A Step Forward or a Step Back

7/30/2019 A Step Forward or a Step Back

1/14

To The poinT

nCLb wvs v d t d t vt t ls t l

cksldg w t cms t sg cctlt t cls gs

s cvmt ll stdts.

Gd cctlt sstms cld mts, cvl

xctts d t mt mgl ct.

edcts, dvcts, d lcmks mst sk ss qst

t wt ts lmts st t stts sstm.

a STep orWarD or a STep baCK?State Accountability in the Waiver Era


2/142 The educaTion TrusT | A STEP FORWARD OR A STEP BACK? | ebruary 2013

Copyright 2013 The Education Trust. All rights reserved.

u ncLb wv, mtt v t ptgtl

l-tg tm

m v xp

plt l

mpvmt. bt t

m, pm gt

mpvmt gp-lggl t mtt

l gt g tg

pt lw pm

m gp.


3/14The educaTion TrusT | A STEP FORWARD OR A STEP BACK? | ebruary 2013

a STep orWarD or a STep baCK?State Accountability in the Waiver Erab y D a r i a h a L L

In 2002, No Child Let Behind ushered in sweep-

ing changes in school accountability. Diverging

rom the ederal governments long history o

leaving this matter largely to the states, a Con-

gress broadly dissatised with the slow pace o

educational improvement stepped in with a new

ramework designed to set schools on a path to

getting all students to grade level by 2014.

Moreover, instead o judging progress as they alwayshad, on school-wide averages, states were required to

evaluate schools based on the progress o all groups

o students, including those who had or genera-

tions been shortchanged by our schools: low-income

students, students o color, English-language learners,

and students with disabilities. Thus, NCLB passage

was not just a ground-breaking step in education pol-

icy, but also a major piece o civil rights legislation.

Virtually all observers including critics o the

law applaud the attention NCLB ocused on

improving the achievement o students who had,or ar too long, been poorly served by schools. Over

time, however, even the laws staunchest supporters

began noting its limitations and negative eects.

These faws could and should have been xed through

a reauthorization. But despite several attempts,

Congress couldnt agree on a new version o the law.

Frustrated with the legislative gridlock and worried

about the damage an outmoded law could do, U.S.

Secretary o Education Arne Duncan granted waiv-

ers rom key accountability provisions o NCLB

to states willing to undertake certain reorms.The waivers have sparked heated debate. But

so ar, theres been more heat than light.

This is the second phase o our ongoing analysis

aimed at shedding more light on the waivers. (For

our earlier analysis, see Waivers: A First Look.) Our

analysis compares the waivers with critical elements

o a good accountability system and asks: What is

the qualityo the plans put orward by the states and

approved by the U.S. Department o Education?

When given an opportunity, what kind o choices

did states make? Did their plans preserve a ocus

on underserved students, while also mitigating the

most widely acknowledged problems with NCLB?

Nobody can ully assess the new state systems until

we have multiple years o data. But already, some

patterns are clear. Some states worked proactively tointegrate the perormance o all student groups into

school ratings that are more nuanced than those o

NCLB, and some proposed thoughtul ways to expand

responsibility or school improvement. In ar too

many states, though, perormance against improve-

ment and gap-closing goals doesnt matter much.

Schools can get good ratings despite low peror-

mance or some groups and approaches to improving

even the lowest perorming schools are too timid.

By approving these plans, the U.S. Department

o Education opened the door to some innova-tion. But it also allowed or a lot o backslid-

ing on our national commitment to close gaps

and raise achievement or all students.

We hope that the questions raised in this report

which can be asked and answered in every

state granted a waiver will spark conversa-

tion and action among all who believe that, done

right, accountability is an important tool in the

eort to raise achievement and close gaps.

PRiORiTy OnE:

AmBiTiOuS, AChiEvABlE ExPECTATiOnS FOR

RAiSing AChiEvEmEnT AnD ClOSing gAPS

Expectations matter. They give practitioners clear

targets to work toward, and tell them what progress is

sucient. They give parents and community members

a way to benchmark the perormance o their local

Daria Hall is director of K-12 Policy Development

at The Education Trust.



schools. And progress against goals allows policy-

makers to assess the impact o their investments.

The ollowing are ve questions that educators,

advocates, and policymakers in every waiver state

ought to ask about expectations in the accountabil-

ity system or which their state has been approved.

