SECTION 1 - ACCOUNTABILITY AND ASSESSMENT
| back to main page and table of contents
|
ESEA 2001 builds on the accountability and assessment requirements Congress put in place in 1994, and mirrors the overall direction of states' education policy initiatives over the past decade: setting standards, measuring students' progress against standards, providing help for struggling students and holding schools accountable for results.
But the new law is more specific and has more teeth. It places new pressure on states and districts to improve student achievement and close academic gaps among students of different racial, ethnic and economic backgrounds.
The law sets deadlines for states to develop annual assessments aligned to state standards and to use achievement on these tests as the primary measure of district and school accountability. Assessments must include the participation of all students, including those with disabilities and limited English proficiency. Test results must include individual student scores and be reported by race, income and other categories to measure not just overall trends, but also gaps among, and progress of, various subgroups of students.
ESEA 2001 requires states to have in place a statewide accountability system that applies to all public schools, including charter schools. States and districts will be required to include specified information in annual report cards released to the public.
States, districts and schools must make adequate yearly progress toward having all students proficient in reading and mathematics by the 2013-14 school year. The new law specifies rewards for districts and schools that make progress, as well as corrective actions for those that persistently fail to improve.
Here are the key implementation deadlines:
By the 2002-03 school year:
- States and districts must issue report cards to the public (beginning of year).
- Corrective actions apply to any school identified as in need of improvement under the 1994 ESEA reauthorization.
- States must set annual yearly progress "starting point" based on 2001-02 data.
- Districts must assess English Language Learners (called Limited English Proficiency students in the law) for their English proficiency.
- All states must participate in National Assessment of Educational Progress 4th- and 8th-grade reading and math tests.
By the 2005-06 school year:
- States must have adopted standards for science.
- Annual statewide assessments for reading and math in grades 3-8 must be in place.
By the 2007-08 school year:
- Annual science assessments must be in place for each of the following grade spans: 3-5, 6-9 and 10-12.
|
State
Academic Standards and Mandated Timeline Funding Level If a state fails to meet any of the requirements in this section, the secretary of education may withhold funds for state administration until the state has fulfilled the requirement. If a state fails to meet deadlines established or waivers granted under the 1994 ESEA reauthorization, the secretary will withhold 25% of state administration funds. Effective 90 days after the enactment of ESEA 2001, the secretary will grant no additional waivers or deadline extensions for meeting requirements of the 1994 law. Related Links Achieve Inc. Making Standards Matter 2001, American Federation of Teachers |
Requirements or Provisions ESEA requires states to demonstrate that they have adopted challenging academic content and student achievement standards for all children. Under the 1994 ESEA reauthorization, states were required to adopt content standards in reading and math by the 1997-98 school year. The new law requires states to adopt science standards beginning in the 2005-06 school year. (States may adopt standards in additional content areas as they see fit.) Student academic achievement standards must be aligned with the state's academic content standards and must describe at least three achievement levels: two levels of high achievement (proficient and advanced) and a basic achievement level. The secretary of education will review states' content and student achievement standards to ensure they are challenging and apply to all students. Allocation of Funds Under Title 1, Part A, states may retain either 1% of their grants or $400,000, whichever amount is greater, for administrative purposes (Title I, Sec. 1004). For state appropriations under this section, see Appendix G. Status of the States Reading and math standards All states have standards in mathematics and reading or language arts except Iowa, which has district-level standards. Science standards Nearly every state (and the District of Columbia) has adopted science standards for elementary and secondary students. Iowa requires local school districts to adopt science standards, and Ohio is in the process of developing new science standards. (Source: Making Standards Matter 2001, American Federation of Teachers, 2001) Policy Questions for State Leaders To Consider
