measure, though net changes were similar (–3.6 percent vs. –4.0 percent). → Tanner 2025

Evidence¶

Tanner 2025¶

Tanner, S., Krausen, K., Garcia, B., & Brown, A. (2025). Understanding the At-risk indicator: Nevada's Pupil-Centered Funding Plan. WestEd. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED677573

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Two-year statewide stability analysis of all Nevada students, comparing GRAD-score identification with a hypothetical direct-certification measure. "a 12 percent loss under direct certification compared to 27 percent using the GRAD score and 9 percent gain under direct certification compared to 30 percent using the GRAD score." Total net change was –3.6 percent under GRAD and –4.0 percent under direct certification; mobility and program eligibility shifts also contributed.

"a 12 percent loss under direct certification compared to 27 percent using the GRAD score and 9 percent gain under direct certification compared to 30 percent using the GRAD score."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• At-risk count instability at the LEA level varies widely and is largest in small districts — related
• At-risk identification is demographically patterned, with Black, Hispanic, and male students more likely to be identified — related
• At-risk students are overrepresented in One-Star schools — related