Qesto 1.1

Are there clearly defned, ambitious, achiev-

able goals or student perormance that apply to

students overall as well as to groups o students

(namely Arican-American, Latino, American-

Indian, and low-income students; English-lan-

guage learners; and students with disabilities)?

Good accountability systems set improvement and

gap-closing expectations that are both ambitious

(meaning that meeting them would signicantlyimprove achievement and equity statewide) and

achievable (meaning that they are based on evi-

dence o what kind o improvement is possible).

The accountability provisions o No Child Let

Behind were certainly ambitious, and they set a

powerul new expectation in this country: In order

to be considered a successul school, you have to be

successully educating all students. But because the

laws perormance goal 100 percent prociency

by 2014 was not based on real data indicating

how much improvement we can make and howast, many elt it was arbitrary and unattainable.

Understanding that, the Department o Education

was also keenly aware o the states weak record

o goal setting prior to NCLB.1 So it gave states

three options o new goals or raising achieve-

ment and closing gaps on state assessments:

1) Reduce by hal the dierence between current

prociency rates and 100 percent, overall and or

each student group, within six years.

2) Achieve 100 percent prociency by 2020.

3) Achieve another equally ambitious goal.

Nearly hal the states receiving waivers chose

some version o the cut the gap in hal achieve-

ment goal. The idea or this goal originated at The

Education Trust ater extensive analysis o data

rom multiple states to identiy rates o improve-

ment and gap closing that meet the ambitious

but achievable test.2 This goal requires improve-

ment or all groups o students, and promotes

gap closing by demanding aster improvement

rom those groups starting arthest behind.

Only Arizona chose the 100 percent pro-

ciency by 2020 goal, while Louisiana opted to

retain the NCLB goal o 100 percent by 2014.

Among states that chose to develop their own

equally ambitious goals, some opted to benchmark

against achievement in their top-perorming schools.For example, Colorado and Wisconsin have identied

perormance in the schools currently in the top 10

percent o achievement statewide and set a goal that

all schools, and all groups, would get to that level o

perormance within six years. In those states, getting

all schools to the level o the current top perormers

would represent improvement overall and meaningul

gap closing. This is a practice worth consideration by

other states, especially when they make the transi-

tion rom old to new, more rigorous assessments.

Qesto 1.2Are there clearly defned, ambitious butachievable goals or high school gradu-ation rates that apply to students overallas well as to groups o students (namelyArican-American, Latino, American-Indian,and low-income students; English-languagelearners; and students with disabilities)?

Good accountability systems couple achieve-

ment expectations with graduation-rate expecta-

Looking Beneath the Labels:The Case of Virginia

Its important to note that the cut the gap in half framework, like any other framework, can be misused.

For example, the waiver plan approved for Virginia included a set of accountability goals that used the

cut-the-gap-in-half language but did not, in fact, expect gap closing for the states low-income students

and students of color.3This problem was caught by equity advocates within the state and, thanks to

their work, the U.S. Department of Education required Virginia to change its achievement goals. There

are still questions about the rigor of these new goals, but at least now they expect gap closing.4



tions. Without achievement goals, there could

be pressure to graduate students with mean-

ingless diplomas. But without grad-rate goals,

there could be pressure to raise achievement

by pushing lower perormers out o school.

In contrast to the clear direction on achievement

goals, the Department o Education didnt explic-

itly ask states to identiy their graduation-rate goals

or students overall or groups o students.5 This

was a glaring oversight, especially in light o years

o hard work on the part o advocates, research-

ers, and policymakers to get to a place where all

states are calculating accurate graduation rates and

all schools are being held accountable or raising

grad rates, overall and or each group o students.6

Fortunately, some states articulated their goals or

raising graduation rates and narrowing gaps any-

way. For example, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware,

Georgia, and Maryland used versions o the cut-

the-gap-in-hal ramework to set graduation-rate

goals or students overall and or student groups.

Many states, however, didnt clearly articu-

late their graduation-rate goals.

During the waiver approval process, advocates

and congressional leaders raised signicant

concerns about graduation-rate accountabil-

ity.7 In response, the Department o Education

recently claried that, or those states that were

not expressly approved or new grad-rate goalsin their waiver application, the Adequate Yearly

Progress (AYP) goals rom NCLB still hold.8

This was an important, i overdue, step. But because

theyre not always addressed in the actual plans,

concerned parties in every waiver state should

press or clarity on how goals or raising gradu-

ation rates and closing grad-rate gaps will ac-

tor into their states school-rating systems.