It is important to consider how proficiency levels are designed, particularly when student performance at those levels defines "adequate yearly progress" for states, districts and schools. For example, in Colorado, only 14% of 10th graders scored at proficient or advanced levels on the math portion of the 2001 Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP), a fact that received much public attention. A validation study by University of Colorado researchers, however, showed that the CSAP had very high "cut scores" defining performance levels. The content covered on the CSAP was considerably more difficult than both the SAT and the 12th-grade Third International Mathematics and Science Study. Further, many students who scored at the "unsatisfactory" level on CSAP scored above average on the nationally normed ACT PLAN test. The study used comparative evidence of test validity to examine performance levels and found that how such levels are set is crucial. (Source: An Analysis of the Content and Difficulty of the CSAP 10th-Grade Mathematics Test, Lorrie A. Shepard and Dominic D. Peressini, 2002) |
|
Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP) Mandated Timeline Funding Level Compliance If a state fails to meet deadlines established or waivers granted under the 1994 ESEA reauthorization, the secretary will withhold 25% of state administration funds. Effective 90 days after the enactment of ESEA 2001, the secretary will grant no additional waivers or deadline extensions for meeting the requirements of the 1994 law. Related Links Assessment and Accountability Systems in the 50 States: 1999-2000,
Consortium for Policy Research in Education High Standards for All Students: A Report from the National
Assessment of Title I on Progress and Challenges Since the 1994
Reauthorization First Annual School Improvement Report (Executive Order
on Actions for Turning Around Low-Performing Schools)
|
Requirements or Provisions State Title I plans require states to demonstrate they have adopted a single statewide accountability system for defining "adequate yearly progress" for all public school students (that is, a unitary system). Charter schools are included in the accountability requirements. States must define adequate yearly progress so that all students improve their performance and achieve a state-defined "proficient" level within 12 years. Defining adequate yearly progress is left to states, but the law requires that AYP:
Further, AYP definitions must address the progress of specified subgroups of students. It will not be sufficient for schools to demonstrate schoolwide progress if certain groups of students fail to make adequate yearly progress. For schools and districts to meet state AYP objectives, students in each subgroup also must meet those objectives (as long as there are enough students in each group to ensure reliable statistical analyses). AYP goals must be set, achievement data collected and disaggregated, and progress tracked for students by each of these subgroups:
A "safe-harbor" option is included to avoid over-identifying low-performing schools. In this case, if schools make a 10% reduction in the proportion of one of their student subgroups rated as not proficient, and that group also makes progress on one or more academic indicators, the school will be considered to have made AYP for that year. For example, if students in a particular subgroup are 30% proficient and achieve a 7% increase in the number of proficient students (which is a 10% reduction in the number of students - 70% -- not proficient), then the schools would be deemed to have made adequate yearly progress and would not be identified as failing. The law also requires at least 95% of students in each subgroup to participate in the assessment (or the assessment with accommodations, modifications or an alternate assessment consistent with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act that is used to determine AYP). In addition, the law requires states to develop annual achievement objectives for English Language Learners' development of English proficiency. These objectives:
While AYP must be based primarily on student achievement, states must identify two additional indicators. At the high school level, graduation rates are required; at the elementary level, at least one academic indicator of the state's choosing is to be incorporated into state AYP definitions. Although states may include additional academic indicators (as long as they can be disaggregated by the required subgroups and are considered valid and reliable), they may not use them to reduce the number of schools or districts identified as not meeting AYP, nor may they eliminate schools identified for intervention. States will have three main tasks in defining AYP:
States have the option of applying a two- or three-year averaging formula to determine AYP in mathematics and reading/language arts. This average may be back-dated by two years using the math and reading/language arts tests required by the 1994 ESEA reauthorization. States also have the option of determining whether cross-grade data will be used to determine if AYP has been met in their schools and districts. In addition to consequences for schools and districts, which are spelled out explicitly in the law, there are also consequences for states failing to make adequate yearly progress after two years. For example, the U.S. secretary of education will provide technical assistance and constructive feedback to help the state make AYP or to meet the annual achievement objectives. The secretary also will report to Congress about states that have not made AYP or met their annual objectives. Example of how the AYP process will work Allocation of Funds Under Title 1, Part A, states may retain either 1% of their grants or $400,000, whichever amount is greater, for administrative purposes (Title I, Sec. 1004). For state appropriations under this section, see Appendix G. Status of the States States with "unitary" accountability systems (Source: Margaret E. Goertz, Mark C. Duffy, with Kerstin Carlson Le Floch, Assessment and Accountability Systems in the 50 States: 1999-2000. CPRE Research Report Series RR-046, Consortium for Policy Research in Education [CPRE], University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education, March 2001, www.gse.upenn.edu/cpre/Publications/rr46.pdf) State approaches to defining school progress
The thrust of ESEA is to work toward a system that takes into account all three. A total of 33 states with performance-based accountability systems use at least one of the three approaches to measure school progress. Out of these 33 states:
(Source: Margaret E. Goertz, Mark C. Duffy, with Kerstin Carlson Le Floch, Assessment and Accountability Systems in the 50 States: 1999-2000. CPRE Research Report Series RR-046, Consortium for Policy Research in Education [CPRE], University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education, March 2001, www.gse.upenn.edu/cpre/Publications/rr46.pdf) Florida, for example, uses three primary criteria for grading schools: (a) achievement, (b) gains in achievement and (c) progress in reading among the lowest 25% of students at each grade. The new plan focuses on individual achievement, especially among the lowest-performing students in a school, and on reading proficiency, in particular. For a school to earn an "A," it must meet the minimum requirement of at least 50% of its lowest performers making adequate progress. Also, the difference between reading achievement among the lowest quartile and the overall population of students tested must be within 10 percentage points of each other for a school to earn an "A." (Source: "Crist, Cabinet Approve Grading Rule for School Accountability System," Press Release, Florida Department of Education, December 18, 2001) Another example is Texas' performance-based accountability system, which rates both districts and schools on its Academic Excellence Indicator System. Schools are judged against an absolute standard on state test performance and dropout rates. For school performance to be considered "acceptable," at least 50% of its students and 50% in each subgroup (African American, Hispanic, white and economically disadvantaged) must pass the state test in reading, writing and mathematics. For schools and districts to be rated "exemplary," 90% of all students and subgroups must pass; for a school to be considered "recognized," at least 80% must pass. Growth also is considered as part of the performance index. (Source: Texas Education Agency Web site, www.tea.state.tx.us) In addition to the examples listed above, several states are "categorizing"
schools based on performance and other indicators. According to
a forthcoming ECS StateNotes, approximately 35 states publicly
report the quality of their schools with clear descriptors (for
example, "exemplary," "satisfactory," "needs improvement"). An earlier
version of the report, Performance-Based Accountability: Public
Rankings, Profiles or Categorization of Schools/Districts, is
available at: Examples of state approaches for describing school success
and defining adequacy
(Sources: ECS StateNotes: A Survey of Finance Adequacy Studies, www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/29/23/2923.htm, September 2001, and state sources) Current indicators used to assess progress and/or make reports
Graduation rates as indicators - A state's definition of adequate yearly progress must include annual objectives for continuous improvement, including graduation rates for high school students.
