Using Accountability to Drive Equity Risks and Opportunities in ESSA March 8, 2016 Using Accountability to Drive Equity Risks and Opportunities in ESSA Daria Hall Copyright 2016 The Education Trust

Goals for our time together Build a shared understanding of what accountability means and why it’s important Share principles for strong, equity-focused accountability Identify the opportunities and risks that ESSA poses for state accountability

What do we mean by “accountability”? Policies for measuring and holding schools responsible for important outcomes, rewarding schools that are serving all students well, and prompting improvement in those that aren’t.

To be clear: policies themselves don’t close gaps and raise achievement. Only the hard work of educators, students, and parents can do that.

But well-designed accountability systems: Set a clear expectation that schools must raise the achievement of all of their students, not just some Focus attention and resources on the full range of student groups, including those who are sometimes ignored Prompt action when schools don’t meet expectations for any group of students.

Accountability is not about sorting and punishing. It’s about making sure that schools and systems are responsible for the performance of all students, and taking action when any group falls behind. Strong local leaders need cover to do this. Others need pressure.

And why does this matter?

The face of our population is changing --- fast Percentage Increase, Ages 0–24 Note: Projected Population Growth, Ages 0–24, 2010-2050 Source: National Population Projections, U.S. Census Bureau. Released 2008; NCHEMS, Adding It Up, 2007.

But on just about every measure, the student populations that are growing the fastest are less prepared for success in college and the workforce than their peers

Latino, African American, and Native test takers are less likely to meet ACT college readiness benchmarks in any subject Note: College readiness benchmarks are ACT-established thresholds that represent the score that a student needs to attain in order to have at least a 50% chance of receiving a B and a 75% chance of receiving a C in corresponding first-year college courses. Source: The Condition of College & Career Readiness 2015, ACThttps://www.act.org/research/policymakers/cccr15/pdf/CCCR15-NationalReadinessRpt.pdf.

Students of color far more likely to enroll in remedial courses at four-year colleges Note: National estimates based on the calculated medians of data self-reported by 33 states. Source: Complete College America, Remediation: Higher education’s bridge to nowhere, 2012, http://www.completecollege.org/docs/CCA-Remediation-final.pdf.

Most students of color at two-year colleges need to take remedial courses in at least some subjects Note: National estimates based on the calculated medians of data self-reported by 33 states. Source: Complete College America, Remediation: Higher education’s bridge to nowhere, 2012, http://www.completecollege.org/docs/CCA-Remediation-final.pdf.

Young adults from high-income families are 7 times more likely to earn bachelor’s degrees by age 24 Source: Tom Mortenson, Bachelor’s Degree Attainment by age 24 by Family income Quartiles, 1970 to 2010, Postsecondary Education Opportunity, 2012.

Students of color far more likely to fail to meet minimum academic requirements for Army enlistment Note: Sample is composed of young high school graduates, ages 17-20, who applied for entry into the Army between 2004 and 2009 and who took the ASVAB at a Military Entrance Processing Station, and are not a representative sample of all high school graduates. Source: Christina Theokas, Shut Out of the Military: Today’s high school education doesn’t mean you’re ready for today’s Army,” The Education Trust, 2010, http://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/publications/files/ASVAB_4.pdf.

Over 80% of employers report that recent public high school graduates have gaps in preparation for typical jobs in their company Source: Rising to the Challenge: College Instructors’ Views on High School Graduates’ Preparedness for College, Achieve, 2015

Accountability’s not a cure-all, but done well, it helps create urgency to improve K-12 preparation for all students. And while it’s become convenient to characterize accountability as “test and punish” and the last 15 years as a wasteland for kids, the data suggest something else…

Since we’ve had federal requirements for annual testing, full public reporting, and serious accountability for the results of every group of children, achievement among black, Latino, and low-income students has improved.