Qesto 1.3

Does the perormance o students,overall and o each group o students,

against achievement and graduation-

rate goals atter in school ratings?

Simply having goals isnt enough. They have to

matter. This starts with incorporating perormance

against these goals into the rating or grading systems

that send signals about how schools are doing.

The waiver guidelines, though, dont require states

to base accountability determinations, even in part,

on whether schools meet their improvement and

gap-closing goals. In other words, even though

states must have goals, those goals dont have to

count. Needless to say, this guidance opened the

door to incoherent systems that send mixed mes-

sages about what schools should be aiming or

and how theyre doing on behal o all students.

Some states avoided this pitall and incorporated

perormance against goals into their school deter-

minations. In Minnesota, or example, the percent-

age o students overall and student groups making

their cut-the-gap-in-hal achievement goals is a

meaningul component o the Multiple Mea-

sure Rating at the center o the new system.

But many states took advantage o the Department o

Educations signals in the waiver guidelines and have

set up systems in which perormance against overall

and group achievement goals doesnt actor at all

into a schools accountability rating. One example o

this trend is ound in New Mexico, which has goals

based on getting all schools and groups, within 10

years, to the level o perormance currently ound

in the top 10 percent o schools. But meeting these

goals doesnt actor into the A-F letter grades that

each school gets under the system. So its possible

or a school in New Mexico to miss its achievement

goals or Latino, Native, low-income, or any other

group o students and still receive an A rating.

When goals or raising achievement and closing

gaps are not actored into accountability ratings,

as is the case in New Mexico and so many otherstates, the importance o these goals is greatly

watered down, i not negated altogether. Why

would a school work hard to meet goals i they

dont count in the states school-rating system?

By allowing this disconnect between goals and

school determinations in so many states, the

Department o Education has allowed many

smpl vg gl tg. T v t mtt.



states to render gap-closing goals or indi-

vidual student groups next to meaningless.

Qesto 1.4

I states arent using subgroup perormance

in their rating system, are they using

supergroups? I so, what might this meanor the perormance o individual groups ostudents?

Many states have chosen to hold schools accountable

not or the individual groups o students targeted

by NCLB (low-income students, students rom

major racial and ethnic groups, students with

disabilities, and English-language learners) but or the

perormance o supergroups instead.

This is a trend that has serious implications or

equity and needs to be closely examined. At least

two important questions should be asked.

Wos te sperrop?

Understanding the impact o using super-

groups requires rst knowing whos in them.

Some states use student perormance, instead

o demographics, to build their supergroup. For

example, Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Michigan,

and New Mexico all make school determina-

tions based in part on the perormance o the

lowest perorming students in the school.

The logic o this ocus is appealing. Every

school has lower perormers, and theres

considerable overlap between that group

and the subgroups targeted by NCLB.

There are, however, big risks here. Confating clos-

ing the achievement gap and moving low-achieving

students can send the dangerous message that gap-

closing is only about raising the foor. This ignores

the urgent need to close gaps at the high end o the

achievement spectrum, too. (To be sure, a similar

problem existed with NCLB, especially in those

states with low-level standards and assessments.)

Instead o creating a supergroup out o low perorm-

ers, other states combine some or all o the groups

enumerated in NCLB into one supergroup. In Arkan-

sas, or instance, school determinations are based in

part on the perormance o a Targeted Achievement-

Gap Group that includes low-income students, stu-

dents with disabilities, and English-language learners.

Kentuckys Gap Group combines black, Latino,

American-Indian, and low-income students, students

with disabilities, and English-language learners.

By combining individual subgroups into a larger

supergroup, states are able to get around one o the

problems associated with NCLB-style accountability:

Schools with small numbers o students in any group

oten escaped responsibility or that group o students

because the sample was considered unreliable or

accountability purposes. By combining multiple small

groups into a bigger supergroup, more schools are

accountable or the perormance o the smaller groups

than they were beore and more o the students in

those groups are included in accountability as well.

But there are big risks here, too. By putting groups

together, its important to ask whether we are recreat-

ing the problem that subgroup accountability was

meant to address in the rst place: averages masking

very dierent perormance among dierent groups.

