Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
Redesigning School Accountability and Support:
Progress in Pioneering States
By Channa M. Cook-Harvey, Learning Policy Institute
Elizabeth Leisy Stosich, Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
sco e
Stanford Center for
Opportunity Policy in Education
About the authors:
Channa M. Cook-Harvey, PhD, Senior Researcher, Learning Policy Institute (LPI)
Elizabeth Leisy Stosich, EdD, Research and Policy Fellow, Stanford Center for
Opportunity Policy in Education (SCOPE)
Suggested citation:
Cook-Harvey, C. M. & Stosich E. L. (2016). Redesigning School Accountability
and Support: Progress in Pioneering States. Stanford, CA: Learning Policy Institute
and Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.
sco e
Stanford Center for
Opportunity Policy in Education
Stanford Center for Opportunity
Policy in Education
http://edpolicy.stanford.edu
@scope_stanford
www.learningpolicyinstitute.org
@LPI_Learning
Acknowledgments
T
his report was developed in the course of a series of discussions of the 51st
State Working Group about the design of a new accountability system, with
generous support from the Hewlett Foundation and the Sandler Foundation.
The 51st State Working Group was formed in partnership with the Stanford Center
for Opportunity Policy in Education (SCOPE), the Stanford Center for Assessment,
Learning, and Equity (SCALE), the Learning Policy Institute (LPI), the Council of
Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), and the National Center for Innovation in
Education at the University of Kentucky. We gratefully acknowledge that support,
along with helpful feedback from the following reviewers: Jennifer O’Day and
Gene Wilhoit. The views presented here represent those of the authors, and not the
reviewers or sponsor.
Without the generosity of time and spirit of all of the aforementioned, this work
would not have been possible.
The research endeavors described here were conducted independently by the
Learning Policy Institute and Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.
The Learning Policy Institute conducts and communicates independent, high-quality research to shape education policies and improve learning for each and every
child. Nonprofit and nonpartisan, the Institute connects policymakers at the local,
state, and federal level with the evidence, ideas, and actions needed to strengthen
the pre-k to grade 12 education system and address the complex realities facing public schools and their communities. Working with policymakers, researchers, educators, community groups, and others who care about improving public
schools, the Institute advances evidence-based policies that support empowering
and equitable learning for all children. http://learningpolicyinstitute.org/
The Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education (SCOPE) was founded in
2008 to address issues of educational opportunity, access, and equity in the United
States and internationally. SCOPE engages faculty from across Stanford University
and from other universities to work on a shared agenda of research, policy analysis, educational practice, and dissemination of ideas to improve quality and equality of education from early childhood through college. More information about
SCOPE is available at https://edpolicy.stanford.edu.
Table of Contents
Introduction: Why Redesign State Systems of Accountability? .........................................1
Methods .....................................................................................................................3
Learning from the 51st State Working Group ..............................................................4
Seamless Pathways to College and Career ...................................................................4
Flexibility and Strategies for Innovation ....................................................................5
Systems of Assessment ...............................................................................................6
Professional Capacity..................................................................................................6
Accountability ............................................................................................................7
Looking Ahead: New Directions for Accountability under ESSA .....................................9
Developing Seamless Pathways to College and Career ................................................9
Supporting Flexibility and Strategies for Innovation ................................................10
Designing Systems of Assessment ..............................................................................11
Developing Professional Capacity .............................................................................11
Creating Accountability Systems ..............................................................................12
Summaries of State Progress: 51st State Working Group
Takes the Lead in Rethinking Accountability .................................................................14
California .......................................................................................................................14
College and Career Readiness ...................................................................................14
Flexibility and Strategies for Innovation ...................................................................15
System of Assessment................................................................................................16
Professional Capacity................................................................................................16
Accountability .........................................................................................................17
Colorado ........................................................................................................................19
College and Career Readiness ...................................................................................19
Flexibility and Strategies for Innovation ...................................................................20
System of Assessment................................................................................................20
Professional Capacity ...............................................................................................20
Accountability .........................................................................................................21
Iowa ...............................................................................................................................23
College and Career Readiness ...................................................................................23
Flexibility and Strategies for Innovation ...................................................................24
System of Assessment................................................................................................24
Professional Capacity ...............................................................................................25
Accountability .........................................................................................................26
Kentucky ........................................................................................................................28
College and Career Readiness ...................................................................................28
Flexibility and Strategies for Innovation ...................................................................30
System of Assessment................................................................................................31
Professional Capacity ...............................................................................................32
Accountability .........................................................................................................33
New Hampshire .............................................................................................................35
College and Career Readiness ...................................................................................35
Flexibility and Strategies for Innovation ...................................................................37
System of Assessment................................................................................................37
Professional Capacity ...............................................................................................38
Accountability .........................................................................................................39
Oregon ...........................................................................................................................41
College and Career Readiness ...................................................................................41
Flexibility and Strategies for Innovation ...................................................................41
System of Assessment................................................................................................42
Professional Capacity ...............................................................................................43
Accountability ..........................................................................................................44
South Carolina ...............................................................................................................46
College and Career Readiness ...................................................................................46
Flexibility and Strategies for Innovation ...................................................................47
System of Assessment................................................................................................47
Professional Capacity ...............................................................................................47
Accountability .........................................................................................................47
Vermont .........................................................................................................................49
College and Career Readiness ...................................................................................49
Flexibility and Strategies for Innovation ...................................................................50
System of Assessment................................................................................................51
Professional Capacity ...............................................................................................51
Accountability ..........................................................................................................52
Virginia ..........................................................................................................................54
College and Career Readiness ...................................................................................54
Flexibility and Strategies for Innovation ...................................................................55
System of Assessment................................................................................................55
Professional Capacity ...............................................................................................56
West Virginia..................................................................................................................57
College and Career Readiness ...................................................................................57
Flexibility and Strategies for Innovation ...................................................................58
System of Assessment................................................................................................58
Professional Capacity................................................................................................58
Accountability ..........................................................................................................59
Endnotes ........................................................................................................................61
Introduction:
Why Redesign State Systems of Accountability?
T
here is growing agreement among educators, policy makers, and researchers that
the focus on test-based accountability that has proliferated since the passage of
the No Child Left Behind Act (2001) is insufficient for ensuring that all students
have access to the meaningful learning experiences that can prepare them for success in college, career, and life.1 No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the last reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), brought much needed
attention to the performance of traditionally underserved subgroups of students,
including students of color, students living in poverty, students with special needs,
and students for whom English is a second language. However, the legislation also
focused narrowly on using state assessments in mathematics and English language
arts to measure the success of students and schools, which has had negative effects
on students’ access to high-quality learning opportunities in some cases.2
Supported by greater flexibility under ESEA waivers, state policy makers have taken
steps to design more balanced systems of support and accountability that monitor
and respond to not only student performance on end-of-year assessments but also
the quality of students’ opportunities to learn, the school environment that supports
these learning experiences, and access to equitable and adequate resources. Across
the country, states are adopting ambitious college and career ready standards and
are working to develop aligned systems of accountability that support the growth
and capacity of educators, schools, and districts for supporting all students in working toward these standards. The recent reauthorization of ESEA, the Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA) (2015), has the potential to further advance these efforts.
In light of this policy landscape, a group of states launched a working group in
February 2015 with the purpose of sharing challenges and successes encountered
during the redesign of their accountability systems. This cohort of 10 states—
California, Colorado, Iowa, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Oregon, South Carolina,
Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia—represents diverse geographic, political, and
community interests, and is committed to engaging in collective learning and action
to transform their systems of accountability and support. Known as the 51st State
Working Group, these states have taken a comprehensive approach to redesigning
key components of schooling, including establishing comprehensive standards for
college and career readiness, encouraging innovative approaches to meeting these
goals, developing more authentic assessments and indicators to measure progress
against comprehensive goals for students and schools, growing the capacity of educators, and creating systems to support continuous improvement.
Redesigning School Accountability and Support: Progress in Pioneering States
1
This working group borrows its name from a framework developed by DarlingHammond, Wilhoit, and Pittenger,3 which proposed a “new paradigm” for how
states might approach educational accountability. The authors make recommendations via descriptions of how a hypothetical “51st state” might design and implement
policies and strategies to ensure all students are college, career, and life ready upon
graduation. Specifically, redesigning accountability systems to support meaningful
learning would entail:
•
Developing seamless pathways to college and career that are supported by a common statewide definition of college and career
readiness and strategies for ensuring access to learning opportunities aligned with these expectations, measuring progress against
these expectations, and intervening where progress toward these
expectations falters.
•
Supporting flexibility and strategies for innovation that create
opportunities for schools and systems to experiment with new
approaches to curriculum, assessment, instruction, accountability,
or school organization and to document best practices to ensure
they can be shared with other schools and educators.
•
Designing systems of assessment that reflect state and local goals
for meaningful learning, include opportunities for authentic
application, and are more closely integrated with curriculum and
instruction.
•
Developing professional capacity to ensure all students have access
to rigorous and authentic learning experiences and are served by
well-prepared, competent, and compassionate teachers and leaders.
•
Creating accountability systems that draw on multiple sources
of information to monitor the quality and equity of educational
opportunities, outcomes, and resources and are paired with processes for providing direct support to schools and systems to foster
continuous improvement.
Some states in the 51st State Working Group have already taken significant steps in
transforming their accountability systems. For example, California has adopted a
more equitable approach to funding that provides higher levels of funding to districts serving students with higher levels of need, and has paired this approach with
locally developed accountability plans intended to evaluate the quality and equity of
students’ educational opportunities and outcomes using more comprehensive measures. In Vermont, the Agency of Education has focused on supporting continuous
improvement in schools by piloting Education Quality Reviews, a systematic inspec-
2
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
tion of school quality designed to encourage improvement in academic achievement
as well as personalized learning, school safety, climate, staffing, and financial efficiency. New Hampshire’s approach to redesigning accountability centers on transforming the state’s system of assessment through the integration of performance
assessments. The state’s college and career ready competencies, efforts to grow the
professional capacity of educators, and cross-district peer review systems are all
designed to support the transformation of New Hampshire’s system of assessment to
prioritize authentic, curriculum-embedded, and instructionally relevant assessments.
Understandably, each state has a unique approach to undertaking accountability
redesign. In the pages that follow, we describe the actions states have taken and
highlight specific examples of policy changes and capacity-building efforts. This
report is meant to bring to the fore the variety of ways that states have tackled the
challenge of redesigning their accountability systems to create an educational environment that is more likely to produce excellent and equitable learning opportunities for all children.
Methods
This report documents the progress made by the 10 states in the 51st State Working
Group to transform their systems of accountability to support more meaningful learning opportunities for all students. Notably, the purpose of this report is
to describe current policies and capacity-building efforts in relation to the framework for redesigning accountability proposed by Darling-Hammond, Wilhoit, and
Pittenger,4 which has served as a guiding framework for state transformation. To
capture and document state progress, we used several sources of information:
•
interviews with state department of education personnel who have
participated in the 51st State Working Group;
•
information from state websites including but not limited to state
legislation, working papers, and board meeting minutes; and
•
additional information shared by state education leaders during
working group meetings and webinars.
Leaders from the states in the working group had opportunities to read, offer feedback,
and suggest edits to these summaries to ensure that the information presented here is
accurate, timely, and representative of the work currently underway in each state.
It is also important to note what is not included in this analysis. We do not offer
information on the level or quality of implementation of these policies or analyze
their effectiveness for improving students’ opportunities to learn. The purpose of this
document is to offer readers insight about how states are redesigning their account-
Redesigning School Accountability and Support: Progress in Pioneering States
3
ability and their various approaches for doing so. We envision this document serving as a resource for state education leaders, policy makers, and other stakeholders
interested in learning more about the processes and policies that some states have
instituted in an effort to create more holistic and responsive education systems.
Given the limited scope of this paper, the information gathered and presented here
suggests opportunities for further study that might offer a more complex and indepth look into the impact of these new policies.
Learning from the 51st State Working Group
The 10 states in the 51st State Working Group came together to advance the shared
goal of redesigning state systems of accountability to support more meaningful
learning opportunities for all children. In working toward this goal, each state has
taken a unique approach to system redesign. Furthermore, system transformation is
a long process, and states are in different places in this journey. We highlight state
progress in conceptualizing, building support for, developing, and enacting innovative accountability policies in the five key areas presented in Figure 1.
Seamless Pathways to College and Career
As schools prepare students to be college and career ready, states in this working
group have sought to determine the characteristics, skills, knowledge, and dispositions that graduates need to succeed. This vision provides a statewide model for
aligning educational experiences from preschool through high school. The definition
Figure 1. Elements of accountability redesign.
Seamless pathways to college and career
Flexibility and strategies for innovation
Systems of assessment for and of learning
Professional capacity-building
Accountability systems that draw on multiple sources
4
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
of college and career readiness (CCR) then serves as a guidepost for states as they
create and implement strategic plans aimed at promoting, measuring, and ensuring
meaningful learning for students. The definition also creates a standard by which
educators can measure the effectiveness of new policies and practices in all dimensions of the system.
All 10 states have developed definitions of CCR. Four states—New Hampshire,
Oregon, South Carolina, and Vermont—have adopted definitions of competencies beyond academic knowledge and skills, sometimes called “habits of mind” or
“work–study practices,” as part of their definitions of CCR. Some states, in addition
to their agreed-upon definition, have taken steps to craft a plan, a list of standards,
specific outcomes, and/or clearly aligned strategies for determining and measuring
progress in meeting expectations for CCR. For example, four states—California,
Iowa, Kentucky, and South Carolina—have invested in the development of college
and career pathways that provide students with opportunities to engage in handson internships, dual enrollment, and other opportunities that can prepare them for
postsecondary success.
Flexibility and Strategies for Innovation
A commitment to policies and practices that are innovative has the potential to
improve educational opportunities by challenging prior assumptions about what is
taught, how students learn, when learning occurs, and where learning happens. As
such, states can support districts and schools by offering latitude and flexibility in
their adoption of innovative learning. Some examples of nontraditional and innovative state-supported models are: personalized learning plans, competency-based
learning progressions, multiple and high-quality anytime/anywhere pathways for
students to demonstrate learning, and the encouragement of schools and districts
interested in implementing new approaches or pilot programs.
Although at different stages in the process, all 10 states in the working group have
policies or programs in place to support innovative approaches to teaching and
learning. Five states—California, Colorado, Iowa, Virginia, and Vermont—have
created opportunities for schools to have greater autonomy over structures, operations, and/or staffing to pursue innovative approaches to teaching and learning. In
California and Virginia, these policies include specific support for creating authentic
college- and career-based learning experiences in schools. There is also great interest in competency-based models for teaching and learning, including the use of
performance assessment as part of a competency-based system. Five states—Iowa,
Kentucky, New Hampshire, Oregon, and Vermont—have policies in place to support
schools and/or districts in pursuing competency-based models. Notably, Oregon is
the only state that provides targeted financial support for innovation in schools with
large populations of traditionally underserved students, including students who are
economically disadvantaged, English learners, low-achieving, and/or racial or ethnic
Redesigning School Accountability and Support: Progress in Pioneering States
5
minorities, which represents an important step toward creating more meaningful
and equitable learning opportunities for students.
Systems of Assessment
A comprehensive system of assessment is multifaceted and layered; it includes both
formative, locally developed assessments that foster student choice and are embedded in curriculum as well as state-level summative assessments that address deeper
learning skills. Additionally, a well-rounded approach to assessment promotes students’ development of social–emotional skills, dispositions, and habits of mind that
are necessary for future life success. Within this system, performance assessments are
a critical component of supporting meaningful learning in that the results of such
assessments can provide:
•
a comprehensive view of student knowledge and disposition as it
relates to college and career readiness,
•
a developmental view of student progress, and
•
valuable information for instructors about how to modify and
adapt future instruction.
