Accountability and Assessment:

From “A Nation at Risk” NCLB Race

to the Top

Framing Questions:• Who can and should be held educationally

accountable, for what, to whom, and why?• How can we measure student learning in a way

that both reflects and promotes concerns about equity?

• How did No Child Left Behind (NCLB) change educators’ practices and national conversations about these issues?

• How are Race to the Top and current ESEA reauthorization negotiations influencing the national conversation, on the one hand, and educational policy and practices, on the other?

1980: Department of Education created (at Cabinet level)

1965: Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), including Title I funding for disadvantaged children. Requires reauthorization every 5 years.

1917, 1946: Federal aid to schools for vocational, agricultural, and home ec education

1958: National Defense Education Act (response to Sputnik) funds improvements in science, math, and foreign language instruction

1964: Title VI of Civil Rights Act1972: Title IX of Education Amendments1973, 1975: Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act,

Education for All Handicapped Children Act

1980s – 2000s: States and professional groups develop content standards, assessments, and accountability mechanisms

prohibit race, sex, special needs discrimination in education

1983: A Nation at Risk

2002: ESEA reauthorized as No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

2004: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act revamped

2009-??: Race to the Top, ESEA reauthorization

2010: Common Core Standards

Assessment and Accountability: The Early Years

1980s – early 1990s• “Off the shelf” tests: Stanford, ITBS, California

Achievement Test• Norm-referenced• Minimum competency tests: e.g. Texas Assessment

of Basic Skills (1979), Texas Educational Assessment of Minimum Skills (1984)

Assessment and Accountability: The Early Years

1980s – early 1990s• “Off the shelf” tests: Stanford, ITBS, California

Achievement Test• Norm-referenced• Minimum competency tests: e.g. Texas Assessment of Basic

Skills (1979), TX Educational Assessment of Minimum Skills (1984)

Mid-to-late 1990s• Achievement tests: e.g. Texas Assessment of Academic Skills

(1993), Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (1999)

• Criterion-referenced• Tests start to be aligned with state standards

Criticisms of StateAssessment Systems

• Wildly variable in quality and rigor

• Often not aligned with state standards (state standards didn’t always exist)

• Student-level accountability (e.g. must pass to graduate) but no teacher, principal, or school-level accountability

• Not used to guide instruction

Accountability as…

PUNISHMENT

Accountability as…

Lever of Change

Pause and ThinkPause and think:

How have state assessment and accountability systems changed over the past 30 years?

Do these changes represent progress, regress, or some of both?

What purposes do you think state-level assessment and accountability systems should play in education, if any?

What questions do you still have?

NCLB(No Child Left Behind)

Major NCLB Requirements:• All students (100%) at “proficiency” by 2014 – AYP

determined for each subgroup:

• Failure to make AYP in any subgroup = overall school failure to make AYP

• Progressive sanctions, some including increased funding

• Reading and math tests every year grades 3-8, once in grade 9 or 10, science at three diff. times

• Graduation and attendance rates now part of AYP

(100%-current % proficient)

(2014-current year)% increase expected=

How NCLB Promotes Equity:

• Disaggregates scores

• Judges schools by their least successful students, not their most successful

• Establishes clear and common achievement standards; eliminates between-school and even between-district variation in standards for success

• Provides strong incentives for school improvement focused on student achievement

• Purportedly offers students/families in failing schools additional options, including to transfer to a non-failing school

Challenges to Equity:The Threat of Perverse Incentives

• States

• Schools

• Students

Perverse Incentives for States: Lower Standards to

Increase Passing Rates

Source for following slides: National Center for Education Statistics (2007). Mapping 2005 State Proficiency Standards Onto the NAEP Scales (NCES 2007-482). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: Author.

