Using Accountability to Drive Equity: Risks and Opportunities in ESSA

© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Copyright 2016 The Education Trust

Using Accountability to Drive EquityRisks and Opportunities in ESSA

Daria Hall

March 8, 2016


Goals for our time together• Build a shared understanding of what

accountability means and why it’s important

• Share principles for strong, equity-focused accountability

• Identify the opportunities and risks that ESSA poses for state accountability


What do we mean by “accountability”?

Policies for measuring and holding schools responsible for important outcomes, rewarding schools that are serving all students well, and prompting improvement in those that aren’t.


To be clear: policies themselves don’t close gaps and raise achievement.

Only the hard work of educators, students, and parents can do that.


But well-designed accountability systems:

• Set a clear expectation that schools must raise the achievement of all of their students, not just some

• Focus attention and resources on the full range of student

groups, including those who are sometimes ignored

• Prompt action when schools don’t meet expectations for any group of students.


• Accountability is not about sorting and punishing.

• It’s about making sure that schools and systems are responsible for the performance of all students, and taking action when any group falls behind. – Strong local leaders need cover to do this. Others

need pressure.


And why does this matter?


The face of our population is changing --- fast

15%

96%

137%

50%

-9%

Projected Population Growth, Ages 20-24, 2010-2050

Note: Projected Population Growth, Ages 0–24, 2010-2050

Percentage Increase, Ages 0–24

Source: National Population Projections, U.S. Census Bureau. Released 2008; NCHEMS, Adding It Up, 2007.


But on just about every measure, the student populations that are growing the fastest are less prepared for

success in college and the workforce than their peers


African Amer-ican

Latino American Indian

White Asian0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

34%

47%39%

75% 75%

19%

31% 26%

56% 57%

14%

29%

20%

52%

69%

12%

23%18%

48%

57%

English Reading Mathematics SciencePerc

ent o

f ACT

-tes

ted

grad

uate

s mee

ting

colle

ge

read

ines

s ben

chm

arks

Note: College readiness benchmarks are ACT-established thresholds that represent the score that a student needs to attain in order to have at least a 50% chance of receiving a B and a 75% chance of receiving a C in corresponding first-year college courses.

Source: The Condition of College & Career Readiness 2015, ACThttps://www.act.org/research/policymakers/cccr15/pdf/CCCR15-NationalReadinessRpt.pdf.

Latino, African American, and Native test takers are less likely to meet ACT college readiness benchmarks in any subject


African American Latino White0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

39%

21%14%

Remediation rate at 4-year colleges

Perc

ent o

f stu

dent

s

Note: National estimates based on the calculated medians of data self-reported by 33 states.

Source: Complete College America, Remediation: Higher education’s bridge to nowhere, 2012, http://www.completecollege.org/docs/CCA-Remediation-final.pdf.

Students of color far more likely to enroll in remedial courses at four-year colleges

http://www.completecollege.org/docs/CCA-Remediation-final.pdf



African American Latino White0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

68%58%

47%

Remediation rate at 2-year colleges

Perc

ent o

f stu

dent

s

Note: National estimates based on the calculated medians of data self-reported by 33 states.

Source: Complete College America, Remediation: Higher education’s bridge to nowhere, 2012, http://www.completecollege.org/docs/CCA-Remediation-final.pdf.

Most students of color at two-year colleges need to take remedial courses in at least some subjects



© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST© 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Young adults from high-income families are 7 times more likely to earn bachelor’s degrees by age 24

Source: Tom Mortenson, Bachelor’s Degree Attainment by age 24 by Family income Quartiles, 1970 to 2010, Postsecondary Education Opportunity, 2012.

20100%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

11%

79%

Lowest Income Quartile Highest Income Quartile

Bac

helo

r’s D

egre

e at

tain

men

t by

Age

24


Students Overall African American Latino White0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

23%

39%

29%

16%

ASVAB Ineligibility Rates

Perc

ent o

f app

lican

ts n

ot m

eetin

g m

inim

um

acad

emic

ent

ry re

quire

men

ts, 2

004-

2009

Note: Sample is composed of young high school graduates, ages 17-20, who applied for entry into the Army between 2004 and 2009 and who took the ASVAB at a Military Entrance Processing Station, and are not a representative sample of all high school graduates.

Source: Christina Theokas, Shut Out of the Military: Today’s high school education doesn’t mean you’re ready for today’s Army,” The Education Trust, 2010, http://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/publications/files/ASVAB_4.pdf.

Students of color far more likely to fail to meet minimum academic requirements for Army enlistment

http://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/publications/files/ASVAB_4.pdf

http://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/publications/files/ASVAB_4.pdf


Source: Rising to the Challenge: College Instructors’ Views on High School Graduates’ Preparedness for College , Achieve, 2015

Over 80% of employers report that recent public high school graduates have gaps in preparation for typical jobs in their company

5%

13%

34%

31%

17%

Extremely Well Prepared Very Well Prepared Somewhat Prepared: Some GapsNot too Prepared: Large Gaps Not at all Prepared: Struggling


Accountability’s not a cure-all, but done well, it helps create urgency to

improve K-12 preparation for all students.

