1. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST Copyright 2016 The Education Trust Using Accountability to Drive Equity Risks and Opportunities in ESSA Daria Hall March 8, 2016

2. © 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

3. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST 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.

4. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST To be clear: policies themselves don’t close gaps and raise achievement. Only the hard work of educators, students, and parents can do that.

5. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST 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.

6. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST 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.

7. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST And why does this matter?

8. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST The face of our population is changing --- fast Note: Projected Population Growth, Ages 0 – 24, 2010-2050 Percentage Increase, Ages 0 – 24 Source: National Population Projections, U.S. Census Bureau. Released 2008; NCHEMS, Adding It Up, 2007.

9. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST 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

10. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST 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. Latino, African American, and Native test takers are less likely to meet ACT college readiness benchmarks in any subject

11. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST 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.http://www.completecollege.org/docs/CCA-Remediation- final.pdf Students of color far more likely to enroll in remedial courses at four-year colleges

12. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST 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.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

13. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST 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.

14. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST 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. http://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/publications/files/ASVAB_4.pdf Students of color far more likely to fail to meet minimum academic requirements for Army enlistment

15. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST Source: Rising to the Challenge: College Instructors’ Views on High School Graduates’ Preparedness for College, Achieve, 2015 Over 80% of employers report that recent public high school graduates have gaps in preparation for typical jobs in their company

16. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST 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…

17. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST © 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST 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.

18. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST Sourc e: © 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST Large gains for all groups of students, especially students of color National Center for Education Statistics, “The Nation's Report Card: Trends in Academic Progress 2012” *Denotes previous assessment format

19. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST Sourc e: © 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST Performance for all groups has risen dramatically National Center for Education Statistics, “The Nation's Report Card: Trends in Academic Progress 2012” *Denotes previous assessment format

20. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST © 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST Rising scores translate into big improvements in knowledge and skills for students

21. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST Sourc e: © 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST Increased proficiency rates in math National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/

22. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST Sourc e: © 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST For all groups, declines in the percentage of students below the basic level National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/

23. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST © 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST High school graduation rates are up for most groups

24. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST © 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST Rising graduation rates, especially for black and Latino students Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data, http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/data_tables.asp.http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/data_tables.asp Note: Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate is the estimated percentage of entering freshmen who graduate from high school four years later.

25. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST © 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST We can’t take our foot off the accelerator now

26. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST © 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST 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.

27. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST © 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST So what makes for strong accountability?

28. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST One way of thinking about accountability… 1)What do we value most about school performance? 2)What are our expectations for performance on the things we value? 3)How do we clearly signal to parents and the public whether schools are or are not meeting those expectations? 4)What do we do if they’re not meeting the expectations?

29. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST The business, civil rights, and disability community works to answer some of those questions in ESEA reauthorization

30. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST Coalition principles for statewide accountability systems that expect and support all students to graduate from high school ready for college and career.

31. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST 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

32. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST 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.

33. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST 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.

34. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST 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.

35. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST 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

36. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST So what’s required? How is that different than what’s going on now? What should advocates watch out for?

37. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST For those of you who like detail…

38. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST Indicators (i.e. What do we value most about school performance?)

39. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST Indicators NCLBWaiversESSA 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

40. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST Beyond tests and grad rates, what indicators should our state use? What will add to the picture of school performance—not mask underperformance?

41. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST 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

42. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST 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.

43. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST 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.

44. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST Goals (i.e. What are our expectations for performance on the things we value?)

45. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST Goals NCLBWaivers ESSA 100% proficiency for all students and each student group by 2013-2014 3 Choices: 1.Cut in half the difference between current proficiency rates and 100% in six years, overall and for each group 2.100% proficiency by 2020 3.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

46. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST How do we set aggressive but achievable goals, especially on brand new tests?

47. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST 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

48. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST Ratings (i.e. How do we clearly signal whether schools are or are not meeting those expectations?)

49. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST Ratings NCLB WaiversESSA 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

50. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST How do we put everything together in a way that makes sense? How do we clearly signal when any group is not meeting expectations?

51. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST 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

52. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST Massachusetts: Percent of students in Level 4 or 5 Schools Includes only schools that received accountability ratings

53. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST Minnesota: Percent of students attending Priority schools Includes only schools that received accountability ratings

54. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST Two “A” Schools: Reading Reading Proficiency Rates All students: 73% White: 89% Hispanic: 48% African American: 19% Low Income: 41% Students w/IEPs: 7% School 2 Note: This elementary school is approximately 20% African American, 10% Hispanic, and 40% Low-Income 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

55. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST Support/Consequences (i.e. What do we do if they’re not meeting the expectations?)

56. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST Support/Consequences NCLBWaiversESSA 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

57. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST How do we make sure kids don’t languish year after year? How do we develop capacity in districts and schools?

58. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST 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

59. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST What’s next?

60. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST 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.

61. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST Advice for State Advocates Wait until regulations are done for legislative/administrative changes in most circumstances Begin conversations and building coalitions NOW

62. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST Questions?

63. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST For more information dhall@edtrust.org Washington, D.C. Metro Detroit, MI Oakland, CA 202/293-1217 734/619-8009 510/465-6444