This report examines the measures of school performance—such as reading and math proficiency rates—that are included in existing state accountability systems and provisionally assesses their alignment with the requirements of the newly minted Every Student Succeeds Act.
Nationwide, the report identifies a total of sixty unique measures—though no individual state uses more than twenty-six, or fewer than four—that they divide into seven categories: achievement, growth, English language acquisition, early warning, persistence, college- and career ready, and “other.”
This schema allows them to generate some useful statistics. For example, all fifty states and the District of Columbia measure achievement in English language arts and math, and many also measure achievement in science (twenty-seven states plus D.C.), social studies (fourteen states), or writing (five states). Similarly, forty-five states plus D.C. measure growth in ELA and math, yet only eight make the attempt in science, and only three in social studies.
At the high school level, forty-nine states plus D.C. include four-year graduation rates. Many also include other persistence measures, such as an extended-year cohort graduate rate (thirty-seven states) or dropout rate (eleven states). Furthermore, thirty states include some other measure of college and career readiness, such as participation in or performance on advanced coursework or exams (twenty-two), college entry exams (twenty-five), or career preparedness programs (twenty-six).
Twenty-four states also include at least one early warning indicator, such as attendance (eighteen) or chronic absenteeism (five). However, just six include an English language acquisition indicator. Finally, many states have one or more idiosyncratic indicators dealing with topics like arts access, physical fitness, and staff retention, or (for a group of nine districts in California) student, staff, and parent culture-climate survey results and measures of students’ social-emotional skills.
In addition to examining the frequency with which indicators are included, the authors also examine the weights they are typically assigned (though because accountability systems are in flux this analysis is limited to just thirty-five states). For example, in the average state, academic achievement accounts for 52 percent of elementary and middle school accountability ratings and 42 percent of high school ratings (though these figures mask considerable variation between states).
Given what we know about the contribution of out-of-school factors to achievement, these percentages seem unjustifiably high, especially since growth accounts for just 45 percent of elementary and middle school ratings in the average state and just 30 percent of high school ratings (even after the states that don’t include growth are excluded). Just three states weight growth more heavily than achievement, even though the former is a much fairer indicator of school performance.
Together, achievement and growth account for 91 percent of elementary and middle school ratings and 63 percent of high school ratings in the average state, meaning that other indicator types play a secondary role at best. At the high school level, persistence indicators like graduation account for an average of 22 percent of high school ratings, while college- and career-ready indicators account for 15 percent. However, early warning indicators account for just 11 percent of elementary and middle school ratings and 7 percent of high school ratings, and English language acquisition indicators account for just 7 percent of elementary and middle school ratings and 6 percent of high school ratings. (Again, states that lack each indicator type are excluded from these averages.)
As the report notes, the majority of state accountability systems are already aligned with many ESSA requirements (with the notable exception of the English language acquisition requirement). For example, forty-two states already have at least one early warning, persistence, college- and career-ready, or other indicator that might fulfill ESSA’s criteria for the “school quality or student success” indicator. But compliance shouldn’t be the only goal. More important is the creation of a fair and transparent system—or fifty systems, really.
To that end, the report sensibly suggests that states select “the fewest number of indicators needed to provide the most impactful outcomes.” But which outcomes are most impactful?
For the authors, “the purpose of school accountability is to identify struggling schools and provide them with additional supports.” But in an era defined by expanding choice and increased attention to consumer protection, that seems far too narrow.
SOURCE: Carmel Martin, Scott Sargrad, and Samantha Batel, “Making the Grade: A 50-State Analysis of School Accountability Indicators,” Center for American Progress (May 2016).
