If the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is renewed in the next several months, the final version is likely to give a lot more running room to states when it comes to crafting their school accountability systems.
So are states ready for a rollback in federal oversight? What shape will their accountability systems take? And how will they ensure continued progress on the part of the traditionally low-performing subgroups of students that the No Child Left Behind Act鈥攖he current version of the ESEA鈥攚as designed to help?
Those questions are paramount as top education lawmakers on both sides of the U.S. Capitol鈥擲ens. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and Patty Murray, D-Wash., and Reps. John Kline, R-Minn., and Bobby Scott, D-Va.鈥攕trive to put the finishing touches on compromise legislation to renew the ESEA law.
Accountability is said to be a major issue behind the scenes in those negotiations, with both chambers having passed their own versions of the reauthorization.
But no matter what happens with the ESEA, states aren鈥檛 likely to go in a radically different direction on accountability, the Council of Chief State School Officers says in a report released last week.
Thanks in part to the Obama administration鈥檚 waivers from many of the mandates of the NCLB law, states already have taken greater control of how they measure student performance, rate schools, and intervene in schools that aren鈥檛 making progress, said Chris Minnich, the executive director of the CCSSO.
States 鈥渘ow own their accountability systems. In No Child Left Behind times, it was sort of a passive [acceptance] of what鈥檚 going on at the federal level,鈥� Minnich said at an event in Washington at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank. The CAP event coincided with the release of the CCSSO report on accountability.
Even before waivers were offered, the CCSSO explained in its report, more than 40 states signed on to some general principles of accountability systems, including identifying achievement gaps and working to close them; providing timely information on outcomes to educators; giving failing schools extra attention and support; and allowing systems to evolve and grow over time.
State Commitment
Over the past several years, Minnich said at the CAP event, states have begun thinking more about how they can fix and support schools鈥攏ot just label them.
Carey Wright, Mississippi鈥檚 state chief, agreed, saying her state isn鈥檛 likely to back off its school turnaround efforts.
鈥淏ehind every data point is a face. ... I can鈥檛 imagine looking at data and then saying 鈥極K,鈥� and moving on,鈥� Wright said. 鈥淲e鈥檝e got to take action.鈥�
For instance, she said, the Magnolia State is considering what turnaround strategies work best for rural schools.
The CCSSO report highlighted other state action already in play around richer accountability, closing the achievement gap, or school turnarounds.
For instance, New Mexico has cooked up an accountability system that considers factors beyond just test scores and graduation rates, including participation in college-entrance exams and dual-credit coursework.
And Minnesota provides its districts with individual reports showing how close they are to the statewide goal of cutting the achievement gap in half by 2017.
States are committed to those activities, the report said. They won鈥檛 drop them just because a new ESEA might replace the waivers.
Subgroup Quandary
But there are some concerns that students who have traditionally been overlooked鈥攕o-called 鈥渟ubgroup students,鈥� such as students in special education, English-language learners, and black and Hispanic students鈥攈aven鈥檛 been a priority under the administration鈥檚 waivers.
Those waivers ask states to take dramatic action in the 5 percent of schools that are performing the worst overall, plus another 10 percent of schools with big achievement gaps or other problems.
The trouble is that many subgroup students aren鈥檛 in those kinds of schools, said Daria Hall, the director of K-12 policy for the Education Trust, which looks out for poor and minority students.
The vast majority of students of color 鈥渁re in schools that are doing OK overall, but not for those groups of kids,鈥� Hall said at the CAP panel. Schools shouldn鈥檛 be able to earn the highest rating on state accountability systems, she said, if subgroup students aren鈥檛 making good progress鈥攁s some have been able to under waivers.
鈥淚t can鈥檛 be, 鈥極h you got an A, but you鈥檙e missing goals for your black kids,鈥� 鈥� she said.
Turnaround Issue
Carmel Martin, who helped develop and implement the waivers as a top aide at the U.S. Department of Education, said the idea of a bottom 5 percent was to give state education agencies a manageable number of schools to concentrate their most dramatic efforts on.
But she agreed that it鈥檚 also important to consider subgroup performance. Martin, who is now CAP鈥檚 executive vice president for policy, pointed to the organization鈥檚 analysis, released in late October, of Education Department data.
鈥楩irmly Committed鈥�
CAP found that in 42 states, the gap between Hispanic and white students was bigger in top-performing schools than in struggling ones. In 39 states, the gap between black and white students was also greater in otherwise successful schools than in schools that are foundering.
There鈥檚 also a chance that an ESEA renewal doesn鈥檛 pass during the next few months. In that case, it may be up to the next president to reimagine the federal role on accountability, perhaps through his or her own set of waivers.
If that happens, states will roll with it, but they are sticking by their principles, the CCSSO said in its report.
鈥淪tate chiefs will continue to lead and remain firmly committed to strong accountability aligned to the principles,鈥� the report says.