Note that many states publicly report graduation from year to year, but do not use them as part of a formula that triggers some type of intervention. (Source: ECS StateNotes: State Performance Indicators, www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/32/12/3212.htm) States' ability to disaggregate student data for AYP ESEA 2001's AYP requirements state that goals must be set, achievement data collected and disaggregated, and progress tracked to demonstrate growth in achievement. A number of states report enrollment data on subgroups of students, but few collect or report achievement by subgroup, especially at the school level. States now will be required to calculate AYP by four student subgroups: ethnicity, economically disadvantaged, English Language Learners and disability. The only states that currently collect and publicly report local achievement data in the way necessary for calculating AYP at the school level are as follows (see the State Report Cards section for more detail):
One of the more problematic requirements of ESEA 2001 is the collection and reporting of student socioeconomic status. Typically, schools have collected these data on a schoolwide level, but have not directly tied low-income designations to student records. In some states, the new requirement will force policymakers to grapple with issues of security and confidentiality of student records. States with comprehensive data systems A number of states (for example, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas) already have developed comprehensive systems that include data on assessment, dropout rates, expenditures, student demographics and, in some cases, the kind of teacher-qualification data that will be required under ESEA 2001 (see Appendix B for more detail). Some states have contracted with outside companies and organizations to strengthen their capacity to collect, analyze and report school and student performance data. Tennessee, for example, worked with the University of Tennessee to develop its value-added assessment system. This approach uses student-level longitudinal data to track the extent to which schools and districts have contributed to student achievement. (See The Measure of Education: A Review of the Tennessee Value Added Assessment System, www.comptroller.state.tn.us/orea/reports/tvaas.pdf.) More recently, several states have begun working with a Texas organization, Just for the Kids (JFTK), which analyzes state test data to identify how well individual schools are performing. Sophisticated data-analysis systems such as the JFTK model can compare, for example, every elementary school's results on the state assessment with the average of the 10 highest-achieving state schools with similar demographics. Such analyses cannot be done without a state-level data structure capable of linking student enrollment data and student test data over time. States that are using or planning to use the JFTK model include Arkansas, Florida, Minnesota, Tennessee, Texas and Washington; Colorado is piloting the model with a group of school districts. (Just for the Kids Web site: www.just4kids.org/) For more resources on adequate yearly progress, see Appendix C. Policy Questions for State Leaders To Consider
|
|
Title 1, Part A, Sec. 1111, English
Language Proficiency Assessments Title 1, Part A, Sec. 1111, Mandated Timeline Annual student testing in reading and math - FY2005-06 Annual student testing in science - FY2007-08 Funding Level Compliance If a state fails to meet deadlines established or waivers granted under the 1994 ESEA reauthorization, the secretary will withhold 25% of state administration funds. Effective 90 days after the enactment of ESEA 2001, the secretary will grant no additional waivers or deadline extensions for meeting requirements of the 1994 law. Related Links Achieve Inc. Making Standards Matter 2001, American Federation of Teachers
|
Requirements or Provisions Math, reading and science assessments Science assessments must be developed and put into place by the 2007-08 school year and administered at least once during each of these grade spans: 3-5, 6-9 and 10-12.
Students who have attended school for at least three years in the United States (excluding Puerto Rico) are required to take reading assessments in English, although school districts have discretion to make case-by-case decisions about assessing in other languages for up to two additional consecutive years. Results of math and reading assessments will be the primary indicators of whether schools and districts have made adequate yearly progress (AYP). The law requires a common definition for measuring AYP both for Title I schools and schools statewide, and specifies interventions to be used in the case of continued low performance.
