please select
transparent.gif (43 bytes)
Introduction | Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Notes
Rating School Performance transparent.gif (43 bytes)

STATE EVALUATIONS AND RATINGS
  Does the state evaluate and assign ratings to its schools? How many schools were judged to be low-performing last year? What were the low-performing schools called? What, if any, are the other ratings?
Assigns ratings to all schools Identifies low-performing schools only
Alabama yes no 111 academic alert 1 (77), academic alert 2 (34) academic clear, academic caution
Alaska 2002 no n/a n/a n/a
Arizona no no n/a n/a n/a
Arkansas no no n/a n/a n/a
California no no n/a n/a n/a
Colorado no no n/a n/a n/a
Connecticut no* no n/a n/a n/a
Delaware 2001 no n/a n/a n/a
Florida yes no 4 critically low-performing undecided
Georgia no no n/a n/a n/a
Hawaii no no n/a n/a n/a
Idaho no no n/a n/a n/a
Illinois no yes 71 early academic warning list (71), academic watch list (0) none
Indiana yes no 24 accredited w/ 2-year review (16), probationary accreditation (8) full accreditation
Iowa no no n/a n/a n/a
Kansas yes no 4 conditionally accredited accredited
Kentucky yes no 273 decline (215), decline/parent notification (58) reward, equal baseline
Louisiana yes** no too new academically unacceptable/in decline, minimum growth distinguished, exemplary growth, recognized growth
Maine no no n/a n/a n/a
Maryland no yes 88 reconstitution eligible none
Massachusetts future no n/a n/a n/a
Michigan yes** no 22 unaccredited (22) interim accredited, summary accredited
Minnesota no 2000 n/a n/a n/a
Mississippi no no n/a n/a n/a
Missouri no 2000 n/a n/a n/a
Montana no no n/a n/a n/a
Nebraska no no n/a n/a n/a
Nevada yes no 23 demonstrating inadequate achievement high achievement, adequate achievement
New Hampshire no no n/a n/a n/a
New Jersey no no n/a n/a n/a
New Mexico no yes too new schools in need of improvement none
New York no yes 100 schools under
registration review
none
North Carolina yes no 30 low-performing top 25/top 10, schools of excellence, schools of distinction, exemplary, expected, adequate
North Dakota no no n/a n/a n/a
Ohio no no n/a n/a n/a
Oklahoma no yes** 59 1st and 2nd year low-performing (48, 10),
high challenge (1)
none
Oregon no no n/a n/a n/a
Pennsylvania no no n/a n/a n/a
Rhode Island no 2001 n/a n/a n/a
South Carolina 2001 no n/a n/a n/a
South Dakota no no n/a n/a n/a
Tennessee no no n/a n/a n/a
Texas yes no 59 low-performing exemplary, recognized, acceptable
Utah no no n/a n/a n/a
Vermont no yes too new schools in need of technical assistance none
Virginia yes no too new provisionally accredited, accredited with warning accredited
Washington future no n/a n/a n/a
West Virginia yes no 0 seriously impaired full, temporary, conditional accreditation
Wisconsin no yes 156 identified for improvement none
Wyoming no no n/a n/a n/a
U.S. 12 7 1024

*   Connecticut rates schools at the request of districts and currently has ratings for about half its schools.
**  Louisiana will rate K-8 schools this year and high schools in 2001; due to lack of high school test scores, Oklahoma and Michigan only identify low-performing K-8 schools.
NOTE:  A year indicates when a state plans to implement a policy.
n/a  indicates not applicable.

SOURCE:  Education Week

 please select

(c) 1999 Editorial Projects in Education

Vol. 18, number 17, page 90