Search

The last few years have produced a groundswell of interest in improving our school accountability systems. Some suggest it's necessary to fine-tune current practices, while others advocate sweeping reforms that pave the way for entirely different approaches. A range of perspectives fall between these ends of the continuum, but support for the status quo is rare. Criticism of accountability isn't new; it emerged shortly after No Child Left Behind was enacted in 2001, and continued after its successor, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), passed in 2015. That criticism intensified in 2020, driven by two unprecedented crises: COVID-related school closures and a national reckoning with systemic racism. Together, those forces fueled a collective urgency to improve current school accountability practices. Without refuting calls for sweeping reforms, this paper explores practical strategies for improving accountability now, within or alongside ESSA's requirements. The paper describes the problems with accountability and details five ways to improve it: (1) Developing a comprehensive theory of action; (2) Employing a principled design process; (3) Supporting customized approaches; (4) Measuring more of what matters; and (5) Connecting information to support. By focusing on improvements that are possible right now, the authors affirm the urgency of taking swift action to improve accountability.

The authors offer a set of recommendations for the next Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reauthorization. They recommend changes to the assessment, accountability and Innovative Assessment Demonstration Authority (IADA) provisions of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESEA) as well as for a federally-supported research and evaluation agenda.

The purpose of this brief is to examine disproportionality with respect to student group participation in Alternate Assessments aligned with Alternate Academic Achievement Standards (AA-AAAS). This paper is a companion to another National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) brief, "Guidance for Examining District Alternate Assessment Participation Rates" (see ED591939). The companion brief outlined a broad framework and general principles to guide the examination of AA-AAAS participation rates, particularly in light of the challenge of small n-sizes and associated uncertainty.

Federal policy limits the number of students that a state may assess with an alternate assessment aligned to alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS) to no more than 1% of all students in the grades assessed in a state. The AA-AAS is intended only for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. This Brief addresses important questions that arise for states as they implement federal AA-AAS participation requirements. These questions include: (1) What are some approaches for dealing with the uncertainty associated with small student populations (i.e., n-sizes)?; (2) What are some appropriate analytical approaches for monitoring AA-AAS participation rates?; (3) What are the strengths and limitations of various methods?; and (4) What criteria could be established for defining "expected" versus "exceptional" fluctuations in district participation rates? Information generated from the analysis process described in this Brief can be used to help Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams within districts to better understand how to use participation guidelines to identify students with the most significant cognitive disabilities and make the most appropriate and accurate decisions for students.

Most states have developed or revised school accountability systems in response to the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). While these systems include multiple indicators, to many stakeholders the outcome of central interest is the overall rating or classification produced for each school. These ratings are often used to identify schools that merit reward or require support and to evaluate the efficacy of educational programs and policies. States vary in their approach to producing school ratings. Whether an overall or composite rating is provided, many states communicate performance using report cards or "dashboards" that often describe indicator level performance in terms thresholds (e.g., high/low; met expectations/ did not meet expectations; etc.). Given the central importance of the accountability rating at the indicator or overall level, it is only reasonable to require compelling evidence that the rating has a high degree of validity for its intended interpretation and uses. While there is a substantial research base in support of standard setting for assessments, very little attention has been given to establishing performance expectations in the context of school accountability systems. This paper outlines recommended principles to guide the establishment of a standard setting-process for accountability systems and describes a framework for implementing standard setting. The framework is a systematic process to establish accountability performance standards that includes the following steps: (1) Policy Definitions (PD); (2) School performance level descriptors (SPLDs); (3) Standard Setting Panel; (4) Standard Setting Preparation; and (5) Standard Setting Event. In light of the importance of overall accountability school classifications, the process for establishing performance thresholds should be based on a well-defined, defensible procedure that reflects the state's vision for the system. This document may be helpful to education leaders seeking to develop a process for establishing accountability performance classifications that fit their system characteristics and policy priorities. [This is the second of a three-paper set of resources presented at CCSSO's "State Plan Implementation for ESSA" in April 2018. For "Where the Rubber Meets the Road: Operations and Quality Control in School Accountability Systems," see ED586784. For "Accountability Identification is only the Beginning: Monitoring and Evaluating Accountability Results and Implementation," see ED593496.]

Across the nation, state and local leaders have embraced two critical goals for public education: quality and equity. Students should be better prepared than they have been in the past; the goal now is for all students to graduate from high school ready for college and career. All students, regardless of race, economic background or geographic location, should reach or exceed college and career readiness. A number of states, districts and schools have determined that competency-based pathways (CBP) are a promising way to meet these goals. A core tenet of CBP is that accurate, credible and useful student assessment information plays an essential role in supporting learning. Assessments should be a meaningful learning experience for students, provide rich information to educators so they can provide targeted support to students, and send students and parents clear signals about students' readiness for next steps. Yet, little practical guidance is currently available for those designing assessments associated with CBP systems. For example, can the basic principles and practices of assessment design be applied to CBP systems without modification? What is it about CBP that makes the design of comprehensive assessment systems challenging? Are there unique considerations for validating CBP assessment systems? This document addresses the role of summative assessment in supporting CBP, clarifies key assessment challenges, and provides examples and recommendations that will be useful in guiding those who wish to design and implement assessment systems to support CBP.