91直播

UPDATED

The U.S. Department of Education has released a draft version of that would require 鈥渃omprehensive, summative鈥� ratings for schools, but would not dictate or encourage states to set any particular weight, or a range of weights, for individual accountability measures.

The proposed regulations, released Thursday, would also clarify that states can choose their own indicators of school quality or student success that move beyond traditional accountability measures based on test scores and graduation rates. Both school quality and student success remain key portions of accountability under the federal education law.

And the regulations would not prescribe an 鈥渘-size,鈥� or minimum number of a particular group of students at a school, for that group of students to be included for accountability purposes. More on that below.

A summary of the draft regulations released by the Education Department also states that:

• If a school is scoring at the lowest-possible level on any academic indicator, it has to get a different summative rating than a school that鈥檚 getting top marks on all the indicators.

• The regulations state that, 鈥淭o ensure that differentiation of schools is meaningful, the accountability system should allow for more than two possible outcomes for each school.鈥�

• For each accountability indicator, there must be three distinct levels of performance assigned to schools that are 鈥渃lear and understandable to the public.鈥�

• While the proposed regulations do not dictate exactly how states must deal with schools that assess less than 95 percent of all their students and 95 percent of all subgroups of their students, the states must take 鈥渞obust action鈥� and choose from several options provided by the department, or propose their own 鈥渞igorous鈥� strategy for dealing with them. (Those options from the department were not included in the summary.)

UPDATE: In the proposed regulations themselves, the department offers states these three options to address an individual school鈥檚 low test-participation rates:

1. assign a lower summative rating to the school;
2. assign the lowest performance level on the State鈥檚 Academic Achievement indicator; or
3. identify the school for targeted support and improvement.

Or the state, as we indicated above, could submit its own plan to try to address testing opt-outs. In addition, individual schools would have to develop plans to address high opt-out rates for all students or subgroups of students.

• The proposed regulations suggest definitions for 鈥渃onsistently underperforming鈥� schools, but do not mandate any such definition, as long as states in their definitions identify schools with subgroups that, based on the state鈥檚 indicators, underperform over two or more years.

• The regulations allow for states to use a variety of uniform definitions for consistently underperforming subgroups of students, including:

1. A subgroup of students that is not on track to meet the State鈥檚 long-term goals or is not meeting the State鈥檚 measurements of interim progress;
   
2. A subgroup of students that is performing at the lowest performance level in the system of annual meaningful differentiation on at least one indicator, or is particularly low performing on measures within an indicator (e.g., performance on the State mathematics assessments);
   
3. A subgroup of students that is performing at or below a State-determined threshold compared to the average performance among all students, or the highest-performing subgroup, in the State;
   
4. A subgroup of students that is performing significantly below the average performance among all students, or the highest-performing subgroup, in the State, such that the performance gap is among the largest in the State;

• Even though the department is not prescribing any weights that must be used for different accountability factors, the academic factors would have to have a 鈥渕uch greater鈥� weight than the measures of school quality or student success in accountability systems.

• In addition, a school identified for 鈥渃omprehensive support鈥� couldn鈥檛 get that label removed on the basis of progress on the indicator of school quality or student success, unless it is making sufficient progress on other indicators.

Although the proposed regulations don鈥檛 prescribe or suggest a particular weight or range of weights for various accountability measures, that鈥檚 not the whole story. The proposed regulation states that a school or subgroup鈥檚 performance on a school quality indicator, like school climate or student engagement, can鈥檛 by itself get a school off the list of schools identified as needing comprehensive support鈥攗nless all students are making 鈥渟ignificant progress鈥� on at least one of the four academic indicators that must get 鈥渟ubstantial鈥� weight.

For schools in need of targeted support, performance on a school quality indicator by itself can鈥檛 get that that 鈥渢argeted support鈥� label removed, unless the underperforming or low-performing subgroups of students are improving significantly on one of those four academic indicators getting notable weight.

In other words, performance on these school-quality indicators, by itself, wouldn鈥檛 prevent interventions in certain schools if academic measures indicate they鈥檙e necessary.