All states in the 51st State Working Group are actively seeking more authentic and meaningful ways to assess the knowledge, skills, and dispositions students need for success in
life beyond the classroom. Specifically, eight states are working to integrate performance
assessment into their systems of assessment by adopting consortia assessments (Smarter
Balanced Assessment Consortium [SBAC] and Partnership for Assessment of Readiness
for College and Careers [PARCC]) that are aligned with the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS) and include performance tasks, creating district or school flexibility for using
performance assessments, and/or developing educator capacity to develop and use performance assessments in their classrooms. In fact, six of the 10 states in the working
group have adopted either SBAC or PARCC to assess students’ mastery of CCSS. New
Hampshire has taken great strides in transforming assessment by developing and beginning
implementation of a system of assessment that incorporates locally developed and common
performance assessments that are intended to inform both classroom instruction and state
accountability.
Professional Capacity
Growing skilled and committed educators is a central element of any system of
accountability designed to ensure that all students have opportunities to engage
in meaningful learning. Doing so requires states to develop the conditions, structures, and collaborative processes that encourage professional learning and growth
among all educators. To achieve such a balanced and committed educator workforce
6
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
requires a movement toward higher expectations, continuous and evidence-based
feedback, and an equalization of human resources that ensures well-qualified and
effective teachers are in all schools.
States in the 51st State Working Group have taken steps to grow educator capacity by developing new teacher induction programs, developing systems of teacher
evaluation and growth that are connected to opportunities for professional learning,
developing standards for professional learning to ensure the quality of these experiences, and creating in-person and online opportunities to engage with educational
materials and professional development resources that support educators in meeting
state educational goals. Eight of the 10 states have developed or refined their systems
of teacher and/or leader evaluation and support. In addition, two of these states—
Kentucky and West Virginia—have developed policies or programs that aim to
transform professional learning opportunities by encouraging more personalized and
job-embedded learning for teachers. Notably, Iowa is growing professional capacity
from within by creating opportunities for accomplished teachers to lead professional
learning in schools as instructional coaches, model teachers, mentors, curriculum
developers, or leaders of professional development.
Accountability
Transparency is a critical component of the process of continuous improvement in
any accountability system. To ensure that students are meeting targets and schools
and districts are making progress toward their locally developed and state-mandated
goals requires platforms for intelligent information reporting. Multiple measures
data dashboards can track information about inputs and outcomes as well as support educators in diagnosing what is and what is not working in schools. Similarly,
school quality reviews can serve as a process of both review and support that occurs
on a cyclical basis for all schools and more frequently for those schools in need of
improvement. A support-based (rather than sanction-based) review of school quality brings together three critical elements: (1) robust quantitative and qualitative
data from observations and interviews, (2) the deployment of educational experts
not only to conduct diagnostic inquiry but also to partner with schools to address
the needs of their students, and (3) the use of peer reviewers from across the state to
bring in multiple perspectives, strategies, and ideas during the process of review.
States in the 51st State Working Group are taking steps to move away from A–F
school evaluation systems focused narrowly on students’ academic performance
and toward multiple measures data dashboards that provide a more comprehensive picture of students’ performance, opportunities to learn, and the resources and
conditions that support these opportunities. Nine out of 10 states in the working
group have taken steps toward designing or implementing multiple measures systems. In California, districts develop these multiple measures systems locally and
incorporate both state and local priorities for improving educational outcomes
Redesigning School Accountability and Support: Progress in Pioneering States
7
and opportunities. Although there is widespread interest in the potential for school
quality reviews to support continuous improvement, few states have such systems in
place. Kentucky and West Virginia have implemented school quality review systems
to support priority schools, and Vermont is piloting a process for all schools. In New
Hampshire, the school review process focuses on supporting schools participating in
the state’s performance assessment pilot.
8
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
Looking Ahead:
New Directions for Accountability under ESSA
I
n December 2015, President Obama’s signature marked the reauthorization of
the 1965 ESEA as ESSA. The biggest shift in the focus of accountability from
NCLB to ESSA is the redistribution of power back to states. For over a decade,
the federal government has attempted to drive student achievement, especially for
the most vulnerable student populations, by way of sanctions tied to a narrow definition of student success. Although graduation rates have improved,5 there has been
growing concern that test-based accountability has led to a narrowing of the curriculum through a focus on math and reading (tested subjects) at the expense of science,
history, art, and music (untested subjects).6
The expanded role of states in designing systems of accountability and support for
improving student learning creates new opportunities for state and local innovation;
however, it also gives state leaders the important and challenging duty of designing systems that can address enduring inequalities in student learning opportunities
and outcomes. This is an opportunity for states to press ahead on these initiatives,
yet it is also a time of great vulnerability because some states may be tempted to
drive away from the advancements of recent years; as such, states’ commitments to
advancing student learning is paramount.
The 51st State model of accountability for meaningful learning proposed by DarlingHammond, Wilhoit, and Pittenger (2014) and the progress made by the 10 states in
the 51st State Working Group can serve to inform future state efforts to redesign systems of accountability under ESSA. In addition, this legislation creates new opportunities for designing systems that ensure all students have access to opportunities for
meaningful learning. In the following sections, we describe future directions for state
accountability policy and how they relate to and extend recent state efforts to redesign accountability in five critical areas.
Developing Seamless Pathways to College and Career
ESSA raises the bar for state standards even higher than NCLB by requiring that
each state “demonstrate that the challenging State academic standards are aligned
with entrance requirements for credit-bearing coursework in the system of public higher education in the State and relevant State career and technical education
standards.”7 Most states have already adopted college and career readiness (CCR)
standards. One reason for this was that adopting CCR standards was a requirement
Redesigning School Accountability and Support: Progress in Pioneering States
9
for receiving an ESEA waiver, which states could meet by adopting the Common
Core State Standards or developing state standards aligned to expectations for
college and career. The challenge before the states is to make those newly adopted
standards come alive in schools.
Some states, in addition to their agreed-upon definition, have taken steps to craft
a plan, a list of standards, specific outcomes, and/or clearly aligned strategies for
determining and measuring progress in meeting expectations for CCR. Furthermore,
in some states CCR exists to inform other critical aspects of the state’s initiatives,
ranging from assessment type and format to course progression and graduation
criteria. Importantly, ESSA provides guidance to states in the kinds of programs and
activities that can support “well-rounded educational opportunities” that prepare
students for success in college and career, including college and career guidance and
counseling programs, postsecondary education and career awareness, dual enrollment programs and early college high school courses, and field-based learning
experiences in science, technology, and engineering. As part of creating a balanced
system of support and accountability, states can consider approaches for not only
measuring student performance against CCR standards but also ensuring students
have access to and participate in the learning experiences that will prepare them for
success in college, career, and life.
Supporting Flexibility and Strategies for Innovation
ESSA creates competitive funding opportunities for innovation in education, including funding to “create, develop, implement, replicate, or take to scale entrepreneurial, evidence-based, field-initiated innovations to improve student achievement and
attainment for high-need students.”8
In addition, the bill includes competitive funding programs to develop wraparound
support systems for vulnerable communities and replicate high-quality charter
schools. Creating innovation schools and districts that encourage opportunities for
increased autonomy and flexibility for teachers, principals, and district leaders has
been a popular strategy for supporting innovation in the states described in this
report. Some examples of the innovative models for learning supported by states
include personalized learning plans, competency-based learning models, and the
integration of performance assessment with curriculum and instruction. In some of
the states, a complement to the innovative work being done is the expectation that
any experimentation around curriculum, instruction, or school organization must
be documented so that learning and best practices can be subsequently shared with
schools and educators across the state. In this way, innovation sites become “labs”
where new methodologies can be tested, refined, and then communicated with others looking for new ways to deliver instruction.
10
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
Notably, ESSA provides targeted funding for entrepreneurial efforts focused on
improving the educational outcomes of high-need students. Similarly, Oregon promotes educational innovation and equity by providing grant funding for developing
proficiency-based learning models, which include personalization and meaningful
assessment, to districts with large populations of traditionally underserved students.
These districts and their schools share best practices as demonstration sites for other
schools. Dedicated funding for experimenting with innovative and evidence-based
approaches to education in districts and schools serving high-need students can help
states meet goals for ensuring equitable opportunities for meaningful learning.
Designing Systems of Assessment
ESSA maintains NCLB’s requirement for annual statewide testing in grades 3–8 and
once in high school in mathematics and English language arts. Importantly, the legislation builds on the innovative assessment strategies currently being developed in
states. Specifically, ESSA includes provisions that allow for assessments to be delivered, in part, in the form of projects, portfolios, and extended-performance tasks.
This opens up the possibility for performance-based graduation requirements under
development in states, including Maine and Vermont, to be used to meet both state
and federal accountability requirements.
In addition, ESSA includes direct support for an innovative assessment pilot. ESSA
allows up to seven states, and a consortium not to exceed four states, to implement
an innovative assessment and accountability pilot. This pilot may include the use
of competency- or performance-based assessments for accountability purposes, and
removes the requirement for annual statewide assessments to be used for accountability purposes. Notably, only New Hampshire had been approved for such a pilot
under previous ESEA waivers. Thus, New Hampshire’s Performance Assessment of
Competency Education (PACE) pilot could serve as a model for future state assessment pilots.
The innovative assessment pilot signals a shift toward more innovative assessment
models that focus on competency rather than cut scores, and are more closely integrated with curriculum and instruction and indicative of real-world success. As is
reflected in the PACE model, a comprehensive system of assessment is multifaceted
and layered; it includes both formative, locally developed assessments that foster student choice and are embedded in curriculum as well as state-level summative assessments that address deeper learning skills. Additionally, a well-rounded approach to
assessment promotes students’ development of social–emotional skills, dispositions,
and habits of mind that are necessary for future life success. Within this system,
performance assessments can serve as a critical component of supporting meaningful learning in that the results of such assessments provide a holistic view of student
learning and valuable information to guide instruction.
Redesigning School Accountability and Support: Progress in Pioneering States
11
Developing Professional Capacity
Growing skilled and committed educators requires high expectations, statewide
shared models and resources, continuous and evidence-based feedback for educators, and an equalization of human resources where well-qualified and effective
teachers are in all schools. ESSA includes specific provisions to address inequities in
the distribution of teaching quality. First, federal Title II funds, which are to be used
for professional learning and capacity-building, are weighted with heavier distributions to states with higher levels of student poverty. Additionally, there is an allowance for states to determine how to distribute high-quality educators more equitably.
Furthermore, there is specific language that outlines that funds can also be used for
“teacher, principal, and other school leader evaluation and support systems that are
based in part on evidence of student achievement” and must provide “clear, timely,
and useful feedback” to educators.9 This combination of evaluation and support has
been a central component of the 51st State Working Group’s vision for developing
professional capacity.
By contrast, ESSA also includes language that would allow states to lower the bar
for educators, which could have especially negative effects on students of color and
students from low-income families who are disproportionately taught by inexperienced and underprepared educators. Specifically, the legislation no longer includes
the teacher quality requirements that were part of NCLB (i.e., “highly qualified”10)
and allows states to use Title II funds to develop teacher preparation academies,
which serve as fast-track preparation programs that allow teachers to serve as teachers of record while still enrolled in the program. Notably, parents whose children
are taught by these underprepared teachers would not be informed that their child’s
teacher had not completed basic preparation coursework and other requirements.
Consequently, it is up to individual states whether they make strides toward raising
professional standards for all educators or continue to allow reduced expectations
for the students serving our most vulnerable students.
Creating Accountability Systems
ESSA marks an important move toward a more holistic approach to accountability. Although significant weight will still rest on traditional testing outcomes, ESSA
eliminates NCLB’s Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) system, which set unrealistic
goals for improving student performance based solely on test scores. This shift
allows states to have flexibility in tailoring their accountability systems, goals, school
interventions, and indicators for measuring student achievement to their own state
context rather than adhering to a one-size-fits-all nationwide metric. There is a hope
that this transition to local control will drive achievement in more meaningful ways
by inspiring innovations, creating meaningful educator evaluation systems, and leading to a system that is continually improving while also ensuring students are college
and career ready upon graduation from high school.
12
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
In fact, ESSA requires all states to establish an accountability system based on multiple indicators including:
1. academic achievement;
2. another academic indicator, which must include graduation rates at
the high school level;
3. English proficiency; and
4. at least one other valid, reliable, comparable, and statewide indicator of school quality or student success.
All of these indicators must be disaggregated for each group of students. Almost
all of the states in the 51st State Working Group have made progress toward conceptualizing or designing multiple measures systems that incorporate data on both
student performance outcomes and opportunities to learn. As states move forward
in implementing these systems, linking information about educational outcomes and
opportunities together with direct supports for struggling schools and schools serving high-need populations can serve as important mechanisms for increasing equity
in student learning opportunities and outcomes. Combining comprehensive data on
student learning opportunities and environments with support also has the potential
to better support continuous improvement in all schools.
Overall, federal policy now includes clear provisions that support many of the
approaches to accountability redesign that the 51st State Working Group has been
committed to advancing—that is, the work they are doing to improve educational
systems that are more equitable, engaging, relevant, and connected to life outside of
and beyond school. Lessons from these states can support others in building systems
of support and accountability for meaningful learning.
Redesigning School Accountability and Support: Progress in Pioneering States
13
Summaries of State Progress: 51st State Working Group
Takes the Lead in Rethinking Accountability
A
lthough trends in education ebb and flow, what has remained constant is the
need to provide more equitable, meaningful, and engaging educational opportunities for students such that we can narrow the achievement gap and improve
life outcomes for all children. To accomplish this goal, the 10 states in the 51st State
Working Group, highlighted in this section, have adopted a multipronged approach to
redesigning their education systems. The five redesign elements detailed above guide
the organization of this paper. We analyze how these elements are addressed and connected in each state context to offer readers a coherent picture of accountability redesign within 10 discrete state contexts. Our aim in documenting the policies in place
in these states is to provide examples that others might adopt or adapt in an effort to
produce the kind of educational system that prepares students to participate fully in
our society.
California
Accountability redesign in California has focused on adopting more ambitious
academic standards and assessments of student learning while also changing the
way districts are funded and held accountable in an effort to create more supportive
conditions for ensuring all students make progress toward these goals. California’s
approach has a comprehensive focus on equity, which combines a more equitable
approach to funding with locally designed accountability plans that hold all schools
and systems responsible for improving the learning outcomes and opportunities
of all students. The state’s newly adopted Local Control Accountability Plans are
designed to provide a more comprehensive picture of school performance and progress than the previous system and meet the requirements of ESSA.
College and Career Readiness
California adopted the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in 2010 with a commitment to full implementation in the 2014–15 school year. In addition, the state
has multiple initiatives in place to support the learning experiences that will support
students in being college and career ready upon graduation from high school.
In 2015, State Superintendent Tom Torlakson and the California Department of
Education (CDE) implemented a Career Readiness Initiative designed to promote
and expand career and technical education (CTE) in the state.11 As described in the
14
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
2015–16 budget, the state plans to spending $900 million over the next three years
to support career and college readiness programs through The Career Technical
Education Incentive Grant, which provides grants that require some local matching
funds.12 The state’s CTE initiative is multifaceted and includes the articulation of
Standards for Career Ready Practice,13 which describe the knowledge and skills that
students need to develop as they transition to postsecondary career training and the
workforce. The central programmatic thrust of the new initiative is the California
Career Pathways Trust (CCPT),14 which provides:
integrated academic and career-based education and training, aligned
to current or emerging regional economic needs, designed to lead
students to a postsecondary degree or certification in high-skill, highwage, and high-growth fields. The overarching goal of this program is
to build and sustain robust partnerships between employers, schools,
and community colleges in order to better prepare students for the
21st century workplace and improve student transition into postsecondary education, training, and employment.15
Through this new initiative several key elements of career readiness are substantially
strengthened and expanded. Some examples include:
•
Student access to career pathways in 15 industry sectors
•
California Partnership Academies (CPAs), which serve at-risk students’ transition to career training programs post-graduation
•
Linked Learning Pilot Program with 20 sites statewide
•
Expansion of work-based learning programs
•
Promotion of concurrent college enrollment programs
California also supports students’ efforts to be prepared for and successful in college through the Early Assessment Program (EAP)—a joint effort between the
State Board of Education, the CDE, The California State University, and California
Community Colleges. Designed to serve students in their junior year of high school,
EAP provides opportunities for student to measure their readiness for college-level
English and mathematics and facilitates opportunities for them to improve their
skills while still in high school.16
Flexibility and Strategies for Innovation
California was awarded over $51 million from the U.S. Department of Education
for the expansion of public charter schools in the state. In addition to charter
Redesigning School Accountability and Support: Progress in Pioneering States
15
schools and magnet schools, the state supports an innovative model of CTE through
CPAs. CPAs “represent a high school reform movement that is a three-year program
(grades 10–12) structured as a school-within-a-school with a focus on smaller learning communities with a career theme.”17 The CPAs align and integrate curriculum
to the specified theme; foster collaboration among the team of teachers within the
academy; provide students with industry-specific learning experiences, activities,
guest speakers, and projects; and offer students workplace learning opportunities
including internships and after-school jobs.
