Late in 2015, Congress passed a new federal education law—the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)—which replaces the outdated No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). The new legislation turns over considerably greater authority to states, which will now have much more flexibility in the design and implementation of accountability systems. At last, good riddance to NCLB’s alphabet soup of policies like “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) and “highly qualified teachers” (HQT)—and yes, the absurd “100 percent proficient by 2014” mandate. Adios, too, to “waivers” that added new restrictions!
But now the question is whether states can do any better. As Ohio legislators contemplate a redesign of school accountability for the Buckeye State, it would first be useful to review our current system. This can help us better understand which elements should be kept and built upon, modified, or scrapped—and which areas warrant greater attention if policy makers are going to improve schools. Since Ohio has an A–F school rating system, it seems fitting to rate the present system’s various elements on an A–F scale. Some will disagree with my ratings—after all, report cards are something of an art—so send along your thoughts or post a comment.
NB: In this review, I primarily address school ratings (for more background on school report cards, see here or here). In a future piece, I’ll look at the issues around interventions for “low-performing” schools, another realm where ESSA gives states more policymaking discretion. (I also don’t review in detail issues of standardized testing, instead assuming a statewide exam that’s consistently administered and enjoys full participation. See here for my general views on testing; for my colleague’s wholly persuasive opinion on the “opt-out” situation, see here.)
A
A–F grading: Beginning 2012–13, Ohio has reported school performance (and subcomponents thereof) using a reader-friendly A–F scale. With respect to public transparency around results, this policy has been a major step forward. (Ohio’s previous ratings system used murky descriptors like “effective” or “continuous improvement.”) The Buckeye State should stay the course with A–F grading.
Student growth measures (a.k.a. “value added”): Another significant advance made by Ohio is the implementation of a value-added measure for gauging student growth. This measure reveals a school’s impact apart from pupil demographics and other non-school factors, which are especially important for schools that educate students arriving behind grade level. Wisely, the Buckeye State has made value added a key component of school report cards, and it is now used to guide state interventions (e.g., default charter closure and public schools whose students become eligible for vouchers). The drawback is that sophisticated data analysis is used to determine these results, thus limiting transparency. As value added becomes a more prominent feature in school accountability, it’ll be critical that the public gain a greater understanding of what it means and how it’s calculated.
B
Subgroup value added: In 2012–13, Ohio implemented value-added grades for three student subgroups: low-achievers (lowest 20 percent statewide), students with disabilities, and gifted pupils. This represents a big improvement: The public can now gauge how schools are educating students who might be ignored when the focus is on average gains. I have two reasons for withholding an A grade here: First, it only applies to three subgroups, but many more could usefully be included. Such groups might include low-income students, English language learners—perhaps meeting ESSA’s new requirements for ELL accountability—and race/ethnic subgroups. Second, the subgroup results aren’t used to determine consequences. Moving forward, we might consider using subgroup value added for consequential accountability. For example, a school might be obligated to offer additional education options to its high-ability students if it fails on gifted value added for three consecutive years.
No overall rating: Schools haven’t seen an “overall” rating since 2011–12; instead, they’ve been graded on a handful of report card categories. The pause has actually worked out pretty well, as it has forced us to acknowledge that different indicators mean different things and cannot be easily lumped together. In its way, this has promoted more equal consideration of growth and absolute achievement. The tradeoff, of course, for not having a single aggregate is reduced transparency and public understanding. What to do? One option is to solidify the current policy of no overall grades (they are slated to return in 2017–18, when “safe harbor” ends). In my view, this is an appealing option if allowed under ESSA. (The law implies an overall rating but doesn’t explicitly mandate it.) However, if policy makers insist on overall ratings—or if they are required—the rating formula shouldn’t universally punish low-income schools for lagging achievement but also grant them substantial credit when students make large gains. One possibility, raised by my colleague Mike Petrilli, is to use a sliding scale when determining the weight on achievement and growth for different types of schools.
C
Science and social studies: As my Fordham colleagues have repeatedly insisted, science and social studies are critical elements of good schooling with a balanced curriculum. The problem, however, is that accountability systems have been designed almost exclusively around math and English language arts, leading schools to focus narrowly on those subjects. One remedy might be to strike a better balance in the state’s accountability system across the four “core” content areas. If feasible, one potential avenue for improvement might be a value-added measure for science and social studies. (Though not graded components of the school rating system, Ohio reports separate value-added results for math and reading.) One possibility might include the assignment of school grades in math, reading, social studies, and science to signal the equal importance of these subjects.
High school accountability: The present high school accountability system relies mainly on proficiency and graduation rates, ACT/SAT scores, and AP data. That fine as far as it goes—they are important metrics, especially the remediation-free results based on ACT or SAT scores. But let me poke two holes in these measures. For one thing, I agree with Fordham’s Robert Pondiscio, who recently dubbed graduation rates “phony” statistics. Getting students to the high school finish line, sometimes through questionable means like “credit recovery,” should no longer be an outsized focus when evaluating high school quality. Whether young people are “college- and career-ready” when they graduate from high school must take priority. Additionally, several of these measures are closely correlated with students’ socioeconomic characteristics. To provide a clearer view of school performance, policy makers must follow through and implement a value-added measure for the high school grades (this measure is expected in 2017–18, if not sooner).
Student achievement measures: A word must be said about Ohio’s longstanding achievement measures for schools, namely “performance index” and “indicators met.” They’ve got some merit as report card measures. We absolutely need evidence of how students in a school are performing in addition to school performance—the purpose of value added. As a measure that gives schools more credit when students achieve at higher levels (akin to a weighted GPA), the performance index is the superior of the two achievement-based measures. (The “indicators met” rating is a pass/fail measure against a predetermined statewide proficiency rate.) In my view, state authorities should pick just one of the two measures for school rating purposes, preferably the performance index. As highly correlated measures, the dual ratings are usually a double whammy for lower-income schools; for high-income schools, they are an unearned bonus. While they’re at it, policy makers should make sure the raw proficiency data by school and subgroup remain available for public review and analysis, as they now are.
D
Annual measurable objectives (AMOs): Never heard of AMOs? Good, you’re probably better for it. Since 2012–13, AMOs have been used as a replacement for the AYP subgroup requirements under the ESEA waiver program. In short, it’s methodological gobbledygook that tries to gauge how well schools are educating student subgroups. It is also premised on proficiency and graduation rates—which, as has been stated about a zillion times, are contaminated by their correlation with socioeconomic characteristics. That’s doubly problematic because the AMO subgroups include racial minorities and low-income students. The measure also yields odd results. Some of Ohio’s very best high-poverty schools are dinged for failing AMOs—presumably guilty of widening the achievement gap—even as value-added measures reveal their students to be making big learning gains. Now that Ohio is freed from NCLB and former Secretary Duncan’s waivers, we must find a better way to gauge subgroup progress (see above, subgroup value added). First, scrap AMOs.
K–3 measures: The Kasich administration and the legislature have rightly emphasized early childhood literacy. One piece in this initiative has been the implementation of the K–3 literacy measure—a step in the right direction. But it’s also a peculiar measure, only accounting for students who are “not on track” (as deemed by schools) on diagnostic tests in reading. Oddly enough, 157 out of 609 districts in Ohio didn’t receive a K–3 literacy rating in 2014–15. (Are we to infer that one-quarter of districts don’t have any struggling young readers?) To be sure, the implementation of K–3 literacy measure is in its infancy. But if Ohio is to get serious about early literacy for all students, accountability will need to be improved in the early elementary grades. Should the K–3 literacy measure be redesigned? Or could the state begin work on a measure that links kindergarten readiness with third-grade reading results?
F
Low proficiency standards: Unfortunately, I must end on a sour note regarding something utterly fundamental: Ohio’s woeful cut score (in more technical speak, its “performance standard”), set for the purposes of gauging student proficiency. In 2014–15, state authorities set an anemic standard—apparently one of the lowest in the nation—and one that doesn’t begin to align with Ohio’s NAEP results. From the looks of it, that standard will remain low as Ohio transitions to ODE/AIR-designed exams this coming spring. We’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again: Buckeye policy makers cannot continue to mislead parents and taxpayers about how many students are truly on track for success in college or career. Let’s raise the bar for student proficiency.
There you have it: the good, the bad, and the ugly of Ohio’s present school accountability system. With the new powers that the state possesses under ESSA, it’ll have more room to maneuver in the accountability space. We should use this exceptionally rare and long-overdue opportunity to make things better, certainly not to undercut robust and objective outcome measures. A strong accountability system is critical as Ohio seeks to improve its schools and lift achievement for all.
