1. Accountability and Assessment: From “A Nation at Risk”  NCLB  Race to the Top

2. 1980: Department of Education created (at Cabinet level) http://www.ed.gov/about/landing.jhtml?src=gu http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html http://www.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html http://www.edgovblogs.org/duncan/topic/esea-reauthorization/ 1965: Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), including Title I funding for disadvantaged children. Requires reauthorization every 5 years. 1917, 1946: Federal aid to schools for vocational, agricultural, and home ec education 1958: National Defense Education Act (response to Sputnik) funds improvements in science, math, and foreign language instruction 1964: Title VI of Civil Rights Act 1972: Title IX of Education Amendments 1973, 1975: Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act, Education for All Handicapped Children Act 2002: ESEA reauthorized as No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 – Bipartisan legislation, Sen. Kennedy 2004: Major revamping of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 1980s – 2000s: States and professional groups develop content standards, assessments, and accountability mechanisms prohibit race, sex, special needs discrimination in education 1983: A Nation at Risk 2009: Race to the Top, ESEA reauthorization

3. Assessment and Accountability: The Early Years

4. 1980s – early 1990s “Off the shelf” tests: Stanford, ITBS, California Achievement Test Norm-referenced Minimum competency tests: e.g. Texas Assessment of Basic Skills (1979), Texas Educational Assessment of Minimum Skills (1984)

5. Assessment and Accountability: The Early Years 1980s – early 1990s “Off the shelf” tests: Stanford, ITBS, California Achievement Test Norm-referenced Minimum competency tests: e.g. Texas Assessment of Basic Skills (1979), TX Educational Assessment of Minimum Skills (1984) Mid-to-late 1990s Achievement tests: e.g. Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (1993), Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (1999) Criterion-referenced Tests start to be aligned with state standards

6. Criticisms of State Assessment Systems Wildly variable in quality and rigor Often not aligned with state standards (state standards didn’t always exist) Student-level accountability (e.g. must pass to graduate) but no teacher, principal, or school-level accountability Not used to guide instruction

7. Accountability as…

10. NCLB (No Child Left Behind)

11. Major NCLB Requirements: All students (100%) at “proficiency” by 2014 – AYP determined for each subgroup: (100%-current % proficient) (2014-current year) % increase expected=

12. Major NCLB Requirements: All students (100%) at “proficiency” by 2014 – AYP determined for each subgroup: Failure to meet AYP in any subgroup = overall school failure to make AYP (100%-current % proficient) (2014-current year) % increase expected=

13. Major NCLB Requirements: All students (100%) at “proficiency” by 2014 – AYP determined for each subgroup: Failure to meet AYP in any subgroup = overall school failure to make AYP Progressive sanctions, some including increased funding (100%-current % proficient) (2014-current year) % increase expected=

14. Major NCLB Requirements: All students (100%) at “proficiency” by 2014 – AYP determined for each subgroup: Failure to meet AYP in any subgroup = overall school failure to make AYP Progressive sanctions, some including increased funding Reading and math tests every year grades 3-8, once in grade 9 or 10, science at three diff. times (100%-current % proficient) (2014-current year) % increase expected=

15. Major NCLB Requirements: All students (100%) at “proficiency” by 2014 – AYP determined for each subgroup: Failure to meet AYP in any subgroup = overall school failure to make AYP Progressive sanctions, some including increased funding Reading and math tests every year grades 3-8, once in grade 9 or 10, science at three diff. times Graduation and attendance rates now part of AYP (100%-current % proficient) (2014-current year) % increase expected=

16. How NCLB promotes equity:

17. Disaggregates scores

18. How NCLB promotes equity: Disaggregates scores Judges schools by their least successful students, not their most successful

19. How NCLB promotes equity: Disaggregates scores Judges schools by their least successful students, not their most successful Establishes clear and common achievement standards; eliminates between-school and even between-district variation in standards for success

20. How NCLB promotes equity: Disaggregates scores Judges schools by their least successful students, not their most successful Establishes clear and common achievement standards; eliminates between-school and even between-district variation in standards for success Provides strong incentives for school improvement focused on student achievement

21. How NCLB promotes equity: Disaggregates scores Judges schools by their least successful students, not their most successful Establishes clear and common achievement standards; eliminates between-school and even between-district variation in standards for success Provides strong incentives for school improvement focused on student achievement Purportedly offers students/families in failing schools additional options, including to transfer to a non-failing school

22. Challenges to equity: The threat of perverse incentives States Schools Students

23. Perverse Incentives for States: Lower Standards to Increase Passing Rates Source for following slides: National Center for Education Statistics (2007). Mapping 2005 State Proficiency Standards Onto the NAEP Scales (NCES 2007- 482). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: Author.

36. Perverse Incentives for Schools: Don’t Let Students Get to 10 th Grade (unless they can pass the test)

37. BostonDistrict Results 8.65.1 2.71.94.13.93.016.77.37.49.4 Academy of Public Service 28.718.620.00 Brighton High 1.33.11.911.1 Charlestown 31.39.12.819.4 Community Academy 57.911.117.66.5 Madison Park 8.610.711.311.7 Monument High 15.39.83.27.5 Fenway High 01.304.2 Social Justice Academy 13.36.120.013.1 CambridgeDistrict Results 1.11.01.71.20.30.21.009.94.71.91.7 NewtonDistrict Results 0.3000.10 0.50.60.81.0 SomervilleDistrict Results 8.94.12.81.83.23.14.71.414.37.33.77.6 LawrenceDistrict Results 5.22.02.32.00.72.31.70.910.85.23.77.8 District Name School Name Gra de 1 Gra de 2 Gra de 3 Gra de 4 Gra de 5 Gra de 6 Gra de 7 Gra de 8 Gra de 9 Gra de 10 Gra de 11 Gra de 12 District Retention Rates: Evidence of the Urban Ninth Grade Bulge http://www.doe.mass.edu/infoservices/reports/retention/. Updated Apr. 16, 2009. Accessed December 15, 2009.

38. BostonDistrict Results 8.65.1 2.71.94.13.93.016.77.37.49.4 Academy of Public Service 28.718.620.00 Brighton High 1.33.11.911.1 Charlestown 31.39.12.819.4 Community Academy 57.911.117.66.5 Madison Park 8.610.711.311.7 Monument High 15.39.83.27.5 Fenway High 01.304.2 Social Justice Academy 13.36.120.013.1 CambridgeDistrict Results 1.11.01.71.20.30.21.009.94.71.91.7 NewtonDistrict Results 0.3000.10 0.50.60.81.0 SomervilleDistrict Results 8.94.12.81.83.23.14.71.414.37.33.77.6 LawrenceDistrict Results 5.22.02.32.00.72.31.70.910.85.23.77.8 District Name School Name Gra de 1 Gra de 2 Gra de 3 Gra de 4 Gra de 5 Gra de 6 Gra de 7 Gra de 8 Gra de 9 Gra de 10 Gra de 11 Gra de 12 District Retention Rates: Evidence of the Urban Ninth Grade Bulge http://www.doe.mass.edu/infoservices/reports/retention/. Updated Apr. 16, 2009. Accessed December 15, 2009.

39. BostonDistrict Results 8.65.1 2.71.94.13.93.016.77.37.49.4 Academy of Public Service 28.718.620.00 Brighton High 1.33.11.911.1 Charlestown 31.39.12.819.4 Community Academy 57.911.117.66.5 Madison Park 8.610.711.311.7 Monument High 15.39.83.27.5 Fenway High 01.304.2 Social Justice Academy 13.36.120.013.1 CambridgeDistrict Results 1.11.01.71.20.30.21.009.94.71.91.7 NewtonDistrict Results 0.3000.10 0.50.60.81.0 SomervilleDistrict Results 8.94.12.81.83.23.14.71.414.37.33.77.6 LawrenceDistrict Results 5.22.02.32.00.72.31.70.910.85.23.77.8 District Name School Name Gra de 1 Gra de 2 Gra de 3 Gra de 4 Gra de 5 Gra de 6 Gra de 7 Gra de 8 Gra de 9 Gra de 10 Gra de 11 Gra de 12 District Retention Rates: Evidence of the Urban Ninth Grade Bulge http://www.doe.mass.edu/infoservices/reports/retention/. Updated Apr. 16, 2009. Accessed December 15, 2009.

