Accountability in Context

he accountability tables give comparable information on accountability policies in the 50 states. No two states approach accountability exactly alike, however, and the policies themselves are nuanced. The following notes provide additional details, where necessary, to give a more complete picture of each state's accountability system.

Alabama: The report cards allow readers to compare a school's performance with that of others whose students have similar "abilities," according to state officials. To determine ability, the state uses an index based on how students score on the Stanford Achievement Test, a multiple-choice, norm-referenced exam.

The state has two categories of low-performing schools: "academic alert 1" and "academic alert 2." The state provides voluntary assistance to its "academic alert 1" schools by offering help with school improvement plans and staff development. The state sends every "academic alert 2" school one of 10 outside improvement teams to conduct a study of the school's performance, consult with staff members and the community, analyze causes of poor student achievement, and make specific recommendations for change. Teams are made up of "practicing professionals" and may include state or district educators, experts in instruction and assessment, or special-services teachers.

Alaska: The state has passed legislation to roll out additional pieces of a school accountability system starting in 2002. Beginning that August, the state will assign every public school a performance rating of "distinguished," "successful," "deficient," or "in crisis." The legislation allows, but does not require, the state to develop a recognition program for schools that achieve a "distinguished" rating. Schools labeled "deficient" or "in crisis" will have to devise improvement plans. And the state plans to provide assistance to such schools on a graduated basis, taking progressively more action in schools that fail to improve over two years.

Arkansas: While it holds districts accountable for performance, Arkansas does not rate, assist, or have sanctions for individual schools. The state has a school accreditation process, but it is not tied to academic performance. State officials say they may eventually extend the process for identifying districts in academic distress to individual schools.

California: The state requires districts to publish performance reports on each school. In addition, the state publishes its own performance reports on every high school. The latter are available at the state department of education's World Wide Web site, but the district-produced reports are not. The legislature has passed a bill encouraging districts to make them available at their own Web sites. California currently has no other school accountability policies.

Colorado: The state passed legislation in 1998 that will establish a system for holding districts accountable for performance. But this strong local-control state does not plan to extend accountability to individual schools.

Connecticut: While Connecticut has no comprehensive policy for rating the overall performance of its schools, it has developed a performance index for schools that receive federal Title I funding. The state calculates the index for additional schools at the request of districts. Last fall, the state released the figures for 398 schools that received the federal remedial education funds and for 139 additional schools at districts' request. Together, those schools account for just over half of all schools statewide. Because the state expects districts to take the lead in improving low-performing schools, there are no consequences attached to the ratings.

Delaware: The state has enacted legislation that establishes a school accountability system beginning in 2001. The state will designate schools as "superior accredited," "accredited," "accreditation watch," or "unaccredited." Ratings will be based on three achievement measures: absolute performance, whether performance has improved, and whether performance has improved for students whose achievement is lowest. The state plans to provide assistance to low-performing schools on request and as funding permits. It will require districts to provide help as well. The state will award money to successful schools based on the three types of performance, but the money may not be spent on staff bonuses. State officials say the strongest sanctions for failing schools will be dismissal of staff members, loss of accreditation (after which a school can operate for at least two years before the state takes further action), and recommendations for changes in local leadership or school board practices.

Florida: The state is currently changing its criteria and processes for rating schools. State education officials say they expect to simplify performance ratings into a scale from 1 to 5, with no further labels attached to the numbers. However, one of newly elected Gov. Jeb Bush's campaign proposals was to rate schools with letter grades from A to F. The state has made no final decisions on the criteria for the ratings.

Florida's School Recognition Program requires that schools meet certain performance criteria and submit applications that include additional data, such as the results of college-placement tests; assessment results for subpopulations of students; and indicators of school climate and safety, innovative teaching and learning, parent and community involvement, and successful improvement plans.