States will be required to demonstrate that they have "implemented a set of high-quality, yearly student academic assessments that include, at a minimum, academic assessments in mathematics, reading or language arts, and science that will be used as the primary means of determining the yearly performance of the state and/or each school district and school in the state." It is unclear whether district- or school-developed assessments, rather than state-developed tests, may serve as acceptable achievement measures, providing they have demonstrated adequate technical quality. Several provisions are designed to address the needs of English Language Learners as well. State plans must identify the non-English languages spoken by students throughout the state, and identify the languages in which annual academic assessments are not available. States must make every effort to accommodate English Language Learners, including, to the extent practicable, assessments in the language most likely to accurately reflect student performance. English-language proficiency assessments Criteria for assessment programs
The timeline for commencing annual reading, math and science assessments is dependent on Congress appropriating money at certain levels (or "triggers") over the next several years. If Congress does not appropriate the specified amount in any given year -- $370 million in FY02, escalating in $10 million increments in each of the succeeding years -- states may defer the commencement or administration of assessments, but must continue to develop the assessments. Allocation of Funds A total of $387 million is appropriated for annual assessment development in FY02. Of this amount:
See Appendix H for state-by-state appropriations for assessments. Status of the States As of spring 2002:
(Sources: Assessment and Accountability Systems in the 50 States: 1999-2000, Margaret E. Goertz and Mark C. Duffy with Kerstin Carlson Le Floch, Consortium for Policy Research in Education [CPRE], March 2001; State Assessment and Accountability Systems: 50 State Profiles, CPRE, Spring 2000; state departments of education Web sites; state statutes; telephone interviews) Policy Questions for State Leaders To Consider
|
State Assessment Programs in Grades and Subjects Required Under ESEA
| STATE | Reading Grades 3-8 As of Spring 2002 |
Math Grades 3-8 As of Spring 2002 |
Science Grades 3-5, 6-9, 10-12 As of Spring 2002 |
| Alabama | 3-8 | 3-8 | 3-8 plus part of high school exit exam |
| Alaska | 3-8 | 3-8 | None |
| Arizona | 3-8 | 3-8 | None |
| Arkansas | 4-8 | 4-8 | 5, 7, 10 |
| California | 3-8 | 3-8 | 9-11 |
| Colorado | 3-8 | 5-8 | 8 |
| Connecticut | 4, 6, 8 | 4, 6, 8 | 10 |
| Delaware | 3-8 | 3-8 | 4, 6, 8, 11 |
| District of Columbia | 3-8 | 3-8 | None |
| Florida | 3-8 | 3-8 | Field testing expected 2002-03 in grades 5, 8, 10 |
| Georgia | 3-8 | 3-8 | 3-8 plus part of high school exit exam |
| Hawaii | 3, 5, 8 | 3, 5, 8 | None |
| Idaho | Currently just grade 3.
Pilot standards-based test in at least three grades 2002-03. |
Currently grades 4 and 8. Pilot standards-based test in at least three grades 2002-03. |
None |
| Illinois | 3, 5, 8 | 3, 5, 8 | 4, 7, 11 |
| Indiana | 3, 6, 8 in English/language arts | 3, 6, 8 | Grade 5 implementation planned for 2002-03, followed by grades 7 and 9 |
| Iowa | Not mandated, but districts may administer tests in grades 3-8 | Not mandated, but districts may administer tests in grades 3-8 |
None |
| Kansas | 3, 7 | 4, 7 | 5, 8, 10 |
| Kentucky | 3, 4, 6, 7 | 3, 5, 6, 8 | 4, 7, 11 |
| Louisiana | 3, 5, 6, 7</p><p>4, 8 in English/language arts |
3-8 |
3-8, 11 |
| Maine | 4, 8 in English/language arts | 4, 8 | 4, 8, 11 |
| Maryland | 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 | 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 | 3, 5, 8 and high school assessment, which 9th-grade students are required to take in 2001-02 (currently in pretests) |
| Massachusetts | 3, 4, 7 in English/language arts | 4, 6, 8 | 5, 8, 9, 10 |
| Michigan | 4, 7 | 4, 8 | 5, 8, 11 |
| Minnesota | 3, 5, 8 | 3, 5, 8 | None |
| Mississippi | 3-8 | 3-8 | When end-of-course tests are fully implemented, one will cover biology. |
| Missouri | 3, 7 communication arts | 4, 8 | 3, 7, 10 |
| Montana | 4, 8 | 4, 8 | 4, 8, 11 |
| Nebraska | None. Districts use local assessments and are required to use a norm-referenced test in one grade of 4-6, 7-9 and 10-12. | None. Districts use local assessments and are required to use a norm-referenced test in one grade of 4-6, 7-9 and 10-12. | None |
| Nevada | 4, 8 and English criterion-referenced test (CRT) in grades 3 and 5. A grade 8 CRT in reading, math and science is in development. In 2002-03, the 8th-grade Terra Nova reading, math, science and exam will be administered in 7th grade. |
3, 4, 5, 8 |
4, 8, 10; a science CRT will be piloted over the next two years in grades 3 and 5. |
| New Hampshire | 3, 6 in English/language arts | 3, 6 | 6, 10 |
| New Jersey | 4, 5, 8 in language arts literacy | 4, 5, 8 | 4, 5, 8 and part of the high school test to be implemented in 2002-03 |
| New Mexico | 3-8 | 3-8 | 3-9, 10 |
