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: Analyzing the First 17 ESSA Accountability Plans

Brandon L. Wright Michael J. Petrilli
7.27.2017
7.27.2017

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) grants states more authority over their school accountability systems than did No Child Left Behind (NCLB)—meaning that states now have a greater opportunity to design improved school ratings. Rating the Ratings: Analyzing the First 17 ESSA Accountability Plans examines whether states are making the most of the moment.

In our view, three of the most important improvements that states can make are to ensure that their accountability systems:

  1. Assign annual ratings to schools that are clear and intuitive for parents, educators, and the public;
  2. Encourage schools to focus on all students, not just their low performers; and
  3. Fairly measure and judge all schools, including those with high rates of poverty.

Table 1 shows the results for the seventeen plans that have been submitted to the U.S. Department of Education, sixteen of which have enough information for us to rate. (Click the state name to read its profile.) Although many national observers have been worried about their rigor and quality—and, to be clear, we see some plans in need of improvement—we find that, for the most part, states are moving in a positive direction under ESSA. In fact, in our view, seven states have proposed ratings systems that range from good to great.

For each of the three objectives, states can earn grades of strong, medium, or weak. Three states—Arizona, Colorado, and Illinois—earn strong ratings across the board. Four others—Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Tennessee, and Vermont—receive two strong marks and one medium. Only one state, North Dakota, misses the mark entirely, earning three weak ratings.

Table 1. Results for states that have submitted plans to the U.S. Department of Education

State Clear Labels Focus on All Students Fair to All Schools
Arizona Strong Strong Strong
Colorado Strong Strong Strong
Connecticut Strong Strong Medium
Delaware Medium Weak Medium
District of Columbia Strong Strong Medium
Illinois Strong Strong Strong
Louisiana Strong Strong Weak
Maine Medium Medium Medium
Massachusetts Strong Strong Weak
Michigan N/A N/A N/A
Nevada Strong Weak Medium
New Jersey Medium Medium Medium
New Mexico Strong Medium Medium
North Dakota Weak Weak Weak
Oregon Weak Medium Medium
Tennessee Strong Medium Strong
Vermont Strong Strong Medium

Other key findings:

  • State systems are particularly strong when it comes to assigning clear and intuitive labels. Eleven earn a strong mark for using either A-F grades, five-star systems, or user-friendly numerical systems.
     
  • Similarly, eight plans earn a strong rating for signaling that every child is important—a huge improvement on NCLB-era systems, which encouraged a focus on "bubble kids," those just below or above states' proficiency cutoffs, to the detriment of other students.
     
  • We see somewhat less progress when it comes to making accountability systems fair to high-poverty schools. Only four states earn a strong here. But nine others get by with a medium rating, so the news here is still good, compared to systems in place under NCLB.

The seventeen jurisdictions that submitted their ESSA applications by the first deadline volunteered to be guinea pigs—or, if you like, sacrificial lambs. There is little doubt that the other thirty-four states are watching closely, both to see models they might emulate and to learn how the U.S. Department of Education reacts to what has been proposed.

Will the remaining states do even better? We see no reason why they cannot. We’ll be back in the autumn to find out how they do.


Policy Priority:
High Expectations
Topics:
Accountability & Testing
ESSA
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

7.27.2017

Related Resources

view
High Expectations

The first 17 ESSA accountability plans correct many NCLB-era errors

Brandon L. Wright, Michael J. Petrilli 7.27.2017
NationalFlypaper
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]