Perverse Incentives for Schools: Don’t Let Students

Get to 10th Grade(unless they can pass the test)

Boston District Results 8.6 5.1 5.1 2.7 1.9 4.1 3.9 3.0 16.7 7.3 7.4 9.4

Academy of Public Service 28.7 18.6 20.0 0

Brighton High 1.3 3.1 1.9 11.1

Charlestown 31.3 9.1 2.8 19.4

Community Academy 57.9 11.1 17.6 6.5

Madison Park 8.6 10.7 11.3 11.7

Monument High 15.3 9.8 3.2 7.5

Fenway High 0 1.3 0 4.2

Social Justice Academy 13.3 6.1 20.0 13.1

Cambridge District Results 1.1 1.0 1.7 1.2 0.3 0.2 1.0 0 9.9 4.7 1.9 1.7

Newton District Results 0.3 0 0 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0

Somerville District Results 8.9 4.1 2.8 1.8 3.2 3.1 4.7 1.4 14.3 7.3 3.7 7.6

Lawrence District Results 5.2 2.0 2.3 2.0 0.7 2.3 1.7 0.9 10.8 5.2 3.7 7.8

District Name

School NameGrade 1

Grade 2

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

Grade 7

Grade 8

Grade 9

Grade 10

Grade 11

Grade 12

District Retention Rates: Evidence of the Urban Ninth Grade Bulge

http://www.doe.mass.edu/infoservices/reports/retention/. Updated Apr. 16, 2009. Accessed December 15, 2009.

  District Retention RatesRetention Rates by Race/Ethnicity

(All Numbers are Percentages)

District NameNumber of Retentions

Enrollment in Grades 1-12

Retention Rate White Black Asian

Native American

Native Hawaiian

Multi-Race, Non-

Hispanic Hispanic

Boston 3,367 50,004 7.1 4.4 8.2 3.2 6.8 9.5 5.0 7.9

Cambridge 93 4,799 1.9 1.3 2.8 0.6 4.0 1.0 2.8

Lawrence 521 11,068 4.7 2.4 5.8 1.9 16.7 4.9

Newton 36 10,634 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.3 1.0

Somerville 252 4,240 5.9 5.1 7.9 2.4 9.1 6.5 7.0

District Retention Rates by Race/Ethnicity (2007-08)

http://www.doe.mass.edu/infoservices/reports/retention/

Perverse Incentives (or at least outcomes) for Students: If You’re Not

Passing, Drop Out

Retention and Dropouts

• Repeating any grade correlated with and even clearly contributes to dropping out

• Persistence to 12th grade dramatically lower for students repeating grade 9 (TX & Philadelphia)

• Up to 40% of ninth grade students in cities with the highest dropout rates repeat 9th grade; only 10–15% of those repeaters go on to graduate

• 40% of dropouts in low–income high schools left after ninth grade vs. 27% in low–poverty schools

Balfanz and Legters 2004, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/c1/c1s6.htm, http://www.betterhighschools.org/docs/NHSC_FirstYearofHighSchool_032807_000.pdf,

Cohort 2009 4-year Graduation Rates in Massachusetts:

Source: http://www.doe.mass.edu/infoservices/reports/gradrates/* Limited English Proficient

Graduates Non-Graduates

2009Cohort # 4-Year Rate Difference from

2008 Still in School Non-Grad Completer GED Dropped Out Expelled

All Students 77,038 81.5% +0.3 6.2% 0.8% 2.1% 9.3% 0.1%

Female 37,656 84.6% -0.1 4.7% 0.8% 2.0% 7.9% 0.0%

Male 39,382 78.6% +0.6 7.6% 0.8% 2.3% 10.6% 0.2%

LEP* 4,933 57.5% +1.7 13.7% 0.8% 4.9% 22.9% 0.2%

Special Education 14,845 64.9% +0.8 15.3% 1.7% 2.0% 16.1% 0.1%

Low Income 29,477 66.9% +2.1 11.1% 1.5% 3.1% 17.3% 0.1%

African American 6,906 69.1% +0.7 11.9% 1.8% 2.0% 15.0% 0.2%

Asian 3,612 86.1% -0.6 5.9% 1.2% 0.9% 5.8% 0.1%

Hispanic 10,336 59.7% +1.4 12.8% 2.1% 2.6% 22.6% 0.2%

Multi-race, Non-Hisp. 1,070 80.5% 0.0 6.7% 0.7% 2.5% 9.5% 0.1%

Native American 212 75.9% +9.2 8.0% 0.0% 0.9% 15.1% 0.0%

Pacific Islander 72 69.4% -0.9 15.3% 1.4% 2.8% 11.1% 0.0%

White 54,830 86.9% +0.3 4.2% 0.4% 2.1% 6.3% 0.1%

Urban 26,829 67.1% +3.5 10.9% 1.5% 3.0% 17.3% 0.1%

Pause and ThinkPause and think:

What are the strengths of NCLB both overall and particularly with respect to the achievement of educational equity?