Nevada has a promising approach to balanc-

ing the benets and risks o supergroups. The

state employs a supergroup comprised o low-

income students, students with disabilities, and

English learners only as a backup when there are

ewer than 10 students in one o these groups in a

school. Wisconsin is using a similar approach.

b pttg gp tgt,

t mptt t k

wt w tg

t plm gptlt mt t

: avg mkg

v t pm

mg t gp.



how does sperrop perforace cot?

Beyond knowing whos in supergroups,

understanding their impact also requires

knowing how supergroup perormance ac-

tors into school determinations.

Florida and Indiana illustrate two very dier-

ent approaches. Both states have a supergroupbased on the lowest perorming 25 percent o

students in a school. In Florida, supergroup learn-

ing gains count or a quarter o an elementary

schools letter grade. And, as an additional sae-

guard, schools that would otherwise get an A, B,

or C can lose a ull letter grade i not enough stu-

dents in the supergroup make learning gains.

In Indiana, on the other hand, supergroup per-

ormance can get washed out. Supergroup growth

counts or bonus points towards a schools A-F

grade, and schools can also earn an equal number obonus points or growth among the top-perorming

75 percent o students, even i their low perorm-

ers dont grow. This means schools can accomplish

what they need to under the states accountability

system raise their grades by two letters by 2019-

20 even i the students in the lower perorming

supergroup dont make their growth target and gaps

between low- and high-perorming students widen.

Any potential benets o using supergroups are

negated when the groups are poorly constructed or

when their perormance doesnt matter much. Advo-cates and researchers should use the data generated

by new systems to understand how using supergroups

impacts the students that ederal law is meant to pro-

tect: low-income students, students o color, students

with disabilities, and English-language learners.

Qesto 1.5

Beyond test perormance and grad

rates, are overall and group peror-

mance on other important indicators

weighed in the accountability system?

While critical, perormance on state assessments

and graduation rates are not the only important

indicators o school perormance, especially at

the high school level. Accordingly, waiver guide-

lines allowed but did not require states to incor-

porate additional indicators in their systems.

Some states have included meaningul indicators

o college and career readiness into their systems.

In Idaho, or example, schools are held accountable

or student participation and success in advanced

coursework such as AP, IB, or dual enrollment, as well

as their perormance on the ACT, SAT, COMPASS,

or ACCUPLACER college-placement tests. Kentucky

is holding schools accountable or the percent ostudents who are college and career ready, as mea-

sured by EXPLORE in middle school and ACT, Work

Keys, ASVAB, several Kentucky assessments, and

industry certication in high school. Nevada is look-

ing at a number o college- and career-ready indica-

tors including remediation rates in state colleges.

But many other states have not included measures

beyond state tests and graduation rates. This is both

surprising and troubling, given the near-consensus

among educators, researchers, and policymak-

ers about the importance o including multiple

measures o school perormance in accountabil-

ity systems, especially or our high schools.

Advocates in waiver states need to understand

whether their systems include measures beyond tests

and graduation rates, and i so, which ones. When

these kinds o indicators are included, they also needto understand how. Are schools accountable only

or the perormance o students overall or also or

closing what are oten wide gaps between groups?

a pttl ft

g pgp gt w t gp

pl tt

w t pm

t mtt m.



PRiORiTy TWO:

PROmPTing mEAningFul ACTiOn

Getting the expectations right matters. But good

accountability systems arent simply about evalu-

ating perormance. Theyre about celebrating

and rewarding schools that exceed expectations

and acting when schools repeatedly all short.

The ollowing ve questions are ones that edu-

cators, advocates, and policymakers in every

waiver state ought to ask about the actions

prompted by the accountability system or

which their state has been approved.

Qesto 2.1

Are the actions taken in Priority and Focus

schools likely to bring better results?

To prompt aggressive interventions in schools wherestudents are arthest behind, the waiver requires

states to identiy two specic kinds o schools or

concerted action: Priority schools, generally the

lowest perorming schools in the state, and Focus

schools, those with the biggest achievement gaps

and/or lowest perorming groups o students.

For Priority schools, districts are required to imple-

ment interventions aligned with a list o turn-

around principles outlined by the U.S. Department

o Education.9 There are no specic require-

ments or actions to improve Focus schools.

Itll take both on-the-ground experience and several

years o data to assess whether the Priority and Focus

school interventions laid out in state plans actually

work. But it is possible to assess state plans or their

seriousness, as well as their attention to critical issues.