The state considers districts the primary providers of assistance for low-performing schools for the first two or three years, although state officials will provide help on request during that time. After that, state assistance becomes more likely. The state has put together a cadre of "facilitators of school improvement," who can help conduct evaluations, provide expert assistance, draft and implement improvement plans, or provide additional staff development. Experts include state and local officials, university professors, and educators from other schools that might serve as models.

State officials say Florida has delegated to its districts the burden of dealing with chronically failing schools. But once a school has been identified as low-performing for three consecutive years, the state school board may recommend one of several actions to the district: contracting out the school's educational services; reorganizing the school under a new principal, who is authorized to hire new staff members and implement an improvement plan; permitting parents to send their children to another school of their choice; or taking other action, as deemed appropriate, to improve the school's performance. The state may revoke the district's lottery funds if the district fails to comply with the recommendations, but it has no other legal means of enforcement.

Georgia: Schools must submit applications to be recognized as high-performing by the state. Schools applying for recognition must identify and meet a set of performance goals in four areas: academic achievement, client involvement, educational programming, and resource development.

Hawaii: Although the state places its school report cards on the Internet, they are not available at the state department of education's World Wide Web site. The state has a rewards program tied to the federal blue-ribbon-schools program. The state leverages private support to provide monetary rewards to schools that have been nominated for the federal recognition program by the state.

Illinois: The state assigns schools to an "early academic-warning list" for one of two reasons: failing to meet the passing score on state tests for two consecutive years, or having a significant downward trend in test scores for three years. Schools that remain on the warning list for two years are placed on the state's "academic watch list." Since the warning list is only in its second year, no school has been on it long enough to be so downgraded. This year, lawmakers will vote on a proposal to permit students in failing schools to enroll elsewhere.

Indiana: School report cards do not include information on teacher qualifications, but the state's Web site has a database that provides information on the salary and qualifications of every teacher in the state by name.

Indiana calculates "predicted" test scores and attendance rates for every school. The predictions are based on the percentage of students who are poor and the "cognitive ability" of students, as measured by a special statewide test. Indiana's school report card compares such predictions to a school's actual test scores and attendance rates. The state also considers the predictions in deciding whether a school should receive full or probationary accreditation.

The statute authorizing sanctions for failing schools is generally worded and does not list particular actions. Indiana officials told Education Week that the state has interpreted it to include closure.

Kansas: The state rates schools based on its school accreditation system, which relies on a mixture of performance data and information about school practices. On-site accreditation teams consider a school's demographic makeup before rendering a decision on its status. But there is no mathematical formula to calculate a school's "predicted" performance based on demographics. The state accreditation teams also offer technical assistance to schools designated as low-performing. Schools that receive full accreditation are awarded a letter of recognition.

Kentucky: The state's accountability system is in transition, after lawmakers scrapped the old system in 1998. ("To a Different Drum.") The Quality Counts tables reflect this year's "interim" accountability system. State officials were slated to decide on details of a new accountability package last month. During the interim period, the lowest-performing 58 of the 273 schools identified as "in decline" by the state must notify parents that their children may enroll in more successful schools elsewhere. Under the new system, lawmakers specified the following possible interventions in low-performing schools: an external review or "scholastic audit" of school programs and practices; the development of school improvement plans; eligibility for additional funds; the assignment of "highly skilled" educators to provide help; an evaluation of school personnel; and the ability of students to transfer to more successful schools.

Louisiana: The state accountability system takes effect for K-8 schools in 1999, but it will not go into effect for high schools until 2001. Under the system, schools are expected to show progress toward 10- and 20-year performance goals by meeting two-year performance targets. Schools meeting their expected growth targets will receive a label of "recognized academic growth." Schools that exceed their growth targets will be labeled "exemplary academic growth." Schools that do not meet their targets will be designated "minimal academic growth." And schools with flat or declining performance scores will be labeled "schools in decline." The state will designate schools that reach their 10-year goals as "academically distinguished." Schools that perform below a minimum level will be labeled "academically unacceptable" and will be subject to immediate "level 1 corrective actions."

