Ever since the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) was signed into law to replace No Child Left Behind (NCLB)/the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), K–12 stakeholders have been wondering what accountability will look like now that the Department of Education (ED) has less K–12 policy influence. Here, we take a closer look at the new law and outline what school business officials and other education leaders should expect as responsibilities shift back into the hands of states and districts.
What Does Accountability Look Like Under the New ESSA?
- Academic Standards and Assessments. State and local education agencies (SEAs and LEAs) must have high academic standards, but they get to decide what those standards are. ED can no longer mandate a specific set of academic standards or incentivize states/districts to use certain standards in exchange for federal funding. Under ESSA, annual assessment provisions remain unchanged; students in grades 3–8 will be tested in reading and math once each year (and in high school once for each subject). Students will be tested in science only once for elementary, middle, and high school. There is a small pilot program for seven states to experiment using local tests. LEAs can use a local, nationally recognized test (e.g., SATs or ACTs) at the high school level instead of state tests. More on assessments here.
- Timeline for New Accountability Systems. School year (SY) 2015–2016 is the last year when SEAs/LEAs must submit student/school performance data as currently required; waivers would expire July 31, 2016. States’ new accountability systems will take effect for SY2017–2018. Learn more here.
- Data Collection, Disaggregation, and Reporting. States must still disaggregate data by student subgroups and calculate graduation rates using the same formula as before. States must identify and intervene in the bottom 5% of lowest-performing schools and in schools with graduation rates below 67%. States will generate a list of underperforming schools every three years and determine the exit criteria to remove schools from this list. States must include provisions related to interventions in consistently underperforming schools, then LEAs must come up with a plan for improvement according to the state’s accountability system. There are no federally prescribed intervention or turnaround models; states and LEAs will determine how to address poor performance.
- School Interventions and Turnarounds. LEAs will design evidence-based plans to address its 5% of lowest-performing schools; the state will intervene if the LEA struggles to meet its goals within four years and determine how it will intervene as well. For specific struggling student subgroups, schools will design an evidence-based plan to support that group (e.g., new curriculum, adding specialized staff to support teachers with engaging the subgroup, etc.). LEAs will monitor the school and intervene if necessary. LEAs and states must be more involved in schools with consistently underperforming subgroups that aren’t responding to local interventions.
- State Accountability Plans. All state accountability plans must include student subgroup performance goals/targets. The collection and reporting of this data will not trigger federal intervention as under NCLB; it will only be reported. Targets will be long-term and interim, and must include graduation rate goals, goals for reading and math scores, and English language learners (ELLs) proficiency goals. In designing an accountability system, academic factors must represent more than half of all indicators; however, the rest may focus on non-academic indicators.
- There are different required indicators for elementary and secondary schools versus high schools. Accountability plans for elementary/secondary schools must include at least four indicators—three academic and one non-academic. For high schools, plans must include at least four indicators—three academic, one of which must be graduation rates, and one non-academic. High schools also must calculate student test participation rates as a standalone factor.
- Academic indicators may include: state test proficiency, ELL proficiency, academic factors that may be broken out by student subgroups, student growth, graduation rates, etc.
- Non-academic indicators may include: student engagement, educator engagement, access to/completion of advanced coursework, post-secondary readiness, school/climate safety, and other relevant indicators. More on accountability here.
For more information on ESSA’s accountability structure, see this blog from AASA—The Superintendents Association. Additionally, see this infographic for a quick overview of what’s changed between the old NCLB legislation and new ESSA law.
How Should K–12 Leaders Prepare for the New Shift in ESSA’s Accountability Structure?
Here are some tips from several think tanks, policy analysts, and news outlets about preparing for ESSA’s new accountability structure:
- K–12 leaders in states with strong accountability systems won’t have to change much. But those who are in states with weaker systems will have to step up as more responsibilities shift back into their hands.
- As states and districts take on new responsibilities, “they will need to use evidence to effect change, protect what is working, and ensure limited resources are used wisely.” This will be challenging, as many SEAs don’t have the dedicated resources for such research and analysis. Be wary of using one-size-fits-all solutions when implementing evidence-based policies. Be selective with the academic standards or other initiatives you want to support. Be clear about who “owns the problem” (i.e., SEAs, districts, or schools) and allow the responsible party to craft a solution while holding them accountable for results.
- Don’t allow local politics to prevent your school, district, or state from identifying and intervening in schools that need to improve graduation rates and the performance of specific student subgroups. Remember that NCLB’s federal overreach was a response to unsuccessful state/local accountability structures in the past; to prevent future overreach, K–12 leaders must focus on devising effective accountability systems.
- States and districts will be held responsible for “improving the quality and effectiveness of teachers, principals, and other school leaders in increasing student academic achievement.” Read this fact sheet to learn about how the “High Quality Teacher” provision in the old NCLB has changed under ESSA, and how additional professional development funding can assist with fulfilling the new teacher requirements.
- Keep on the lookout for guidance from the Department of Education (ED), some of which has been made available on ED’s ESSA website. Over the next few weeks, ED will work with states and districts to begin implementing the new law (but here is EdWeek’s take on how ED’s new regulatory role may work). For other ESSA inquiries, contact ED at essa.questions@ed.gov.