And while it’s become convenient to characterize accountability as “test and

punish” and the last 15 years as a wasteland for kids, the data suggest

something else…


Since we’ve had federal requirements for annual testing, full public reporting,

and serious accountability for the results of every group of children,

achievement among black, Latino, and low-income students has improved.


Source:


Large gains for all groups of students, especially students of color

1971* 1975* 1980* 1984* 1988* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999* 2004 2008 2012150

160

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

9 Year Olds – NAEP Reading

African American Latino White

Aver

age

Scal

e Sc

ore

National Center for Education Statistics, “The Nation's Report Card: Trends in Academic Progress 2012”*Denotes previous assessment format


Source:


Performance for all groups has risen dramatically

1973* 1978* 1982* 1986* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999* 2004 2008 2012200

210

220

230

240

250

260

270

280

290

300

13 Year Olds – NAEP Math

African American Latino White

Aver

age

Scal

e Sc

ore

National Center for Education Statistics, “The Nation's Report Card: Trends in Academic Progress 2012”*Denotes previous assessment format


Rising scores translate into big improvements in knowledge and

skills for students


Source:


Increased proficiency rates in math

2000 2013 2000 20130%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

57%

27% 23%7%

35%

47%46%

33%

7%26% 32%

60%

Grade 4 Math – by Family Income

Below Basic Basic Proficient/Advanced

Perc

enta

ge o

f Stu

dent

s

Low-Income Higher Income

National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/


Source:


For all groups, declines in the percentage of students below the basic level

2000 2013 2000 2013 2000 2013 2000 20130%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

24%9%

65%

34%

59%

27%

61%

30%

46%

37%

31%

48%

34%

47%

32%

46%

30%

54%

4%18%

7%

26%

8%24%

Grade 4 Math – by Race/Ethnicity

Below Basic Basic Proficient/Advanced

Perc

enta

ge o

f Stu

dent

s

WhiteAfrican Amer-

ican Latino American In-dian/Alaska

Native

National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/


High school graduation rates are up for most groups


Rising graduation rates, especially for black and Latino students

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 201250%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

79%

85%

59%

68%66%

76%

91%

93%

68%68%

White African AmericanLatino AsianAmerican Indian/Alaska Native

Aver

aged

Fre

shm

an G

radu

ation

Rat

e

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data, http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/data_tables.asp.

Note: Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate is the estimated percentage of entering freshmen who graduate from high school four years later.

http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/data_tables.asp


We can’t take our foot off the accelerator now


The business community has been working hard to defend standards and assessment.

Accountability is a continuation of that agenda. If tests show that students aren’t

meeting standards, something needs to be done about that.


So what makes for strong accountability?


One way of thinking about accountability…1) What do we value most about school performance?

2) What are our expectations for performance on the things we value?

3) How do we clearly signal to parents and the public whether schools are or are not meeting those expectations?

4) What do we do if they’re not meeting the expectations?


The business, civil rights, and disability community works to answer some of those questions in ESEA reauthorization


Coalition principles for statewide accountability systems that expect and support all

students to graduate from high school ready for college and career.


What do we value most about school performance?

• Indicators: – Measures of student learning outcomes, including

assessments (growth and reading, math, and science proficiency), accurate high school graduation rates, and other academic measures of college/career readiness must be predominant.

– Other indicators (attendance, student surveys, school safety, etc.) may be included, but must play a secondary role.

– Evidence of English proficiency and time in program should be taken into account for English learners.

– Accurate assessment participation rates must be included


What are our expectations for performance on the things we value?

• Goals– States must set public statewide improvement goals

on indicators of student learning outcomes and translate these goals into improvement targets for districts and schools for students overall and for all subgroups, with greater progress expected for groups that have been behind.


How do we clearly signal whether schools are or are not meeting those expectations?

• Ratings– Performance against those targets must be the

predominant factor in statewide ratings systems, with other indicators making up the rest.


What do we do if they’re not meeting the expectations?

• Supports/Consequences– State accountability systems must ensure that steps —

including targeted interventions, supports, and ratings changes — are taken for all schools that consistently miss targets for any group of students. If these systems designate districts as the first responder for interventions and supports, states must assure effective action if those district supports and interventions don’t work.


ESSA: The Final Product• Not the bill we would have written, but it was the

result of compromise• BUT it is NOT a full abdication of the federal role,

as some are saying, and there ARE some key equity levers for states to take advantage of to support all groups of students


So what’s required?

How is that different than what’s going on now?

What should advocates watch out for?


• For those of you who like detail…


Indicators

(i.e. What do we value most about school performance?)


