# Presentation: 562927

## On the horizon: State Accountability Systems

- U.S. Department of Education
- Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
- October 2002

- Archived Information

## AccountabilityRaises Standards Raises Hope

- President George W. Bush signs the *No Child Left Behind Act* into law on January 8, 2002.

- Photo compliments of Hamilton High School, Hamilton, Ohio

- AccountabilityRaises Standards Raises Hope

- “Accountability is an exercise in hope.  When we raise academic standards, children raise their academic sights.  When children are regularly tested, teachers know where and how to improve. When scores are known to parents, parents are empowered to push for change.  When accountability for our schools is real, the results for our children are real.”
**	****	****	****	****	****	****– ****President George W. Bush**

**Notes:**
Picture captures a moment in time. Moment when the two political parties agreed! 

Focus on accountability expresses commitment to the difficult task of improving student learning for ALL students. 
To be honest – not certain that same excitement is shared by all. Not by all here.

The hill ahead of us is quite steep. There is good reason to be concerned about all we have yet to do...
	Not every classroom has a highly qualified teacher.
	Not every parent has good information about their child’s school and teacher. 
	Not every student is at proficient.

## The Need for Accountability

- A significant achievement gap exists between disadvantaged students and their more affluent peers, despite billions in Federal spending since 1965.
- 60% of poor fourth-graders do not read at a basic level compared to....
- In a recent Gallup poll, 75% were not aware of the achievement gap.

**Notes:**
There is a significant achievement gap between disadvantaged students and the more affluent students. 

NAEP Reading (2000) results
60% of low income fourth grade students cannot read at a basic level, 14% Proficient or Advanced
26% of those not low income are below basic, 41% Proficient or Advanced

These global numbers mask some harsh realities. You can all probably picture a school or two or three that you know, absolutely know, is not serving all of its students well. Those are actually the easy ones to identify. 

But, do you know about the schools where ‘most’ of the students are doing well? You know, in these schools, ‘most’ of the parents are happy. Most of the teachers are doing their job pretty well. But ‘most’ isn’t all – and until it is ‘all’ – our job isn’t done. This is the point of accountability in No Child Left Behind. 

## Accountability Systems Change Performance

- In states with stronger accountability...
- Overall NAEP math gains were higher
- Math scores of minority students rose more than those of white students
- Dropout rates did not rise faster than in low accountability states
-                             (Carnoy and Loeb, in press)

**Notes:**
CPRE study of accountability systems

## Accountability so far...

- Good!
- BAD
- indifferent

## Accountability: The Good

- Every state has some system for holding, at least, districts accountable.
- Every state has a means for identifying schools that need to improve.
- Almost every system is based primarily on student achievement.

**Notes:**
The 1994 reauthorization of ESEA was the a leap forward for accountability for schools. The phrase adequate yearly progress introduced
Under No Child Left Behind, accountability is a guiding principle. 

Today, every state has some means for holding at least districts accountable. These methods are not perfect, and in some cases not very rigorous. But there is a system in place and at least an understanding that some form of accountability is a good thing. 

Likewise, Title I has required states to have a method for identifying schools that need to improve. For example, a number of states, in fact many of you here today, are looking at both an overall goal and the amount of growth schools are making towards reaching that goal. In these systems, there is an understanding and a willingness to identify schools that need to improve.

Lastly – almost every system is focused primarily on student achievement. We probably don’t celebrate this fact enough. It wasn’t that long ago when the focus of our system was process, bricks and mortar kinds of concepts. Now, we have adopted a mentally that student learning matters—for every student. 

## Accountability:  The Bad

- Systems that exclude schools from accountability.
- Systems that have different (yes, lower) criteria for some schools.
- Systems that are invisible.