40. District Retention Rates Retention Rates by Race/Ethnicity (All Numbers are Percentages) District Name Number of Retentions Enrollment in Grades 1-12 Retention RateWhiteBlackAsian Native American Native Hawaiian Multi-Race, Non- HispanicHispanic Boston3,35950,7556.64.73.07.76.80.02.47.1 Cambridge994,8382.01.31.43.30.0 2.81.3 Lawrence39110,9413.62.42.13.3 3.7 Newton3410,5640.3 0.10.6 0.30.9 Somerville2364,3345.44.71.18.20.0 8.26.2 District Retention Rates by Race/Ethnicity (2006-07) http://www.doe.mass.edu/infoservices/reports/retention/

41. Perverse Incentives (or at least outcomes) for Students: If You’re Not Passing, Drop Out

42. 9 th Grade Retention and HS Dropout Rates: Repeating any grade correlated with and even clearly contributes to dropping out Evidence from TX and Philadelphia: persistence to 12th grade is dramatically lower for students repeating grade 9 Up to 40% of ninth grade students in cities with the highest dropout rates repeat 9 th grade; only 10– 15% of those repeaters go on to graduate 40% of dropouts in low–income high schools left after ninth grade vs. 27% in low–poverty districts Balfanz and Legters 2004, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/c1/c1s6.htm, http://www.betterhighschools.org/docs/NHSC_FirstYearofHighSchool_032807_000.pdf,http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/c1/c1s6.htm http://www.betterhighschools.org/docs/NHSC_FirstYearofHighSchool_032807_000.pdf

43. Cohort 2008 4-year graduation rates in Massachusetts: http://www.doe.mass.edu/infoservices/reports/gradrates/08_4yr.html. Updated Feb. 5, 2009. Accessed December 15, 2009. (Limited English Proficient)

44. ESEA Reauthorization: Points of Agreement

45. Measure individual student growth rather than cohort comparisons

46. ESEA Reauthorization: Points of Agreement Measure individual student growth rather than cohort comparisons Incorporate multiple measures into accountability system: e.g. dropout and retention rates, possibly higher-ed access

47. ESEA Reauthorization: Points of Agreement Measure individual student growth rather than cohort comparisons Incorporate multiple measures into accountability system: e.g. dropout and retention rates, possibly higher-ed access Make AYP (or its equivalent) more nuanced, not just yes/no

48. ESEA Reauthorization: Points of Agreement Measure individual student growth rather than cohort comparisons Incorporate multiple measures into accountability system: e.g. dropout and retention rates, possibly higher-ed access Make AYP (or its equivalent) more nuanced, not just yes/no Provide resources (“opportunity to learn”) and not just consequences

49. ESEA Reauthorization: Points of Agreement Measure individual student growth rather than cohort comparisons Incorporate multiple measures into accountability system: e.g. dropout and retention rates, possibly higher-ed access Make AYP (or its equivalent) more nuanced, not just yes/no Provide resources (“opportunity to learn”) and not just consequences Do everything possible to avoid perverse incentives

50. ESEA Reauthorization: Points of Agreement Measure individual student growth rather than cohort comparisons Incorporate multiple measures into accountability system: e.g. dropout and retention rates, possibly higher-ed access Make AYP (or its equivalent) more nuanced, not just yes/no Provide resources (“opportunity to learn”) and not just consequences Do everything possible to avoid perverse incentives Use data to guide instruction and not just guide sanctions and rewards

51. ESEA Reauthorization: Points of Agreement Measure individual student growth rather than cohort comparisons Incorporate multiple measures into accountability system: e.g. dropout and retention rates, possibly higher-ed access Make AYP (or its equivalent) more nuanced, not just yes/no Provide resources (“opportunity to learn”) and not just consequences Do everything possible to avoid perverse incentives Use data to guide instruction and not just guide sanctions and rewards Promote complex teaching for complex thinking