State Accountability Rating Systems: A Review of School Report Cards as Indicators of School Quality

State Accountability Rating Systems: A Review of School Report Cards as Indicators of School Quality

Gail L. Sunderman, Maryland Equity Project, University of Maryland (Ret.) June 2022

I. Executive Summary

• The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 allows states more discretion in designing school accountability systems.

• States are required to create systems that differentiate school performances, aiming to highlight schools that need improvement.

• Report cards summarizing school performance aim to motivate school improvement through transparency.

• A concern exists regarding the validity of summative ratings aggregating multiple performance indicators into a single score, which lacks empirical support for accurately reflecting school performance complexities.

• Summative systems have shown potential bias favoring schools serving wealthier students while failing to address gaps in overall achievement.

  • The Fifth Indicator provision allows for additional measures (attendance, climate) but does not fully capture educational complexities.

II. Recommendations for Federal Policymakers

1. Mandate evaluations of state performance rating systems focusing on their reliability and fairness.

2. Fund research to identify components of accountability that yield reliable insights into school performance.

3. Implement social policies addressing factors affecting school performance outside the academic environment (e.g., healthcare access).

4. Promote equitable accountability systems recognizing that political and economic factors shape state systems.

III. Recommendations for State Policymakers

1. Review accountability systems to prevent misidentification of schools and ensure efficient resource allocation.

2. Adopt policies promoting equitable education and addressing external factors affecting performance.

IV. Introduction

• School report cards are tools used by states to inform the public on school performance and to identify schools requiring support and intervention based on previously established goals.

• Built from No Child Left Behind (NCLB) mandates for public accountability, these systems are now adapted under ESSA.

• Over time, states have reacted against the strictures of NCLB, leading to varying accountability designs reflective of local political and economic conditions.

V. Current Law and Differences Among States

• ESSA retains key accountability indicators while allowing states flexibility in how they report performance:

  • Required indicators include:

    • Student achievement in English, mathematics, science.

    • Student growth measures.

    • Four-year adjusted graduation rates.

    • English language proficiency progress.

    • At least one measure of school quality or success.

• States have adopted various systems for reporting:

  • A-F Rating (letter grades based on performance metrics).

  • Index Rating (various rating scales).

  • Descriptive Labels (text-based performance indicators).

  • Federal Tiers of Support (only targeting lowest performance schools).

  • Dashboard (detailed performance across multiple indicators).

VI. Summative Rating Issues

• Summative ratings obscure detailed performance differences, potentially fostering misconceptions about school quality and effectiveness.

• The consolidation of multiple performance indicators into a single composite score can misrepresent differences in achievement among schools, especially those serving minority populations or economically disadvantaged students.

  • Studies indicate that summative systems often fail to separate schools with equitable high achievement from those with simply high average scores.

• Recommendations from research indicate the necessity for more nuanced systems that integrate diverse performance measures beyond standardized tests to reflect comprehensive educational effectiveness.

VII. Literature Review Findings

• Analysis of states' latitude under ESSA shows variable responses rooted in local contexts and demographics influencing how accountability systems are structured.

• Research has demonstrated that bias exists in rating systems, favoring affluent schools, leading to misguided perceptions of school performance.

• Key issues involve mis-specification of performance indicators and the disparate impact of socioeconomic factors on educational outcomes.

VIII. Historical Context and Comparative Analysis

• The historical political context plays a decisive role in shaping assessments utilized in different states (e.g., Virginia's centralized policies vs. Nebraska's collaborative ones).

• Adjustments made to accountability rating formulas can create discrepancies not tied to actual educational quality changes, complicating the accountability landscape.

IX. Discussion and Insights Post-COVID-19

• The pandemic has mandated changes in educational delivery and assessment methodologies, warranting a reevaluation of performance measures and their interpretations.

• Policymakers face the task of adapting systems to account for the varied experiences during the pandemic, emphasizing a balance between test scores and comprehensive student support.

Conclusion

• Effective accountability systems require a robust framework recognizing the intricate influences on student performance, advocating for systems that reflect not only outputs but acknowledge educational inputs and local contexts.

• Reevaluation of summative systems, performance indicators, and resource allocation is imperative for fostering equitable educational opportunities.