What are the weaknesses of NCLB both overall and particularly with respect to the achievement of educational equity?

Is it possible to retain the strengths while overcoming the weaknesses, especially those resulting from perverse incentives? How?

What would you do if you were in the position of reauthorizing ESEA? What would you tell your senator or congressperson, and why?

ESEA Reauthorization:Points of Agreement

Make AYP (or its equivalent) more nuanced, not just yes/no

Measure individual student growth rather than cohort comparisons: “value-added” measurements (VAM)

Incorporate multiple measures into accountability system: e.g. dropout and retention rates, possibly higher-ed access

Do everything possible to avoid perverse incentives

Provide resources (“opportunity to learn”) and not just consequences

Use data to guide instruction and not just guide sanctions and rewards

Promote complex teaching for complex thinking

Value Added Measurements• Track individual student growth under one

classroom or in one school, rather than comparing cohorts

• Many concerns about wild fluctuations in VAM assessments of teacher effectiveness year-to-year

• ~30-40% predictive power: about 1/3 of teachers in top group one year will be in top group next year

• But multi-year averages may provide reliable data on individual teacher effectiveness, especially when combined with other data sources

Sources: Prof. Andrew Ho and http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2010/1117_evaluating_teachers/1117_evaluating_teachers.pdf

VAM in Los Angeles: Data-driven teacher accountability at work

• Los Angeles Times used seven years of district math and English data to conduct a VAM analysis of LAUSD teachers in Summer 2010

• “Grading the Teachers. Who’s teaching L.A’s kids?” (8-14-2010) published with teacher names and pictures

• Full searchable database available to the public online

• Protests, rallies, and threatened teacher’s union boycott of Los Angeles Times followed

• LA Unified School Board voted soon after to include VAM in teacher evaluations

• Male elementary school teacher committed suicide in Sep. 2010. Public VAM data was blamed in media. The Times issued their condolences. Data are still available online.

Race tothe Top

(RTTT)

$4.3 billion in incentives to get states to: Adopt standards and assessments that prepare

students to succeed in college, the workplace, and the global economy

Build data systems that measure student growth and success and inform teachers and principals about how they can improve instruction

Recruit, develop, reward, and retain effective teachers and principals especially in high-need schools

Turn around lowest-achieving schools

Race to the Top: Goals

States must demonstrate their ability to:

• Participate in a consortium of states that are working toward adopting a common set of K-12 standards that are internationally benchmarked

• Develop & implement common, high-quality assessments aligned with the common standards

RTTT: Standards & Assessments

Common Core

Multi-state assessments

States must demonstrate their ability to:

• Implement a statewide longitudinal data system;

• Make the data available to those working with local instructional improvement systems

RTTT: Data Systems

Value Added

Measurements

Research into risk

factors, causal relationships

Formative assessment

Data-Driven

Instruction

States must demonstrate their ability to:

• Allow alternative routes to certification;

• Design and implement evaluation systems for teachers and principals that take into account data on student growth;

• Develop a plan to distribute “effective” teachers and principals equitably;

• Link measures of “effectiveness” to preparation programs and professional development

RTTT: Teachers & Leaders

States must demonstrate their ability to:

• Intervene directly in low-performing schools and districts;

• Identify the lowest-performing schools;

• Implement one of four school intervention models:

RTTT: Low-Achieving Schools

Turnaround

Restart

School Closure

Transformation

• Who can and should be held educationally accountable, for what, to whom, and why?

• How can we measure student learning in a way that both reflects and promotes concerns about equity?

• How did No Child Left Behind (NCLB) change educators’ practices and national conversations about these issues?

• How are Race to the Top and current ESEA reauthorization negotiations influencing the national conversation, on the one hand, and educational policy and practices, on the other?

Pause and think: