The future of educational accountability, as envisioned by 11 leading states

Last week, 11 states applied for waivers from many of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act’s most onerous provisions. Their
applications are now online, ready to be sliced and diced by any willing wonk. (Anne Hyslop of Education Sector has already taken a cut.) We at Fordham have tried to make the task a little bit easier by posting two compilations: First, the Common Core implementation plans for all 11 states, and second, all of their accountability proposals. Both are huge files but if your plans this weekend include a lot of downtime, have at ‘em.

Personally, I’m most interested in the states’ plans around
accountability. Partly that’s because this is the only part of this
waiver process that I find legitimate and legal;
the Department of Education has no business demanding that states adopt
and implement the Common Core standards or rigorous teacher
evaluations. But if it’s going to allow states to opt-out of the law’s
Adequate Yearly Progress system, it certainly has the right to set
boundaries around the alternatives. And partly it’s because the major
sticking point in the current negotiations over ESEA reauthorization
comes down to accountability, and how much leeway to give the states.

So what do these 11 states want to do differently on the
accountability front? Particularly when it comes to identifying schools
that should be subject to some sort of sanctions or interventions?
Here’s what the future holds if the Department of Education gives its
assent:

1. A deadline for getting all kids to “proficiency” will go the way of the dinosaur.
None of the states opted to set a deadline for universal proficiency. A
few agreed to reduce the number of not-yet-proficient students by 50
percent over the next six years, but most developed their own twist on
“annual measurable objectives.”

2. A focus on growth will eclipse the need for “subgroup accountability.”
Models such as the one proposed by Colorado would set “annual
measurable objectives” at the kid-level. Schools would be expected to
help all students make enough progress to get them to a
college-and-career ready standard by high school. (For high achieving
students who are already approaching this standard, schools would be
held accountable for making sure they grow at least a year’s worth of
learning every year.) This is exactly the right concept–have a real-live
standard (college readiness) and ask schools to aim at getting all kids
to it by graduation. That will require making the most rapid progress
for the students who are furthest behind. Since those kids are more
likely to be poor and from minority groups, it makes subgroup
accountability per se unnecessary. (Though the Administration’s
guidelines still require it.)

3. Subjects beyond reading and math will count again. Seven
of the states are taking the opportunity to expand the subjects
included in their accountability systems. Colorado will look at writing,
science, and ACT results; Florida will add writing and science; Georgia
will include science and social studies for grades 3-8 and a whole
suite of exit exams for high school; Kentucky and Oklahoma add science,
social studies, and writing; and Massachusetts and Tennessee will both
add science to the mix. This should be helpful in counteracting the
narrowing of the curriculum.

In other words, the states are presenting sensible alternatives to
the antiquated Adequate Yearly Progress model. That doesn’t prove that
“states are good” and “the feds are bad.” On the contrary, it just shows
that our thinking and technology around accountability have improved
over the ten years since NCLB was enacted. But it does lay down a
challenge to Arne Duncan, his peer reviewers, and his team: Say yes to
these proposals or be  accused of a “Washington knows best” mentality.

More By Author

Related Articles