System of Assessment
California is committed to the full implementation of the state standards and the
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) system,18 which includes formative, optional interim, and summative assessments as well as extensive online
resources for educators. As part of the implementation of SBAC, California is
focused on recruiting teachers to score the summative performance tasks and
encouraging the use of interim assessments to guide instruction throughout the
school year. For example, the Building Educator Assessment Literacy (BEAL) project
builds teacher capacity for scoring the SBAC performance tasks through face-to-face
and virtual professional training modules and supports educators in including CCSSaligned performance assessments in classroom instruction.19
Professional Capacity
The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) is an agency in the state
government’s executive branch that serves as a standards board for educator preparation for the state’s public schools. The CTC oversees the state licensing and credentialing of educators, the enforcement of professional practices of educators, and the
discipline of credential holders. Additionally, Greatness by Design is a report developed by the Educator Excellence Task Force in conjunction with leadership from the
CDE and the CTC to provide a “clear, coherent vision for the development of highquality educators.”20 California is working to improve the recruitment, preparation,
and induction of educators statewide to address the current teacher shortage.21
The Quality Schooling Framework (QSF) is a holistic and conceptual model for
gauging and then supporting school quality and instructional effectiveness. Using
a systems approach, the framework provides practical, evidence-based practices to
identify challenges and suggest strategies for improvement at the school and district
level.22 As a result, QSF has become California’s destination for tools and practices
to guide effective planning, policy, expenditure, and instructional decisions. This
resource is a comprehensive electronic platform with a wide array of informational
and support tools available for local use.23
16
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
Accountability
Multiple Measures Dashboard
California is committed to the development of a fair accountability system that
includes multiple measures of students’ opportunities to learn. In 2015, the state
superintendent created the Accountability and Continuous Improvement Task Force
to begin the work of gathering stakeholder input on ways to redesign how the state
holds schools and districts accountable for improving student learning. A central
part of this initiative is to explore approaches for measuring college and career readiness and using state and local indicators of academic progress and performance.
Another important component of this shift in accountability structure is evident in
the way California has simplified state funding of local education agencies (LEAs)
via the creation of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). The LCFF eliminates
most categorical programs by creating funding targets based on student characteristics while also allowing LEAs to have considerable flexibility in determining how
to spend funds to improve student outcomes.24 However, attached to this flexibility
in spending is the requirement that school districts and charter schools create and
annually update a Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP). The LCAP serves
to assist LEAs in identifying goals and measuring student progress across multiple
performance indicators.25 Some of the measures currently under consideration for
the assessment of college and career readiness include:
•
Advanced Placement (AP) exams,
•
International Baccalaureate (IB) exams and diplomas,
•
SAT/ACT exams,
•
A–G completion (courses required for entrance in University of
California and The California State University systems),
•
Dual enrollment (concurrent enrollment in high school and community college),
•
Career Technical Education Pathway completion,
•
State Seal of Biliteracy award, and
•
Golden State Seal Merit Diploma.
School Quality Review
In 2014, the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE) was established in response to Education Code Section 52074. CCEE will provide assistance
Redesigning School Accountability and Support: Progress in Pioneering States
17
to LEAs in achieving the goals set forth in their LCAPs. The purpose of the collaborative is to support LEAs in improving the quality of teaching and school and district
leadership and successfully addressing the needs of special populations (i.e., English
learners, students who qualify for free or reduced-price school meals, and students
with exceptionalities).26 According to state department personnel, there is potential
for CCEE to use school quality reviews as a mechanism for providing technical assistance to schools and districts.
Funding and Governance
The 2013–14 California budget replaced the previous K–12 finance system with
the LCFF.27 Over the course of an 8-year implementation timeline, LEAs will have
funding restored to the 2007–08 levels adjusted for inflation. The LCFF also provides varying adjustments in funding based on student population, i.e., the percentage of students who are targeted disadvantaged students—English learners, students
who qualify for free or reduced-price school meals, and/or foster youth; see Table
1 for base grant amount per student and adjustments. This change is an important
step toward a more equitable distribution of resources. Part of the funding package requires districts, county offices of education, and charter schools to create a
3-year LCAP that defines district goals, determines needed actions and services to
reach them, and tracks progress for student groups across multiple performance
indicators.
Table 1. Grade span funding at full LCFF implementation.
Grade
span
Base
grant
K–3 class size
reduction
and grades 9–12
adjustments
Average assuming
0% unduplicated
FRPM, EL, foster
youth
Average assuming
25% unduplicated
FRPM, EL,
foster youth
Average
Assuming 50%
unduplicated
FRPM, EL,
foster youth
Average
Assuming 100%
unduplicated
FRPM, EL,
foster youth
K–3
$6,845
$712
$7,557
$7,935
$8,313
$10,769
4–6
$6,947
N/A
$6,947
$7,294
$7,642
$9,899
7–8
$7,154
N/A
$7,154
$7,512
$7,869
$10,194
9–12
$8,289
$216
$8,505
$8,930
$9,355
$12,119
Note. EL=English learners; FRPM=students who qualify for free or reduced-price school meals.
http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/lcffoverview.asp
18
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
Colorado
C
olorado has developed a plan to ensure students are college and career ready
upon graduation by gathering input from a variety of stakeholders by way of
several different initiatives, councils, and working groups. The state has also
endorsed the use of performance assessments by supporting schools in developing
those assessments for use in local educator effectiveness processes and by helping
teachers build performance assessments into sample curriculum units spanning all
grade levels and subjects.
College and Career Readiness
In 2009, the Colorado State Board of Education and Colorado Commission on
Higher Education adopted a definition of college and career readiness. It reads:
“Colorado high school graduates demonstrate the knowledge and skills (competencies) needed to succeed in postsecondary settings and to advance in career pathways
as lifelong learners and contributing citizens.”28 Colorado has a host of “P20” initiatives29 designed to prepare students for college and career, including:
•
Engagement of higher education faculty in the alignment of high
school curriculum to increase success rate for college students;
•
Creation of the Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness High
School Diploma Endorsement, which offers students many ways to
demonstrate readiness for life after graduation; and
•
Promotion of K–12 and higher education collaboration via the
Core to College Initiative with the purpose of aligning state standards and assessments.30
To monitor state efforts to improve college and career readiness each year, Colorado
summarizes and tracks information on postsecondary attendance of its high school
graduates, disaggregated by race/ethnicity, gender, and free or reduced-price school
meal status. The data are collected using information from public and private
colleges and universities in Colorado and nationally from the National Student
Clearinghouse.31
Flexibility and Strategies for Innovation
The Senate Bill 08-130: Innovation Schools Act of 2008 provides a means for any
school or district in the state to create and implement innovative instructional, curRedesigning School Accountability and Support: Progress in Pioneering States
19
ricular, and organizational ideas and practices. The purpose of the act is to “provide
additional flexibility to schools and districts for the purpose of meeting student
needs,” where there is room to interpret the act “broadly so as to maximize this
flexibility.”32 Innovation schools are granted greater autonomy related to budget,
schedule, staffing, and school operations. The goal of this increased autonomy is to
strategically align decision-making and resource allocation with the school’s unique
approach to teaching and learning. In the 2014–15 school year, there were 58 innovation schools in the state.33
System of Assessment
Colorado is a member of Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and
Careers (PARCC).34 In the fall of 2015, the CDE began the process of developing
performance tasks and scoring rubrics. Colorado views performance assessments as
not only important unto themselves, but also as necessary components of a future
accountability system. Colorado currently has multiple initiatives in place to develop
educator capacity to use performance assessments. For example, the Stanford Center
for Assessment, Learning, and Equity (SCALE) is working with teachers to learn to
design, implement, and score performance assessments.35 In addition, the state has
created Content Collaboratives that bring together groups of educators who teach
the same content area to embed performance assessments in units of study and
develop educators’ assessment literacy.
In May 2015, House Bill 15-1323 was passed, which affects state assessments, educator effectiveness, and assessment pilots.36 Specifically, the bill supports the creation
of a program through which locally developed or selected assessments, including
performance assessments, may be piloted for potential use in the state assessment
system. In addition, the bill reduces state testing requirements and requires districts
to adopt policies allowing parents to excuse their children from participating in state
assessments.
Professional Capacity
In 2010, Colorado passed Senate Bill 10-191: The Great Teachers and Great Leaders
Act.37 The bill changed the way principals, teachers, and specialized service professionals are supported and evaluated. Specifically, these regulations include:
20
•
The adoption of statewide educator Quality Standards that define
“effectiveness”;
•
Development and piloting of Colorado State Model evaluation
system for teachers, principals and specialized service personnel
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
•
•
annual performance evaluations (50% professional practice and
50% multiple measures of student learning)
•
evaluations focused on continual improvement, meaningful
feedback, basis of personnel decisions
•
nonprobationary status earned and retained based on “effectiveness”; and
Support for all districts with implementation guidance and
training.
The educator effectiveness law requires local measures of student learning to be
included in effectiveness metrics. Consequently, there is potential to connect the
state’s performance assessment work to the educator effectiveness system.
Colorado’s Educator Preparation Project (EPP) at the CDE brings together key elements of building educator capacity through pre-service teacher preparation and a
targeted dissemination of best practices across the state that align with the expectations outlined in Senate Bill 10-191. In alignment with the Colorado Academic
Standards (CAS)38 and the Educator Effectiveness initiative, the EPP aims to support
colleges, universities, districts, and schools training educators across the state.39 EPP
joins together the CDE and Department of Higher Education to achieve its mission.
Specifically, the CDE and the Department of Higher Education are working with
two teacher preparation programs to identify an effective process for embedding
Colorado’s education initiatives, including the CAS and educator quality standards,
into educator preparation programs and to disseminate lessons learned from these
efforts.
Accountability
In 2009, Senate Bill 09-163: The Education Accountability Act served to create a
more coherent accountability system that would hold the state, districts, and schools
accountable for performance on the same set of performance indicators.40 As part of
this, the state aimed to improve oversight of improvement efforts and create a single
accountability system that could replace Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) determinations made under federal accountability policy. The Education Accountability
Act led to the development of two important aspects of the state’s accountability
system. First, School and District Performance Frameworks hold schools and districts accountable for academic achievement and growth on a single set of indicators and measures while also allowing the state to differentiate support for schools
and districts based on their needs.41 Second, the act required each Colorado district
and school to create an annual improvement plan. The Unified Improvement Plans
(UIPs) are completed annually to support continuous improvement. The process
Redesigning School Accountability and Support: Progress in Pioneering States
21
includes gathering and organizing data, reviewing current performance, describing
trends, identifying root causes, prioritizing, setting targets, creating strategies, and
measuring results along the way.42
Colorado’s ESEA waiver, approved most recently in November 2015, allows
Colorado to use its own system of school and district frameworks and the UIPs to
hold schools and districts accountable, replacing AYP and federal sanctions tied to
not making AYP.43 The waiver also provides greater flexibility to the state in determining how to respond to schools and districts that do not demonstrate growth in
student performance.
22
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
Iowa
I
n Iowa, redesigning the state system of accountability has focused largely on
adopting ambitious expectations for college and career readiness, supporting
innovation through the adoption of competency-based models for learning and
assessment, and growing the capacity of educators by creating opportunities for
teachers to lead professional learning in schools. In addition, the state has taken
steps toward developing a multiple measures data dashboard system that can serve
as a tool to inform and differentiate support for school improvement efforts.
College and Career Readiness
In Iowa, “college and career ready means the acquisition of the knowledge and
skills a student needs to enroll and succeed in credit-bearing first-year courses at a
postsecondary institution without the need for remediation” (Iowa ESEA Flexibility
Request, 2012). Iowa’s efforts to develop and implement college and career readiness (CCR) standards began in 2005 with a focus on developing common expectations for high schools and grew to include CCR expectations for grades K–12
known as the “Iowa Core.”44 In 2010, the state adopted the Common Core State
Standards and these standards, together with some additional information about
essential concepts and skills, became the Iowa Core for mathematics and literacy.
Iowa has two programs that facilitate student preparation for postsecondary career
and college success. The first program is Senior Year Plus (SYP), which provides students with a variety of opportunities to earn college credit while still in high school
and become acclimated with the rigor and expectations of a college setting. SYP
includes the following programs: AP courses, concurrent enrollment in community
colleges, and career academies (high school enrollment in college-level career and
technical education programs).45 In the 2013–14 school year, Iowa led the nation
with 28.2% of its total community college enrollment students under the age of
18.46
The second initiative is Iowa’s career and technical education (CTE) program, which
includes educational programs that prepare postsecondary students for entry into
one of six service areas: agriculture, consumer sciences, health occupations, business,
industrial technology, or marketing.47 The CTE program utilizes the National Career
Clusters Framework as a guide for the organization and delivery of instruction.48
This framework serves as a guide in developing instructional programs that bridge
learning in high school with various career pathways.
Redesigning School Accountability and Support: Progress in Pioneering States
23
Flexibility and Strategies for Innovation
Innovation in Iowa is largely focused on competency-based learning models.
Competency-based education (CBE) in Iowa was first introduced in 2012 through
Senate File 2284. The state established and funded a CBE Collaborative of 10 districts across the state that formed a professional learning community designed to
“engage in collaborative inquiry to investigate, develop, and implement competencybased educational pathways for their students and create a framework to guide the
statewide implementation of CBE.”49 The philosophy that undergirds Iowa’s CBE
system is that a focus on competency “results in deeper learning outcomes for students.” Specifically, the state’s focus on CBE is based on the belief that students are
more likely to have both academic success and a promising postsecondary life when
they can demonstrate content proficiency in multiple ways, engage in hands-on
learning, and display critical and creative thinking.50
In addition, the state has supported the establishment of charter schools to support
innovation. In 2006, the state legislature raised the cap for charter schools from 10
to 20 schools without allocating additional funding.51 In 2009, Iowa’s charter school
law was expanded to “innovation zones” where charter schools must be in an area
where there is a consortium of two or more school districts and with a partnership with an institution of higher education that may provide technical assistance.
