Every state has turned in a plan to implement the Every Student Succeeds Act. So how do those plans stack up against each other and against No Child Left Behind, the previous version of the law? The Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a think tank headed up by Michael Petrili, a former Bush administration aide, is out with a look Tuesday.
Fordham judged the states on whether or not they had assigned annual ratings to schools that parents could understand, whether they encouraged schools to focus on all students or just the lowest performers, and whether the ratings were fair.
Read the full article here. May require an Education Week subscription.
Education Evolving
Originally Published, January 4, 2017
For the past five months, we have followed the development of Minnesota’s state accountability plan as mandated by the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). While the US Department of Education (USDE) has defined what must be included in four of the plans’ required indicators, states have the freedom to choose which measures they will include in their fifth indicator, of school quality/student success (SQ/SS).
As we’ve previously written, because of the lack of available data, chronic absenteeism was identified by the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) as the only SQ/SS measure that’s currently feasible for Minnesota. However, on November 29th, USDE extended ESSA implementation by one year, giving MDE’s Advisory Committee additional time to create a well-rounded SQ/SS indicator that would, ideally, include more than chronic absenteeism.
While most states have not released their ESSA draft plans, thirteen have—Arizona, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington. Arizona, Idaho, Montana, and North Carolina, however, do not define what possible SQ/SS measures their state will use.
All of the other states, except South Carolina, indicated that they intend to use chronic absenteeism as one of their SQ/SS measures; with Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, and Washington using it only for elementary and middle schools.
Two SQ/SS measures were prominent throughout the state’s draft plans—Career and College Readiness and 9th Grade On-Track. Below are descriptions of the measures.
College and Career Readiness Measure
Seven states—Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington—have some form of a College and Career Readiness measure that calculates a school’s performance on or access to Advanced Placement (AP), International Baccalaureate (IB), SAT, ACT, Career and Technical Education (CTE), and Dual Enrollment.
South Carolina’s measure is more complex, with high schools earning points based on the percentage of students who meet the College Ready/Career Ready benchmark, which is comprised of several different metrics, such as earning a 3 or higher on an AP exam or meeting ACT benchmarks in mathematics (22) and English (18).
Similarly, Tennessee’s measure, Ready Graduate, is calculated by multiplying the graduation rate and the highest percentage of students who do one of the following:
Score a 21+ on the ACT OR
Complete 4 Early Postsecondary Opportunities (EPSOs) OR
Complete 2 EPSOs and earn an industry certification
Washington’s measure is more prescriptive. It only has a metric for dual credit participation, which is measured by the percent of students who participate in a dual credit educational program.
Delaware is the only state whose measure includes a metric for elementary and middle schools. Specifically, Delaware uses a “growth to proficiency” metric, which measures the percentage of students on track to be at grade level in a given content area within three years.
Minnesota initially considered including a College and Career Readiness measure, but due to insufficient and misaligned data systems, the Technical Committee decided at the October 25th meeting to delay its inclusion.
9th Grade On-Track Measure
Three states—Illinois, Oregon, and Washington—indicated in their draft plans that they intended to use 9th-grade on track as a measure, which is the percent of first-time 9th grade students in a high school who do not fail a course.
Other SQ/SS Measures
Illinois: Early childhood education, which would be measured by kindergarten transition, pre-literacy activities, and academic gains. Unfortunately, the draft plan did not flesh out what “kindergarten transition” would measure, but it did indicate that it might not be ready for the 2017-18 academic year.
Illinois’ plan indicated that they may also use a school climate survey. Currently, Illinois uses the 5Essentials survey, which was developed at the University of Chicago and measures a school’s effectiveness in the following five areas:
Effective Leaders
Collaborative Teachers
Involved Families
Supportive Environments
Ambitious Instruction
Louisiana: Their ESSA Framework included a comprehensive list of SQ/SS measures that were divided into four categories:
Mastery of Fundamental Skills
Serving Historically Disadvantaged Students
Fair and Equitable Access to Enriching Experiences
Celebrating and Strengthening the Teaching Profession
Louisiana’s entire list of SQ/SS measures can be found here.