Effecte Teacers ad leaders

While there are many pieces that need to be in

place to support school improvement, none

is more important than ensuring that the stu-

dents who are struggling the most have accessto the strongest teachers and school leaders.

Florida has one o the most solid plans or addressing

this in its Priority schools, with very explicit criteria.

Districts in Florida can only employ teachers in Prior-

ity schools i they meet several criteria, including at

least a satisactory evaluation rating. And to work

at a Priority school, principals must have a record o

increasing student achievement in similar schools.

Time will tell whether the state enorces these pro-

visions and whether they help. But Florida has

a history o intervening when ineective teachers

are concentrated in low-perorming schools and

the states waiver plan is serious on these issues.

Many other state plans, though, are vague at best

when it comes to ensuring there are eective teachers

and leaders in Priority schools. And no state has artic-

ulated a clear plan or addressing teacher assignments

within Focus schools to ensure students who need the

most support are placed with the strongest educators.

Cear Roes ad Resposbtes forStates ad Dstrcts

Another key element to look or in state waiver

plans is whether there are clearly dened rolesand responsibilities or states and districts in

supporting school improvement. Without

these, states are essentially telling schools that

have struggled or years to x themselves.

Rhode Islands plan lays out a thoughtully sequenced

improvement process or Priority schools that

makes state and district roles clear. The process

starts with a state-led, diagnostic needs analysis

covering important indicators like district spend-

ing patterns, school-level data on teacher evaluation

results, absences, and perormance, and measureso school climate. Ater reviewing the ndings

with state representatives, districts are then respon-

sible or basing their Priority school intervention

and support plans on the diagnosed needs.

Massachusetts has taken district responsibility a

big step urther than have most other states. There,

a districts perormance rating is based on the des-

ignation o its lowest perorming school. In other

words, a district is only as strong as its weakest

link. This is a powerul statement about the impor-

tance o every school, not just district averages.

And to support school improvement, Massachu-

setts has identied not only research-based inter-

ventions or low-perorming schools, but also the

characteristics o eective districts in supporting

and sustaining these interventions. Districts with

a Priority school have to demonstrate to the state

that they have the capacity to support that schools



turnaround eorts, including how they allocate

people, time, and money. And they are responsible

or identiying any district policies and practices that

are likely to stand in the way o the turnaround plan

and showing how they will remove these barriers.

Again, only time will tell how these eorts will

work. But advocates should understand what actions

their states expect rom low-perorming schools,

and how those schools will be supported by both

the state and the district. Plans with clearly dened

state and district roles hold a lot more promise

than the plans that leave responsibilities vaguely

dened, and schools potentially on their own.

Optos for Stdets telowest Perfor Scoos

NCLB required states to guarantee school choice or

students attending schools that ailed over multiple

years to meet their improvement targets. The numbero students exercising that right was never large, but

that promise was nevertheless considered impor-

tant by many, including civil rights organizations.

In its waiver guidelines, though, the Department

o Education did not insist that states continue to

meet the choice requirement. Beyond states that

already have broad choice laws (including Min-

nesota, Indiana, Florida, and Georgia) only a

handul o states chose to preserve public school

choice, even or students in their lowest perorm-

ing schools. Arizona, Colorado, Michigan, NewYork, Oklahoma, and South Carolina oer choice

to students in Priority schools. But most other states

dont give students in Priority schools the option

to transer to other, higher perorming schools.

Qesto 2.2

Are the criteria or exiting Priority and Focus

status rigorous?

As important as it is to get improvement eorts right,

its equally important to establish criteria or how to

know i those eorts are working. Educators in Prior-

ity or Focus schools need to know what it will take to

get out o that status. And administrators and poli-

cymakers need a way to know whether improvement

resources are being used eectively. So states were

asked to identiy exit criteria, or the level o peror-

mance required to get out o Priority and Focus status.

Most states identied exit criteria that, i met,

would signiy meaningul improvement. But

states vary in how clear the signals are o

what kind o improvement is expected.

Some states, including Arkansas, Connecticut, and

Washington, have built coherence into their sys-

tems and are providing Priority and Focus schools

with very clear signals o what the expectations

are by using their reading and math achieve-

ment goals as exit criteria. In these states, schools

have to meet all o their goals or multiple years in

order to get out o Priority status. And schools have

to meet their goals or low-perorming groups or

multiple years in order to get out o Focus status.