The purpose of an innovation zone school per Iowa Code 256F.1(3) is to improve
student learning by way of different and innovative methods of teaching, and/or
unique approaches to school organization, budgets, accountability, and outcome
measurement.52
System of Assessment
In 2013, the General Assembly commissioned the Assessment Task Force to make
recommendations to state legislators related to the statewide accountability assessment. The Assessment Task Force is made up of teachers, administrators, higher
education personnel, technical assistance and professional development providers, a
parent, a representative from the Iowa Department of Education (IDE), and a member of the Iowa Business Council. The task force spent a year engaged in a rigorous process of review that in January 2015 generated a series of recommendations,
including the adoption of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) as
Iowa’s statewide assessment.53
Iowa is currently participating as a pilot state implementing performance task assements in partnership with the Innovation Lab Network (ILN),54 Stanford Center for
Opportunity Policy in Education (SCOPE),55 and Stanford Center for Assessment,
Learning, and Equity (SCALE). The pilot was implemented in 10 Iowa districts.56
This work builds on the use of performance tasks as part of SBAC and builds further capacity for integrating performance-based assessments in the state’s assessment
24
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
system. In this same vein, the IDE has commissioned the Assessment Task Force to
help revise current policy and set direction for districts and the state in developing
more comprehensive and balanced systems for assessing student learning, including
measures of deeper learning of the Iowa Core Standards. Iowa also participates in
the Great Lakes and Midwest Regional Deeper Learning Initiative; the initiative’s
Midwest Comprehensive Center aims to provide technical assistance and build the
capacity of state education agencies in Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin to
support districts and schools to ensure that all students graduate high school ready
for college or a career.57
Professional Capacity
Iowa has been working to use opportunities for teacher leadership as a key lever
for enhancing teachers’ professional learning and growth. The Teacher Leadership
and Compensation (TLC) System58 was created to reward effective teachers with
leadership opportunities and higher pay, encourage greater collaboration to support
the learning of all teachers, attract promising new teachers with more competitive
salaries, and, ultimately, improve student learning by strengthening instruction.
Specifically, the state provides grants for districts to implement approaches for
growing teacher capacity that align with the goals of the TLC system. District
approaches can include opportunities for teachers to serve as instructional coaches,
model teachers whom colleagues can visit and learn from, mentors to new or
developing teachers, curriculum developers, and leaders of professional development. Notably, Iowa already had a professional development model59 in place that
encouraged collaborative learning among teachers. However, state leaders describe
fostering teacher leadership as essential for realizing the goals of their professional
development model.
Additionally, the IDE, in partnership with the Midwest Comprehensive Center, has
engaged in a comprehensive alignment study of various standards for teachers and
leaders. The results of this study will be used to:
•
guide professional development,
•
guide decision-making of the Council on Educator Development in
relation to teacher and leader evaluation systems,
•
update current state standards for teachers and leaders,inform
the update and revisions to the 2014 Interstate School Leaders
Licensure Consortium (ISLLC), and to
•
provide direction to other states as they engage in updating their
own standards.
Redesigning School Accountability and Support: Progress in Pioneering States
25
This partnership is also charged with developing a learning continuum that describes
the progression of performances, knowledge, and dispositions from pre-service
teacher to practicing teacher to teacher leader to administrator, with a focus on
supporting educators at all points of their career. The IDE has recently reviewed
all standards for higher education programs preparing teachers and leaders and is
implementing revised accreditation criteria for these institutes of higher education.
They are now collecting annual data related to preparation program performance.
As part of House File 215, the Council on Educator Development has been convened to study and then make recommendations related to teacher and leader evaluation systems and the undergirding professional development needed to implement
those systems well.60 The goal of the study is to determine the efficacy of the current
systems in providing practitioners with clear and actionable feedback to enhance
their practice and advance student learning. As part of this process, the Council is
required to review the current teacher and administrator evaluation systems in Iowa,
the criteria used to further define the Iowa Teaching Standards (last revised in 2002)
and the Iowa Standards for School Administrators (last revised in 2006), and nationally accepted teaching standards. In addition, the Council must review the process
for developing individual teacher and individual administrator professional development plans, evaluator training, peer group reviews, and the interrelated facets of
the teacher and administrator evaluation systems and performance review requirements.61 The Council’s final recommendations are set to be made to the State Board
of Education, governor, and General Assembly in November 2016.
Accountability
Multiple Measures Data Dashboards
Iowa has multiple online state reporting mechanisms for education performance
data, and these reports present many sources of data at different levels of granularity. These systems were created at different times to serve different purposes, some
legislative and others informational. In recent years, the state has taken steps to
bring these data sources together to support educational improvement efforts.
To this end, two major, though compatible, efforts are underway to create a more
comprehensive data dashboard. The first component is the Attendance Center
Rankings, “a system for evaluating and ranking all public schools based on their
performance on nine specific measures.”62 Established and adopted by lawmakers
in 2013 as part of House File 215, the Attendance Center Rankings are designed to
capture student proficiency rates and growth toward college and career readiness,
which are used to generate an overall school performance grade and report card for
each district or “attendance center.” Examples of required measures include, but are
not limited to: student proficiency, academic growth, parent involvement, student
attendance, employee turnover, community activities and involvement, closing of
26
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
achievement gap scores, graduation rates, and college readiness. Some of the measures that are more difficult to measure, such as parent involvement, are undergoing
pilot testing before officially becoming a part of the dashboard. The information
generated by these reports is available online for the general public to “help Iowans
understand how their schools are doing and enhance communication in local communities about how schools can improve.”63 The dashboard system is set to be fully
implemented in 2016.
The second effort toward a more comprehensive data reporting system in Iowa is
the Healthy Indicators initiative.64 The purpose of this initiative is to identify a key
set of performance indicators that could be used meaningfully by schools to assist in
improving their effectiveness. Specifically, this information is intended to be used in
Iowa’s upcoming tiered accreditation process for schools; the basic presumption is
that not all schools need the same level of support and feedback from the IDE.
In the current accreditation model, every district in Iowa receives an accreditation
visit every 5 years. Because each district receives the same basic visit, the recommendations are fairly general and have not resulted uniformly in meaningful improvement in Iowa schools. The revised model will be differentiated to meet the needs of
each district. In the revised system, all districts will receive a desk audit of their data
every year. The IDE will then determine which districts need additional data collected and which should receive a site visit. To accomplish these purposes, the IDE
will work with schools and their intermediate educational agencies to define and
operationalize a set of “healthy indicator” data with documented relationships to
school improvement.
Given the convergence of the new law regarding Attendance Center Rankings with
the Healthy Indicators initiative, Iowa made the decision to merge the two initiatives
into one dashboard system that can serve multiple purposes. The goal is to have a
uniform, statewide dashboard that contains information needed to serve multiple
purposes: accountability, reporting, and school improvement needs.
Redesigning School Accountability and Support: Progress in Pioneering States
27
Kentucky
K
entucky has taken a comprehensive approach to system redesign that includes a
definition of college and career readiness and multiple initiatives and opportunities for developing innovative learning models to support students in meeting
these expectations. Another key part of the work happening in Kentucky is around
the state’s use of a multiple measures data dashboard to highlight school success,
identify areas for improvement, and deploy focused support based on local needs.
College and Career Readiness
In March 2009, Kentucky’s governor signed Senate Bill 1, which strengthened
Kentucky’s efforts to ensure students are college and career ready. The legislation
requires the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education, the Kentucky Board
of Education, and the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE) to work together
in drafting a College and Career Readiness (CCR) Unified Strategic Plan to develop
goals and identify strategies to “reduce college remediation rates of recent high
school graduates” and “increase college completion rates of students enrolled in one
or more remedial courses.”65
Senate Bill 1 included the adoption of the Common Core State Standards, mandated
a measurement of readiness, and mandated that a plan for CCR be established with
the KDE and higher education institutions and stakeholders. The Unified Strategy
for College and Career Readiness in Kentucky defines college and career readiness as
follows:
College readiness is the level of preparation a first-time student needs
in order to succeed in a credit-bearing course at a postsecondary institution. “Succeed” is defined as completing entry-level courses at a level
of understanding and proficiency that prepares the student for subsequent courses. Kentucky’s systemwide standards of readiness guarantee students access to credit-bearing coursework without the need
for developmental education or supplemental courses. Developmental
education courses do not award credit for a degree.
Career readiness is the level of preparation a high school graduate
needs in order to proceed to the next step in a chosen career, whether
that is postsecondary coursework, industry certification, or entry into
the workforce. According to the Association of Career and Technical
Education (ACTE), career readiness includes core academic skills and
28
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
the ability to apply those skills to concrete situations in order to function in the workplace and in routine daily activities; employability
skills that are essential in any career area such as critical thinking and
responsibility; and technical, job-specific skills related to a specific
career pathway.66
Furthermore, the College and Career Readiness Unified Plan articulates four unified
strategies to support schools/districts in implementing the CCR standards and therefore meeting the identified goals for student achievement:
1. Increase accelerated learning opportunities for all Kentucky
students,
2. Provide targeted interventions for all students who are not college
and career ready,
3. Increase access to and quality of college and career readiness advising, and
4. Increase the college completion rates of students entering with one
or more developmental or supplemental course needs.
Important elements of Kentucky’s push for CCR include the following initiatives:
•
Collection and use of data: The state is developing resources that
enable schools to identify students who are “off track” or struggling so that immediate interventions and supports can be put in
place to encourage them to stay in school and graduate.
•
Course and assessment alignment: State-facilitated training cadres assist implementation of the rigorous English language arts
and math common core standards by using research-based, highly
engaging instructional strategies and formative assessment tasks.
This includes the newly established end-of-course high school
assessments in English II, algebra II, biology, and U.S. history.
•
Targeted interventions: Readiness benchmarks are established in
grade eight (EXPLORE), grade 10 (PLAN), and grade 11 (the
ACT) assessments. For students not meeting standards, transitional
programs and interventions provide additional instructional time
to support skill mastery and reduce the need for remediation in
high school or college.
•
Acceleration: Through a grant awarded to Lincoln County, the
state is encouraging schools to participate in Project Lead the
Redesigning School Accountability and Support: Progress in Pioneering States
29
Way (PLTW). PLTW cultivates student interest in STEM (science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics) careers and provides
the opportunity to participate in a rigorous pre-engineering high
school curriculum that enables students to earn college credit
through successful completion of PLTW assessments.
•
Academic and career advising: Students in grades 6–12 receive college and career guidance using a comprehensive advising program
connected to individual learning plans. Lloyd B. McGuffey 6th
Grade Center and Lincoln County Middle and High Schools provide this service to students.
•
Innovative pathways to student success: For students who don’t
thrive in a traditional classroom setting, the state is promoting alternative programming, such as Early College, to meet student needs.
In Lincoln County, Fort Logan High School provides an alternative
track for students to earn an accredited high school diploma.
•
Career readiness pathways: Advocacy of career-themed academies
provides a more rigorous college preparatory curriculum, as well
as preparing students for immediate career entry. The technology
center at Lincoln County High School complements the state’s
vision by offering career clusters that enable students to pass the
Kentucky Occupational Skills Standards Assessment or earn industry-recognized career certificates.
Flexibility and Strategies for Innovation
Kentucky’s Districts of Innovation (DOI) Statute (Kentucky Revised Statute
156.108) defines innovation as: “a new or creative alternative to existing instructional and administrative practices intended to improve student learning and student performance of all students” where learning innovation is about “moving
from the teaching system of the 20th century to a new ‘learning system’ of the 21st
century where learning and the ‘facilitation of learning’ (teaching) are the central
elements.”67 Last summer Kentucky granted several districts a waiver to allow them
to pursue instructional models that are competency or performance based, including
performance-based assessment.
The state has identified six “critical attributes” 68 that are the foundation of innovation in the state. Schools and districts are free to develop the specific strategies or
design structures that foster these six attributes in the learning environment:
1. World-class knowledge and skills: knowledge and skills that prepare students for global success and competency
30
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
2. Personalized learning: the process of setting goals and assessing
progress to ensure student academic and developmental support
3. Anytime, everywhere learning: flexible and real-world learning
environments that provide constructive learning experiences
4. Student agency: students’ ownership of and ability to shape their
individual learning experience
5. Performance-based assessment: assessments that enable students to
demonstrate mastery based on high and shared expectations
6. Comprehensive systems of learning supports: a culture of social,
emotional, physical, and cognitive support for all students
System of Assessment
Kentucky has multiple efforts in place, all working to achieve the same goal of a
balanced system of assessments that incorporates performance assessment at both
the formative and summative levels. Kentucky’s ESEA waiver includes language that
allows for flexibility, including the use of a performance-based model for assessment.
A group of districts in the state, the Innovation Lab Network (ILN) districts, is
working to create performance-based instructional models.69 As part of these efforts,
the districts and schools have partnered with national experts in performance assessment to grow educator capacity to use performance assessment. The goal is for
the participating ILN and DOI districts to provide the proof points to change to a
performance-based assessment model for the state.
Kentucky is also participating in an Instructional Transformation Grant funded by
the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. A key element of that work is to have the
participating districts develop a performance-based assessment system in all core
academic areas using the model developed for assessing the Next Generation Science
Standards (NGSS).70 That model begins with teachers developing formative performance tasks. Those performance tasks are the foundation for externally developed
but locally scored through course assessments given quarterly. Through course
assessments would be developed by a vendor and are seen as a logical place for performance assessments. Finally, state summative assessments will become a combination of a common performance task and a traditional matrix-based assessment.71
A major change in the assessment model implemented by Kentucky in 2016 was the
shift away from a summative state test in grades 10–12. Kentucky is now using an
end-of-course (EOC) model, the ACT QualityCore, to test students in four subjects:
algebra II, English II, U.S. history, and biology.72 These exams are given in addition to EXPLORE (grade eight), PLAN (grade 10), and the ACT (grade 11) assess-
Redesigning School Accountability and Support: Progress in Pioneering States
31
ments, which are all part of the ACT Educational Planning and Assessment System
(EPAS). Notably, students now have multiple opportunities to take the assessments,
including four to five windows that encompass all but about three to four weeks
of the total academic year. Aggregate scores become the proficiency score at the
high school level. In addition, Kentucky regulations require that EOC assessments
become a part of students’ final grade for those courses, which supports closer alignment between curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
Professional Capacity
Kentucky is working to grow educator capacity from within the profession by
rethinking educators’ opportunities for professional learning. Using professional
learning standards outlined by Learning Forward, Kentucky is moving away from
a more passive approach to professional development and toward opportunities
for professional learning that are integrated into the day-to-day work of schools
and focused on continuous improvement.73 As part of this transition, Kentucky
has passed legislation that defines professional learning as “a comprehensive, sustained, and intensive approach to increase student achievement that strengthens and
improves educators’ effectiveness in meeting individual, team, school, school district,
and state goals.”74 This legislation requires that all districts provide at least 4 days
for professional learning and that these opportunities benefit educators at all stages
of career development.
Kentucky’s system for tracking educator effectiveness complements the state’s focus
on professional learning: The vision for the Professional Growth and Effectiveness
System (PGES) is to have every student taught by an effective teacher, every school
led by an effective principal, and every district lead by an effective superintendent.
Further, the state’s goal is “to create a fair and equitable system to measure teacher
and leader effectiveness and act as a catalyst for professional growth.”75 The teacher
PGES comprises four sources of evidence: self-reflection and professional growth
planning, student growth goals, observations (aligned to the Kentucky Framework
for Teaching76 with observations conducted by fellow teachers and the principal),
and student voice survey data. To further support educator growth, Kentucky has
developed the Continuous Instructional Improvement Technology System (CIITS),
which offers a searchable online database linking the state’s academic standards with
high-quality multimedia instructional modules.77 Educators also have access to a
host of other resources to build, evaluate, and reflect on professional learning plans
for their schools and districts.78
Kentucky is also working to implement the recommendations of “Our
Responsibility, Our Promise” to impact the quality of teacher and leader preparation
programs.79 Overall, the efforts of the KDE reflect a commitment to encouraging
both individual and collective learning among teachers and ensuring that teachers
have opportunities to learn and grow throughout their career.80
32
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
Accountability
Senate Bill 1 of 2009 set Kentucky’s education on a new path toward college and
career readiness. The name given to this “new era in public education” is Unbridled
Learning.81 To support this agenda, the KDE is working to support the adoption of
the Kentucky Core Academic Standards, new assessments aligned with these standards, and the creation of a new accountability model.82
Multiple Measures Dashboard
According to the KDE website, “Kentucky’s Unbridled Learning Accountability
Model was designed to have a more balanced approach to determine school success
by incorporating achievement, program reviews and effective teaching measures.”
There are three components of the accountability model:83
•
Next-generation learners (70%), which measures performance on
areas of achievement, gap, growth, CCR, and graduation rates;
•
Next-generation instructional programs and support (20%), which
conducts program reviews for key instructional components; and
•
Next-generation professionals (10%), which is the state’s PGES for
all educators.
Kentucky has been working, primarily through its DOI initiative, on developing a
local section of the “School Report Card,” which would be designed based on local
needs. The model it is working from is the new diploma designed by the Danville
Independent School District called the “Danville Diploma.” The Danville Diploma
adds a set of 10 skills to the current state accountability requirements of achievement gap, student growth, college and career readiness, and graduation rate.
More recently, Kentucky has embarked on a new initiative called Kentucky Rising,84
which moves beyond the traditional college and career readiness indicators to a definition of “global” readiness and the indicators for that definition. This initiative will
involve K–12 and higher education, but most important it will include business and
industry stakeholders as the state creates a new diploma based on these indicators.
School Quality Review
Kentucky began doing Scholastic Audits as its first system of school quality reviews
in 2002. In 2009, Kentucky took steps to provide greater support to struggling
schools by passing Senate Bill 1 and, as part of Kentucky’s first Race to the Top
application, creating District 180, the state’s school turnaround office. Part of that
process was passing Kentucky Revised Statute 160.346, which related to the procedures for supporting the lowest-performing schools. Included in that set of procedures was a system of diagnostic reviews for priority schools.85 Support is provided
Redesigning School Accountability and Support: Progress in Pioneering States
33
to schools through a deployment of educational recovery leaders and specialists
who take a systems approach to their work with teachers on math and literacy
instruction.86
34
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
New Hampshire
N
ew Hampshire’s approach to system redesign is focused on an “improvementto-innovation continuum,” which reflects a move toward a collaborative,
support-based approach aimed at ensuring students are able to demonstrate
learning and mastery of skills on the path to college and career readiness.87 Central
to this approach is the state’s efforts to integrate performance assessments as part of
the state’s competency-based model.
College and Career Readiness
New Hampshire defines college and career readiness as follows:
Students graduate from high school prepared to enter and succeed
in postsecondary opportunities—whether college or career—without
need for remediation.
•
Students should graduate fully prepared to pursue the college and
career options of their choice.
•
College ready refers to the full range of programs leading to valuable, recognized degrees, including community colleges and fouryear colleges.
•
Career ready refers to employment opportunities with meaningful
opportunities for advancement as well as career training programs
that offer technical certification or other marketable skills.
•
Evidence and experience indicate that the knowledge and skills
needed to succeed in college and career are greatly similar, and that
all graduates will need some form of postsecondary education or
training to succeed during their careers.
To be college and career ready, students must graduate with the
knowledge, skills, and work–study practices necessary to succeed.
These are the kinds of deeper learning outcomes that are at the heart
of being college and career ready.
•
Knowledge, skills, and work–study practices are mutually reinforcing, and not contradictory. That is, evidence and experience
Redesigning School Accountability and Support: Progress in Pioneering States
35
confirm that education that advances application of knowledge
through skills is more likely to result in student competency of the
underlying, rigorous content knowledge.
•
The knowledge, skills, and work–study practices have concrete
meaning and can be expressly taught, learned, and measured.
This will require multiple, robust measures of evaluation and
assessment.
•
This same set of knowledge, skills, and work–study practices is
also vital for student success in terms of college and career readiness, which includes students’ ability to contribute and succeed in
our increasingly diverse, democratic, global society.88
In July 2010, New Hampshire adopted college and career ready (CCR) standards
in English language arts/literacy and mathematics based on the Common Core
Sate Standards.89 New Hampshire’s focus on competencies, including knowledge,
skills, and work–study practices, are also part of its CCR standards. In June 2013,
the New Hampshire State Legislature passed Chapter 263, or Senate Bill 48, An
Act Relative to School Performance and Accountability, which outlined the state’s
goals for developing a competency-based system that supports personalized learning
and flexibility in the way credit can be awarded and achieved.90 In 2014, the New
Hampshire Board of Education approved Common Core State Standards–Aligned
Competencies in mathematics and English language arts, the New Hampshire K–12
Model Science Competencies, and the Work–Study Practices Competencies.91 New
Hampshire defines Work–Study Practices (WSP) as “those behaviors that enhance
learning achievement and promote a positive work ethic such as, but not limited
to, listening and following directions, accepting responsibility, staying on task,
completing work accurately, managing time wisely, showing initiative, and being
cooperative.”92 The state’s competencies reflect its focus on both academic and what
some refer to as “noncognitive” expectations for college and career readiness.
To inspire students to consider and plan for careers after high school, the New
Hampshire Department of Education (NHDOE) uses career clusters and pathways
that rely upon strong industry and postsecondary partnerships to support sustainability.93 In New Hampshire, the career and technical education program includes
students’ opportunities to earn college credits, and earn licenses and certificates
in various programs based on performance on industry-aligned assessments.94
Additionally, the state offers students the option of enrolling in Rigorous Programs
of Study (RPOS) in which students can benefit from dual enrollment with local community colleges.95
36
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
Flexibility and Strategies for Innovation
New Hampshire is building a competency-based education system that is studentcentered and personalized called the Performance Assessment of Competency
Education (PACE), described in greater detail below. The NHDOE’s ESEA waiver
request was approved in August 2015 and allows for greater flexibility in local
assessment practices, with a focus on integrating local performance assessments into
the state system of assessment.96
System of Assessment
In order to build out a new accountability system designed after the 51st State
Accountability Model, New Hampshire has constructed the PACE pilot.97 Approved
through the state’s 2015 ESEA waiver request, PACE represents an accountability
pilot that moves away from federal regulations under NCLB that required all students to be assessed using the same statewide assessments in English language arts
and math in grades 3–8 and once in high school. Instead, the PACE approach integrates local and common (across district) performance assessments with the use of
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) assessments. New Hampshire’s
approach to redesigning their assessment system can serve as a possible model for
states applying for the innovative assessment pilot under ESSA. Currently, eight districts in New Hampshire have volunteered to engage in the PACE pilot.
The PACE option is designed to offer “a reduced level of standardized testing together with locally developed common performance assessments [that are]
designed to support deeper learning through competency education, and to be more
integrated into students’ day-to-day work.” This approach corresponds to a belief
that “meaningful assessment is a key part of a strategy to ensure students are getting
the most out of their education.”98 New Hampshire’s goal is to have performance
assessment for competency education become an essential component of the state
system over the next six years.
In the 2014–15 school year, New Hampshire began implementing assessments
developed through SBAC, in which it is a governing state. The NHDOE participated with a national workgroup, funded by Nellie Mae Education Foundation, to
establish methods to utilize SBAC in a competency education system for formative
and summative assessment purposes. One challenge of SBAC is the length of the
test, and New Hampshire leaders have had in-depth conversations about the tension
between assessment length and performance assessment. If the issue is total length of
assessment, complex performance assessments and tasks are usually cut first because
they take the longest time. One way that the PACE pilot addresses this challenge
is by administering SBAC once in elementary, middle, and high school, rather than
administering a state standardized assessment every year in grades 3–8 and once
in high school. Using the PACE approach, student progress is measured every year
Redesigning School Accountability and Support: Progress in Pioneering States
37
using a combination of locally designed performance tasks, common performance
tasks, and/or SBAC.
In New Hampshire, efforts to integrate performance assessment in their system of
assessment has been in response to a focus on “anytime, anywhere” learning as part
of the state’s competency-based model. New Hampshire uses a competency-based
system for graduation that has been in place since 2005. Based on relatively broad
defining statements of “mastery,” students attain credit for high school courses in
terms of their demonstration of content mastery aside from more traditional measures such as seat time and end-of-course tests.
For the past three years, the NHDOE has contracted with the Center for
Collaborative Education (CCE) to lead Quality Performance Assessment (QPA)
teacher professional development, which supports teachers in developing, scoring,
and using performance assessments. Approximately one third of the state’s districts
and schools have participated in this training to date, and more will participate in
the coming year through the implementation of the PACE pilot. The engagement
with the CCE is consistent with the focus of the PACE pilot in terms of growing
educator capacity to engage students in locally developed performance tasks that are
closely integrated with curriculum and instruction.
Professional Capacity
In 2010, the New Hampshire Task Force on Effective Teaching was convened to
develop a system to support effective teaching with the express purpose of:
•
Providing a common definition of effective teaching for all schools;
•
Identifying a variety of teaching frameworks that are researchbased and are critical components to a fair and equitable teaching
evaluation process;
•
Developing a system of preparation, professional development, and
continuous advancement of teachers to impact student learning;
and
•
Developing a set of recommendations that will lead to a statewide
system of teacher effectiveness.99
In the 2011–12 and 2012–13 school years, the new teacher evaluation system
was piloted in eight New Hampshire school districts that had received a School
Improvement Grant.100 As described in an evaluation of the system by the Institute
of Education Sciences and Regional Educational Laboratory, these New Hampshire
districts use the Danielson Framework for Teaching to assess teachers’ instructional
38
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
practice; however, the specific features of the evaluation system and the use of the
framework differ considerably across districts.101 The authors of the report found
that the greatest challenge to the teacher evaluation system has been measuring student progress using student learning outcomes. Additionally, the authors recommend
further investment in educator capacity to design and use performance assessments
that may help to improve teachers’ ability to assess student progress as part of the
educator evaluation system.
Similarly, the New Hampshire Association of School Principals established a
Principal Effectiveness and Evaluation Task Force to make recommendations about
principal evaluation. The task force recommendations are based on the belief that:
“An effective principal promotes the success of all students by advocating, nurturing and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student
learning and staff professional growth.”102 Principals are evaluated using specific
data, standard rubrics, and Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC)
standards.
Accountability
Multiple Measures Dashboard
New Hampshire’s state database system, i4see (Initiative for School Empowerment
and Excellence), seeks to change the way that the NHDOE collects and leverages
student and school data by “enabling schools to follow every child and to analyze
groups of students over time.”103 Using longitudinal reports and student-level data,
i4see allows educators and the public to create reports and follow trends in a variety
of ways. The NHDOE’s central data reporting platforms include the following:104
•
PerformancePLUS (P+) is a suite of three modules (performance
tracker, assessment builder, and curriculum connector) that assists
districts in managing and organizing current student-level data.105
•
District profiles provide aggregate data available to the public (e.g.,
average class size, attendance rates, AYP reports, dropouts, expenditures, etc.).106
•
Longitudinal reports provide access to predefined aggregate reports
on the New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP)
achievement.107
•
Aggregate spreadsheets organize data available to the public (e.g.,
attendance and enrollment).
Through i4see, the NHDOE is developing an early state dashboard for its PACE
project that would go above and beyond its regular state data system. Additionally,
Redesigning School Accountability and Support: Progress in Pioneering States
39
it is working with 2Revolutions to develop an integrated learning management
system (LMS)/student information system (SIS)/state system that will roll up performance data from the competency-based education districts and schools. Toward
the end of the 2014–15 school year, the state developed a data dashboard prototype
that includes a variety of indicators and displays both short- and long-term trends,
and in which thresholds are set by districts and school boards. The school environments data on the dashboard will come from school safety surveys. The NHDOE is
also exploring the use of “MyWays” with the Next Generation Learning Challenges
group, a modified dashboard system for student and school reporting that is studentcentered and competency-based.
School Quality Review
In July 2015, the NHDOE constructed a school review process for districts that are
implementing PACE. The intent was to modify and adjust the design of the school
review process based on its summer work with the goal of incorporating school
review into the overall school approval process between 2015 and 2017. This work
is organized to complement the school and multidistrict calibration processes built
into the PACE system. This process is intended to support continuous improvement as schools and districts take on the challenge of transforming their systems of
assessment.
40
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
Oregon
O
regon has defined college and career readiness by the knowledge, skills, and habits of mind required for post-secondary success, and the state has raised graduation requirements and is encouraging the use of performance assessments to
measure and support student progress in meeting these comprehensive expectations.
In addition, the state’s efforts to support innovation and school improvement have
focused on proficiency-based learning models and early steps toward creating multiple measures data dashboards.
College and Career Readiness
Oregon’s definition of college and career readiness (CCR) reads: “College-and-CareerReady Oregonians have acquired knowledge, skills, and professional behaviors that
provide a starting point to enter and succeed in workplace, career training, or college courses leading to certificates or degrees.” Adopted by the Oregon Education
Investment Board in 2014, the state’s definition also includes key indicators and a list
of qualities that a college and career ready Oregonian demonstrates. These qualities
range from the ability to reason and the ability to accept and use feedback to more
internal characteristics, such as having integrity and showing care for others.108
The state’s comprehensive definition aims to “break down the ‘silos’ in which education and workforce sectors often operate” by emphasizing skills, knowledge, and
habits of mind that are required to be successful.109 The development of the definition is the product of input from over 280 stakeholders ranging from early learning
educators to community college administrators and workforce development personnel. Oregon uses this definition of CCR in a host of ways, including as a guide for
strategic planning, educational reform, data collection and analysis, alignment of
coursework, graduation and promotion criteria, assessment development, and more.
Since 2009, the Oregon Department of Education (ODE) has been engaged with the
development of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) where in each stage of
the standards’ iteration, the ODE personnel offered feedback.110 In October 2010,
Oregon’s State Board of Education adopted the English language arts and mathematics CCSS.
Flexibility and Strategies for Innovation
In 2011, House Bill 2289 established the legislative Task Force on Accountable
Schools as the mechanism for flexibility and continuous innovation. The task force
Redesigning School Accountability and Support: Progress in Pioneering States
41
was charged with examining issues of clear public reporting, CCR measures, adoption of new summative assessments based on a national standard, implementation
of formative testing and instructionally useful student performance data systems,
and resources and targeted assistance for schools needing assistance to meet state
standards.
The state primarily promotes pedagogical innovation through “demonstration
sites” centered on proficiency-based teaching and learning.111 Oregon defines proficiency-based teaching and learning according to key principles of personalization,
demonstration of mastery, learning objectives that empower students, meaningful
assessment based on learning progress, and timely and differentiated feedback.112
The purpose behind this approach is that it “holds the potential to improve educator
effectiveness…[and] level the playing field with the expectation that all students will
succeed.” 113
During the 2013–15 biennium, grant funding was made available to districts with
one or more schools engaged in this work. A conditional part of this funding is that
those schools then become demonstration sites for other schools by providing evidence of best practices and evidence-based models for “student-focused learning and
grading that clearly communicates student progress.”114 Additionally, grant recipients must serve a diverse population of students including those who are economically disadvantaged, are learning English as a second language, demonstrate a gap
in achievement, and/or are racial or ethnic minorities. Notably, this funding requirement has the potential to support more meaningful and equitable learning opportunities in the state.
System of Assessment
In 2007, the Oregon State Board of Education adopted new high school graduation
requirements in an effort to better prepare students for college, work, and citizenship via the creation of a “more rigorous and meaningful diploma.”115 The state
used a 7-year phase-in model to allow all stakeholders adequate time to prepare for
the new requirements, which included: an increased number of minimum required
credits, the completion of a personalized learning plan for post– high school education and career goals, and demonstration of Essential Skills proficiency (reading,
writing, and mathematical problem-solving).116 Students can demonstrate proficiency
in the Essential Skills using a variety of options: Oregon’s statewide assessment (in
accordance with the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium [SBAC]), other standardized assessments (e.g., ACT, SAT, and IB or AP exams), Work Samples (locally
developed and administered performance assessments, scored using a standardized
rubric, and embedded in an academic program)117, or local district assessments.
For over a decade, Oregon Work Samples have created opportunities for students to
engage in local performance assessments to demonstrate proficiency. These locally
42
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
developed or selected performance assessments are scored using the State Scoring
Guide to support comparability across assessments.118 Recently, the ODE received
funding to create a statewide bank of 30 Work Samples for each required Essential
Skill. The bank is intended to supplement local development of Work Samples tasks.
The ODE partnered with Willamette Education Service District to develop and
deliver an online system that allows schools to access the statewide bank and have
multiple people independently score student work against a common rubric. The
online system can also be used to calibrate scorers and increase score reliability.
Additionally, ODE has partnered with several state and national organizations to
further develop their capacity to provide meaningful assessments for and of learning. Partnering with WestEd and the Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, and
Equity (SCALE), the ODE conducted three regional presentations about the SBAC
performance tasks on the Building Educator Assessment Literacy to Support Student
Achievement of College and Career Readiness Standards project to increase educator capacity to evaluate and score student work from SBAC and other curriculumembedded assessments. Participants were invited to engage in a virtual learning
extension to deepen their knowledge in the weeks following each event. The ODE
has also participated in the Innovation Lab Network Performance Assessment
Project, including two small pilots of performance tasks.
The ODE also partnered with the Berkeley Evaluation and Assessment Research
(BEAR) Center to build local capacity to develop unit tests based on learning progressions. Although in the early stages of development, the resources developed
in partnership with BEAR have created the foundation for the BEAR Assessment
System (BAS), which is a research-based model for student achievement measurement.119 BAS offers teachers tools for assessing, setting standards for, tracking, and
providing feedback on student performance and progress over time, while also
offering educators useful information about the effectiveness of instructional activities and curricular materials.120 Online modules created during this partnership are
available for use statewide.
Professional Capacity
In 2012, the Oregon State Board of Education endorsed the Oregon Framework
for Teacher and Administrator Evaluation and Support Systems for guiding local
districts in designing district evaluation support systems with the express purpose
of promoting professional growth and improving student outcomes.121 Although
districts have flexibility in design and implementation strategies, the Oregon
Framework provides an overview of five required criteria that must be included in
each district’s Educator Evaluation Plan122:
1. Standards of professional practice: The state-adopted Model Core
Teaching Standards and Educational Leadership/Administrator
Redesigning School Accountability and Support: Progress in Pioneering States
43
Standards define what teachers and administrators should know
and be able to do to ensure that every student is ready for college,
career, and engaged citizenship in today’s world.
2. Differentiated performance levels: Teacher and administrator performance on the standards of professional practice are measured
on four performance levels.
3. Multiple measures: Multiple sources of data are used to measure
teacher and administrator performance on the standards of professional practice. Evaluators look at evidence from three categories:
professional practice, professional responsibilities, and student
learning and growth.
4. Evaluation and professional growth cycle: Teachers and administrators are evaluated on a regular cycle of continuous improvement
that includes self-reflection, goal setting, observations, formative
assessment, and summative evaluation. The Oregon Matrix is used
to combine multiple measures for the summative evaluation to
determine an overall performance level and professional growth
plan.
5. Aligned professional learning: Relevant professional learning
opportunities to improve professional practice and impact on student learning are aligned to the teacher’s or administrator’s evaluation and that individual’s need for professional growth.123
In support of these efforts, the state encouraged districts to create Professional
Learning Teams (PLTs) made up of teachers and school-based and district administrators to support the implementation of the Oregon Framework and the CCSS
in ways that were specifically tailored to the specific context of each district.124
The goals of the PLTs are to “increase communication and clarification of educator
expectations between [ODE] and schools throughout the state.” Over the past two
school years, Oregon has held three highly attended PLT meetings where participating teachers and administrators engaged in 2 days of collaboration and information
sharing with all expenses paid for by the ODE. Teachers and administrators responsible for over 96% of Oregon School District students in three regions across the
state were represented.
Accountability
In 2012, Oregon applied for and received approval of its ESEA waiver, which
focused on three key principles: (1) aligning assessments to college and career ready
standards; (2) redesigning its school and district report cards to focus on growth, use
44
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
multiple measures (cognitive skills, academic behaviors, and transition skills) and
integrate a more user-friendly interface; and (3) redesigning of the educator evaluation system using the Oregon Matrix, which measures performance of professional
practice and professional responsibilities along with student learning and growth.125
Multiple Measures Dashboard
Oregon has been working on implementing many multiple measures dashboard
principles since 2011. This work was spurred by the 2011 Oregon legislature’s adoption of the aspirational “40-40-20” goal, which states that 40% of Oregonians will
earn a bachelors’ degree or higher, an additional 40% will earn an associate’s degree
or other postsecondary credential, and the remaining 20% will hold a high school
diploma or equivalent by the year 2025.126 To support this goal, the governor’s office
worked with stakeholder groups to define multiple measures of student achievement
that could be used to track Oregon’s progress toward 40-40-20.
In the fall of 2012, the ODE created a Report Card Steering Committee, a stakeholder group whose charge was to redesign Oregon’s school and district report cards
to include additional measures and to make the report card more understandable
for parents. The new report cards, first released in 2013, allowed districts to submit
and report on local priorities and initiatives.127 Oregon’s vision is to expand on this
work to create an online and interactive report card or dashboard that will give both
stakeholders and districts better access to data on schools and create more flexibility
in collecting and reporting on local data that can be incorporated into school and
district accountability. Although Oregon does not have an interactive dashboard
that captures the inputs and the outputs in local districts, the modifications to school
and local district report cards over the past couple of years are moving the state
toward a more support-oriented way of displaying and sharing school and district
data with the public.
Redesigning School Accountability and Support: Progress in Pioneering States
45
South Carolina
I
n South Carolina, accountability redesign has focused on adopting a comprehensive vision for high school graduates and creating opportunities for innovative
approaches to learning that will support students in meeting these expectations,
including career-based learning experiences, personalized learning, proficiency-based
learning models, and other novel programs and courses. In addition, the state has
redesigned its educator evaluation system to draw on multiple forms of evidence of
student learning and is taking steps to develop a multiple measures accountability
system for schools and districts.
College and Career Readiness
In spring of 2015, South Carolina adopted a new set of mathematics and English
language arts standards to replace the Common Core State Standards in the 2015–
16 school year.128 As part of the Transform SC initiative, educators also developed a
list of traits that a South Carolina student will display as indicative of that student’s
college and career readiness. The “profile” of a South Carolina graduate displays
three central indicators:
•
World-class knowledge: rigorous standards in language arts and
math for career and college readiness; multiple languages; science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); arts; and social
sciences;
•
World-class skills: creativity and innovation; critical thinking and
problem-solving; collaboration and teamwork; communication,
information, media, and technology; and knowing how to learn; and
•
Life and career characteristics: integrity, self-direction, global perspective, work ethic, and interpersonal skills.129
The mission for Career and Technology Education (CATE) in South Carolina is to
“develop an integrated learning system that enables students to be successful in a
global economy.”130 South Carolina’s CATE offers students in grades 7–12 opportunities to experience standards-based, hands-on, integrated academic and career
and technical instruction.131 Aligned with the state’s 2020 Vision for Career and
Technology Education, which provides a 10-theme framework for planning and
program development, students in South Carolina have access to career clusters that
provide a range of occupational education pathways.
46
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
Flexibility and Strategies for Innovation
South Carolina’s approach to innovation focuses primarily on proficiency-based
and personalized approaches to teaching and learning. Specifically, State Board
of Education (SBE) Regulation 43-234 allows districts to submit applications to
develop a proficiency-based system.132 In addition, state regulations provide support
for other innovative instructional programs and approaches. SBE Regulation 43-231
and 43-232 permit schools to implement an innovative approach in grades K–5 and
6–8 after approval by the local school board.133 Similarly, SBE Regulation 43-234
allows schools in grades 9–12 to award credit for locally designed subject area
courses aligned with state standards after approval by the local school board and the
State Superintendent of Education.134
System of Assessment
In April 2014, Act 155 (H. 2919) passed the General Assembly and suspended the
use of South Carolina’s high school exit exam as a condition for earning a diploma
in the state. Students who previously did not pass the exam but met all other
requirements for graduation have now been awarded retroactive diplomas going
back to the class of 1990.135 The suspension of this exit exam opens up opportunities for more meaningful assessments at the high school level. In addition, this shift
may support more equitable outcomes in high school since these exams can increase
dropout rates among traditionally underserved student groups.136
Professional Capacity
The state has attempted to design an educator evaluation system that will promote improvements in teaching capacity and student learning. South Carolina’s
ADEPT system is intended to evaluate and support educators. ADEPT Performance
Standards are aligned with nationally developed Interstate Teacher Assessment and
Support Consortium (InTASC) standards that outline what teachers should know
and be able to do. There are 10 ADEPT standards organized along four interrelated
domains: planning, instruction, classroom environment, and professionalism.137 A
new component of the ADEPT formal evaluation includes student work samples
to encourage teachers to engage “in an iterative process that both examines and
strengthens their abilities to promote student achievement.”138 The state’s approach
includes multiple forms of evidence of student learning, including work samples and
students’ assessment scores, in an effort to connect instructional practices to student
learning outcomes.
Accountability
The South Carolina Department of Education (SCDOE) has recently engaged in discussions with the South Carolina Education Oversight Committee to design a “Big
Redesigning School Accountability and Support: Progress in Pioneering States
47
Picture” accountability plan that includes multiple measures of school and district
performance. SCDOE is vetting those measures through their district superintendent
work group and then will be consulting various stakeholder groups to design the
specifics of the state’s accountability matrices.
With this new accountability plan, the SCDOE seeks to encourage and evaluate
opportunities for students to engage in college and workplace preparatory learning
opportunities as well as encourage innovation in the ways that students demonstrate
learning. The foci for their redesign work include:
48
•
World-class knowledge through a new assessment in grades 3–8,
a college entrance assessment for grade 11 that shows students’
benchmark readiness for college, and a series of end-of-course
(EOC) assessments for high school. The SCDOE is also proposing
a timeline to convert all science and social studies assessments to
performance assessment measures by 2018;
•
World-class skills through WorkKeys assessments for all students
in grade 11, a repeat WorkKeys score for CATE completers in
grade 12, a report of industry certification earned by CATE students, and ASVAB results;
•
World-class opportunities, which include school-reported success indicators by level (elementary, middle, and high school),
examples of which could include world language participation,
related arts participation, access to one-to-one technology, AP or
IB participation and performance, and dual credit participation
and performance. This category on the accountability model could
also include elements of parent, student, and teacher climate survey
results and “school review” scores conducted by AdvancED external review teams.
•
World-class innovations, which is a bonus section on the school
report card that is meant to incentivize schools to implement
school-wide innovative models of instruction, such as Montessori,
New Tech, or STEM.
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
Vermont
V
ermont has taken a proficiency-based approach to system redesign that emphasizes personalized learning. The state therefore provides educators with flexibility to design learning experiences and assessments that require students to
demonstrate what they know and can do. A key mechanism for determining the
effectiveness of this proficiency-based system is through the use of Education Quality
Reviews that incorporate quantitative and qualitative data in five dimensions of
school quality: academic achievement, personalization, safety and school climate,
high-quality staffing, and financial efficiencies.
College and Career Readiness
In 2014, after much input from the public and educators, the Education Quality
Standards (EQS) officially became the State Board of Education rules aimed at
ensuring “all Vermont children will be afforded educational opportunities that are
substantially equal in quality.”139 Vermont’s EQS went into effect in April 2014.
They define college and career readiness as follows:
“College and Career Readiness” means the student’s ability to enter
the workforce or pursue postsecondary education or training without
the need for remediation. The student must possess the foundational
skills and learning strategies necessary to begin studies in a career
pathway in order to be considered college and career ready.140
The EQS describe guidelines for student learning in literacy, mathematical content
and practices, scientific inquiry and content knowledge, global citizenship, physical
and health education, artistic expression, and transferable skills. As part of the EQS,
Vermont has adopted the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in English language
arts/literacy and mathematics. Transferable skills refers to a broad set of knowledge,
skills, work habits, and character traits that educational leaders view as essential for
college and career readiness, including skills related to communication, collaboration, creativity, innovation, inquiry, problem-solving, and the use of technology.
In addition, the EQS are designed to promote the shift from units and seat time to
the “demonstration of proficiency in the educational experience.”141 For example,
the EQS stipulate that proficiency is now the sole means for determining student
progress and high school graduation.
Like other states in the 51st State Working Group, Vermont uses the National Career
Clusters Framework to provide career and technical education (CTE) to its students.
Redesigning School Accountability and Support: Progress in Pioneering States
49
The Vermont Agency of Education (AOE) supports technical education in a host of
ways, including:
•
Establishing high learning standards that incorporate academic and
occupational competencies with 21st-century skill standards;
•
Developing student assessments that validate student learning to
provide smooth transitions to careers and college;
•
Developing and upgrading programs to prepare students for highskill, high-wage, and high-demand careers;
•
Providing professional development for faculty to stay current with
new instructional strategies and technological developments in
business and industry; and
•
Developing collaborative relationships among educators, business/
industry stakeholders, students, and community members.142
Flexibility and Strategies for Innovation
The passage of the Flexible Pathways Bill (Act 77) in 2013 opened up many avenues for Vermont educators to individualize their support of students’ educational
endeavors. One of the key tenets of the legislation calls for the Vermont AOE “to
encourage and support the creativity of school districts as they develop and expand
high-quality educational experiences that are an integral part of secondary education in the evolving 21st Century classroom.”143 Using resources developed in conjunction with New England Secondary School Consortium and the Great Schools
Partnership, Vermont has refocused the state’s vision for quality education using
a proficiency-based learning144 model. To support the state’s goals of personalization and proficiency, there is also “intentional alignment” between the EQS and the
Flexible Pathways Bill.145 The EQS describe the guidelines for proficiency primarily,
and the Flexible Pathways Bill describes pathways for personalization. However,
personalization is seen as a vehicle for supporting student proficiency.
The focus on proficiency-based learning and flexible pathways in Vermont has served
in expansion of existing programs and implementation of new initiatives, including:
50
•
Expansion of the dual enrollment program that allows for high
school students to enroll in college classes,146
•
Expansion of early college programs,147
•
Increased access to work-based learning,148
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
•
Increased virtual/blended learning,
•
Increased access to CTE, and
•
Implementation of personalized learning plans.149
System of Assessment
In the spring of 2015, Vermont officially transitioned away from the New England
Common Assessment Program to the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium
(SBAC) as the assessments that will be used to meet federal accountability mandates.
The SBAC assessments are more aligned to the high standards associated with career
and college readiness and target deeper levels of cognitive demand.
Simultaneously, Vermont has also been working to increase the resources and supports for school systems in developing local assessments, including the development
of performance assessments for “transferable skills.”150 Given high levels of local
control, the Vermont AOE has sponsored statewide educator involvement in developing task models, complex performance tasks in multiple content areas, and beta
testing performance tasks. The Vermont AOE has been working with external providers including the Innovation Lab Network and 51st State Working Group to share
task items and other performance assessment resources.
In addition, the state has developed a proficiency-based high school diploma model
that allows students to demonstrate mastery through a variety of avenues, including but
not limited to teacher-designed assessments, written papers, presentations, portfolios,
and projects that are locally determined and aligned to the state’s content standards.151
Professional Capacity
In 2013, the Vermont AOE launched the Professional Learning Network (PLN) to
address the need for “a coordinated, cohesive and consistent approach to professional learning across the state.”152 The PLN specifically focuses on instructional
leadership development and CCSS implementation and includes in-person and virtual learning opportunities.153
The Vermont AOE’s vision for professional learning states:
Quality professional development has the power to increase educators’
knowledge of academic content and teaching skills, while changing
what educators believe about student learning and how they interact with students. Powerful professional development can transform
schools into places in which all adults and students are deeply engaged
in learning and making meaning of their lives.154
Redesigning School Accountability and Support: Progress in Pioneering States
51
In support of this vision, the Vermont Task Force on Teacher and Leader
Effectiveness created guidelines for high-quality teacher and leader evaluation systems and continues to develop “differentiated pathways for recognition, support and
improvement” for the state’s educators.155 These guidelines provide recommendations for developing teacher and administrator evaluation systems but do not include
a specific plan or template for school districts to adopt. Specifically, the guidelines
include “a set of nine principles for effective evaluation, a general evaluation framework, samples of frameworks being used around the nation, evaluation standards
for principals and teachers, levels of performance, a description of the evaluation
cycle, and guidelines for implementation.”