**Notes:**
 While there is cause to celebrate, we are not finished. Here’s what else we have learned:
	Some systems exclude a significant number of students from accountability. The reasons vary –but the result is the same, some students are left out, and there is an implicit understanding that it’s okay not too expect too much from those schools or students.
	Some systems have different criteria for different schools. This has particularly been a problem for schools that do or do not receive Title I funds. Some systems have different criteria for alternate schools. What does this say about those students? That the expectations are too much for them? 
	A final point about the bad is invisible systems. Recent reports about accountability have found that some schools don’t know when they have been identified for improvement. Why is that? Why would we take the time to collect and analyze the data and make a decision that a school isn’t serving its kids well and then not let the school know? Other systems are buried so deeply within the state bureaucracy, that no one understands them or can find the results. 

## Accountability:  The Indifferent

- Systems that fit the definition of accountability but not the intent.
- Systems that have no power to change instruction and do not expect to.
- Systems that expect progress at a snail’s pace.

**Notes:**
Indifferent accountability systems –merely a way of complying with the law and not a strategy used to drive change. 

Systems where ‘adequate progress’ has been defined as anything as long as the school, or even district, isn’t moving backwards.

## Unique Features of NCLB Accountability

-  All schools and students through subgroup 	accountability
- Close look at reading and mathematics
-  Annual decisions and reporting
-  Expectations for continuous and substantial 	 	progress
-  Support provided for instructional 	improvement

**Notes:**
Subgroup acct = single greatest change under NCLB
Read & math: separate
Annual reporting and school decisions: keep the info current
Progress: movement toward difficult long-range goal. Must make short-term and long-term adjustments
	Pick the low-hanging fruit while initiating system changes
Support inst improvement
	reading $ $300M last year to $900M this year
	Title II

## Annual reporting to support decisions about school quality

-  Achievement
-  Assessment rates
-  Graduation rate
-  AYP decisions
-  School Improvement
-  Teacher quality

**Notes:**
State reports cards, this year, will include the following elements: List elements...

Reflects systemic view of school change and the critical role of teachers.
NAEP results will provide an external indicator

## “Adequate Yearly Progress” (AYP)

**Student achievement is judged relative to annual measurable objectives to determine if the school or LEA made AYP.**
**The school and each subgroup of students must:**
**Meet the annual objective, OR**
**Decrease the percent of students who are not proficient by 10% **_**and**_** make progress on another indicator.**
**Method for calculating AYP ensures that schools and districts are focused on the accountability goal – all students proficient.**

**Notes:**
Central feature of the system = AYP. Will talk about in detail tomorrow in break out sessions. Also, Sessions about improving schools and strategies for making AYP.

Statute is detailed, some would say prescriptive. Within the framework of AYP, States must make many important decisions. Need to understand how it works and need to understand that there aren’t many “loopholes”

States required to submit their definition of critical elements to USED Jan 31.
	Definition of AYP
	FAY
	Minimum group size 

## AYP Components

**Test Performance**
**% Proficient – Reading/Language Arts**
**% Proficient – Mathematics**
**Test Participation**
**Reading/Language Arts**
**Mathematics**
**Other Indicator(s)**
**Graduation Rate**
**Other**

## School/District Performance

**Did All Students Reach Annual Target?**
**Did All Racial/Ethnic Groups Reach Target?**
**Did Economically Disadvantaged Reach Target?**
**Did Students with Disabilities Reach?**
**Did Students with Limited English Proficiency Reach?**

## What if a school fails to make AYP? 

- For the first time, parents, voters and taxpayers will _know_ when schools aren’t getting the job done.
- Failing schools will receive extra help.
- Students in chronically failing schools will have escape routes.
- Schools that continue to fail after receiving extra help may be reformed by the state.

**Notes:**
Cheri Yecke and a session sponsored by ELC will go into detail about choice and supplemental services in greater detail tomorrow. 

## These historic reforms will improve our public schools by creating an environment where every child can learn through real accountability, unprecedented flexibility for states and school districts, greater local control, more options for parents, and more funding for what works.
-President George W. Bush

- -President George W. Bush