South Carolina: An “Effective Learning Environment Student Survey”, which would be administered every January to students in grades 4-12 and would include 29 items that measure topics on equitable learning, high expectations, supportive learning, active learning, progress monitoring and feedback, digital learning, and well-managed learning.
We will continue to report on ESSA updates in Minnesota and the country. MDE’s next ESSA Accountability meeting is scheduled for Thursday, January 5th from 5:30-8:00 PM. For more information about MDE’s ESSA implementation plan, visit their website.
Parents who opted their children out of state exams in recent years became the focal point of major education debates in the country about the proper roles of testing, the federal government, and achievement gaps. Now, under the Every Student Succeeds Act, states have a chance to rethink how they handle testing opt-outs.
So how are states responding in their ESSA plans they submitted to the federal government? In short, it’s all over the place, an Education Week review of the ESSA plans shows.
Keep this in mind: ESSA requires that students who opt out of those mandatory state tests must be marked as not proficient on those tests. Those not-proficient scores will in turn, obviously, impact accountability indicators. So while some states highlight this as their approach to handling testing opt-outs, it’s really no more than what the law requires…
A little-noticed change in the country’s main federal education law could force many states to lower their high school graduation rates, a politically explosive move no state would relish.
Indiana is the first state to be caught in the crosshairs of the law’s new language, but other states are likely to be affected soon. The resulting debate could throw a sharp spotlight on a topic that’s been lurking in the wings: the wildly varying levels of accomplishment signified by a high school diploma.
“This is about to become a national issue,” said Phillip Lovell, the policy director of the Alliance for Excellent Education, an advocacy group that focuses on high school issues.
In Indiana, the state faces the prospect of having to lower its graduation rate from 89 percent to 76 percent, a move its state superintendent fears could harm its economy and reputation.
The state’s in a bind because it offers several types of high school diplomas, and some are easier to earn than others. Half of Indiana’s students earn the default college-prep diploma, known as the Core 40. Thirty-eight percent earn the Core 40 with honors, and 12 percent earn the “general” diploma, which has lesser requirements.
Diplomas with less-rigorous requirements are the target of new language in the Every Student Succeeds Act. The law requires states to calculate their graduation rates by including only “standard” diplomas awarded to a “preponderance” of students, or diplomas with tougher requirements.
For Indiana, that means the state might not be able to count its general diplomas. State officials are in talks with the U.S. Department of Education about that prospect. Indiana Superintendent of Schools Jennifer McCormick also reached out to Indiana’s congressional delegation for help, saying in a letter last month that the lower graduation rate will put Indiana “at a national disadvantage” and would “not reflect well upon our state and could negatively impact our economy.”
Officials from the federal Education Department declined to discuss how they would interpret the ESSA language. In an email to Education Week, a spokesman said only that the department would provide “technical assistance” to states as they complied with the law, and that states can consult federal guidance issued in January on the law’s graduation-rate provisions.
The preponderance language in ESSA is only now beginning to creep onto states’ radars. The exact number that could be affected isn’t clear, although a recent report found that 23 states offer multiple pathways to a diploma. Many states offer multiple types of high school diplomas, though most don’t track—or publicly report—how many students earn each type.
In Arkansas, two-thirds of students graduate with the state’s “smart core” diploma, and one-third earn its less-rigorous “core” diploma.
In New York state, 4 percent of graduates get a “local” diploma, which isn’t as rigorous as its “regents” and “advanced” diplomas. In Oregon, 3.7 percent of students earn a “modified” diploma, which is intended for students with a “demonstrated inability” to meet all the state’s academic expectations.
“The idea is to create a pathway toward a diploma for students with significant challenges,” Jennell Ives, a program specialist with Oregon’s department of education, explained in an email.
Diplomas that signify less-than-rigorous academic preparation, however, were the express target of the new requirement in ESSA. No such language was in the previous version of the law, the No Child Left Behind Act.
“We were trying to address concerns about those weaker diplomas, to put a signal in there to drive states to make sure that diplomas were really preparing students for success,” said a Senate aide who helped draft the Every Student Succeeds Act.
‘Make the Most Difference’
Advocates for lower-income and minority students, and those with disabilities, were key voices at the table when that section of the bill was being drafted. Those students tend to earn disproportionate shares of the lower-level diplomas.
