Skip to main content

Mobile Navigation

  • National
    • Policy
      • High Expectations
      • Quality Choices
      • Personalized Pathways
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Gadfly Newsletter
      • Flypaper Blog
      • Events
    • Scholars Program
  • Ohio
    • Policy
      • Priorities
      • Media & Testimony
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Ohio Education Gadfly Biweekly
      • Ohio Gadfly Daily
  • Charter Authorizing
    • Application
    • Sponsored Schools
    • Resources
    • Our Work in Dayton
  • About
    • Mission
    • Board
    • Staff
    • Career
Home
Home
Advancing Educational Excellence

Main Navigation

  • National
  • Ohio
  • Charter Authorizing
  • About

National Menu

  • Topics
    • Accountability & Testing
    • Career & Technical Education
    • Charter Schools
    • Curriculum & Instruction
    • ESSA
    • Evidence-Based Learning
    • Facilities
    • Governance
    • High Achievers
    • Personalized Learning
    • Private School Choice
    • School Finance
    • Standards
    • Teachers & School Leaders
  • Research
  • Commentary
    • Gadfly Newsletter
    • Flypaper Blog
    • Gadfly Podcast
    • Events
  • Scholars Program
High Expectations

Rating the Ratings: An Analysis of the 51 ESSA Accountability Plans

Brandon L. Wright Michael J. Petrilli
11.14.2017
11.14.2017

The Every Student Succeeds Act grants states more authority over their accountability systems than did No Child Left Behind, but have they seized the opportunity to develop school ratings that are clearer and fairer than those in the past? Our new analysis examines the plans submitted by all fifty states and the District of Columbia, and whether they are strong or weak (or in-between) in achieving three objectives:

  1. Assigning annual ratings to schools that are clear and intuitive for parents, educators, and the public;

  2. Encouraging schools to focus on all students, not just their low performers; and

  3. Fairly measuring and judging all schools, including those with high rates of poverty.

Key findings include:

  • Thirty-five states—69 percent—received a “strong” grade for using clear and intuitive ratings such as A–F grades, five-star ratings, or user-friendly numerical systems. These labels immediately convey to all observers how well a given school is performing, and is a major improvement over the often Orwellian school ratings of the NCLB era.

  • The country is also doing much better in signaling that every child is important, not just the “bubble kids” near the proficiency cut-off. Twenty-three states earned strong grades on this objective, and another fourteen earned medium marks.

  • There is somewhat less progress when it comes to making accountability systems fair to high-poverty schools. Only eighteen states are strong here. But twenty-four others earn a medium grade, which is still an improvement over NCLB.

Altogether, twenty-one of the fifty-one proposed school rating systems are either good or great—earning at least two strong grades and one medium. And those of eight states—Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Washington—are the best, having received perfect scores. Moreover, of all the ratings we assigned across the three objectives, 50 percent were strong and 29 percent were medium.

On the flip side, three states received weak grades in each of the three areas: California, Idaho, and North Dakota. They rely on proficiency rates, don’t emphasize student growth, and propose using a dashboard-like approach with myriad data points and no bottom line for reporting school quality to parents, beyond identifying their very worst schools, as required by federal law.

Although many states included elements in their school rating systems that we don’t love, it’s welcome news that so many have corrected NCLB’s biggest flaws. Moreover, none of these ESSA plans are set in stone, and we hope that states will return to the drawing board to make their systems better before too much time passes. Congress probably won’t get around to reauthorizing the law for a decade or more. States need not—and should not—wait that long to make improvements.

But that is a conversation for another day. For now, let’s celebrate the fact that states, by and large, seized the ESSA opportunity to make their school accountability systems clearer and fairer. In this era of political dysfunction, that’s no small thing.
 

Select One of the Following to View Its State Profile
AL GA MD NJ SC
AK HI MA NM SD
AZ ID MI NY TN
AR IL MN NC TX
CA IN MS ND UT
CO IA MO OH VT
CT KS MT OK VA
DE KY NE OR WA
DC LA NV PA WV
FL ME NH RI WI
        WY

Editor's note: On November 15, 2017, one of New Hampshire's ratings was changed from weak to strong, and the report and accompanying text were updated accordingly. The original rating of weak was incorrect.


Policy Priority:
High Expectations
Topics:
Accountability & Testing
ESSA
Governance
DOWNLOAD PDF

Brandon Wright is the Editorial Director of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. He is the coauthor or coeditor of three books: Failing our Brightest Kids: The Global Challenge of Educating High-Ability Students (with Chester E. Finn, Jr.), Charter Schools at the…

View Full Bio

President, Thomas B. Fordham Institute

Michael J. Petrilli is president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, executive editor of Education Next, a Distinguished Senior Fellow for…

View Full Bio

Report Materials

Foreword & Executive Summary

11.14.2017

Related Resources

view
High Expectations

Rating the Ratings: Analyzing the First 17 ESSA Accountability Plans

Brandon L. Wright, Michael J. Petrilli 7.27.2017
NationalReport
view
High Expectations

How states can avoid proficiency rates when measuring academic achievement under ESSA

Brandon L. Wright 7.21.2017
NationalFlypaper
view

Why states should use student growth, and not proficiency rates, when gauging school effectiveness

Michael J. Petrilli, Aaron Churchill 10.13.2016
NationalFlypaper
Fordham Logo

© 2020 The Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Privacy Policy
Usage Agreement

National

1015 18th St NW, Suite 902 
Washington, DC 20036

202.223.5452

[email protected]

  • <
Ohio

P.O. Box 82291
Columbus, OH 43202

614.223.1580

[email protected]

Sponsorship

130 West Second Street, Suite 410
Dayton, Ohio 45402

937.227.3368

[email protected]