Accountability
School Quality Review
During the 2015–16 academic year, the Vermont AOE is piloting the Education
Quality Review (EQR) protocols.156 Districts were invited to apply for grant funding from the state to support their voluntary involvement in the pilot, which could
include funding for professional development, educator stipends, substitute teachers,
travel, and other costs associated with their involvement. EQRs are the mechanism
by which the Vermont AOE, the State of Vermont, and local communities will be
able to determine how well they are delivering on the broad promises set forward by
the EQS and whether or not schools systems are delivering educational opportunities
that are substantially equal for all students in the state.157 It is through this mechanism that Vermont intends to hold schools systems accountable for moving toward
an educational system that prioritizes proficiency-based learning and personalization
to increase students’ college and career readiness.
EQRs are a system of systematic inspection and improvement that is locally developed and implemented. EQRs will evaluate schools by measuring five dimensions of
school quality as follows: academic achievement, personalization, safety and school
climate, high-quality staffing, and financial efficiencies. The reviews will include two
complementary processes for assessing these criteria: the Annual Snapshot Review, a
multiple measures dashboard of quantitative data; and the Integrated Field Review,
a system-level qualitative site review similar to the inspectorate model used in other
countries. The Annual Snapshot Reviews are designed to occur annually, whereas
the Integrated Field Review is designed to occur at least every 3 years. Educators at
all levels of the system are invited to conduct the Integrated Field Reviews, including
but not limited to members of the Vermont AOE, superintendents, curriculum coordinators, principals, and teachers. During the Integrated Field Review, the review
team will “engage in classroom observations, reviews of student work, panel discussions or interviews with parents, students and staff and collaborate to generate their
assessments of school system performance.”158
52
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
If data from the EQR suggest that there is evidence of substantial inequity and insufficient improvement taking place, the Vermont AOE will intervene with support and
sanctions designed to promote improvement.
Redesigning School Accountability and Support: Progress in Pioneering States
53
Virginia
I
n the past 2 years, Virginia has taken strides to reduce the amount of high-stakes
testing students undergo and shift toward a system of assessments, including
performance-based assessments, aimed at informing instruction. School divisions
(districts) have the freedom to design and administer assessments that are aligned to
state-determined levels of quality and standards of learning. In addition, the state
has multiple initiatives in place to support students in meeting expectations for college and career readiness, including early college programs and career and technical
education programs.
College and Career Readiness
As part of the state’s commitment to ensuring students are equipped with 21st-century
skills, Virginia launched its College and Career Readiness Initiative, which aims to:
•
Ensure that college and career ready learning standards in reading,
writing, and mathematics are taught in every Virginia high school
classroom; and
•
Strengthen students’ preparation for college and the workforce
before leaving high school.159
In 2009 and 2010, the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) adopted
Standards of Learning (SOL)160 in mathematics and English language arts aligned
with its vision for college and career readiness.161 To ensure the state standards
reflected the demands of college and career, the VDOE sought input on these standards from college faculty and experts from the College Board, ACT, the American
Diploma Project, and the business community. In addition to academic standards,
it identified specific indicators, performance expectations, and capstone courses
aligned with college and career ready definitions.162 To encourage and monitor
student preparedness to enroll and persist in postsecondary education, the VDOE
identified multiple indicators that predict student success in college, including:
54
•
Participating in college preparatory curriculum;
•
Earning advanced proficient scores on SOL assessments;
•
Participating in AP, IB, and dual-enrollment courses;
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
•
Participating in the Virginia Early College Scholars program; and
•
Earning college ready scores on placement tests such as the SAT
and ACT.
Virginia also has a robust dual enrollment program, the Early College Scholars
Program, which encourages high school students to enroll in AP, IB, or community college courses while still in high school.163 Additionally, the state’s nationally
accredited career and technical education career clusters serve more than 500,000
students in grades 6–12.164
Flexibility and Strategies for Innovation
In June 2015, Governor McAuliffe announced that the VDOE would distribute five
$50,000 High School Innovation Planning Grants to encourage the creation and
implementation of “bold innovative programs aimed at building the workforce of
the 21st century…free from the usual regulations imposed on school divisions.”165
The grants are a product of the Standards of Learning Innovation Committee,
which aims to foster high school innovation through “student-centered learning,
‘real-world’ connections between learning and careers…, and alternative models for
instruction and organization.”166 Five school divisions (districts) were awarded the
grants in 2015. Their plans include: partnering with area community colleges and
employers to enable students to graduate with an associate degree or industry certification, offering students flexible scheduling and early exploration of college and
career options through job shadowing and long-term internships, and developing
personalized learning and career pathways.
Additionally, the VDOE shares stories of innovation with educators on its website
with the express purpose to “improve outcomes for students, promote efficiency and
support educators.” The department encourages districts to “emulate” the successes
of pioneering schools and districts across the state.167
System of Assessment
In the 2014 General Assembly Session, House Bill 930 was passed and signed by the
governor, replacing five state-directed exams with local alternative assessments. The
purpose behind the shift was to address concerns regarding the amount of testing
students endure and the amount of instructional time dedicated to test preparation.
Furthermore, in making this transition the legislation aimed to refocus the purpose
of assessments as tools for informing instruction. School divisions have the freedom to design and administer assessments at their discretion as long as they meet a
particular Standard of Quality and are in fact assessing identified SOL. Options for
types of assessments include performance assessments as well as integrated assessments (multiple subject areas). The State Board of Education was directed to develop
Redesigning School Accountability and Support: Progress in Pioneering States
55
guidelines168 to assist local divisions in making the transition. In addition, the VDOE
issued grant applications for regional cooperative training sessions to enhance teachers’ skills in creating these types of assessments.169 Virginia is currently in the initial
implementation phase; the ultimate goal is to utilize locally crafted assessments in a
reformed state accountability system.
As part of the transition to a stronger division (district) role in assessment, the
VDOE has actively encouraged the use of performance assessments in local assessment systems. In October 2015, the VDOE brought together educators from across
the state for the Virginia Alternative Assessment Summit.170 State leaders partnered
with national experts in performance assessment to provide professional development in using performance assessments, designing performance tasks and rubrics,
and reviewing these tasks to ensure high levels of quality. In addition, the summit
created an opportunity for sharing promising models developed by local educators.
Professional Capacity
In 2012, Virginia implemented its Standards for the Professional Practice of
Teachers, which were born out of a task force that comprises teachers in all grade
levels from across the state. The standards provide a vision for the profession, define
what teachers should know and be able to do, and guide development through
induction and beyond.171 The state leaves teacher and principal evaluation procedures to the discretion of local school boards.
56
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
West Virginia
W
est Virginia has adopted college and career readiness standards and assessments and has created opportunities for innovation and support from a
diagnostic review process to improve the capacity of schools to meet these
expectations. In addition, the state has taken comprehensive steps toward growing professional capacity by redesigning its approach to professional learning and
teacher evaluation.
College and Career Readiness
The West Virginia Department of Education (WVDE) definition of college and
career readiness was developed through an extensive stakeholder engagement process. Adopted by the West Virginia Board of Education (WVBE), the state’s college
and career readiness definition is:
Students exit high school prepared for success in a wide range of highquality post-secondary opportunities.…with a full understanding of the
career opportunities available to them, the education necessary to be
successful in their chosen pathway, and a plan to attain their goals.172
WVDE has further articulated its definition of college and career readiness by identifying specific knowledge, skills, and dispositions requisite for becoming a successful
college or career ready person. For example, the state adopted the Common Core
State Standards in English language arts and mathematics.
The state has taken a personalized approach to supporting students in meeting
expectations for college and career readiness. In 2014, the West Virginia Legislature
passed Policy 2510, which called for an increased focus on the use of formative
assessments in assisting students in the development of 21st-century skills and preparation to enter the global marketplace (with specifications at each level of schooling,
pre-K to high school).173 One of the key components of this policy mandated the
school-wide implementation of Personalized Education Plans (PEPs) for students
in grades 6–12. The PEPs rely on the guidance and support from counselors and
advisors at the school as well as the parents/guardians to collaborate with the student on “thoughtfully explor[ing] individual interests and aptitudes in relation to
academic and career planning” (5.3.b.). The PEP also serves as a planning template
to determine high school course selection and assist in the determination of “career
exploration and self-discovery” via needs assessments, interest inventories, and
self-reflection.
Redesigning School Accountability and Support: Progress in Pioneering States
57
Flexibility and Strategies for Innovation
In 2012, the WVBE amended Senate Bill 371, the School Innovation Zones Act,
which “provides schools with the support and flexibility to collaboratively implement innovation to enhance student learning.” In addition, the act also encourages
schools to focus on strategies that “address dropout prevention and recovery.”174
Grants are awarded to schools and groups of schools that apply for innovation
funds. Grants are provided in two categories: 1 year for up to $50,000 and 3 years
for up to $300,000. Innovative approaches could include how a school structures
time and schedules, the configuration of staff, the addition or modification of a
school-wide or grade-level/subject-specific program, the expansion of an idea incubated in another Innovation Zone site, or something altogether unique.175
System of Assessment
West Virginia is a governing state in Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium
(SBAC) with full implementation of SBAC in 2014–15.176 The implementation of
SBAC has included instructional supports, diagnostic assessments, interim assessments, end-of-course (EOC) assessments, and the use of summative assessment. In
addition, West Virginia’s assessment system includes diagnostic tools across math,
reading, social studies, and science. It also has a suite of formative tools and instructional supports available to teachers.
Professional Capacity
In 2014, West Virginia surveyed educators to learn how they viewed their professional learning experiences. Educators’ responses highlighted the need for sustained
opportunities for professional learning that were integrated into teachers’ work in
their schools and personalized to meet teachers’ needs. While West Virginia leaders
wanted to support a more personalized and context-specific approach to professional learning, they also wanted to ensure that these learning opportunities supported teachers in meeting the state’s professional standards for teaching.
By June 2016, West Virginia’s Teacher Resources for Educational Excellence (TREE)
will replace Teach21 as a “grade specific site highlighting WV [Next Generation]
Standards,177 resources, and links…[such as] grade specific lessons, professional
learning, and guidance documents crafted to enhance teaching practice.”178 This
online resource bank is designed to support high-quality learning experiences for
teachers that are aligned to professional standards for teaching. As a consequence,
teachers can not only look to the professional standards themselves but also access
resources aligned with these standards to support them in improving their practice.
In the 2013–14 school year, after two years of piloting across the state, West
Virginia implemented a new, rubric-aligned educator evaluation system that includes
58
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
annually developed goals, self-reflection on practice as it relates to the professional
standards, and ongoing evidence collection; it concludes with a summative conference between the evaluator and teacher (or counselor) where a rating for professional performance is assigned.179 In this system, educators will develop a Focused
Support Plan aimed at ensuring continuous improvement of practice.180
The WVDE has several goals to improve and bolster educator capacity in the state
including:
•
Enhance educators’ access to relevant professional development
through Educational Impact (online professional development).
•
Create links within the online WV Educator Evaluation System
that prompt educators to consider completing specific online professional development plans based upon the results of their selfreflection and/or summative evaluation.
•
Create career lattices within WV educator certification that would
allow for the advancement/growth of classroom teachers while
maintaining a classroom teacher role (e.g., creation of lead teacher
or mentor teacher role).
•
Complete educator Professional Growth Guides that will provide
educators with concrete examples of what successful teaching
looks like within each of the West Virginia Professional Teaching
Standards. Guides will also suggest additional sources and activities for continued professional growth within the professional
standard of focus.181
•
Enhance school principal inter-rater reliability through focused
revisions of their existing administrator evaluator trainings.
Accountability
School Quality Review
West Virginia began conducting diagnostic reviews in 2009–10 school year with
schools identified as low-performing and have continued this practice with School
Improvement Grant (SIG), Priority, and Focus Schools. Utilizing the West Virginia
Standards for High Quality Schools, which align to the Effective Schools Research
and U.S. Department of Education Turnaround Principles, the state has developed a
series of “look-fors” and interview questions that can be used with administrators,
faculty, staff, and students. The questions used during interviews aim to get at the
heart of the issues at each school; these focused questions are intended to surface
Redesigning School Accountability and Support: Progress in Pioneering States
59
key information and areas of conflicting perspectives among administrators, teachers, and students.
The school review process was approved in May 2013 as part of the state’s ESEA
Flexibility Request and entails the following steps:
•
A team of three to five members from the WVDE and Regional
Education Service Agency spend a full day in the school taking
notes related to the focus standards.
•
The team then debriefs the administration and highlights successes
and growth areas noticed during the visit.
•
Finally, the lead coordinator on the visit compiles the team’s notes
and reviews the data for the school to produce a final report, which
contains observations and recommendations. The entire report is
shared with the administration, faculty and staff.
The state’s approach to diagnostic review is intended to guide the school improvement process and increase student achievement.
Multiple Measures Dashboard
In response to statewide interest around designing valid measures of 21st-century
skills, the WVDE took the initiative to start creating a platform to capture and communicate those student outcomes. In 2014, the WVDE launched ZoomWV, a data
dashboard that includes school and district information about enrollment, graduation rates, dropout rates, attendance, and test scores.182 ZoomWV is the state’s
single source for educational information pertaining to students in pre-kindergarten
through grade 12. ZoomWV is designed to improve instruction and student performance in West Virginia, in part by making information available in easy-tounderstand aggregate reports at the state, regional, county, and school level. With
ZoomWV, teachers and school, district, regional, and state personnel will have data
to make more informed educational decisions.
60
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
Endnotes
1
Mathis, W. J. (2015). Research-based options for education policymaking: School accountability, multiple measures and inspectorates in a post-NCLB world. National Education Policy Center: Boulder, CO.
2
See for example Heilig & Darling-Hammond, 2008; Booher-Jennings, 2005; Rothstein, 2008.
3
Darling-Hammond, L., Wilhoit, G., & Pittenger, L. (2014). Accountability for college and career readiness: Developing a new paradigm. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(86), 1.
4
Darling-Hammond, L., Wilhoit, G., & Pittenger, L. (2014). Accountability for college and career readiness: Developing a new paradigm. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(86), 1.
5
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), Averaged
freshman graduation rates, http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/data_tables.asp and Adjusted cohort graduation rates, http://
nces.ed.gov/ccd/data_tables.asp and http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/tables/ACGR_2010-11_to_2012-13.asp.
6
Heilig, J. V., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Accountability Texas-style: The progress and learning of urban
minority students in a high-stakes testing context. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(2), 75–110.
7
Sec. 1111(b)(1)(D) https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1177/text
8
Sec. 4611(a)(1)(A) https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1177/text
9
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1177/text
10
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1177/text
11
http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/cr/
12
http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr16/yr16rel21.asp
13
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ct/sf/documents/ctescrpflyer.pdf
14
The state legislature entered California Career Pathways Trust into the state’s Education Code in 2014. In 2015,
total appropriated state funding reached $500 million.
15
http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/cr/
16
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/gs/hs/eapindex.asp
17
http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/lr/fp/esea1innovschools.asp
18
http://www.smarterbalanced.org/assessments/
19
Cadres of teachers from California, New Hampshire, and Oregon participate in the BEAL program. See https://
scale.stanford.edu/content/building-educator-assessment-literacy.