Large gains for all groups of students, especially students of color *Denotes previous assessment format National Center for Education Statistics, “The Nation's Report Card: Trends in Academic Progress 2012”

Performance for all groups has risen dramatically *Denotes previous assessment format National Center for Education Statistics, “The Nation's Report Card: Trends in Academic Progress 2012”

Rising scores translate into big improvements in knowledge and skills for students

Increased proficiency rates in math Note: income measure was revised in 2003. National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/

For all groups, declines in the percentage of students below the basic level 2000 data not available for Asian/Pacific Islander National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/

High school graduation rates are up for most groups

Rising graduation rates, especially for black and Latino students 2003 – in g11 when NCLB signed; 2004 – g10; 2005 – g9; 2006 – g8; 2007 – g7; 2008 – g6; 2009 – g5; 2010 – g4; 2011 – g3; 2012 – g2 Note: Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate is the estimated percentage of entering freshmen who graduate from high school four years later. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data, http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/data_tables.asp.

We can’t take our foot off the accelerator now

The business community has been working hard to defend standards and assessment. Accountability is a continuation of that agenda. If tests show that students aren’t meeting standards, something needs to be done about that.

So what makes for strong accountability?

One way of thinking about accountability… What do we value most about school performance? What are our expectations for performance on the things we value? How do we clearly signal to parents and the public whether schools are or are not meeting those expectations? What do we do if they’re not meeting the expectations?

The business, civil rights, and disability community works to answer some of those questions in ESEA reauthorization

Coalition principles for statewide accountability systems that expect and support all students to graduate from high school ready for college and career.

What do we value most about school performance? Indicators: Measures of student learning outcomes, including assessments (growth and reading, math, and science proficiency), accurate high school graduation rates, and other academic measures of college/career readiness must be predominant. Other indicators (attendance, student surveys, school safety, etc.) may be included, but must play a secondary role. Evidence of English proficiency and time in program should be taken into account for English learners. Accurate assessment participation rates must be included

What are our expectations for performance on the things we value? Goals States must set public statewide improvement goals on indicators of student learning outcomes and translate these goals into improvement targets for districts and schools for students overall and for all subgroups, with greater progress expected for groups that have been behind.

How do we clearly signal whether schools are or are not meeting those expectations? Ratings Performance against those targets must be the predominant factor in statewide ratings systems, with other indicators making up the rest.

What do we do if they’re not meeting the expectations? Supports/Consequences State accountability systems must ensure that steps — including targeted interventions, supports, and ratings changes — are taken for all schools that consistently miss targets for any group of students. If these systems designate districts as the first responder for interventions and supports, states must assure effective action if those district supports and interventions don’t work.

ESSA: The Final Product Not the bill we would have written, but it was the result of compromise BUT it is NOT a full abdication of the federal role, as some are saying, and there ARE some key equity levers for states to take advantage of to support all groups of students

So what’s required. How is that different than what’s going on now So what’s required? How is that different than what’s going on now? What should advocates watch out for?

For those of you who like detail…

(i.e. What do we value most about school performance?) Indicators (i.e. What do we value most about school performance?)

Indicators For all groups of kids Test performance NCLB Waivers ESSA For all groups of kids Test performance Test participation rates - Grad rates Another academic indicator for elementary and middle schools Test performance and grad rates required for all groups Flexibility on others. The most common ones states added were measures of college and career readiness (i.e. high school course taking, SAT/ACT), and attendance – BUT MOST NOT MEASURED FOR GROUPS 1. Academic Achievement a. Proficiency on annual assessments, as measured against goals b. May include growth for high schools 2. Other Academic Indicator a. For high schools – graduation rate, as measured against goals b. For non-high schools – growth or another valid, reliable, statewide academic indicator 3. Progress toward English language proficiency for English learners 4. Other valid, reliable, comparable and statewide measure of school quality

Beyond tests and grad rates, what indicators should our state use Beyond tests and grad rates, what indicators should our state use? What will add to the picture of school performance—not mask underperformance?

Watch out for Things that can’t be measured for all groups of students (i.e. low income, black, Latino, etc.)…or for students at all Things that all schools do well on Things that aren’t related to the goal of college and career readiness Things that sound interesting but we can’t actually measure well Things schools don’t have control over Things that are helpful for some purposes, but not accountability

A note about opt out Whether or no 95 percent of students overall and in each group took the test has to be part of the state accountability system Most students who are not tested will automatically count as not proficient.

Why do test participation rates matter Why do test participation rates matter? Because before we paid attention to them, schools would “opt” their lowest performers to stay home, or go on a field trip, on test day.

Goals (i.e. What are our expectations for performance on the things we value?)

Goals NCLB Waivers ESSA 100% proficiency for all students and each student group by 2013-2014 3 Choices: Cut in half the difference between current proficiency rates and 100% in six years, overall and for each group 100% proficiency by 2020 Another, equally ambitious measure proposed by the state State-set long-term goals on at least tests and grad rates that expect more progress from groups of students who are farther behind

How do we set aggressive but achievable goals, especially on brand new tests?

Watch out for Goals that don’t expect much from anyone i.e. “any progress” or “0.01%” is enough Goals that don’t expect more improvement from groups starting further behind If all groups make the same progress, those who start behind, stay behind

Ratings (i.e. How do we clearly signal whether schools are or are not meeting those expectations?)

Ratings NCLB Waivers ESSA Schools either made AYP or didn’t, based on performance against goals for all groups of students on state tests and graduation rates State-developed rating systems Typically included tests and grad rates Did not have to be aligned to goals Did not have to reflect the performance of individual student groups State-developed rating systems that Must be based on how schools are performing for all groups of students on all the indicators If any group is consistently underperforming, that has to be reflected

How do we put everything together in a way that makes sense How do we put everything together in a way that makes sense? How do we clearly signal when any group is not meeting expectations?

Watch out for So much data no one can make sense of it…or no clear signal of what’s good enough Only identifying the lowest of the low performers Saying schools are doing well even if some kids are low performing year after year

Massachusetts: Percent of students in Level 4 or 5 Schools Includes only schools that received accountability ratings

Minnesota: Percent of students attending Priority schools Includes only schools that received accountability ratings

Two “A” Schools: Reading Proficiency Rates All students: 71% White: 77% Hispanic: 74% African American: 60% Low Income: 65% Students w/IEPs: 40% School 1 Note: This elementary school is approximately 30% African American, 40% Hispanic, and over 50% Low-Income School 2 Reading Proficiency Rates All students: 73% White: 89% Hispanic: 48% African American: 19% Low Income: 41% Students w/IEPs: 7% Note: This elementary school is approximately 20% African American, 10% Hispanic, and 40% Low-Income

Support/Consequences (i.e. What do we do if they’re not meeting the expectations?)

Support/Consequences NCLB Waivers ESSA Prescribed set of cascading interventions Identification of, and action in, three specific types of schools: Priority – lowest performing overall Focus – lowest group performance/biggest gaps Reward – top performing/improving Identification of, and locally-determined action in: Schools in the bottom 5% of the state, schools with graduation rates lower than 67% Schools where one or more groups of students is consistently underperforming Note: Didn’t have room to get into the timeline, increased action, etc. Happy to add in another slide if you think it is needed

How do we make sure kids don’t languish year after year How do we make sure kids don’t languish year after year? How do we develop capacity in districts and schools?

Watch out for No clear timeframes Action only in the lowest of the low performers Plan on paper but no real action An assumption that schools can fix themselves

What’s next?

Implementation Timelines Regulations: The U.S. Department of Ed will publish regulations over the coming months All ESSA requirements, except those pertaining to accountability, go into effect in the 2016-17 school year. New accountability systems must be in place by 2017-18.

Advice for State Advocates Wait until regulations are done for legislative/administrative changes in most circumstances Begin conversations and building coalitions NOW

Questions?

For more information dhall@edtrust.org Washington, D.C. Metro Detroit, MI Oakland, CA 202/293-1217 734/619-8009 510/465-6444