IndicatorsNCLB Waivers ESSA

• For all groups of kids

- Test performance

- Test participation rates

- Grad rates• Another

academic indicator for elementary and middle schools

• Test performance and grad rates required for all groups

• Flexibility on others. The most common ones states added were measures of college and career readiness (i.e. high school course taking, SAT/ACT), and attendance – BUT MOST NOT MEASURED FOR GROUPS

1. Academic Achievementa. Proficiency on annual assessments, as measured against goalsb. May include growth for high schools 2. Other Academic Indicatora. For high schools – graduation rate, as measured against goalsb. For non-high schools – growth or another valid, reliable, statewide academic indicator3. Progress toward English language proficiency for English learners4. Other valid, reliable, comparable and statewide measure of school quality


Beyond tests and grad rates, what indicators should our state use?

What will add to the picture of school performance—not mask underperformance?


Watch out for• Things that can’t be measured for all groups of students (i.e.

low income, black, Latino, etc.)…or for students at all• Things that all schools do well on• Things that aren’t related to the goal of college and career

readiness• Things that sound interesting but we can’t actually measure

well• Things schools don’t have control over• Things that are helpful for some purposes, but not

accountability


A note about opt out• Whether or no 95 percent of students overall and

in each group took the test has to be part of the state accountability system

• Most students who are not tested will automatically count as not proficient.


Why do test participation rates matter?

Because before we paid attention to them, schools would “opt” their lowest performers to stay home, or go on a field trip, on test day.


Goals

(i.e. What are our expectations for performance on the things we value?)


GoalsNCLB Waivers ESSA

100% proficiency for all students and each student group by 2013-2014

3 Choices:1. Cut in half the

difference between current proficiency rates and 100% in six years, overall and for each group

2. 100% proficiency by 2020

3. Another, equally ambitious measure proposed by the state

State-set long-term goals on at least tests and grad rates that expect more progress from groups of students who are farther behind


How do we set aggressive but achievable goals, especially on brand new tests?


Watch out for• Goals that don’t expect much from anyone

• i.e. “any progress” or “0.01%” is enough

• Goals that don’t expect more improvement from groups starting further behind– If all groups make the same progress, those who start

behind, stay behind


Ratings

(i.e. How do we clearly signal whether schools are or are not meeting those

expectations?)


RatingsNCLB Waivers ESSA

Schools either made AYP or didn’t, based on performance against goals for all groups of students on state tests and graduation rates

State-developed rating systems • Typically included

tests and grad rates

• Did not have to be aligned to goals

• Did not have to reflect the performance of individual student groups

State-developed rating systems that • Must be based on how

schools are performing for all groups of students on all the indicators

• If any group is consistently underperforming, that has to be reflected


How do we put everything together in a way that makes sense?

How do we clearly signal when any group is not meeting expectations?


Watch out for• So much data no one can make sense of it…or no

clear signal of what’s good enough• Only identifying the lowest of the low performers• Saying schools are doing well even if some kids

are low performing year after year


Massachusetts: Percent of students in Level 4 or 5 Schools

Total Enrollment White African American Hispanic FRPL ELL SWD0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2% 1% 6% 8% 6% 8% 3%

98% 99% 94% 92% 94% 92% 97%

Percent of Students in Priority Schools Percent of Students in Other Schools

Includes only schools that received accountability ratings


Minnesota: Percent of students attending Priority schools

Total Enrollment White African American Hispanic FRPL LEP SWD0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2% 0% 8% 4% 5% 7% 3%

98% 100% 92% 96% 95% 93% 97%

Percent of Students in Priority Schools Percent of Students in Other Schools

Includes only schools that received accountability ratings


Two “A” Schools: Reading

Reading Proficiency

RatesAll students: 73%White: 89%Hispanic: 48%African American: 19%Low Income: 41%Students w/IEPs: 7%

School 2

Note: This elementary school is approximately 20% African American, 10% Hispanic, and 40% Low-Income

Reading Proficiency RatesAll students: 71%White: 77%Hispanic: 74%African American: 60%Low Income: 65%Students w/IEPs: 40%

School 1

Note: This elementary school is approximately 30% African American, 40%

Hispanic, and over 50% Low-Income


Support/Consequences

(i.e. What do we do if they’re not meeting the expectations?)


Support/ConsequencesNCLB Waivers ESSA

Prescribed set of cascading interventions

Identification of, and action in, three specific types of schools:• Priority – lowest

performing overall• Focus – lowest group

performance/biggest gaps

• Reward – top performing/improving

Identification of, and locally-determined action in: • Schools in the bottom

5% of the state, schools with graduation rates lower than 67%

• Schools where one or more groups of students is consistently underperforming


How do we make sure kids don’t languish year after year?

How do we develop capacity in districts and schools?


Watch out for• No clear timeframes• Action only in the lowest of the low performers• Plan on paper but no real action• An assumption that schools can fix themselves


What’s next?


Implementation Timelines• Regulations: The U.S. Department of Ed will

publish regulations over the coming months • All ESSA requirements, except those pertaining to

accountability, go into effect in the 2016-17 school year.

• New accountability systems must be in place by 2017-18.


Advice for State Advocates

• Wait until regulations are done for legislative/administrative changes in most circumstances

• Begin conversations and building coalitions NOW


Questions?


For more [email protected]

Washington, D.C. Metro Detroit, MI Oakland, CA202/293-1217 734/619-8009 510/465-6444

mailto:[email protected]