“We wanted the language in ESSA to make the most difference for those students,” said Laura Kaloi, who participated in the talks on behalf of the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, a special-education advocacy group.
By inserting the preponderance language into ESSA, its authors pushed federal law into a new area: linking graduation rates to the quality of the diplomas, not just to how many diplomas are awarded.
A 2008 regulation broke new ground by requiring all states to calculate graduation rates the same way: by counting the proportion of entering freshmen who completed school four years later.
That regulation also ventured into new territory by tackling the related idea of which diplomas should be counted. It said states could count only “regular” diplomas, not alternative or equivalency credentials.
The concept of diploma quality was on policymakers’ minds as they sat down to write the accountability section of the Every Student Succeeds Act. There was “a lot of bipartisan agreement” that the idea of counting only regular diplomas should finally be written into federal law, the Senate aide said.
“You could see this as being about states that have to lower their graduation rates, or about trying to be honest about our graduation rates.”Phillip Lovell, Alliance for Excellent Education
“This is new. For a long time, federal officials have been focusing on graduation rates without caring what a diploma actually means,” said Michael Cohen, who was the assistant secretary of elementary and secondary education under President Bill Clinton and now heads Achieve, a group that has researched the wide variety in states’ diploma requirements.
Allowing states to report graduation rates based only on regular diplomas, and diplomas that require more rigorous study, is long overdue, according to Lovell of the Alliance for Excellent Education.
States could well feel the sting of public disapproval if they have to revise their graduation rates downward, but the resulting shift in message justifies the discomfort, he said.
“The statute calls for honesty,” he said. “We’re finally being honest about what a diploma means.”
But Lovell also worries that an unintended consequence of the law is that states could lower their regular-diploma requirements to keep their graduation-rate numbers high.
‘Perverse Incentives?’
Other consequences are already unfolding, showing up first in Indiana.
The state has long been recognized as a leader in getting students to complete college-prep courses of study: 88 percent take the four years of English and three years of math—through Algebra 2—that are widely viewed as a “college-ready” curricula.
Yet Indiana might have to pay the price of lowering its graduation rate because it chose not to require college-prep study for all. That situation strikes Cohen as creating “perverse incentives” for states to award less-rigorous diplomas to a “preponderance” of their students.
“States that do the best job of getting kids to take advanced coursework could be the ones at greatest risk under this policy,” he said. “They’ve succeeded their way into trouble.”
Lovell begs to differ. “You could see this as being about states that have to lower their graduation rates or about trying to be honest about our graduation rates,” he said. “Indiana is stepping up and being honest.”
Activists may differ on whether the preponderance requirements in ESSA are a step in the right direction. But they agree on another, more ironic truth, which is that the law will fall short of ensuring that all high school diplomas mean students are ready to do well in college.
Even among the many states that offer only one type of diploma, what students achieved to earn that diploma can vary wildly. Still, those states are unlikely to be affected by the preponderance requirement of ESSA, since all students earn the same diploma.
In Massachusetts, for instance, 77 percent of students complete a course of study that reflects the expectations of the University of Massachusetts. The rest finish high school with other assortments of courses. Yet all students earn the same diploma, said state education department spokeswoman Jacqueline Reis.
The same situation holds true in Maryland, where most students finish coursework geared to state university requirements, and the rest don’t, but all walk across the graduation stage with the same type of diploma.
In Oklahoma, students are automatically placed in the college-ready curriculum and remain there unless they opt into a less-rigorous one. But only the tougher course of study requires three years of math—through Algebra 2. And all Oklahoma students earn the same high school diploma, a state education department spokeswoman said.
When the Every Student Succeeds Act passed, one of the things that educators were most excited about was the chance to cut down on the number of tests kids have to take, Specifically, the law allows some districts to offer a nationally recognized college-entrance exam instead of the state test for accountability.
But that flexibility could be more complicated than it appears on paper.