In South Carolina, on the other hand, to exit Priority

status, schools have to be out o the bottom 5 percent

o schools or multiple years and have value-added

growth that is at least one standard error above the

mean growth rate statewide. Value-added growth

doesnt gure into the accountability system in any

other way, and schools wont know rom one year

to the next how much one standard error above the

mean will be, so they wont have clear goals to target.

Qesto 2.3

What happens i, ater receiving support,

Priority and Focus schools dont improve?

Our nation has a long track record o investing

money and energy into low-perorming schools

but not acting when results dont change or stu-

avt l

t wt tt tt xpt m

lw-pmg l,

w t l wll

ppt t t

tt t tt.



dents.10 Despite this well-documented tendency, the

U.S. Department o Education didnt require states

receiving waivers to articulate a course o action

or schools that miss exit criteria year ater year.

Nevertheless, a ew states, including Michigan

and Tennessee, have ollowed Louisianas lead

and are developing state-run turnaround zones

or Priority schools that, even ater receiving sup-

port and intervention, still dont improve.

Others, like Colorado, have set explicit time-

rames or Priority schools that dont improve

to undergo signicant governance changes

or, in some cases, to close altogether.

But in a number o other states, not meeting Priority

exit criteria only brings more improvement plan-

ning. The same is true o almost all states when it

comes to Focus schools not meeting exit criteria.

Given the Department o Educations clear ocus

on school turnaround, the approval o state plans

with only the vaguest notions about what will

be done when schools cant or wont improve is

rather surprising. Advocates must be vigilant to

ensure that students dont continue to languish in

schools that clearly are not serving them well.

Qesto 2.4

What about underperorming schools that

are not identifed as Priority or Focus?

As important as Priority and Focus schools are,

they represent only a raction usually about

15 percent o the Title I schools in a state.

Its critical thatall schools in which any group

o students is underperorming have the incen-

tive to improve and the support to do so.

Some states have developed promising mechanisms to

respond to consistent low perormance by any group.

In New York, or example, any district with a school

that is not Focus or Priority but has low subgroupperormance, large gaps, or has ailed to meet goals

or any subgroup on the same accountability indi-

cator or three consecutive years must do the same

comprehensive needs assessment as Focus and

Priority schools. The results o the needs assess-

ment drive creation o a Local Assistance Plan that

must, among other things, describe the resources

and proessional development that will be provided

to the school, and an implementation timeline.

New Mexico is working to leverage district respon-

sibility to support underperorming groups by

reviewing district data annually to identiy jurisdic-

tions where more than hal o the student groups

are missing their goals or multiple years. These

districts will be responsible or interventions on

behal o the underperorming groups, and the state

will review their budgets to ensure they speci-

cally target the needs o low-perorming students.

Time will tell whether these processes drive actual

improvement. But the plans that New York and New

Mexico have in place are much clearer about the roles,responsibilities, and improvement mechanisms than

many other state plans, where non-Priority, non-

Focus schools that are nonetheless underperorming

or groups get little more than a passing mention.

Theres a very real risk that, in some states, stu-

dents in large swaths o schools wont get

the support and attention they need.

Qesto 2.5

Are there meaningul incentives or Reward

schools that are serving all students well?

Good accountability systems arent just about nd-

ing and xing underperormance, theyre about

motivating exemplary perormance, too. Thus the

waiver guidelines ask states to recognize high-

perorming and high-progress Reward schools.

it tl tt ll l

w gp

tt pmgv t tv t

mpv t ppt t

.



In virtually every state, Reward schools get public rec-

ognition. Some states are also providing their Reward

schools with nancial awards, increased fexibility,

and the opportunity to share eective practices.

Hard-working, successul schools deserve these

things and more. But i we are to stay ocused on

improving the achievement o all our children,

its critical that only schools successully serving

all groups o students be identied or rewards.

Some states have built high group perormance

into their Reward school criteria. In New Jersey, or

example, to be considered a high-perorming Reward

school, not only does a school need an overall pro-

ciency rate and graduation rate o at least 90 percent,

it also has to meet its cut-the-gap-in-hal goals or

all groups, and each group has to be among the top

10 percent o perormers or that group statewide.

Others, however, are sending the message thata school can be exemplary so long as group

perormance isnt at the bottom. In Washing-

ton state, or example, high-progress Reward

schools are identied based on overall averages,

with the caveat that they cant be in the bot-

tom 10 percent o overall perormance or the

bottom 20 percent o group perormance.

COnCluSiOn

Accountability systems dont raise achievement

or close gaps. Only the hard work o teachers and

students can do that. But well-designed account-

ability systems are important tools in the eort

to promote equity and raise achievement.

To counteract possible backsliding, its critical oradvocates and citizens in every waiver state to do

a thorough, clear-eyed assessment o these new

accountability systems. Certainly, these are com-

plicated systems with many moving parts. But its

important to ask o each plan as a whole: What

signals does it send to our schools and their sur-

rounding communities? Does our new system

contain clear, ambitious, achievable expectations

or raising achievement and closing gaps? Does it

prompt meaningul action on behal o students?

At every level national, state, and local thosewho care about improvement and gap closing need

to ask serious questions about state accountability

systems now, and look careully and critically at the

results as new data become available. Where what

we nd points toward equity and achievement, it

should serve as a model or state and ederal policy

going orward. Where it points toward stagnation

or worse, we must work or needed changes.


12/14

nOTES1. The Education Trust, Goal Setting Under ESEA (1994-2007):

How the States Responded, (Washington, D.C.: The Education

Trust, Nov. 10, 2011).

2. For more inormation on the rationale and data supporting the

cut the gap in hal goal ramework, see Natasha Ushomirsky,

Daria Hall, and Kati Haycock, Getting it Right: Crating Federal

Accountability or Higher Student Perormance and a Stronger

America, (Washington, D.C.: The Education Trust, September

2011).

3. The goals the U.S. Department o Education originally approved

or Virginia sought to reduce by hal the dierences between

prociency rates at the highest and lowest perorming schools

or a given student group. These goals did not necessarily

demand more progress on behal o groups that started arther

behind than they did or those that started out arther ahead.

So even i the goals were met, gaps between groups would not

necessarily narrow.

4. Virginias revised math goals aim to get all students, includ-

ing all groups o students, to 73 percent procient by 2016-17.

Meeting these goals would close gaps in the state. Since these

goals are based on a brand-new assessment, it is too soon to

judge their rigor. Virginia will set new goals or reading ater

implementing new, revised reading tests in 2013.

5. Its important to note here that the Department o Education

did not waive the NCLB requirement that states set targets or

continuous and substantial progress on the cohort graduation

rate toward a single goal, overall and or all groups o students.

6. For example, see Daria Hall, Getting Honest about Grad Rates:

How states play the numbers and students lose, (Washington,

D.C.: The Education Trust, June 2005); Anna Habash, Count-

ing on Graduation: An agenda or state leadership, (Wash-

ington, D.C.: The Education Trust, October 2008); National

Governors Association, Graduation Counts: A Compact on

State High School Graduation Data, (Washington, D.C.: July

2005); and 34 CFR Part 200.19 (Washington, D.C.: Government

Printing Oce, July 7, 2011).

7. Rep. George Miller (D-Cali.), Letter to U.S. Secretary o Educa-tion Arne Duncan, Sept. 21, 2012.

8. U.S. Secretary o Education Arne Duncan, Letter to Chie State

School Ocers, Nov. 26, 2012.

9. These principles include improving teacher and leader eective-

ness, providing proven school leaders with operational fexibil-

ity, expanding time or instruction and teacher collaboration,

using data, improving school culture, and engaging amily and

community.

10. For example, see The Education TrustWest, Keeping the

Promise o Change: Why Caliornias chronically underperorm-

ing schools need bold reorm, (Oakland, Cali.: The Education

TrustWest, May 2010).


13/14


14/14

1250 h STREET, nW, SuiTE 700, WAShingTOn, D.C. 2000

P 202-293-1217 F 202-293-2605 WW W EDTRuST OR g

abouT The eDuCaTion TruST

T edct Tst mts g cdmc cvmt ll stdts

t ll lvls -kdgt tg cllg. W wk lgsd

ts, dcts, d cmmt d sss lds css t

ct tsmg scls d cllgs t sttts tt sv ll

stdts wll. Lsss ld ts ts, tgt wt fcg

dt lss, s stt d tl lc gds. o gl s t

cls t gs tt d cvmt tt csg t m

g l scll ts w lck, Lt, amc id,

m lw-cm mls t lvs t mgs t amc

mstm.

Documents

A Step Forward or a Step Back