| New York | 4, 8 in English/language arts | 4, 8 | 4, 8 and regents exams for high school |
| North Carolina | 3-8 | 3-8 | End-of-course tests |
| North Dakota | 4, 8 | 4, 8 | None |
| Ohio | 4, 6 | 4, 6 | 4, 6, 9 |
| Oklahoma | 3, 5, 8 | 3, 5, 8 | 5, 8 and, in 2002-03, end-of-course tests |
| Oregon | 3, 5, 8 in reading/literature | 3, 5, 8 | 5, 8, 10 |
| Pennsylvania | 5, 8 | 5, 8 | None |
| Rhode Island | 4, 8 | 4, 8 | None |
| South Carolina | 3-8 | 3-8 | 3-8 plus part of the high school exit exam to be implemented in 2003-04 in grade 10 |
| South Dakota | 3, 4, 6, 8 | 3, 4, 6, 8 | 4, 8, 11
3, 6 beginning in 2003-04 |
| Tennessee | 3-8 | 3-8 | 3-8 and end-of-course exams |
| Texas | 3-8 | 3-8 | 8 and end-of-course tests |
| Utah | 3-8 | 3, 5, 8 Core Assessment Program tests are under development for grades 3-8 | 3, 5, 8, 11 |
| Vermont | 4, 8 in English/ language arts | 4, 8 | 5, 11 (9th-grade science assessment on hold) |
| Virginia | 4, 5, 6, 8 and 3rd-grade English | 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 | 3, 5, 8 and high school tests |
| Washington | 3, 4, 6, 7 | 3, 4, 6, 7 | 5th-grade assessment required 2004-05; 8th- and 10th-grade assessments required 2003-04 |
| West Virginia | 3-8 | 3-8 | 3-11 |
| Wisconsin | 3, 4, 8 | 4, 8 | 4, 8, 10 |
| Wyoming | 4, 8 | 4, 8 | None |
(Sources: Assessment and Accountability Systems in the 50 States: 1999-2000, Margaret E. Goertz and Mark C. Duffy with Kerstin Carlson Le Floch, Consortium for Policy Research in Education [CPRE], March 2001; State Assessment and Accountability Systems: 50-State Profiles, CPRE, Spring 2000; state departments of education Web sites; state statutes; telephone interviews)
|
Participation
in Biennial NAEP Mandated Timeline Funding Level Compliance |
Requirements or Provisions States are required to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) every other year in grades 4 and 8 for reading and mathematics, beginning in the 2002-03 school year. Until now, state participation in NAEP has been voluntary. Allocation of Funds Funds will be retained at the federal level to administer NAEP. Status of the States Here is a look at states' participation in NAEP over the past several years: 2000 grade 4 math assessment:
2000 grade 8 math assessment:
1998 grade 4 reading assessment (most recent year for which state-by-state data are available):
1998 grade 8 reading assessment:
Policy Questions for State Leaders To Consider
|
|
State
Report Cards Mandated Timeline Funding Level Compliance Related Links ECS StateNotes: State Performance Indicators
|
Requirements or Provisions Not later than the beginning of the 2002-03 school year, states and school districts that receive Title I funding must prepare and disseminate annual report cards. Annual state report cards At a minimum, state report cards are to include:
The state department of education must ensure that each school district collects and disseminates the appropriate data in their annual report cards (see below). States are required to submit annual reports to the U.S. secretary of education, who then reports to Congress. Among other things, these state reports must include:
Annual school district report cards School districts must collect and disseminate the following data in their annual report cards:
In the case of a school, the school district must report: (a) whether the school has been identified for school improvement, and (b) how the school's achievement on statewide academic assessments and other indicators of adequate yearly progress compare to students in the district and state as a whole. At the beginning of each school year, school districts must make available to parents, upon request, the following information about their child's classroom teacher:
Existing state and district reporting systems may be used or modified as long as they provide the required information. Allocation of Funds States may retain either 1% of their grants or $400,000, whichever amount is greater, for administrative purposes (Title I, Sec. 1004). For state appropriations under this section, see Appendix G. Status of the States State report cards The following information summarizes data included in state report cards and is based on information from ECS StateNotes: Performance Indicators, www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/32/12/3212.htm Achievement/improvement of achievement as indicators Graduation rates as indicators
Teachers working in area of certification as an indicator Eight states publicly report the number or percentage of teachers working in their area of certification (California, Colorado, Kentucky, Nevada, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia). Disaggregated student achievement data The following states publicly report achievement data, at the local level, by certain subgroups of students:
Policy Questions for State Leaders To Consider
|
|
Consequences
for Low-Performing Schools/School Improvement Mandated Timeline Funding Level Compliance Related Link |