A state program to provide monetary rewards to schools that meet or surpass their growth targets will take effect in 2001 for K-8 schools and in 2003 for high schools.

A school that reaches "level 3 corrective action" must submit a "reconstitution" plan for state approval. If the state rejects the plan, the school will lose state approval and accreditation, and, consequently, state funds. State officials say they expect such actions would force a district to close the school, but closure is not an official prerogative of the state.

Maryland: Before the state publishes its list of "reconstitution eligible" schools, the superintendents of districts that have schools nominated for the list are given a chance to describe any extenuating circumstances that may account for a school's low performance. The state then may choose not to include the school on the list. The state has entered into a partnership with the Baltimore public schools because the city district has nearly 90 percent of the schools on the state's "reconstitution eligible" list. The "Baltimore City-State Partnership Agreement" gives the state joint control of the district, including appointing a new supervisory board with members appointed by the governor and Baltimore's mayor.

Massachusetts: The state does not require that schools send school report cards home to parents, but it does require that schools send home a student's scores on the statewide assessment, along with comparable figures at the school, district, and state levels. The legislature has passed an accountability statute, but it does not contain a time line for implementation. The state school board will vote this month on the details of the accountability program.

Michigan: State law requires two different school report cards: one produced by the state and published on the Internet and another published by each school itself. The report cards differ slightly. The Quality Counts tables describe the school-published versions because they must be sent home to parents.

The state holds schools accountable through its accreditation system, which is based primarily on performance but also includes some process indicators. The state uses the same system to identify schools for its rewards program. Michigan considers low-performing schools to be those designated "unaccredited." In addition, the state offers technical assistance to another 265 schools because of low academic performance.

Unaccredited schools are not automatically closed. Michigan last evaluated its high schools using 1995 data and listed two Detroit high schools as unaccredited. Since then, the state has not conducted a new accreditation evaluation for them due to a lack of comparable test scores. The Detroit district has publicly declared that it no longer considers the two high schools unaccredited. Later this month, the state's board of education will decide whether to begin holding high schools accountable again. Michigan plans to implement a new accountability system in 1999-2000, which will be based on continual improvement and will provide monetary rewards for schools.

Minnesota: The state plans to begin implementing a school accountability system in 2000. Lawmakers will vote this year on the criteria for evaluating schools.

Mississippi: The state has a district-accountability system, which rates districts against standards for academic performance and management practices. The state has taken control of two districts to date.

Missouri: A school accountability law passed in 1996 is scheduled to take effect in 2000-01. The state currently has a rewards program based on the criteria used by the U.S. Department of Education for its blue-ribbon-schools program, and it leverages private money to reward schools. Missouri's district-accreditation system rates districts on both performance and process-based measures. The state has never used sanctions against continually low-performing districts, though last year it strengthened the sanctions that it potentially could use against the Kansas City and St. Louis districts.

Montana: The state has a school accreditation system, but it is not based on performance. Schools can volunteer for an alternative, performance-based system.

Nevada: In 2000, the state plans to include student and teacher attendance in the school accountability-and-rewards system. Schools deemed low-performing by the state must adopt a whole-school "remediation program"; the state does not require any one program in particular.

New Hampshire: The state passed legislation last year calling for district report cards that will include both district- and school-level performance data. The first report cards must be published by December 2000.

New Jersey: New Jersey's accountability system focuses on districts, holding them responsible for the performance and management of individual schools. Districts that do not meet the state's monitoring standards are subject to progressively closer monitoring and more intensive interventions. The state works closely with such districts to ensure that assistance reaches down to individual schools where necessary. As a result of a school finance suit, the New Jersey Supreme Court has given the state sweeping powers to implement reform in individual schools in its urban districts, which make up about one-quarter of all schools in the state. For that reason, state officials say they believe the current district-focused system does include interventions, and the threat of possible sanctions, for individual schools. Since the state does not publicly rate individual schools, however, and does not have the explicit authority to close, take over, or "reconstitute" them, it earned no yeses in the Quality Counts tables for school ratings and sanctions.

