The new proposed
federal school accountability system is looking to do the same.
Both history and science wasn't a priority in the state and
federal school accountability systems.
Not exact matches
After years of experiencing a one - size - fits - all
federal approach to
school accountability and intervention, ESSA provides states with an opportunity to excel by designing new
systems that reach far more children with intervention strategies that meet their needs and the needs of their
schools.
Likewise, in a September 3, 2003, column examining the differences between state and
federal accountability systems, Winerip looked at North Carolina, where, he said, some
schools that were doing just fine under the state's previous
accountability system were now being flagged as needing improvement under NCLB.
The Texas
school accountability system implemented under then Governor George W. Bush served as a blueprint for the
federal legislation he signed as president nearly a decade later.
In the debate over the future of the No Child Left Behind Act, policymakers, educators, and researchers seem to agree on one thing: The
federal law's
accountability system should be rewritten so it rewards or sanctions
schools on the basis of students» academic growth.
For one thing, in getting a waiver from the
federal No Child Left Behind Act, Indiana (like other states) promised the Obama administration it would adopt standards that met
federal criteria; align curricula and teaching; select, pilot, and administer new tests aligned to the standards; and integrate the standards into both
school - and teacher -
accountability systems.
A unitary
accountability system enables the state to fairly and transparently monitor program compliance and inform the public about performance; make difficult decisions about withholding funds, intervening with local boards, and taking over
schools and districts; and uniformly and thoroughly administer
federal programs.
At the same time, the
federal government lacks the capacity to design an
accountability system that is appropriate to the needs of each state, and has a poor track record when attempting to dictate the required elements of efforts to improve under - performing
schools.
This is evident in the
federal law's requirement that each state's
accountability system generate a report card for each
school and district indicating the proportion of students meeting proficiency standards on state tests of math and reading.
Under present day standards and
accountability systems, states, pushed and prodded by the
federal government, have moved from trying to force districts to educate students to a minimum level of basic skills and to do something about
schools that are obviously failing, to holding districts,
schools and teachers accountable for (in the words of the Common Core State Standards Initiative) «preparing all students for success in college, career, and life.»
As most readers know, ESSA requires all fifty states and the District of Columbia to update their NCLB - era education policies and practices, including their
school accountability systems, if they want to continue receiving
federal funds.
Peterson: Since John Dewey,
school reformers have tried to customize education to the needs of each child, but each step towards customization has required a big step toward centralization (bigger schools, larger school districts, state certification for teachers, federal dollars and regulations, etc.) School systems are no longer embedded in the small politics of local communities and this has dramatically changed the way accountability
school reformers have tried to customize education to the needs of each child, but each step towards customization has required a big step toward centralization (bigger
schools, larger
school districts, state certification for teachers, federal dollars and regulations, etc.) School systems are no longer embedded in the small politics of local communities and this has dramatically changed the way accountability
school districts, state certification for teachers,
federal dollars and regulations, etc.)
School systems are no longer embedded in the small politics of local communities and this has dramatically changed the way accountability
School systems are no longer embedded in the small politics of local communities and this has dramatically changed the way
accountability works.
There seems to be no consensus about whether the across - the - board increases in U.S. graduation rates reported by the
federal government last week are the result of No Child Left Behind - era
accountability mechanisms or the data - based decisionmaking stressed under the Obama administration, more early - warning
systems to identify potential dropouts, or fewer high
school exit exams.
The second option — devolving recently accumulated
federal power to the states — underlies recent reauthorization proposals for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) that allow each state to establish its own
accountability system and that require teeth only for the very lowest - performing
schools.
Even the 1994
federal Title I reforms, which required states to develop the three major prongs of an effective
accountability system (academic standards, tests linked to the standards, and a mixture of assistance and sanctions for low - performing
schools) did little to stimulate California into action.
While liberals got some «guardrails» around state
accountability systems, they failed to get a
federal mandate on equalizing
school funding — though Obama education secretary John King is now doing his utmost to devise one via executive branch regulations.
The problem stems from parents» concern that their own children might be denied promotion or graduation based on a test score; from voters» confusion when their own upscale suburban
schools are deemed to be failing by state or
federal accountability systems even though most of the graduates do just fine; and from frustration when parents — often prompted by teachers — conclude that the basic - skills testing regime yields too much «drill and kill,» too little flexibility, and insufficient attention to art, music, and other creative disciplines.
This evidence, along with a new
federal requirement that state
accountability systems include an indicator of
school quality or student success not based on test scores, has sparked interest in incorporating such «non-cognitive» or «social - emotional» skills into
school accountability systems.
States could have eviscerated their
accountability systems, doing the bare minimum under the
federal law by identifying their very worst
schools, and staying mum about the other 90 or 95 percent.
It goes something like this: Step away from
federal heavy - handedness around states»
accountability and teacher credentialing
systems; keep plenty of transparency of results in place, especially test scores disaggregated by racial and other subgroups; offer incentives for embracing promising reforms instead of mandates; and give
school districts a lot more flexibility to move their
federal dollars around as they see fit.
Michigan is one of 42 states to receive a waiver from the 13 - year - old
federal law in exchange for implementing requirements like career - and college - ready standards, stronger
school accountability standards and a
system to evaluate teachers and identify underperforming ones.
