State Leadership: Is the New ESEA the Chicken or the Egg?

RECENTLY, the Education Commission of the States paired the major provisions of the newly reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) with examples of existing state policies.1 Indeed, during the development of the rules that will guide the implementation of ESEA, federal leaders would be well advised to pay particular attention to some of the more innovative policies in states. Accountability -- a major focus of ESEA -- has been diligently addressed in the states over the past decade, leaving many state leaders aware of which policies have met with success or encountered obstacles. Having struggled with how best to improve local systems, state policy makers understand the sources of both support and opposition. Some might smile knowingly at the challenges that are sure to emerge as federal officials hammer out the little red devils that lurk in the details of ESEA. Here are some instances of state policies crafted with school in mind. Gauging and Reporting School Quality Adequate yearly versus an education. ESEA defines yearly progress, especially as it pertains to improving the test scores of the lowest-performing students. States are bound by their constitutions and statutes, and some provisions of ESEA might seem to run counter to them -- or at a minimum fail to match state values. For example, most state constitutions require the provision of a thorough and efficient or adequate education, and a number of states have gone to court over the past 20 years to defend how well they are meeting these provisions. As some of those states subsequently worked to stipulate exactly what constitutes an education, some interesting definitions have emerged. For example, Illinois defined progress objectives for schools in terms of the proportion of students who meet standards on the Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT). Successful schools are defined as those having 83% of the student population meeting standards for the ISAT by 2004. The ISAT is currently given in reading, writing, and math to third-, fifth-, and eighth-graders. Ohio uses six different criteria with 18 separate measures to establish school success, including results of testing in fourth, ninth, and 12th grades in reading, math, writing, and citizenship. Additional measures of success include dropout and attendance rates. Indicators, measures, and reports. At least 35 states now go the extra mile to help parents, taxpayers, and community members understand school data. Some publicly report that schools are exemplary or satisfactory or need improvement. Others place each school along a continuum and report results in much the same way as the National Assessment of Educational Progress used to. States use a single indicator or set of indicators that they feel will accurately reflect the outcomes they want. In fact, nearly all the states use student achievement as one of these indicators, and at least 32 states not only track achievement data but also use it as a primary indicator in determining school quality. Twenty-one states use improvement in achievement or in the quality of the school as a primary measure of school quality (primary measures trigger awards and sanctions). Twelve states use only achievement (or its improvement) as a primary measure. Florida has been one of the lead states in using this approach. Recently, the state selected three measures to determine school quality: 1) achievement, 2) gains in achievement, and 3) in reading among the lowest 25% of students at each grade level. For a school to earn an A, a minimum of 50% of its lowest-performing students must make progress. In addition, the reading achievement of the lowest quartile and that of the overall population of students tested must be within 10 percentage points of each other. In the Texas performance-based accountability system, which rates both districts and schools on its Academic Excellence Indicator System, schools are judged against an absolute standard on test performance and dropout rates. …