Requirements or Provisions For states and school districts receiving Title I funds, ESEA outlines requirements for setting a timeline and establishing consequences for school and district performance relative to adequate yearly progress. School districts and state departments of education have parallel responsibilities in the intervention process for schools and districts, respectively. Corrective actions A series of consequences, including provision of public school choice and tutoring options, would apply to schools and districts that fail to meet requirements for "adequate yearly progress" (AYP):
Procedures analogous to those for schools are to apply to districts that fail to meet AYP requirements. In particular, in instances where districts fail to meet AYP for four consecutive years, state education departments will be required to take corrective action, which can include offering students the choice to transfer to a higher-performing public school in another district. The U. S. Department of Education will establish a peer-review process to evaluate whether states have met their statewide AYP goals. States that fail to meet their goals are to be listed in an annual report to Congress, and technical assistance is to be provided to states that fail to meet their goals for two consecutive years. Corrective actions can be delayed if schools or districts make AYP for one year or if their failure to make adequate progress is due to exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances. (See Appendix D for more information on corrective actions.) Note that schools identified as needing improvement under the previous law are considered to be partially into the "corrective actions" process under the new law. Schools that were in "school improvement" status must offer public school choice by the 2002-03 school year and must be provided with technical assistance. Schools that were in "corrective action" status must receive technical assistance and offer public school choice, as well as supplemental education services by next year. In addition, these schools are subject to at least one of the following actions: (1) replace school staff, (2) implement a new curriculum, (3) decrease management authority at the school level, (4) appoint outside experts to provide advice, (5) extend the school day or year or (6) restructure the internal organization of the school. States' responsibilities to low-performing schools and districts States have two levels of responsibility in this process - to schools and to districts. Responsibilities to schools include providing technical assistance to schools identified as low performing, subject to district agreement. State relations with districts are largely parallel to district/school relations and include:
Within three months after being identified, school districts must develop a plan that incorporates scientifically based research, is targeted, allocates at least 10% of funding to targeted professional development and sets its own achievement goals for AYP. Districts must meet state objectives of all students proficient in 12 years, incorporate extended-day and extended-year strategies, and expand parental involvement. States also may take corrective action with regard to school districts, either at any time or by the end of the second full school year after the district is identified as not making AYP. Corrective actions include at least one of the following: (a) deferring program funds, (b) reducing administrative funds, (c) instituting or implementing new curricula or professional development strategies based on scientifically based research, (d) replacing district personnel, (e) establishing new governance structures for some schools, (f) taking over district leadership, (g) abolishing or restructuring the district, and (h) authorizing interdistrict transfers for students exercising choice options. Supplemental education services States are responsible for oversight of providers of supplemental education services, including:
School districts are to work with providers to develop specific student achievement goals and a timeline for improving achievement and communication structures. Allocation of Funds Formula -- In FY02, states must set aside 2% of the total funding for Title I, Part A (funded at $207 million total) to fund the requirements under this section, as well as a statewide system of technical assistance and support for school districts. Of these funds, 95% ($196.6 million) must go directly to districts for schools identified for school improvement, corrective action and restructuring. Block grant/competitive grant -- States are to provide school districts with grants of between $50,000 and $500,000 for each school identified for improvement, corrective actions and restructuring plans. States are to give funding priority to school districts with the lowest-achieving schools that demonstrate (a) the greatest need for funding and (b) the strongest commitment to ensuring resources are targeted to help those schools improve. Districts are required to use 20% of their total allocation for student transportation and supplemental education services. States may retain either 1% of their grants or $400,000, whichever amount is greater. (Title I, Sec. 1004) Status of the States Sanctions for low performance As of the 2001 state legislative session:
Sanctions for low-performing districts range from less severe measures, such as written warnings, to more severe measures, such as takeovers. In terms of sanctions for low-performing districts:
Sanctions for low-performing schools include requirements for creating and implementing improvement plans (27 states), and requiring another entity, such as the state or a school district, to create an improvement plan for a low-performing school (18 states). Eleven states are also placing low-performing schools on probation, removing their accreditation (13 states) or withholding funding (four states). Nineteen states are authorized to reconstitute low-performing schools, 10 may close low-performing schools, and 15 can take over low-performing schools. For a list of states and further details, see ECS StateNotes: Rewards and Sanctions for School Districts and Schools, March 2001, www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/18/24/1824.htm. Two state examples warrant attention because of the type of sanctions they have put in place. Beginning in 2003, any Colorado school that receives an academic performance rating of "unsatisfactory" on the school accountability report must submit an improvement plan within 90 days. If the school is still designated "unsatisfactory" after two years, the state board will recommend the school be converted to an independent charter school. If the school, however, makes a specific amount of improvement, it will be allowed to continue to operate under the school improvement plan for another year. After the third year of operation under a school improvement plan, if a school is still deemed unsatisfactory, the state board will recommend it be converted to an independent charter school. Proposals are to be sought and a contractor will be selected to manage the school. (Source: ECS state policy database) In 1999, Florida passed the first statewide voucher program in the nation. Under the enacted law, each public school receives a grade from A to F. Top-performing and improving schools receive additional state funding. If a school receives an F in two out of four years, students may receive a scholarship worth at least $4,000 to attend a higher-scoring public school, a private school or a parochial school. Private and parochial schools that accept these students are prohibited from collecting additional tuition and are barred from requiring them to participate in religious instruction, prayer or worship. (Source: ECS Policy Brief: Vouchers, Tax Credits and Tax Deductions, September 2001, www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/14/44/1444.doc) Technical assistance to low-performing schools ESEA 2001 requires intervention programs or strategies to be based on scientific research. Several states already have similar requirements in place:
Policy Questions for State Leaders To Consider
|
|
School
Support and Recognition Mandated Timeline Funding Level Compliance
|
Requirements or Provisions States are to develop support systems for schools using resources from regional centers and laboratories, as well as other technical assistance providers. Priority goes to districts with schools subject to corrective action and school improvement policies. The support system is to include:
States also are to develop strategies related to high-performing schools or those showing improvement, such as:
Allocation of Funds Formula -- In FY02, states must set aside 2% of the total funding for Title I, Part A (funded at $207 million total) to fund the requirements under this section, as well as a statewide system of technical assistance and support for school districts. Of these funds, 95% ($196.6 million) must go directly to districts for schools identified for school improvement, corrective action and restructuring. Grants -- The secretary will make grants to states based on FY01 appropriations and adjustments for the new law. States may retain either 1% of their grants or $400,000, whichever amount is greater. (Title I, Sec. 1004) Status of the States Current policies involving state assistance to low-performing schools are as follows:
State support typically comes in the form of technical assistance and/or additional funding. For school districts:
For schools:
States that reward districts and schools on the basis of performance:
For a list of states and further details, see ECS StateNotes: Rewards and Sanctions for School Districts and Schools, March 2001, www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/18/24/1824.htm. Policy Questions for State Leaders To Consider
|