Superintendents acknowledge that
federal and state standards and
accountability systems have created a situation in which district and
school personnel can not ignore evidence about students who are struggling or failing to meet mandated standards for academic performance, as reflected in test results and other indicators of student success (e.g., attendance, graduation rates).
For all the
schools and districts sampled in our study, state and
federal curriculum policies, standards, and
accountability systems influenced direction setting pervasively.
The DOE already reduced the number of state - mandated tests to the
federal minimum during the 2015 - 16
school year, Kishimoto said, and it no longer ranks
schools under its Strive HI
school accountability system.
Massachusetts, Tennessee, and the consortium of CORE districts in California also leverage partnerships as part of their
school accountability systems, often supported by
federal school - improvement funding.
An
accountability system must define appropriate expectations for participants in the
system (e.g.,
schools, districts, the state and
federal governments, as well as students and teachers).
This 2009 report, written by Dana Brinson and Lauren Morando Rhim for the Center on Innovation and Improvement, provides five brief profiles of
schools that dramatically improved student performance and successfully restructured under
federal accountability systems.
Part of the political problem around
accountability is that it sometimes feels to educators and the community that the message from the state or from the
federal government is, «We're going to use this
accountability system to tell you you're bad or that your
school is inadequate, and tell you that you're a D or an F.» And somehow knowing that is going to be so motivating that outcomes are going to change.
Last
school year, Florida combined its grading
system with the
federal system to create a trial program called «differentiated
accountability.»
Our
schools remain subject to a failed
federal accountability system.
The
federal law that replaces the No Child Left Behind Act requires states»
accountability systems to include at least one «nonacademic» indicator of «
school quality or student success» that «allows for meaningful differentiation in
school performance» and «is valid, reliable, comparable, and statewide» alongside academic data (Ujifusa, 2016).
The
federal education space is currently engrossed in debates about the merits of the Department of Education46 and the need for
federal protections against discrimination in
schools.47 This is a departure from last year's substantive conversations around refining state
accountability systems, modernizing the teaching profession, and lowering college tuition.
The
federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) establishes new opportunities for building and supporting birth - to - third - grade
systems at both state and local levels, enabling states to integrate B - 3rd strategies into their new focus on equity,
accountability, assessment, professional learning and
school improvement.
The law was passed in 2015 and in 2017 states drafted their plans, which included new
accountability systems based on multiple measures that include factors other than test scores; conducting needs assessments for struggling
schools and learning communities facing the greatest challenges in order to tailor support and intervention when needed; developing clear and concise plans for targeting
federal funding in ways that meet the needs of students in the
school; and implementing programs and monitoring their progress in collaboration with educators.
The qualifying states may also ask to be allowed to replace the No Child law's pass - fail
school report card
system with
accountability systems of their own design, and for new flexibility in using an estimated $ 1 billion of
federal education money.
Yesterday's proposed rules on
school accountability are yet another reminder that it's time for
federal bureaucrats at the Department of Education to get their hands out of our education
system.
Hyslop writes that under the new
system, the choices individual states made about how to design an
accountability system mattered less than the fact the
federal government dictated states intervene in 15 percent of Title I
schools.
In a letter sent to superintendents and heads of charter
schools on Friday, they implied that California will take the path of least resistance to
federal sanctions, focusing instead on the state's effort to revise its own
accountability system, using the Academic Performance Index.
He directly supervised the Divisions of Talent, Performance, Information Technology and led education priorities including the development of a new comprehensive
school accountability system under the
federal Every Student Succeeds Act.)
The U.S. Department of Education today approved a long - awaited
federal waiver that allows LA Unified and seven other California districts to replace No Child Left Behind
accountability rules with their own
school improvement
system.
This
federal law, which replaces No Child Left Behind, shifts significant decision making authority away from the
federal government, providing each state with more flexibility to distribute funds, design
accountability and evaluation
systems, and devise supports for struggling
schools.
The letter provides initial guidance to States on the transition to the new
federal education law, including several immediate impacts on state
accountability systems and the associated reporting of annual district,
school, and student performance data.
In 2013, the Equity and Excellence Commission appointed by then - Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, called for including
school integration as part of
federal or state
systems of
school accountability.
He also has been a leader among state
school chiefs nationwide in an effort to increase flexibility and fairness in the
federal No Child Left Behind
school accountability system.
These new tests will replace assessments in English language arts and mathematics in grades 3 — 8 and high
school that are currently in use within state and
federal accountability systems.
If approved the new law would «prohibit the
federal government from interfering in state and local decisions regarding
accountability and
school improvement activities» and specifically would prevent the secretary of education from «prescribing specific methods or
systems.»
States across the nation are taking another look at their
school accountability systems in response to the Every Student Succeeds Act, a rewrite of the main
federal law for K - 12 education.
«Today's meeting allowed an opportunity to stress to the Secretary the strength of our state's
accountability system and to explain how some flexibility from the
federal system could benefit our
school districts,» said Commissioner Williams.
Although LEAs are likely to be given a lengthy transition period before serious intervention is contemplated by either the counties or state, new
federal education law — the Every Student Succeeds Act — calls on states to have new
accountability systems in place for the 2016 - 17
school year.