New Mexico: New Mexico's school accountability system relies on an unusual mix of statewide and locally determined performance goals. For low-performing schools, the state makes available a diagnostic team that can help analyze deficiencies and identify solutions. The team becomes mandatory for schools the state identifies as low-performing two years in a row. Members of the diagnostic team are selected based on their expertise in helping with a school's particular problems and may include teachers or other local school personnel, university educators, or state department officials.

The statute authorizing sanctions for failing schools is generally worded and does not list particular actions. New Mexico officials told Education Week that the state has interpreted it to include closure, takeover, and "reconstitution."

New York: Each year, the commissioner of education determines the standard for student performance and the state identifies schools that are furthest from that standard. Schools and their districts are notified and allowed to appeal the initial designation. Districts may provide any information that might show the identified school is not "most in need of assistance." Following the districts' appeals, the state determines which schools will be designated as "Schools Under Registration Review." Districts are expected to provide assistance to SURR schools. The state also requires schools to adopt one of its "models of excellence," which include the School Development Program (or Comer Model), Success for All, Efficacy, Reading Recovery, Effective Schools, Accelerated Schools, and the Basic School Model.

North Carolina: The state has two report cards for schools. One is a "school improvement report" published by districts; the other is a state-published report with test scores and related accountability ratings. Since the locally published report may take any form districts choose, we describe only the state-published version in the Quality Counts tables.

The state has several performance categories: the 10 most improved high schools and 25 most improved elementary schools; "schools of excellence," which meet standards for absolute performance and exceed expected improvement targets; "schools of distinction," which meet standards for absolute performance but not for expected growth; "exemplary growth schools," which exceed their improvement targets; "expected growth schools," which meet expected improvement targets but do not meet the standard for exemplary growth; "adequate schools," which do not meet expected growth targets but still have 50 percent or fewer of their students performing below grade level; "low-performing schools," which fail to meet the growth standard and have more than 50 percent of their students below grade level; and "low-performing assigned-assistance teams," which are low-performing schools that are assigned one of the state's 15 assistance teams.

The state provides assistance teams only to the worst of its low-performing schools. Each team consists of five to six expert educators who are assigned to one low-performing school, which they help on a daily basis. Based on recommendations from the teams, the state has removed one principal and recommended the dismissal of two teachers; the teachers are appealing the judgment. The state also has the authority to remove district superintendents if they have too many persistently low-performing schools under their jurisdiction.

North Dakota: State law requires school report cards. But the committee charged with designing them decided it would be more efficient to publish district report cards because 72 percent of North Dakota's districts include only one school. In the Quality Counts tables, North Dakota receives a "no" for school report cards because every school does not receive one.

Ohio: The state considers the school report cards it will release this year to be in the "trial" stage, but plans to distribute them more widely than it did the first round in 1998. Next year's report cards will be the first "official" ones. Except for the report cards, the state plans to hold districts rather than schools accountable for performance.

Oklahoma: The state holds only K-8 schools accountable for results because high schools are not required to administer any of the tests that the state uses to measure school performance. Schools are deemed low-performing if their students are in the bottom 25 percent of schools on a state-developed test, and below the national norm on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, a commercially developed assessment. The state mandates technical assistance for schools that are still low-performing after one year. The state has closed two schools over the past 10 years for poor achievement and fiscal mismanagement.

Oregon: In 1997, lawmakers passed a bill creating a monetary rewards program for high-performing schools, which earned the state a "yes" in our table. But the legislature has not yet funded the program. The state says it plans to institute a district-accountability system that would identify districts that do not improve their test scores annually. Districts deemed low-performing would receive technical assistance from the state, including visits by external-review teams. The state does not have a time line for implementing its plan.

