By: Michelle Croft and Richard Lee ACT Research and Policy
Despite (or because of) the federal requirement that all students in certain grades participate in statewide achievement testing, stories of parents opting their student out of the testing gained national attention in the media in the spring of 2015. Ultimately, twelve states—California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Maine, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin—received a notice from the U.S. Department of Education that they needed to create a plan to reduce opt-outs due to low participation rates.
When statewide testing came in spring 2016, there were more stories of opt-outs, and information about districts failing to meet participation requirements will follow in the coming months.3 Early reports from New York indicate that 21% of students in grades 3–8 opted out in 2016, which was slightly more than the prior year. (See attached PDF below for reference information.)
Participation Rate Requirements
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (both the No Child Left Behind and the Every Student Succeeds authorizations) requires that all students annually participate in statewide achievement testing in mathematics and English in grades 3–8 and high school as well as science in certain grade spans. Ninety-five percent of students at the state, district, and school level must participate; otherwise there is a range of consequences.
Under the No Child Left Behind authorization, the school would automatically fail to meet Adequate Yearly Progress if the school—or subgroups of students within the school—did not meet the participation rate requirement. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) provides states with greater flexibility to determine how to incorporate the participation rate into the state’s accountability system. However, in proposed regulations, the state will need to take certain actions such as lowering the school’s rating in the state’s accountability system or identifying the school for targeted support or improvement, if all students or one or more student subgroups do not meet the 95% participation rate.
Michelle Croft is a principal research associate in Public Affairs at ACT. Richard Lee is a senior analyst in Public Affairs at ACT.
This report highlights significant investments made by both Republican and Democratic policymakers in state-funded pre-k programs for the fourth year in a row. In the 2015-16 budget year, 32 states and the District of Columbia raised funding levels of pre-k programs. This increased support for preschool funding came from both sides of the aisle–22 states with Republican governors and 10 states with Democratic governors, plus the District of Columbia.
In contrast, only five states with Republican governors and three states with Democratic governors decreased their pre-k funding.
Overall, state funding of pre-k programs across the 50 states and the District of Columbia increased by nearly $755 million, or 12 percent over 2014-15. While this progress is promising, there is still work to be done to set children on the path to academic success early in life. Still, less than half of preschool-aged students have access to pre-k programs.
Increasing the number of students in high-quality preschool programs is broadly viewed as a way to set young learners on a path to a secure economic future and stable workforce. This report includes several state examples and an overview of the pre-k programs they have in place. Data tables on total state pre-K funding and state pre-kindergarten funding by program are appended. [Megan Carolan contributed to this publication.]
Education Commission of the States. ECS Distribution Center, 700 Broadway Suite 1200, Denver, CO 80203-3460. Tel: 303-299-3692; Fax: 303-296-8332; e-mail: ecs@ecs.org; Web site: http://www.ecs.org
There were few fireworks Wednesday as Education Secretary Betsy DeVos testified before a House appropriations subcommittee on the Trump administration’s 2018 budget proposal. DeVos deflected much of the skepticism she received and continued to push the administration’s support of school choice.
President Trump’s proposal, which has drawn sharp criticism from educators and lawmakers alike, calls for $1.4 billion to expand school choice — namely vouchers and charter schools — but slashes $10.6 billion from after-school programs, teacher training and federal student loans and grants.
In her opening statement, DeVos said Trump’s budget proposal would return power to states and school districts and give parents a choice in their child’s education.
Democrats, including New York Rep. Nita Lowey, accused DeVos of taking money from public schools to fund school choice.
“We’re not proposing any shifting of funding from public schools to private schools,” DeVos responded. “In fact, all of the proposals set forth in the budget commit to fully funding public schools as we have.”
“If you’re pouring money into vouchers, the money is coming from somewhere,” Lowey said.
Many Republicans, while upset about proposed cuts to career and technical training programs, expressed support for DeVos.
“We are beginning to see the early stages of a much-needed, robust discussion about how we begin the process of getting our federal budget under control,” Rep. Steve Womack of Arkansas said.
Democrats questioned DeVos about whether she would allow federal funds to go to private schools that discriminate against particular populations.
Rep. Katherine Clark of Massachusetts brought up Lighthouse Christian Academy, a school in Bloomington, Indiana that receives $665,000 in state vouchers and denies admission to children of LGBT parents.
“Is there a line for you on state flexibility?” Clark asked.
“You are the backstop for students and their right to access quality education. Would you in this case say we are going to overrule and you cannot discriminate, whether it be on sexual orientation, race, or special needs in our voucher programs?” Clark added. “Will that be a guarantee from you to our students?”