Here’s a case in point: Oklahoma, which hasn’t finalized its ESSA application yet, has already gotten pushback from the feds for the way that it had planned to implement the locally selected high school test option in a draft ESSA plan posted on the state department’s website. In that plan, Oklahoma sought to offer its districts a choice of two nationally recognized tests, the ACT or the SAT. Importantly, the state’s draft plan didn’t endorse one test over the otherâboth were considered equally okay…
I was a fourth-grade teacher in Tulsa, Okla., when I decided to go back to school myself and study education research. I continued to teach and the difference in my instructional style after attending graduate school was like night and day. I attribute a great deal of my own personal growth as a teacher and the success of my class to simply addressing the social and emotional aspects of my students.
When I began my second year of teaching, I decided I needed to foster some social skills in my fourth-graders before I could really begin tackling the academic subject material. I remember feeling this might be a big risk. My class was below grade level academically, but I felt that not addressing the social and emotional issues was where I went wrong in my first year. As a consequence, my first year of teaching resulted in an out-of-control classroom that got in the way of numerous academic learning opportunities.
So, I began my second year by teaching my students how to talk to one another in a productive and nonjudgmental way. This may seem like something you would expect a nine or 10-year-old to be able to do, or a skill that they would simply pick up over time, but I felt that it was necessary to teach this as explicitly as one would teach multiplication.
During my first year as a teacher, I tried to limit student-to-student interaction because it often lead to arguments and disruptions, but I knew that this was a skill that all people needed in their lives. To directly teach this skill, we engaged in a lot of role playing as a class. Students would practice disagreeing about nonacademic subjects in a respectful way so that they could make the distinction between a subject disagreement and a personal attack. My goal was for them to be able to eventually talk about an idea and disagree about something, without taking it personally, and to be able to understand a different perspective.
To understand another perspective on a subject is a type of critical thinking, but also a form of empathy. So, when I designed the behavior system in my class, I wanted one of the first consequences to be a reflection sheet and one-on-one discussion with me and the student. Students would fill out a paper where they explained their behavior and the reasoning behind it. I would then ask them questions to walk them through the process to reflect on their choices and understand how the other student or students were feeling because of that choice. Then we would discuss different ways to handle the situation in the future so that the student could learn from his/her mistake instead of repeating it.
My second year of teaching was so much more enjoyable for me and my students, and I think a big reason was because of these changes. Instead of simply reacting to behavior, I could anticipate it and address some of the underlying causes head on. That year, my students grew substantially in their academic subject knowledge, but hopefully they also left my class with skills like empathy, collaboration and self-reflection which are just as important for success.
Oklahoma is among the leaders halfway through the transition to new federal education law.
The Every Student Succeeds Act, or ESSA, is replacing the No Child Left Behind Act. It was signed into law by President Barack Obama on Dec. 10, 2015, and all U.S. schools must comply for the 2017–2018 school year.
“Oklahoma is our shining model that’s taking place right now and what they’re doing to get it right for their students,” said National Education Association President Lily Eskelen-Garcia. “It’s not easy. It’s not perfect.”
ESSA returns several controls to states that the federal government assumed under No Child Left Behind. Oklahoma education officials say work with state lawmakers to pass bills on student testing and teacher evaluations put Oklahoma on the right path.
Donna Harris-Aikens with the National Education Association said Oklahoma has involved not just teachers, but also parents and school support staff in talks about how to implement ESSA’s provisions.
“We’re talking to all of our members about ESSA and making sure their voices are in the room, because everyone who has responsibility for educating kids should have a voice in this conversation,” Harris-Aikens said.
One provision of ESSA allows local officials to develop school improvement plans, something now required by Oklahoma law. Sky Ranch Elementary Principal Amy Braun said teachers at one school came up with a plan covering topics from how poverty affects the brain to using technology to better engage students.
“So, imagine the possibilities of all of our teachers in Oklahoma being able to dream and having the power to direct their own teaching and learning to actually improve student achievement,” Braun said.
ESSA also reduces the standardized testing burden.
Every state has turned in a plan to implement the Every Student Succeeds Act. So how do those plans stack up against each other and against No Child Left Behind, the previous version of the law? The Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a think tank headed up by Michael Petrili, a former Bush administration aide, is out with a look Tuesday.
![[ESSA] State Plan Versions That Have Been Released So Far](https://nnpa.org/essa/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/essa-posts-featured_0060_iStock-460421987-1-1080x600.png)