Here鈥檚 how the proposed regulation puts it:

鈥淚n other words, the four substantially weighted indicators, together, would not be deemed to have much greater weight in the system if performance on the other, not substantially weighted indicator could remove a school from identification.鈥�

• Improvement plans for schools targeted for some kind of intervention would have to include a review of 鈥渞esource inequities,鈥� including per-pupil expenditures and the proportion of teachers who are teaching out-of-field, and are ineffective, or inexperienced.

• Although there鈥檚 no prescribed n-size as mentioned earlier, states that want to use an n-size of larger than 30 would have to submit a justification to the Education Department explaining why they wish to do so.

• As we鈥檝e reported before, each subgroup of students (like economically disadvantaged students and those in special education) must be considered separately for accountability. That means 鈥渟uper subgroups鈥� or the big groups combining several different subgroups of students that proliferated under waivers from No Child Left Behind, the previous version of federal education law, can no longer be used in place of an individual subgroup of students.

A few quick definitions here:

• Schools in need of comprehensive support include: the bottom 5 percent of Title I schools in the state; high schools with graduation rates below 67 percent for all students based on the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate; and Title I schools with chronically low-performing subgroups that have not improved after receiving additional targeted support.

• Schools in need of targeted support include schools with a low-performing subgroup performing similarly to all students in the bottom 5 percent of Title I schools, identified each time the state identifies its schools for comprehensive support. (These schools must be provided additional targeted support). The definition also includes Title I schools with a consistently underperforming subgroup, as defined by the state, annually.

Noting the end of what it calls the end of the 鈥減ass/fail鈥� era of No Child Left Behind, the department said in its summary that, "[T]he proposed regulations clarify ESSA鈥檚 statutory language by ensuring the use of multiple measures of school success based on academic outcomes, student progress, and school quality, thereby reinforcing that all students deserve a high-quality and well-rounded education that will prepare them for success.鈥�

Reactions to Draft ESSA Rules Come Pouring In

UPDATE: In a statement released by the department, Secretary of Education John B. King Jr. said, 鈥淭hese regulations give states the opportunity to work with all of their stakeholders, including parents, and educators to protect all students鈥� right to a high-quality education that prepares them for college and careers, including the most vulnerable students,鈥� Secretary of Education John B. King Jr. said. 鈥淭hey also give educators room to reclaim for all of their students the joy and promise of a well-rounded educational experience.鈥�

Reacting to the proposed rules, Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., the chairman of the U.S. Senate education committee, said in a statement that, 鈥淚 am disappointed that the draft regulation seems to include provisions that the Congress considered--and expressly rejected.鈥� However, he didn鈥檛 specify what those provisions are. Alexander said he鈥檚 going to give the proposed rules further review.

And Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., the chairman of the House education committee, said he will 鈥渇ully review鈥� the proposal, and said if it doesn鈥檛 match 鈥渢he letter and intent of the law,鈥� he will use 鈥渆very available tool鈥� to make sure the law is implemented as Congress intended.

In a separate statement, Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., the ranking Democrat on the House committee, struck a different note, saying, 鈥淭he Secretary鈥檚 proposed regulations fulfill the federal obligation to protect and promote equity, ensuring that ESSA implementation will uphold the civil rights legacy of the law.鈥�

The Council of Chief State School Officers indicated that it was generally pleased with the department鈥檚 proposals, saying in a statement that, 鈥淲e appreciate the Department鈥檚 initial attempt at giving guidance to states as they build these systems. The Department has balanced the need for clarity and the clear intent of the law for flexibility for states.鈥�

But the Education Trust, a civil rights advocacy group, said that while it鈥檚 pleased with several aspects of the rules, it鈥檚 very concerned that the definitions for consistently underperforming subgroups of students is too loose: "[B]y allowing states to limit the definition of consistent underperformance for a group to being in the lowest performance level on an indicator, or being the farthest away from statewide average performance, it undermines the idea -- and the Congressional requirement -- that any group that is struggling in any school needs help and assured action, not just the very lowest performing groups or groups in a limited number of schools.鈥�

The department will publish a Notice for Proposed Rulemaking pertaining to the regulations in the Federal Register on May 31, and there will be a public comment period on the draft regulations open for 60 days. The comment period will close Aug. 1.

Read the department鈥檚 s.

And read the .