At a Rose Garden ceremony in June, President Bush proclaimed that every state had a federally approved plan for ensuring that all students are proficient in reading and math by 2013-14. But follow-up letters lay out a host of conditions that states must meet before their accountability plans under the 鈥淣o Child Left Behind鈥� Act of 2001 are deemed 鈥渇ully approved.鈥�
See Also... | |
| View our table breaking down the states鈥� accountability plans: PDF version | Excel version. | |
In fact, the U.S. Department of Education told only five states鈥擟onnecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Oregon, and Texas鈥攖hat their plans were fully approved as of July 1. Another six鈥擣lorida, Missouri, New Jersey, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming鈥攈eard that they would receive final approval as soon as they confirmed that interpretations of specified provisions in their plans were correct.
Thirteen states and the District of Columbia still need to have their accountability plans approved by their state school boards or legislatures to bring them into compliance with the law, a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Many more must provide additional information to the Education Department before receiving full approval.
An analysis of state accountability plans, conducted by Education Week, shows just how far many states have to go, as well as some of the choices they have made in designing their accountability systems.
In Ohio, state lawmakers plan to hold a special session starting this week to try to pass accountability legislation and avert the potential loss of millions of dollars in federal aid. If the state does not pass the bill before the start of the school year, Washington has threatened to withhold some or all of Ohio鈥檚 $3.9 million in state administrative funds under the Title I program for 2003. It also could withhold some or all of the nearly $400 million in Title I allocations to districts.
The issue, said Ronald Tomalis, the acting assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education in the Education Department, is that without the state legislation, Ohio cannot make determinations about whether schools have made adequate progress before the start of the coming school year, as required by the federal law.
鈥淲e said they would not be in compliance and that we would withhold $400 million,鈥� said Mr. Tomalis. 鈥淚t鈥檚 very explicit in the letter.鈥�
State Rep. John M. Schlichter, a Republican, said federal officials had indicated all along 鈥渢hey were going to be firm on deadlines, so we shouldn鈥檛 be surprised.鈥� Chances of passing the bill to rectifying the matter are good, he said.
Under the federal law, states must set annual achievement goals for schools, known as 鈥渁dequate yearly progress,鈥� so that all students score at the 鈥減roficient鈥� level on state tests in reading and mathematics by 2013-14. Schools must meet those targets for their entire student populations and for subgroups of students by race, income, disability, and limited fluency in English.
To satisfy the provision, schools also must test 95 percent of all students and those in each subgroup and show gains on at least one other academic indicator鈥� graduation rates for high schools and, typically, attendance rates for elementary and middle schools.
Education Department officials have repeatedly said states would risk losing federal money if they did not identify schools failing to make adequate progress before the new school year begins. The vast majority of states had yet to release those lists by late last week, though most had promised to do so this month.
Testing Systems in Flux
Meanwhile, many states are still trying to put in place the assessment programs to comply with the 1994 reauthorization of the ESEA, which required testing students in reading and math at least once in elementary, middle, and high school.
William J. Erpenbach, a consultant who participated in some of the department鈥檚 peer reviews of state accountability plans, said it was hard to judge those plans in the absence of information about the assessments that are at the heart of state accountability systems.
鈥淚t鈥檚 impossible to look at an accountability system and make a decision about whether it meets the requirements of No Child Left Behind if you don鈥檛 know the status of the assessment system that underlies it,鈥� he said.
An analysis of state accountability plans conducted for the Washington-based Council of Chief State School Officers by Mr. Erpenbach and co-authors Ellen Forte-Fast and Abigail Potts cautions that as states make the transition from one set of tests to another, the process may result in making determinations about adequate progress that are 鈥渦nwieldy at best.鈥�
鈥淚n some states, the scores on which AYP are based will vary over time,鈥� the authors note, 鈥測et schools and districts will be required to continue making steady improvements in their achievement scores.鈥�
The analysis, which also questions whether the Education Department was entirely consistent or clear in its decisions about what was permissible in state plans, is available on the council鈥檚 Web site at .
The Education Department鈥檚 Mr. Tomalis said the accountability plans 鈥渁re basically the framework on which the entire public education system is going to move forward.鈥� While the assessments are important, he argued, 鈥渋f we waited to say that we can鈥檛 implement an accountability plan until everything was up and running鈥攁nd running perfectly鈥� then a lot of these states that change things so often would never have their accountability plan in place and operating.鈥�
鈥淭his is about students,鈥� he added, 鈥渁nd to keep on delaying and delaying and delaying accountability plans wouldn鈥檛 do justice to the students.鈥�
Funds Withheld
In June, federal officials announced that they were withholding nearly $800,000 from Georgia鈥攐r 25 percent of its administrative aid under Title I for the 2002-03 school year鈥攆or violating its timeline waiver under the 1994 law. It is the first time in recent memory that the federal government has withheld money from a state for violating provisions under the ESEA.
Georgia had pledged to give new end-of-course tests in high school this past spring that would be aligned with its academic-content standards, but failed to do so.
Federal education officials plan to conduct a separate peer review of states鈥� standards and testing systems for compliance with the No Child Left Behind law, but have not yet devised a schedule for doing so. They have already notified some states whose plans were approved under the 1994 legislation that changes they have made since then will require additional peer review and approval, even before considering the 2001 requirements.
States also are awaiting final rules about how to include the scores of certain students with disabilities in accountability ratings, particularly when students take tests that are not geared to grade-level standards.
The Education Department had previously signaled that the use of out-of-level tests for certain students with disabilities who are working below grade level would violate federal law. Out-of-level tests were designed for a grade other than the one in which the student is enrolled.
But in a June 27 letter to state schools chiefs, U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige wrote that states that permitted such 鈥渋nstructional level鈥� tests during the 2002-03 school year, based on the recommendations of the individualized education plan required for a student with disabilities, could use the results to calculate adequate progress for the 2003-04 school year only.
States such as Mississippi, South Carolina, and Vermont, which are still using such exams, were relieved.
鈥淣o question it does help,鈥� said Bud Meyers, the deputy commissioner for standards and assessments for the Vermont education department. But, he said, the relief was only temporary, since it would take the state at least two years to design a wider range of measures for all the students who now take out-of-level tests.
Maine officials still were debating late last week how to measure achievement in grades 3-8 for calculating adequate progress. The state uses a combination of state and local assessments to measure its academic standards, and officials there remain committed to the value of locally generated tests. They have joined a compact of New England states鈥攊ncluding New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont鈥攖hat may collaborate to craft tests for some of the required grade levels.
鈥淎t this point, we haven鈥檛 ruled anything out in our discussions,鈥� said Horace 鈥淏rud鈥� Maxcy, Maine鈥檚 assessment director.
Data on Impact Requested
The federal Education Department also indicated in its follow-up letters that it wanted to see more data from some states that have proposed using a statistical technique, known as a 鈥渃onfidence interval,鈥� to increase the reliability of their accountability plans. Many of those states are trying to ensure that they identify low- performing schools or student subgroups with 95 percent or 99 percent certainty.
A small number of states plan to apply the statistical technique, or a similar one, to the other academic indicators used to calculate adequate progress, such as graduation rates, or to their 鈥渟afe harbor鈥� calculations. The latter is designed to provide a further look at schools that fail to meet their annual targets but may still have made significant progress.
鈥淭he use of this statistical test is acceptable for making AYP determinations this school year,鈥� the letters to the four states note. But the department asked for 鈥渋mpact data,鈥� as soon as such information is available, 鈥渇or further review and consideration.鈥�
Under the law, states also are permitted to combine test scores over several years or grade levels in making decisions about schools鈥攁gain, to increase the reliability of those judgments. That technique is known as 鈥渦niform averaging鈥� because it is meant to be applied the same way statewide.
But at least nine states and Puerto Rico have proposed comparing the current year鈥檚 test results for a school or district with an average of the most recent two or three years and using whichever is most favorable to make determinations on adequate progress. Again, the Education Department has requested more information.
鈥淲hen we were going through the discussions about accountability plans, some states came up with unique and novel approaches to implementing it,鈥� said Mr. Tomalis, the acting assistant secretary. 鈥淩ather than blatantly saying, 鈥楴o, you can鈥檛 do it,鈥� we said, 鈥楲et鈥檚 give it a try, see how the data come back, and make sure that this is a statistically valid and reliable determination before we say blanketly, you can do this.鈥� 鈥�
Finally, the department is continuing to negotiate with some states about elements of their accountability plans. Many have been struggling with how to meet the accountability requirements in the federal law while maintaining the core of their existing systems. In North Carolina, for example, schools may be designated as 鈥淪chools of Excellence鈥� under the state鈥檚 ABCs plan even if they didn鈥檛 make adequate progress under federal law.
鈥淪hould the data demonstrate an inconsistency between the highest ABCs recognition category (鈥淪chools of Excellence鈥�) and the AYP determination, we would expect North Carolina to re-examine and change the policy,鈥� Undersecretary of Education Eugene W. Hickok, who is also the department鈥檚 acting deputy secretary, wrote in a letter to state Superintendent Michael E. Ward.
Kay Williams, a spokeswoman for the North Carolina education department, said the state board of education plans to take another look at the recognition categories this fall. The state already has tied its cash bonuses for schools to their ratings on adequate yearly progress, 鈥渟o we certainly are taking this very seriously,鈥� she said.
Leaving Students Behind?
Meanwhile, Kentucky is battling to retain core elements of its accountability system. Under the state system, a school is held accountable for the performance of all students enrolled in the school on the day of testing. But under federal law, a school is accountable only for the performance of students enrolled in the school for a full academic year.
In some inner-city schools with high mobility rates, said Kentucky Deputy Commissioner of Education Kevin M. Noland, upwards of 50 percent of students in a classroom move at least once during the school year. 鈥淪o to apply what the U.S. Department of Education is requiring would force us to leave 40 percent to 50 percent of those students behind,鈥� he said.
Federal officials said that they tried to be flexible, but that the law鈥檚 language on full academic year is explicit.
鈥淭he big question about all of this is, since we鈥檙e on the same page philosophically, why is this thing so hard?鈥� said Robert F. Sexton, the executive director of the Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence, a citizens鈥� advocacy group in Kentucky, and a trustee of Editorial Projects in Education, which publishes Education Week.
鈥淚 don鈥檛 understand their focus on procedures rather than results,鈥� he said. 鈥淲e鈥檙e going to have to do incredible gyrations to keep this from disrupting and throwing off track our state system, which is getting results and which everybody recognizes is a good, effective approach that鈥檚 been worked on for 12 years. It defies any test of common sense.鈥�
