Tag Archives: NCLB

6 Takeaways — and Video — From Our Webinar on Accountability

The bipartisan coalition that originally supported standards-based accountability is not as strong as it once was, but on Monday afternoon, we saw a glimpse of a revitalized and refocused effort to ensure student learning remains at the core of education policy decisions. To extend our recent work on the past, present, and future of accountability, Bellwether hosted a conversation with three national leaders with deep experience in accountability policy and systems: Jeb Bush, former Florida Governor; John B. King, Jr., CEO of The Education Trust; and Carissa Moffat Miller, Executive Director of the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (Watch the full conversation below or read a complete transcript here.)

Each of these leaders approach education policy from different positions and political perspectives: the panel included a former Republican governor, a former cabinet member of the Obama administration, and a representative of states’ top education leaders. Nevertheless,panelists agreed on the enduring value of the core tenets of accountability, while stressing the need to adapt  systems to meet the current challenges facing schools.

I observed six key takeaways for policymakers as they adjust accountability systems for next school year and beyond:

  • Accountability is vital, even during a pandemic
  • Accountability can and should adapt
  • Accountability needs to be more than testing and school ratings
  • Better testing could improve accountability systems
  • Choice can add value to accountability systems
  • We can and should make next year count

Continue reading

Now Is Not the Time to Roll Back Accountability Systems

This spring presented a massive challenge to educators, students, and families. A global pandemic caught our schools by surprise and forced them to quickly adapt to distance learning — a shift that exacerbated the inequities in our school system

Unfortunately, we’re already seeing signs that some states seem to be giving up on accountability for student outcomes during the 2020-2021 school year. That would be a mistake. Today’s accountability systems are by no means perfect, and they may well need to adapt to the moment, but now is not the time to abandon the only mechanism that provides information on how every school is serving every student.

For the past two decades, we’ve relied on standards-based accountability as a safeguard for equity. Now that schools face new challenges and greater inequities, will policymakers be able to adapt accountability for a new set of circumstances or will they relinquish this key lever for equity? 

Continue reading

Media: “On the Grandest Policy Stage — the State of the Union Address — Trump Signals Shift to Scaled-Down Education Ambitions” in The 74

Under previous administrations, K-12 policy segments of the State of the Union tended to focus on how the federal government would broadly shape the operation of public school systems in America. Last night, I thought that President Trump took a very different approach:

A good portion of the reaction to last night’s State of the Union is about a snubbed handshake and the tearing of a speech. While in recent years, the speech has certainly become a performative event full of partisan posturing, last night still signaled a subtle yet substantial shift in the presidential approach to K-12 education policy: President Trump indicated that his administration is more interested in incremental education measures than any administration in recent history.

Read more over at The 74.

We Have to Improve the School Improvement Process

It’s September 1. School is back in session in many places. And yet, state test results from last spring are still trickling out. Colorado’s are out today. The District of Columbia’s results officially came out on Tuesday. California’s results came out August 24th.

These results are too late for schools to do much with. Principals are busy running their schools, and teachers are busy in their classrooms. There’s no time for schools to draft improvement plans in response to results, let alone implement those plans in time to affect students. It’s no surprise that teachers and school leaders might not value a school improvement plan that’s drafted well into the school year, yet we’ve been repeating this cycle over and over again.

Ten years ago, I was a graduate assistant for College of William & Mary professor Paul Manna. We compiled every state’s Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) determinations for the 2005-6 school year, and we found that most states were releasing results in August or September, well past the time when they could be most helpful to school improvement planning. The graph below shows what we found. Each dot represented one state, plotted based on when they released their school results.

State test results timing_Manna graph

This was 10 years ago, and a lot has changed since then. In 2006, most states were in their first years of statewide testing programs. NCLB was in its infancy, and states were just starting up their accountability systems. They barely had processes in place to compile the results and make them public. Computers were a lot less powerful back then, and every state was testing its students using paper-and-pencil tests.

States have been doing all this for 10 years now. And most states have now moved their testing systems online. Theoretically at least, we should be able to get results back much faster than we were in the past. But that doesn’t seem to be happening. I’m afraid that if we created the same graph today as we did in 2006, it would look nearly identical.

These delays represent a big kink in the theory of action behind school accountability. Without timely information, states can’t identify which schools need to improve and why. We can’t dump information on teachers and principals right in the middle of back-to-school season and expect they’ll be able to do anything meaningful with it. It’s too late to design a school improvement plan, and it’s too late to tell parents and families, “Welp, that school we assigned your child to is no good. Too bad they already started 4th grade there.” If we want to help schools improve, we have to improve the school improvement process.

NCLB *Required* States to Look Beyond Reading and Math Proficiency. They Just Did It Poorly.

Yesterday I wryly noted that it’s weird to hear people say the new Every Student Succeeds Act gives states an “opportunity” to incorporate non-academic indicators in their accountability systems. In fact, ESSA requires it!

This isn’t even a new requirement. Although NCLB is lampooned for its focus on reading and math achievement, it also required states to hold schools accountable for “at least one other academic indicator, as determined by the State.” The law gave states wide discretion in picking additional indicators, and suggested a long list of possible options such as, “achievement on additional State or locally administered assessments, decreases in grade-to-grade retention rates, attendance rates, and changes in the percentages of students completing gifted and talented, advanced placement, and college preparatory courses.”

ESSA dropped the word “academic” and includes broader language requiring states to pick at least “one indicator of school quality or student success.” But given the wide latitude NCLB gave states and the long list of suggested ideas it offered, in practice there’s little difference between what was required under NCLB versus ESSA.

NCLB is history now, but it offers an important lesson going forward. Namely, states weren’t exactly innovative in deciding how to implement this requirement to create balanced accountability systems. 36 states and DC simply picked attendance rates (which had their own flaws), 6 states sliced their same reading and math achievement tests in different ways, 3 states let school districts choose their own measures, 1 state looked at school retention rates, and 4 states looked at test scores in other subjects (writing and science). If states were truly concerned about curriculum narrowing or over-testing or school environment issues, this was their opportunity to do something about it. And yet, they mostly chose not to.

We could see more of the same going forward. For all the talk about states developing new measures of “soft skills” because of ESSA, there’s nothing in the law that would force states to re-think their decisions on how to incorporate other indicators. I hope states take ESSA as an opportunity to upgrade their accountability systems, but history suggests many won’t.