Issue Brief-Delete and Insert your Title

Background on Report Cards

States have been creating, refining and producing report cards on public education since the 1980s. The movement began with 1984 U.S. Secretary of Education Terrel Bell’s “wall chart,” which gauged state performance on test results, enrollment characteristics, teacher data and expenditure information. The report card movement fizzled somewhat after critics charged that SAT and ACT scores were inappropriate for interstate comparison. Moreover, people doubted that comparable data were available on the dropout issue; others questioned whether the wall chart would itself cause school districts and states to direct their efforts toward short-term gains rather than long-range growth. Swept into the performance indicator movement, however, districts and states soon began to release their own data under titles such as “stockholders report” or “report card.”

Since that time, states have refined the indicators on which they report, attempting to help communities and parents better understand the quality of their schools. More recently, an increasing number of states have taken public reporting to another level. Over 30 states now provide this value-added information that addresses how schools or districts compare against a standard or against similar institutions.

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires states to prepare and disseminate an annual state report card. This requirement became effective at the beginning of the 2002-03 school year. The state agency also must ensure each local district collects appropriate data and includes this data at the district level and for each school in its annual report. Information to be reported includes:

§ Aggregated achievement information on state assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics

§ Disaggregated student group (race/ethnicity, disability, socioeconomic level, gender, migrant status, Limited English Proficient) achievement data on statewide assessments

§ Most recent two-year trend data reported by subject area and grade level in areas where assessments are required

§ Comparison data between actual achievement levels of each group of students to annual student achievement goals

§ Aggregated information on state indicators used to determine adequate yearly progress (AYP)

§ Percentage of students not tested, disaggregated by student subgroups listed above

§ High school graduation rates, one elementary school indicator and one middle school indicator

§ Performance of Local Education Agencies (LEAs) towards making AYP, including identifying numbers, names and percentages of schools in need of improvement

§ Data on teacher qualifications, including number of teachers with emergency certification and percentages of classes not taught by “highly-qualified” teachers.

State Trends and Highlights

Many states reported on some or all of the above indicators in the past, as well as others of their choosing (see ECS StateNote on State Performance Indicators, January 2002, at http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/32/12/3212.doc). In response to NCLB, some states have followed explicit directives from their legislatures or the state board of education. Others have produced reports without being required to do so by a state mandate, but simply because federal law requires them to do so. Still others have enacted policies requiring compliance with NCLB without stating the particulars of the law. And a few have passed policies to meet the federal requirements but have not yet produced the reports to match.

Since the Education Commission of the States began tracking where states are in meeting the components of NCLB, the number of states reporting on all the required elements has grown dramatically. As the chart below demonstrates, there is still a long way to go.

Notes of Interest

Nevada’s new policy is notable in its level of specificity. A link to Section 8 of Senate Bill 1, passed in special session in June 2003 appears at the end of this document (see *). Note that Nevada requires the reports to include information on a longer list of performance indicators than does NCLB.

NCLB indicators included in reports to the public

KEY

S=At State level R/E = Race/Ethnicity

D=District level DIS = Disability

L=Local school level SES = Socioeconomic Status

GEN = Gender

MIG = Migrant

ELL = English Language Learners

(Limited English Proficient)

Report Cards
State	Aggregate Reading/ Language Arts Achievement	Disaggregate by six groups	Two years data in each subject/ grade level	Comparison between actual and achievement targets – by group	Aggregated information on state indicators used to determine AYP	% of students not tested – by student groups	Graduation rate	At least one other indicator middle and elementary	Numbers, names, and percentages of schools needing improvement	Teacher Quality - % with Emergency certification or waivers	Teacher Quality - percentages not taught by “highly qualified” teachers or assigned out of field	Citation
AL	S/D/L	S/L	S		S	Reports only on alternative assessment numbers and achievement by group	S/D/L	S	S numbers, names		S/D/L	Ala. Code § 16-6B-7
AK	S/D/L		S/D/L		S/D/L		S/D/L	S/D/L	Accreditation information			Alaska Stat. § 14.03.120
AZ	S/L	S/L R/E only	S annual + every 5 yrs. L		S/L	# tested only	S/L	L	S/L			Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 15-743 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 15-746
AR	S/D/L		S/D/L				S/D/L	S/D/L	State ranks districts		S	Ark. Code Ann. § 6-15-1401 [Sch. Perf. Report Act, 02] 34 CFR 300.138 [repealed] 6-15-806 [repealed]
CA	S/D/L	S/D/L 100 is minimum group Star Reports disaggregate all but disability	S/D/L System can support this data; data just not available yet	L	L Local as Academic Performance Index	D/L number only and not by group	Dropout rate only L	L	L Notes whether on underperforming list	S/D/L Reports full, emergency and waivers		Cal. Educ. Code § 33126 Cal. Educ. Code § 52052
CO By Dec. 15	S/D/L	D/L DIS, R/E	D/L		L	L	Dropout only	D/L	D/L		D/L	Colo. Rev. Stat. § 22-7-605
CT (NCLB reports and Strategic School Profiles)	S/D/L	S/D/L	S/D/L	S/L		S/D/L				D/L	S/D/L	Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-220 (c,d) Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-239 (j) [Disclose accreditation reports]
DE	S/D/L	S/D/L	S		S/D/L		Dropout only	S/D/L	D/L Performance ratings			Del. Code Ann. tit. 14 § 124A (S.B. 76)
DC 1999 newest info. found												D.C. Code Ann. § 38-154 (e)
FL	S/D/L	S/D/L Not all groups — inconsistent across several reports		L Not by group	S/D/L	L Not by group	D/L Not by group	D/L	S/D/L State grades schools		S/D/L	Fla. Stat. ch. 1008.31 to .345 Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 6A-1.09982
GA	S/D/L	S/D/L All but SES, MIG	S/D/L		S/D/L	D Percent taking alternate D/L Numbers tested, not percentage	D/L Not by group S Dropout only	S/D/L	S/D/L Accreditation /recognition status

	StateNotes
	ACCOUNTABILITY--REPORTING