No State in America Has It Right on Holding Schools Accountable -- Yet

_{The Every Student Succeeds Act sits on a table before being signed by President Barack Obama. Pens used by the president to sign the legislation were later given away as mementos of the occasion. (Evan Vucci/AP)}

RCEd Commentary

We’ve entered a new era in American public education, and states will have to remodel their systems to fit changing demands.

Like students anticipating their end-of-year report cards, in many states schools also receive an annual rating, such as an A-F grade or a school classification of “excellent” or “in need of improvement.” These ratings combine measures of academic performance and student outcomes to distinguish between high and low performing schools and to identify those in need of extra help.

Although not every state assigns a letter grade or ranking to its schools, by law each state must hold schools accountable for a variety of indicators of student performance. Under the Every Student Succeeds Act, signed into law in December, these indicators include academic achievement in reading and math; a second academic indicator, such as student growth in reading and math; high school graduation rates; English language acquisition; and at least one measure of school quality or student success, commonly referred to by policy wonks as the “fifth indicator.”

Recently, my Center for American Progress colleagues Carmel Martin, Scott Sargrad, and I took a look at what measures states are currently using in their accountability systems, and how their systems compare to the new law’s requirements.

After analyzing accountability systems in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, we found that while states do look at a number of different indicators – like chronic absenteeism and graduation rates –  when rating schools, they still overwhelmingly give the most emphasis to test scores. In fact, states include an average of 11 indicators in their systems, but test scores (including both achievement and growth measures) account for an average of 91 percent of elementary and middle school accountability ratings and 63 percent of high school accountability ratings.

Still, states are trying to move beyond just test scores and graduation rates. Thirty states, for example, include some measure of college- and career-readiness in their accountability systems, from participation and performance in advanced coursework or exams to postsecondary enrollment. And 27 states include unique indicators, such as access to the arts or measures of school climate and culture.

Our cross-country analysis revealed that nearly all states have some work to do on their accountability systems to meet ESSA’s new requirements. Only six states, for example, currently include some measure of English language acquisition. Forty-two states include a measure that they could use as the law’s “fifth indicator,” but in 14 of those states, it’s only used in high schools. And some of these states use attendance as a possible fifth indicator, which the Department of Education’s recent proposed regulations discourage because attendance is often high even in the lowest-performing schools.

In addition, under ESSA all states will have to break down every indicator, excluding English language acquisition, by student subgroups, including students from low-income families, students from major racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and English language learners. Disaggregating data is crucial for identifying achievement gaps and targeting resources, but is also challenging, as it increases complexity and costs.

Through the waivers from No Child Left Behind that 42 states and the District of Columbia had received before ESSA’s passage, states have certainly made progress towards more holistic accountability systems. But they are not out of the woods yet. ESSA gives states an opportunity to rethink and redesign their accountability systems, rather than merely tinker around the edges for compliance, and states should approach this task with several things in mind.

First, states should set a vision for their systems. All states, for example, should have the goal of all students graduating from high school ready for college and a career. They then must choose how to measure progress toward this goal, and keep in mind the incentives these measures create. For instance, by selecting particular measures of college and career readiness, states may encourage participation in advanced coursework, performance in those courses, or both.

Second, states must weigh trade-offs between simplicity and complexity. ESSA outlines the minimum requirements that states must include – it is the floor, not the ceiling. But states should be thoughtful about the number of indicators they include, limiting their systems to what is necessary to achieve their vision. Otherwise, these systems can become meaningless.

Third, states must make these systems and what goes into them more accessible. Parents and families need a clear understanding of how a school receives its rating in order to better advocate for their students. Making this information transparent will also help community members identify where schools are struggling.

As states dig into their accountability systems, we encourage them to keep these recommendations in mind and stay focused on their ultimate objective: ensuring that all students succeed.