DeVos sidestepped the question.
“The bottom line is we believe that parents are the best equipped to make choices for their children’s schooling and education decisions,” DeVos said. “Too many children today are trapped in schools that don’t work for them. We have to do something different than continuing a top-down, one-size-fits-all approach.”
DeVos’s appearance before Congress was her first public seating since a rough confirmation hearing before the Senate back in January.
Earlier this week, the Brookings Institution released the fifth annual Education Choice and Competition Index, which ranks school choice in the largest school districts in the U.S.
During her address, Secretary of Education Betsy Devos claimed that “parents are the primary point of accountability.” When asked about policies that ensure that schools of choice are actually improving student performance, she answered that “the policies around empowering parents and moving the decision-making to the hands of parents on behalf of children is really the direction we need to go.” She later repeated the idea that transparency and information, coupled with parental choice, equated to accountability.
While it is indeed important to communicate information on school choice, transparency and information are only part of the accountability puzzle. In addition to these components, states also use accountability to ensure that schools that fail to meet academic or financial standards are improved or closed.
This is of particular importance for public charter schools, who have been given the authority to operate independently of school districts and many state rules or regulations. Accountability rules assure that students are learning and that public funds are spent responsibly.
While the accountability measures used for charter schools to demonstrate quality performance vary from state to state, they do exist, and they include more than just reporting information to parents.
Forty-three states had charter school laws in place when we completed this analysis (not including Kentucky, which passed a bill in March 2017 to allow charter schools). We examined four points of accountability within the charter school policies as recorded by the Education Commission of the States: annual reporting, specifications for termination, performance-thresholds, and technical assistance.
Annual Reporting
Most states require charter schools to submit annual reports as a part of their accountability obligations. Some annual reporting requirements include annual report cards, education progress reports, curriculum development, attendance rates, graduation rates, and college admission test scores. Many states that do not require annual reports still require financial reports, which speaks to the other side of accountability, appropriate usage of funds.
Some states, such as Washington, require charter schools to provide the same annual school performance reports as non-charter schools.
In Ohio, each charter is required to disseminate the state Department of Education’s school report card report to all parents.
North Carolina requires its charter schools to publish their report performance ratings, awarded by the State Board of Education, on the internet. If the rating is D or F, the charter school must send written notice to parents. North Carolina also requires specific data reporting related to student reading.
State Specification for Termination
Forty-two states specify the grounds for terminating a charter school, fostering accountability by establishing standards and consequences of failure to adhere to those standards. Failure to demonstrate academic achievement and failure to increase overall school performance are among the terms cited as grounds of termination among some states.
These state specifications for termination do not only apply to performance levels; they can be applied to a violation of any part of the charter law or agreement, such as fraud, failure to meet audit requirements, or failure to meet standards set for basic operations.
State Threshold
In addition to state specifications for termination, some states have set a threshold marking the lowest point where a school can perform before it is closed. Some states without a clearly communicated low-performance threshold have set other standards which specifically mark the lowest point of acceptable performance.
Setting a minimum threshold for performance for the automatic closure of failing schools may increase charter school accountability, and encourage high performance.
State-Provided Technical Assistance
Technical assistance to charter schools included leadership training or mentoring charter school leaders, or assistance with grant and application writing and other paperwork related to charter school operation.
In addition to holding charter schools accountable for high performance, several states offer technical assistance to ensure that charter school administrators understand how requirements are measured, and can be directed to resources to assist them with achieving performance goals, especially if they are at risk of closure due to failing to meet previously established standards.
These are clear displays of school accountability policies that help to ensure that parents have truly good schools from which to schools. Accountability relies not only on information for parents, but also consequences for schools that fail to educate students or use taxpayer dollars responsibly.
[1] The following states also require annual financial audits with their annual performance reports: Arkansas, Arizona, DC, Georgia, Hawaii, Oregon, Michigan, Texas, Utah
[2]Utah requires the most comprehensive technical assistance offerings, provided by the state charter school board which includes: assistance with the application and approval process for charter school authorization, locating private funding and support sources, and understanding and implementing charter requirements.
This week, I led a group of 10 senators in introducing a resolution to rescind an Obama administration education regulation that violates the 2015 law I helped write to fix No Child Left Behind.
On Nov. 29, the U.S. Department of Education released its final regulation for implementing the accountability provisions of the Every Student Succeeds Act – and the rule specifically does things or requires states to do things that Congress said in our law fixing No Child Left Behind that the department can’t do. In other words, the department’s regulation specifically violates the law. It’s not a matter of just being within the authority granted by the law. We said to the department, “You can’t tell states exactly what to do about fixing low-performing schools. That’s their decision.” This rule does that. And we said to the department, “You can’t tell states exactly how to rate the public schools in your state,” but this rule does that.
The resolution to rescind the regulation is co-sponsored by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, Tom Cotton, R-Ark., Bill Cassidy, R-La., David Perdue, R-Ga., Roger Wicker, R-Miss., John McCain, R-Ariz., Michael Enzi, R-Wyo., and Pat Roberts, R-Kan.
This is really a question of whether you believe that the U.S. Congress writes the law or whether you believe the U.S. Department of Education writes the law. I believe under Article I of our Constitution, the U.S. Congress writes the law, and when it’s signed by the president, then that’s the law, and the regulations have to stay within it – and that is especially true when Congress has prohibited the department from doing these things the rule does.
And this isn’t a trivial matter. The whole issue around the bill fixing No Child Left Behind was to reverse the trend to a national school board and restore to states, classroom teachers and parents decisions about what to do about their children in public schools.
Teachers, governors, school boards all were fed up with Washington telling them so much about what to do about their children in 100,000 public schools. So this rule, which contravenes the law specifically, goes to the heart of the bill fixing No Child Left Behind, which received 85 votes in the U.S. Senate.
Lamar Alexander represents Tennessee in the U.S. Senate.
President Donald Trump this week signed an executive order freezing hiring at many federal agencies, with the exception of military and public safety employees. So how might that effect the U.S. Department of Education’s work?
For one thing, it could mean longer hours for some of the department’s career staff and slower responses to department inquiries, said Zollie Stevenson, who served as a career staffer in the department under three presidents, including as the director of student achievement and school accountability programs.
“Existing staff in departments often have more work to do and often have to work longer,” said…
The Arkansas Fine Arts Curriculum Frameworks reflect the best contemporary philosophy and practices in arts education, provide courses that meet the needs of Arkansas students, and offer consistency of format and content across all disciplines and all levels. Updated in 2014 by a committee of arts educators representing all arts disciplines, all grade levels, and all areas of the state, the following standards allow students to create and perform or present original artistic work, as well as to respond and connect their own artistic work to that of other people and other cultures.
Lana Hallmark, Fine Arts Specialist
Arkansas Department of Education
Division of Learning Services
Four Capitol Mall, Room 202-B
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 501-682-7590
The Arkansas English Language Arts Standards represent the work of the educators from across the state. These documents include expectations for what all students should know and be able to do. The standards also include teacher notes, which will help all teachers across the state implement the new standards with fidelity. Implementation of these standards may begin in the 2016-2017 school year with the expectation of full implementation in the 2017-2018 school year.
Arkansas English Language Arts Standards (Valid July 15, 2016)
(Approved by State Board of Education on July 15, 2016)
K-12 ELA Standards (Side-by-Side Document)
The Arkansas English Language Arts Standards for grades K-12 document, available as a PDF or a spreadsheet, is a helpful companion to the single grade-level documents. It provides a K-12 view of a single standard across each row left to right and a view of all standards for a single grade level up and down a single column. The format is particularly useful when aligning curriculum and locating specific skills along the progression of learning. The color coding identifies which standards have been revised, clarified, and unchanged from the retiring version of the standards.
A committee of Arkansas educators developed courses aligned to the Arkansas English Language Arts Standards. As of July 1, 2017, these documents replace and supersede all previous English Language Arts courses.
English Language Arts Common Core State Standards and Appendices (Valid through June 30, 2017)
As of July 1, 2017, the Arkansas English Language Arts and Arkansas Disciplinary Literacy Standards will replace and supersede all previous English language arts and disciplinary literacy documents. Schools may use the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects in 2016-2017 as they transition toward full implementation of the new standards by 2017-2018.
A committee of Arkansas educators developed courses, which align to the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects. These courses are valid through June 30, 2017, at which point they will be superseded by the courses aligned to the Arkansas English Language Arts Standards.
The Arkansas Disciplinary Literacy Standards for Grades 6-12 are built from the same anchor standards for reading and writing as the Arkansas English Language Arts Standards; therefore, expectations for reading and writing are aligned across the disciplines. These standards allow flexibility for each discipline to define the types of texts and forms of writing that are unique and appropriate for that content. The disciplinary literacy standards do not take the place of content standards; instead, reading and writing are literacy tools used to support students as they learn the content in each discipline.