Rhode Island: Last year, the state negotiated with districts an individual improvement target for each school in Rhode Island. The targets must be met by 2001. After that, schools will be evaluated based on three years of test scores. Schools that do not meet their targets are subject to increasing levels of state supervision, and schools that persistently fail to meet the goals may be "reconstituted." The state will also use information from on-site visits to every school and its survey of almost all the state's parents, teachers, and students to hold schools accountable.

South Carolina: The state passed a new accountability law last June 1998. The law revamps district accountability and adds a set of new school-level policies, which will take effect in 2001. At that point, the state will give two ratings to every school and district, one based on improvement from the previous year and the other comparing achievement against a set standard.

Some of the law's provisions will kick in this year, when districts identified as "in greatest need" under the current system will receive new forms of assistance. All the schools in those districts will get homework centers, teacher and principal specialists, and professional-development grants. Schools identified in 2001 as under-performing will receive similar help. The state also plans to institute a rewards program beginning in 2001 for schools showing improvement.

Tennessee: State law provides the authority for state officials to evaluate schools and intervene in low-performing ones. But the state school board has not adopted a formal process or criteria for school accountability. For now, the board considers districts responsible for holding schools accountable, and the state holds districts accountable.

Texas: The state report cards include test scores for different groups of students in each school, including minority and disadvantaged students. The state builds those "disaggregated" results into its school rating system by requiring that scores for all student subgroups meet the same performance targets. That measure, many believe, forces schools to focus on their lowest performers instead of just concentrating on boosting scores at the top.

The state allows alternative education schools to choose between the regular rating system and an alternative one. Currently, 67 such schools are labeled "in need of review" because they failed to meet the alternative criteria.

Utah: The state's rewards program, called "21st Century Schools," features a variety of process and performance standards, including computer saturation and the presence of school-business partnerships.

Vermont: The state requires two school report cards: one posted on its Web site and another published by individual schools. The two differ, and the information contained in the local report card is reflected in the Quality Counts tables. This year, the state is implementing a transitional accountability system that, for the first time, will publicly identify low-performing schools. The schools must write improvement plans, and they will receive assistance from external teams. A more complete system, based on improvement, will go into effect in 2000-01.

Virginia: This school year, the state has labeled all schools "provisionally accredited." By December 1999, the state will designate as "accredited with warning" those schools that don't meet a 70 percent passing rate on state tests and are not improving. In 2004, the state will no longer take improvement into account and will label all schools that fail to meet the absolute 70 percent passing rate as "accredited with warning." In 2007, schools that still do not meet the benchmark will be "denied accreditation." Virginia has not defined what that sanction entails.

Washington: In 1993, lawmakers required the state to craft an accountability system, but they did not set a time line for implementation. A commission has issued a set of recommendations, which the legislature is slated to consider this spring. So far, the legislature has passed only one accountability policy. It holds districts responsible for shrinking by 25 percent the number of 4th grade students who do not meet targets on a statewide reading test.

West Virginia: The state doesn't place its school report cards on the Web, but it publishes them in a single volume that is available in public libraries. To evaluate schools, the state annually reviews test scores, attendance, and dropout rates. It considers other process-based indicators every few years. The state's school accountability system does not have an ultimate sanction for persistently failing schools. However, a district may be taken over if it has a consistently low-performing school in its jurisdiction. West Virginia has used this sanction twice against districts, but only, in part, because of low student performance. While the state does not have its own rewards program for schools, it offers money to some schools nominated for the federal blue-ribbon-schools program to help them in the national competition.

Wisconsin: The state identifies low-performing schools but assumes districts will bear the brunt of helping them; it offers state assistance only if districts request it. Wisconsin law strictly limits the state's authority to intervene in or penalize failing schools. The state considers its current list of 156 low-performing schools to be preliminary until an appeals process is completed. That number is used in the Quality Counts tables because it was the most accurate available at press time.

(c) 1999 Editorial Projects in Education

Vol. 18, number 17, page 98