Evie Hudak Colorado State Board of Education

a strong voice for kids 2nd Congressional District

HOW DO I HOLD THEE ACCOUNTABLE? LET ME COUNT THE WAYS

Colorado is an overachiever in the area of educational accountability. Now, with the addition of the new federal legislation HR1 -- the 2002 reauthorization of ESEA (Elementary and Secondary Education Act), a/k/a the No Child Left Behind Act -- the state is awash in accountability systems. I count four major ones, but seven overall. This is not only excessive, but also confusing and, frankly, unrealistic.

It all started with the Educational Accountability Act of 1973, which created the first version, or definition if you like, of accountability. The statute required (and still requires) each school district to form a committee consisting of parents, teachers, administrators, and community members to consult with the school board on strategies to improve academic achievement. The committee is also supposed to consult on the improvement of school climate/environment and provide an annual report to the community on the district’s success in achieving its goals in these two areas. These “district advisory accountability committees” hold the districts accountable by reviewing their goals and plans for improving academic achievement, making recommendations for how things should be done, and informing the community about what is happening.

In 1988, additions were made to the Accountability Act. First, the district accountability committees were given another job, that of consulting on the prioritization of the district budget. Second, it became necessary for all schools to have an advisory accountability committee to do the same kinds of things as the district committee, but in an advisory capacity to the school’s principal. In addition, the 1988 legislation called for the State Board of Education to set goals for all schools and districts to achieve, although the local committees could also set other goals. The reports to the community from the building and district accountability committees had to tell the extent to which the goals were achieved. (Legislation in 1998 removed the provision requiring the State Board to set accountability goals.)

The second major form of accountability came about in 1998 (in the same legislation referred to just above) with the Educational Accreditation Act. Although the State Board of Education had always been in charge of “accrediting” schools and school districts, this legislation “gave it teeth.” School districts were directed to enter into a contract with the State Board of Education in which they describe how they will meet the specific mandates (called “accreditation indicators”) proscribed by the statute and by State Board rules. Districts are responsible for accrediting their own schools, according to the same mandates. If schools and districts fail to meet the mandates, assess students’ performance in all 12 content areas, and show adequate academic growth in students’ performance on statewide assessments (which are in reading, writing, math, and science), after some interventions are done, they become non-accredited. Although there is no direct fiscal impact of this, it is highly undesirable for any school or district to be labeled as non-accredited.

The Accreditation Act created a new concept of accountability: the state holding schools and districts responsible for student achievement. Whereas the first form is more input-based, the second form is more output-oriented. Both of these are currently in place, and they are not incompatible. As a matter of fact, the Accreditation Act actually gives the accountability committees the task of advising on the accomplishment of the accreditation mandates. However, the reports to the community done by the accountability committees are separate and different documents from the districts’ accreditation reports to the state.

Prior to the 1998, there was a piece of legislation that can be considered an accountability piece. It was the Third Grade Literacy Act. This compels schools to assess students in kindergarten through second grade to determine if they are at grade level in reading. Students are given a state reading assessment in third grade. Any students found to be behind grade level must be put on an Individual Literacy Plan. Various interventions are required to bring students up to grade level in reading. One of the mandates of the Accreditation Act is the implementation of the Literacy Act. Thus, schools and districts are held accountable for providing literacy improvement programs and achieving the goal of all students being able to read by the end of third grade.

The third form of accountability entered the scene with much flourish in 2000 with the Education Reform Act, SB 186. This legislation provides accountability in a way that includes the reporting to the community of the first version and the holding schools accountable of the second. Yet it brings them to a new level by comparing the academic performance of schools on state assessments and giving schools a rating based on that comparison – and informing the community of these ratings on school report cards. The name of these report cards was changed a year after the legislation was passed (which was a year before they were produced) to “School Accountability Reports.”

But one provision of the Education Reform Act also includes for an additional kind of accountability, which will be part of the SARs in the fall of 2002; that is, a rating of the schools based on the amount of improvement (or decline) in their performance on the state assessments from year to year. Thus, not only are schools being held accountable for how their students perform on the assessments compared with the other schools in the state, but they are also held accountable for making improvement.

Then, a provision of the School Finance Act of 2002 created a pilot program, to eventually become a replacement for the improvement rating, whereby schools will be rated on the improvement of cohorts of students – referred to as “longitudinal growth.” Thus, rather than rating schools on how this year’s students performed compared with last year’s students, schools will be rated on how the same students perform as they move from one grade to the next. [In my article in the last issue, I referred to longitudinal growth as the third “generation” of education reform and indicated the likelihood that legislation would be enacted this year implementing it.] Therefore, schools will be held accountable for how students improve academically over time.

This brings us to the last major form of accountability, that which is found in the new federal No Child Left Behind Act, HR1. Although distinctly similar to Colorado’s SB 186, it is not the same. HR1 holds schools, districts, and the state accountable for making “adequate yearly progress” on state assessments (in reading and math now, and also in science in 4 years). Adequate yearly progress is defined as moving steadily toward all students being proficient by 2014 (in 12 years). Not only must all students become proficient as an aggregate, but also subgroups of students (based on gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status, and English language acquisition) must be separately proficient. Reports must be made to the public on the progress of all subgroups at the school, district, and state levels. Although states may set their own standards and give their own assessments based on those standards, the NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) will be administered every other year to “check” states in comparison with the other states; this will show if a state’s determination of “proficient” is overly inflated or in line with a nationally determined level.

So, how do all of these accountability systems affect Colorado’s schools and school districts? Will they be “serving” two, four, or seven “masters”? If they are accredited but not making adequate yearly progress, . . . if they have a high performance rating but a low improvement rating, . . . if they are improving overall but not all of their subgroups improve enough – what will be the result? Nobody knows yet. The next few years should be interesting!