20
http://www.cde.ca.gov/Nr/ne/yr12/yr12rel81.asp
21
http://edsource.org/2015/california-voters-say-state-must-take-action-to-address-teacher-shortage/90540
22
http://www.cde.ca.gov/qs/ab/
23
http://www.cde.ca.gov/qs/
24
http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/lcfffaq.asp#FC
25
http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/lcffoverview.asp
Redesigning School Accountability and Support: Progress in Pioneering States
61
26
http://ccee-ca.org
27
http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/lcffoverview.asp
28
29
30
Source: Adopted by the Colorado State Board of Education and Colorado Commission on Higher Education
(Winter 2016).
http://highered.colorado.gov/Academics/p20/
Senate Bill 08-212 Colorado’s Achievement Plan for Kids focuses on adoption of Colorado Academic Standards
(CAS), which guide schools’ academic programs from preschool through postsecondary schools. http://www.cde.
state.co.us/schoolreadiness/rules
31
http://highered.colorado.gov/data/districthssummary.aspx
32
https://www.cde.state.co.us/choice/innovationschools
33
https://www.cde.state.co.us/choice/innovation-schools-by-district
34
http://www.cde.state.co.us/assessment/newassess-parcc
35
https://scale.stanford.edu/student/projects/current
36
http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdedepcom/2015legistlativeassessmentandaccountabilitychanges
37
http://www.cde.state.co.us/communications/coloradoeducationreform101
38
CAS are the expectations of what students need to know and be able to do at the end of each grade in support of
college and career readiness. http://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/documents/standardsandinstruction/documents/colorado_academic_standards_fact_sheet.pdf
39
http://highered.colorado.gov/academics/TeacherEd/EdPrepProject.html
40
https://www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/stateaccountabilityregulations
41
http://www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/performanceframeworks
42
http://www.cde.state.co.us/uip
43
https://www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/eseawaiver. Also key to note is that the waiver will end in August 2016
and be superseded by ESSA.
44
https://iowacore.gov/about-iowa-core
45
https://www.educateiowa.gov/adult-career-community-college/senior-year-plus-syp
46
https://www.educateiowa.gov/sites/files/ed/documents/2015-02-11%20CC%20Jt%20Enrollment%20Report.pdf
47
https://www.educateiowa.gov/adult-career-community-college/career-and-technical-education
48
http://careertech.org/career-clusters
49
https://www.educateiowa.gov/pk-12/standards-and-curriculum/competency-based-pathways/iowa-cbe-collaborative
50
https://www.witcc.edu/Conference2016/docs/CI211178-iowasecondarycbeguidelines.pdf
51
https://www.educateiowa.gov/sites/files/ed/documents/Charter%20Schools%20in%20Iowa%20%282009%29.pdf
52
https://www.educateiowa.gov/documents/options-educational-choice/2014/12/public-innovation-zone-schoolapplication-packet
62
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
53
For other recommendations made by the Task Force see: https://www.educateiowa.gov/sites/files/ed/
documents/2014-12-31AssessmentTaskForceReport.pdf
54
http://www.ccsso.org/What_We_Do/Innovation_Lab_Network.html
55
https://edpolicy.stanford.edu
56
IDE is in a 5-year partnership with 10 Iowa districts to implement competency-based education strategies and develop a framework to guide statewide scaling of CBE and deeper learning in Iowa schools.
57
http://deeperlearning-cc.org/about-us; http://midwest-cc.org/about-us
58
https://www.educateiowa.gov/teacher-leadership-and-compensation-system
59
https://www.educateiowa.gov/pk-12/educator-quality/iowa-profesional-development-model
60
https://sites.google.com/a/gpaea.org/ee-council/home
61
Table 10 displays the alignment between the Iowa Teaching Standards, which are used as standards for teacher
licensure and teacher preparation programs in Iowa, and “nationally accepted teaching standards” (Interstate
Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium [InTASC]). Tables 1–7 contain alignment displays between the nationally accepted school leader standards (ISLLC) and the Iowa Standards for School Administrators. Tables 8 and 9
were added at the request of the Council when ISLLC released an updated 2014 version of the standards.
62
https://www.educateiowa.gov/article/2015/01/30/new-data-student-proficiency-rates-and-growth
63
https://www.educateiowa.gov/sites/files/ed/documents/GrowthAndProficiencyRateDataFAQ.pdf
64
https://www.educateiowa.gov/sites/files/ed/documents/Exploring%20Healthy%20Indicators%2010-14-15%20
Edit.pdf
65
http://education.ky.gov/educational/CCR/Documents/CCRUnifiedPlan_draft.pdf
66
http://education.ky.gov/educational/CCR/Documents/CCRUnifiedPlan_draft.pdf
67
http://education.ky.gov/school/innov/Pages/What-is-Learning-Innovation.aspx
68
69
On the department website are listed exemplars of design principles of innovation. http://education.ky.gov/school/
innov/Pages/Exemplars-of-Design-Principles-of-Innovation.aspx
http://education.ky.gov/school/innov/pages/innovation-networking-and-partnerships-.aspx
70
Kentucky is working with WestEd to develop the state’s approach for assessing the NGSS, including the development of blueprints and test specifications. Right now the focus is grades 3–8 but may expand. The assessments
would be a mix of item types. The state is also working with the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)
on the Science Assessment Item Collaborative. There are plans to use this same approach for social studies, English
language arts, and math based on the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) for Social Studies State Standards framework.
71
Right now the policy does not include specific guidelines for performance assessment. The state is working with its
legal department to see if the policy is a starting point that can be expanded to include performance assessment or if
it needs to be changed.
72
73
74
http://education.ky.gov/AA/Assessments/Pages/EOC.aspx
Learning Forward Standards for Professional Learning encompass the following categories: learning communities,
leadership, resources, learning designs, data, implementation, and outcomes. http://learningforward.org/standardsfor-professional-learning#.Vc0I8s5CT8s
http://education.ky.gov/teachers/PD/Pages/default.aspx
Redesigning School Accountability and Support: Progress in Pioneering States
63
75
http://education.ky.gov/teachers/PGES/Pages/PGES.aspx
76
http://education.ky.gov/teachers/PGES/TPGES/Pages/Kentucky-Framework-for-Teaching.aspx
77
78
http://mediaportal.education.ky.gov/curriculum-and-teaching/ciits/2013/03/continuous-instructional-improvement-technology-system/
http://education.ky.gov/teachers/PD/Pages/Tools-for-Building-and-Evaluating-Professional-Learning-Plans.aspx
79
http://ccsso.org/Resources/Publications/Our_Responsibility_Our_Promise_Transforming_Educator_Preparation_
and_Entry_into_the_Profession.html
80
For more information on Kentucky’s move toward a comprehensive professional learning environment see:
Transforming professional learning in Kentucky: Meeting the demands of the common core state standards. Berry,
B., Daughtrey, A., Darling-Hammond, L., and Cook, C (2012). http://education.ky.gov/teachers/PD/Documents/
KY%20PD%20Report%204%202012.pdf
81
http://education.ky.gov/comm/UL/Pages/default.aspx
82
http://education.ky.gov/comm/UL/Documents/WHITE%20PAPER%20062612%20final.pdf
83
http://education.ky.gov/AA/Acct/Pages/default.aspx
84
http://education.ky.gov/CommOfEd/fri/Documents/Kentucky%20Rising%20overview.pdf
85
http://education.ky.gov/school/prischedrecov/Pages/Diagnostic-Review-Preparation.aspx
86
http://education.ky.gov/school/prischedrecov/Pages/PS-ER.aspx
87
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/flex-renewal/nhrenewalreq2015.pdf
88
http://www.ccrscenter.org/ccrs-landscape/state-profile/new-hampshire
89
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/flex-renewal/nhrenewalreq2015.pdf
90
http://education.nh.gov/innovations/hs_redesign/documents/nhsbea-approved-final.pdf
91
http://education.nh.gov/innovations/hs_redesign/competencies.htm
92
The NH work–study practices task group aligned the model state competencies to the EPIC developmental frameworks in collaboration, communication, creativity, and self-direction in learning. http://education.nh.gov/innovations/hs_redesign/documents/nhsbea-approved-final.pdf
93
Career clusters include agriculture, food and natural resources, architecture and construction, education and
training, hospitality and tourism, law, public safety, security, etc. http://education.nh.gov/career/career/career_
pathways.htm
94
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/flex-renewal/nhrenewalreq2015.pdf
95
http://education.nh.gov/career/career/rpos.htm
96
http://education.nh.gov/accountability-system/documents/flexibility-waiver-request-renewal.pdf
97
http://education.nh.gov/assessment-systems/pace.htm
98
http://education.nh.gov/assessment-systems/pace.htm
99
http://education.nh.gov/teaching/index.htm
100
School Improvement Grants are awarded by the U.S. Department of Education to support state efforts in turning
around persistently low-performing schools. http://education.nh.gov/instruction/integrated/title_i_a_sig.htm
64
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
101
A study was done by Institute of Education Sciences and Regional Educational Laboratory to share lessons
learned during New Hampshire’s pilot. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/northeast/pdf/REL_2015030.pdf
102
http://education.nh.gov/teaching/documents/principal-report.pdf
103
http://education.nh.gov/data/i4see.htm
104
http://www.education.nh.gov/instruction/accountability/data-sys.htm
105
http://education.nh.gov/data/pplus.htm
106
http://education.nh.gov/instruction/special_ed/data_profiles/index.htm
107
http://education.nh.gov/instruction/assessment/necap/
108
http://education.oregon.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Adopted-College-and-Career-Readiness-Definition.pdf
109
http://education.oregon.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Adopted-College-and-Career-Readiness-Definition.pdf
110
http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?=3253
111
http://www.ode.state.or.us/teachlearn/standards/creditforproficiency/proficiency-based-instruction-and-assessment.pdf
112
House Bill 3233 (2013) Section 2 (3)(g) authorized the ODE to distribute funding “to school districts and nonprofit organizations for the purposes of developing and engaging in proficiency-based or student-centered learning
practices and assessments.”
113
Oregon Department of Education. Proficiency-Based Teaching and Learning Grant 2014–2015 (Request for
Proposal).
114
Oregon Department of Education. Proficiency-Based Teaching and Learning Grant 2014–2015 (Request for Proposal).
115
http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?=1764
116
The Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 581-022-0615: Assessment of Essential Skills (revised June 2011)
includes two requirements: student demonstrate proficiency in Essential Skills in order to receive a high school diploma, and districts administer local performance assessments. http://www.ode.state.or.us/wma/teachlearn/testing/
resources/es_localperformanceasmt_manual.pdf
117
Official scoring guide for Work Samples can be found here: http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?=32
118
http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=2662
119
http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=5401
120
See PowerPoint entitled Overview of the BEAR Assessment System as used in Oregon; link located at: http://
www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=5401
121
http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=3637
122
This work stems from Senate Bill 290 and Oregon’s approved ESEA waiver in 2015, which details the Oregon
123 Matrix for summative evaluations implemented statewide in the 2014–15 school year.
123
http://www.ode.state.or.us/wma/teachlearn/educatoreffectiveness/oregon-framework--for-eval-and-support-systems.pdf
124
http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?=4033
125
http://www.ode.state.or.us/initiatives/nclb/2015-esea-flexibility-renewal---executive-summary.pdf
Redesigning School Accountability and Support: Progress in Pioneering States
65
126
Senate Bill 253 (2011).
127
Achievement compacts were allowed to sunset in 2015; many of their innovations were incorporated into report
cards and other accountability reporting.
128
http://ed.sc.gov/instruction/standards-learning/new-standards-for-english-language-arts-and-mathematics/
129
http://www.eoc.sc.gov/Reports%20%20Publications/Annual%20Repor%20t2015/Feb1report2015.pdf
130
http://ed.sc.gov/instruction/career-and-technology-education/cate-administration/quality-review-measures/2020vision-for-career-and-technology-education-in-south-carolina/
131
http://ed.sc.gov/instruction/career-and-technology-education/
132
http://ed.sc.gov/districts-schools/state-accountability/personalized-learning/
133
http://ed.sc.gov/districts-schools/state-accountability/personalized-learning/
134
http://ed.sc.gov/districts-schools/state-accountability/personalized-learning/
135
http://ed.sc.gov/newsroom/public-information-resources/high-school-exit-exam-elimination/
136
Holme, J. J., Richards, M. P., Jimerson, J. B., & Cohen, R. W. (2010). Assessing the effects of high school exit
examinations. Review of Educational Research, 80(4), 476–526.
137
http://ed.sc.gov/scdoe/assets/file/programs-services/50/documents/ADEPTStandards.pdf
138
https://ed.sc.gov/scdoe/assets/file/programs-services/50/documents/ADEPTStandards.pdf
139
http://education.vermont.gov/state-board/rules/2000
140
http://www.ccrscenter.org/ccrs-landscape/state-profile/vermont
141
http://education.vermont.gov/documents/EDU-EQS_Intoduction.pdf
142
http://education.vermont.gov/career-and-technical-education
143
http://education.vermont.gov/flexible-pathways
144
http://education.vermont.gov/proficiency-based-learning
145
http://education.vermont.gov/documents/EDU-EQS_Intoduction.pdf
146
http://education.vermont.gov/flexible-pathways/dual-enrollment
147
http://education.vermont.gov/flexible-pathways/early-college
148
http://education.vermont.gov/work-based-learning
149
http://education.vermont.gov/plp-working-group/main
150
The Vermont Transferable Skills Assessment Supports (VTSAS) is a multiyear collaboration between AOE, the
Great Schools Partnership, and Vermont educators. http://education.vermont.gov/proficiency-based-learning/performance-assessments/transferable-skill-assessment
151
http://education.vermont.gov/documents/EDU-PBGR_Intro.pdf
152
http://education.vermont.gov/professional-learning
153
http://www.vermontpln.org/index.php/aboutvermontpln
154
http://education.vermont.gov/documents/vision.pdf
66
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
155
http://education.vermont.gov/documents/EDU-Vermont_Task_Force_2012_06_18_Meeting_Minutes.pdf
156
http://education.vermont.gov/education-quality-review
157
http://education.vermont.gov/documents/edu-oped-education-quality-reviews.pdf
158
http://education.vermont.gov/documents/edu-oped-education-quality-reviews.pdf
159
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/college_career_readiness/index.shtml#ccri
160
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/index.shtml
161
It is important to note that Virginia did not adopt the national Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and
instead implemented its own SOL as detailed above. The SOLs do however align with the CCSS. A press release
issued by the Virginia Board of Education in June 2010 stated: “The Standards of Learning are clear and rigorous
and have won the acceptance and trust of Virginia educators. Whatever adjustments might be warranted to ensure
alignment of the SOL with the Common Core State Standards can be made within the process through which the
Board of Education exercises its constitutional authority to establish standards for the commonwealth’s public
schools.” For more information see: http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/common_core/
162
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/college_career_readiness/resources/introductory_briefing.pdf
163
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/graduation/early_college_scholars/
164
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/career_technical/index.shtml
165
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/news/news_releases/2015/06_june24_gov.shtml
166
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/news/news_releases/2015/06_june24_gov.shtml
167
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/innovations.shtml
168
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/boe/meetings/2014/07_jul/agenda_items/draft_local_assessment_guidelines.pdf
169
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/local_assessments/index.shtml
170
http://www.vassonline.org/domain/201
171
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching/regulations/uniform_performance_stds_2011.pdf
172
https://wvde.state.wv.us/counselors/documents/CollegeandCareerReadiness3-12-14GeneralSession.pdf
173
http://apps.sos.wv.gov/adlaw/csr/readfile.aspx?DocId=25770&Format=PDF
174
https://wvde.state.wv.us/innovationzones/faqs.html
175
https://wvde.state.wv.us/innovationzones/faqs.html
176
https://wvde.state.wv.us/assessment/DIGITALLIB/DOCUMENTS/Digital-Library-Factsheet.pdf
177
http://wvnextgen.org/faq.html
178
https://wvde.state.wv.us/apps/tree/
179
http://wvde.state.wv.us/evalwv/summative-evaluation.html
180
http://wvde.state.wv.us/evalwv/plans-for-continuous-improvement.html
181
http://wvde.state.wv.us/evalwv/documents/Standards1_2_3_COMBINED.pdf
182
http://zoomwv.k12.wv.us/Dashboard/portalHome.jsp
Redesigning School Accountability and Support: Progress in Pioneering States
67
sco e
Stanford Center for
Opportunity Policy in Education
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
http://edpolicy.stanford.edu
@scope_stanford
www.learningpolicyinstitute.org
@LPI_Learning