Category Archives: Accountability

Which Outcomes Should Minnesota Hold Its High Schools Responsible For?

Long before the pandemic, schools and communities recognized that a high school diploma is no longer enough. Today, eight in 10 Minnesota students graduate high school, but as more graduates look to a future amid the COVID-19 pandemic, they may question whether their high school has adequately prepared them to succeed in college or career.

Minnesota has taken steps to create programs to prepare students for life beyond high school, as well as collect critical information and data about those efforts. Yet the state has failed to incorporate postsecondary outcomes into the way it evaluates high school performance. It’s time to fix this mismatch.

Minnesota’s Post Secondary Enrollment Options (PSEO) program, which dates back to 1985, was the first-of-its-kind to help students complete high school and college coursework at the same time. Nearly 250,000 Minnesota students have benefited from this program since its inception, and that number doubles once you include Minnesota’s other dual enrollment programming.

In addition to information on the PSEO program, the state tracks student performance in Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate courses, as well as SAT and ACT results. Minnesota also tracks a variety of additional measures on high school graduates, such as postsecondary enrollment and employment outcomes like the number of hours worked, in what industry, and the hourly wages earned. 

Unfortunately, Minnesota’s efforts at data collection result in nice graphs on a website with little effect on student success. What is the point of data collection unless it informs programming, benefits students, and helps ensure all students are given equal opportunities?

High school leaders may think it’s unfair to hold them accountable for what happens outside their walls. But students need to be prepared for the world that awaits them, whether that is a pandemic-ravaged economy or remote college learning, and schools bear significant responsibility to provide that preparation. Continue reading

States Should Keep Pushing for College and Career Readiness, Even Under a Pandemic

As graduation rates have continued to rise across the nation, students increasingly require remediation at the next level. One study found that 50% of two-year college students and 20% of four-year college students required remedial classes, in some cases discouraging those students from persisting in higher education. 

Combined with recent reports of student disengagement during COVID-19 remote learning and concern that high school dropout rates will rise, states must consider how best to provide the support and learning opportunities for their students to graduate college and career ready, even in the midst of a pandemic. Students need to be prepared to pursue economically stable postsecondary pathways in these tenuous times. This demands a variety of opportunities, with the goal of graduation as a starting point for postsecondary success, not simply the finish line of a high school journey. 

In our paper released earlier this month, Chad Aldeman and I look at the data states are collecting around college and career pathways. One encouraging trend is that states have changed their formal high school rating systems beyond graduation rates and test scores to include a host of college- and career-readiness measures. By our count, 34 states plus DC have some form of indicator along these lines. Another 12 states are tracking one of these measures but do not yet hold schools accountable for them. Measuring postsecondary readiness is a crucial step for preparing students to succeed beyond high school and supporting the skills and content knowledge necessary for students so that they don’t require remediation at the next level.

Yet how do you establish high expectations during a pandemic when just getting through the school year seems challenging? One approach might include maintaining a focus on readiness measures, even as graduation criteria shift.

Due to the pandemic, many students in the class of 2020 were permitted to graduate from high school with requirements loosened or waived completely. For example, four midwestern states we reviewed — Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Minnesota — eased graduation requirements last spring. These changes are representative of similar measures taken by states across the country. 

Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Minnesota all had adjusted cohort graduation rates above 80% in the 2017-18 school year. Presumably, with relaxed standards, their graduation rates for the class of 2020 will be the same or higher. Some of the adjustments they made for easing graduation last spring are noted below: Continue reading

College and Career Readiness, or a New Form of Tracking?

In a new paper, Lynne Graziano and I look at what data states are collecting around college and career pathways.

On one hand, there’s a positive story to be told. States have changed their formal high school rating systems beyond graduation rates and test scores to include a host of college- and career- readiness measures. By our count, 34 states plus DC have some form of indicator along these lines. Another 12 states are tracking one of these measures but do not yet hold schools accountable for them.

While we find this trend promising, many of these states are lumping all “college and career” measures together, even though those pathways may not be equally rigorous or helpful for students. Worse, only 16 states are disaggregating these measures by subgroups of students, so we have no way of knowing whether certain groups of students, such as Black or Hispanic students, are being tracked into, or away from, certain pathways. We argue states need to do more to ensure the latest push toward college and career pathways yields equitable results for all students.

Read the full paper here.

The Accountability Wars Are About to Begin

Last week, U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos told states not to expect a waiver on state assessments this year. Some in education will surely push back with the argument that COVID-19 upended metrics historically used to hold schools accountable — student performance and engagement in particular — and, as a result, schools can’t be held accountable at all.

But the question of assessing students shouldn’t be if testing should happen (and yes, states should give assessments this school year), but rather how should we assess teaching and learning in COVID-19 and beyond. 

For charter schools, authorizers can and must continue to hold schools to high standards, especially in this time of uncertainty, by assessing school performance using new metrics and existing metrics defined in new ways; and by rethinking the authorizer role in helping schools meet the needs of students and families.

Assess school performance using new metrics and existing metrics defined in new ways

Authorizers historically measured school performance using proficiency and growth on state-level annual assessments. But real questions exist on what a missing year of data nationwide means for comparing data from previous years. Similarly, past student engagement metrics, previously measured through attendance, or student’s physical presence in the classroom, aren’t possible in a virtual environment.

Continue reading

Accountability Policy Needs to Adapt. To Do So, Policymakers Must Clarify Their Priorities.

This fall is turning into a slow-motion disaster for students and families. Many districts planned to implement some form of hybrid learning to start the school year, only to have those plans scuttled in the aftermath of rising COVID-19 cases across the nation. On top of the logistical challenge of shifting to remote learning on a short timeline, families and educators are making these changes without a shared understanding of students’ academic needs since state assessments were cancelled this past spring. If it wasn’t clear before, it should be painfully obvious now: our education system is in crisis. 

This moment calls for significant changes in how school systems meet the needs of students, both during the current crisis and once we return to something that resembles “normal.” Assessment and accountability policies are no exception. For too long, these systems have been asked to serve multiple purposes, from identifying schools for intervention, to providing data to inform instruction, to informing parental choice.Refocusing the Priorities of Accountability Report

In a new brief, my coauthors and I argue that now is the time to clarify and refocus the priorities of school accountability policy. In Refocusing the Priorities of Accountability, we explore three different scenarios where policymakers successfully limit accountability systems to one primary function: 

  • As a means for policymakers to intervene in schools
  • As a tool for schools to improve instruction
  • As a platform to inform parents as they engage with their school communities and/or make school choice decisions

For each of these single-priority approaches to accountability, we explain how it could work in practice and articulate what trade-offs policymakers would have to make to adopt that approach. 

Continue reading