Here is a report from the Washington Post on the accountability features of the Every Student Succeeds Act.
“Specifically, under the Every Student Succeeds Act:
“The testing regime remains in place.
“States would still be required, as they are now, to test students annually in math and reading in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school, and publicly report the scores according to race, income, ethnicity, disability and whether students are English-language learners.
“States get to set their own academic goals.
“Where No Child Left Behind set forth one goal for the nation — 100 percent proficiency in math and reading by 2014 — the new bill would require each state to set and measure progress toward its own academic goals.
“Test scores still matter, but how much is up to the states. States would be charged with designing systems for judging schools. Each system would have to include measures of academic progress, including test scores, graduation rates and (for non-native English speakers) English language acquisition. But it would also have to include a measure of school climate, such as student engagement or access to advanced courses. All of the academic indicators together must count for “much” more than the non-academic factor, but the definition of “much” is not clear.
“What should be done in schools that are struggling will be up to states and districts. Under No Child Left Behind, a school could get dinged if just one of its subgroups failed to meet annual testing goals, and the federal government exercised a lot of say in what happened in persistently failing schools. Under the new bill, it’s likely that fewer schools will be required to be marked for interventions, and it’s up to states and, in many cases, districts to decide what to do to improve those schools. Schools marked for the most intensive interventions would be those among the lowest-performing 5 percent in the state, those in which fewer than two-thirds of students graduate on time, and those in which a subgroup of students “consistently underperforms.” It’s up to each state to determine how long a group of students would have to lag before the school would be required to take action.
“What happens if lots of kids opt out of testing?
“Again, it’s up to the state. Under No Child Left Behind, a school automatically got a black eye if it failed to test at least 95 percent of its eligible students. The aim was to ensure that principals and teachers weren’t discouraging low performers from showing up on test day in order to boost scores. The new bill maintains the 95 percent requirement, but states can decide how participation rates should figure into their overall school rating system.”
Anyone see anything in there that would place charters and schools receiving voucher and tax credit students under the accountability umbrella?
If schools get taxpayer money(vouchers) then they should be held to the same standards and testing as public schools. Many do not have to even take any kind of test. Great question!
Fonda Adams,
Many states exempt charter schools from the test-based teacher evaluation that public schools are supposed to comply with. That’s not fair either.
The fight is being pushed to the states. Opt outs will continue if testing is mandated every year.
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Education.
“The new bill maintains the 95 percent requirement, but states can decide how participation rates should figure into their overall school rating system.”
No. The actual ESSA language calls for states to explain how testing 95 percent or more of all students will fit into the state accountability system.
E) ANNUAL MEASUREMENT OF ACHIEVEMENT.—
(i) Annually measure the achievement of not less than 95 percent of all students, and 95 percent of all students in each subgroup of students, who are enrolled in public schools on the assessments described under subsection (b)(2)(v)(I).
(ii) For the purpose of measuring, calculating, and reporting on the indicator described in subparagraph (B)(i), include in the denominator the greater of—
(I) 95 percent of all such students, or 95 percent of all such students in the subgroup, as the case may be; or
(II) the number of students participating in the assessments.
(iii) Provide a clear and understandable explanation of how the State will factor the requirement of clause (i) of this subparagraph into the statewide accountability system.
This is just devastating to the “education solves poverty” crowd, which is all of DC:
“If the poverty rates for each educational bin remained the same, then the upward redistribution of adults from the lower bins to the higher bins would have led to lower overall poverty. But that’s not what happened.
Instead, the poverty rate for each educational bin went up over this time and overall poverty didn’t decline at all. In fact it went up.”
People have more education than they did in 1991. They just don’t have more money.
“By 2014, the “less than high school” poverty rate had increased 3.7 points. The “high school” poverty rate increased 4.6 points. “Some college” went up 4.1 points, “associate” went up 3.8 points, “bachelor’s” went up 2.1 points, and “post-bachelor’s” went up 1.7. Despite the educational gains, overall adult poverty in 2014 was actually 1.1 points higher than in 1991.”
http://www.demos.org/blog/12/2/15/why-education-does-not-fix-poverty
A fifty minute math and reading test per year, or does the law want more?
…wasted time.
This ed reform lobbyist is upset about the law, so I’d take that as a definite plus 🙂
http://sandykress.weebly.com/blog/predictions-for-little-essa
There were fewer science tests before ESSA. Kids only took science tests in CA
in 5th, 8th, and 10th grades…
Now every year multiple times per year 3-12?
page 54: in grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 (every year) for math and language arts
in grades 9, 10, 11, 12 (at least once)
in grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 for science (at least three times in those years)
Here copy/paste from the bill page 54:
‘‘(v)(I) in the case of mathematics
and reading or language arts, be administered—
‘‘(aa) in each of grades 3
through 8; and
‘‘(bb) at least once in grades 9
through 12;
‘‘(II) in the case of science, be administered not less than one time during—
‘‘(aa) grades 3 through 5;
‘‘(bb) grades 6 through 9; and
‘‘(cc) grades 10 through 12; and
‘‘(III) in the case of any other subject chosen by the State, be administered at the
discretion of the State;
‘‘(vi) involve multiple up-to-date measures of student academic achievement,
including measures that assess higher-order thinking skills and understanding, which
may include measures of student academic growth and may be partially delivered in
the form of portfolios, projects, or extended performance tasks.
Also of great concern this point I noticed at
Page 38: “…State educational agency shall file will the Secretary a plan” which must meet, among other things, “Secretarial Approval” (page 39 line 23) and must be approved by a review team appointed by the federal Secretary of Education. (page 39-40) That team (page 42) will have the authority to disapprove a state plan. The state may revise its plan, appeal for a hearing (page 43) but ultimately, the process will “promote effective implementation of the challenging State academic standards [aka Common Core]” (page 43).:
Also:
On page 45: “If a state makes significant changes to its plan at any time, such as the adoption of new challenging State academic standards or new academic assessments or changes to its accountability system… such information shall be submitted to the Secretary…”
Same page: “If a State fails to meet any of the requirements of this section, the Secretary may withhold funds…”
Page 51 : “The Secretary shall not have the authority to mandate, direct, control, coerce, or exercise any direction or supervision over any of the challenging State academic standards…” This contradicts page 45. He can withhold funds and disapprove plans if the state files a plan that he doesn’t like for a slew of reasons that could include using curriculum, tests or standards that aren’t aligned to his vision of fed ed and he can mandate that the state has to use the exact same standards in every one of its schools (page 52 line 21) — but he in no way supervises the State’s standards?
Page 52 deals with “Academic Assessments”. Feds require the states that the tests shall be the same in every school in the state (line 23) and that they will be “administered to all public elementary and secondary school students in the State” (page 53). Does this end –or aim to end– the parental right to opt out of testing?
Page 53 is an admission. The bill says that the tests may not be used to “publically disclose personally identifiable information”. They can’t disclose it publicly, but they can sure store it indefinitely.
Subtly, page 53 forces Common Educational Data Standards because the feds dictate that state tests must be: “consistent with relevant, nationally recognized professional and technical testing standards”.
all the notes are taken from the above
Whatiscommoncore blog and in this light ESEA does not sound too good…
Preeti
You are misreading the bill.
Three science tests over 10 years. No change.
thank you NYS for clarifying