School Rating Standards, Assistance Teams, and Reconstitution
Ensuring
Equity in School and District Accountability Ratings: Efforts to improve
educational accountability have been underway in Texas for many years. One of
the most publicly visible aspects of the Texas Accountability System (TAS) is
the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS), which is given each spring to
all 3rd through 10th grade students in the state. As part of the state's effort
to hold students, teachers, and schools accountable for their performance, TAAS
results 
are made available on the World Wide Web. Increasingly, TAAS results
have become a part of the public dialogue about education reform, and
widespread publishing and analysis of the results in newspapers and on
television occurs each spring.
TAAS
forms the basis for another publicly reported component of the state's
accountability system, the Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS), which
is used each year to evaluate and rate individual schools and districts. TAAS
results are combined with dropout and attendance data to rate schools and
districts as "Exemplary," 
"Recognized," Academically Acceptable," or
"Academically Unacceptable/Low-Performing." The rating system is used both as a
basis for incentive rewards and to determine whether intervention or assistance
from the state is necessary.
In designing its rating system, Texas recognized that while it was important to encourage schools to strive for excellence, the state also had to build in a measure that would ensure equity for all students. To do this, the state has included an "equity index" in the AEIS rating system. Thus, schools and districts are rated on overall performance in addition to the performance of four categories of students. These "student groups" include African American, Hispanic, white, and economically disadvantaged students.
For example, in order for a school to be rated as Exemplary, at least 90% of students must receive passing scores on the TAAS reading, writing, and mathematics exams. When calculated on a group by group basis, 90% of each student group must also pass the exams. The AEIS rating system further specifies that the dropout rate must be 1% or less and that the attendance rate must be at least 94% overall and for each student group. Schools that receive a Recognized rating must have at least an 80% passage rate, a dropout rate of 3.5%, and attendance rate of 94%, again overall and for each student group. A district cannot be rated as Exemplary or Recognized if it has one or more Low-Performing campuses.
"Academically Acceptable" schools must have a TAAS passage rate of at least 40%, a dropout rate of 6% or less, and an attendance rate of 94%. If the TAAS passage rate is below 40%, the dropout rate is above 6%, and the attendance is less than 94%, then a school is deemed "Academically Unacceptable/Low-Performing," and state intervention or assistance may occur.
As is the case in other states, accountability in Texas has evolved over time. According to Jay Cummings, a Texas Education Agency official, elements of the accountability system that have been legislated from the state level are intended to "shore up potential barriers in the [educational] system." For instance, at first, "the onus was put on students" through TAAS and the requirement that students pass an exit exam to graduate. The AEIS rating system has added another layer of accountability directed at schools and districts. Currently, the state accountability focus is shifting to the preparation of teachers. According to Cummings, there is a "new State Board of Teacher Education which will be an independent board that will accredit [schools of education] based on the success of their own students."
Monitoring Student Progress and Assigning State Assistance Teams: In North Carolina, education reform and accountability is guided by the "ABCs of Public Education" legislation passed during the 1996 session of the General Assembly: "The ABCs of Public Education is a comprehensive plan to improve the public schools in North Carolina through three goals of strong accountability; an emphasis on the basics and high educational standards; and on providing schools and school districts with as much local control over their work as possible." (Department of Public Instruction, 1997, p.3)
In North Carolina, the "A" in ABCs stands for "Accountability." There are several components of accountability that the State Department of Public Instruction is in the process of implementing. The legislation directed that the ABCs would apply to all K-8 schools beginning in the 1996 - 1997 school year, with high schools following in the 1997 - 1998 school year. The accountability system is designed to set school-level standards and monitor student growth and performance, to provide the basis for recognition and rewards, and to "identify schools and districts with unacceptable performance and growth, and provide assistance and/or intervention when necessary." (Department of Public Instruction, 1997, p.9)
Like the K-8 model, the high school accountability model that is currently being implemented requires that schools meet a state-determined "expected gain" standard. This standard is determined by the state and is a composite score based on the following:
- A comparison of one year to the average of the two previous years of student performance on state mandated end-of-course (EOC) tests in Algebra I, English I, Biology, Economic/Legal/Political systems, and U.S. History
- A modified version of the current English II test (to assess writing skills)
- A year-to-year comparison of the percentage of students who graduate completing the College Prep or College Tech Prep course of study
While the first two measures included in the high school model focus primarily on academic measures of student performance, North Carolina has recognized the important role of career-focused education in its accountability system. By including a year-to-year comparison of students who complete College Prep or Tech Prep courses of study, schools are encouraged to promote the importance of both options and are measured based on program completion. Thus, schools are encouraged to enroll students in programs that are more focused on the transition after high school to employment, occupational training, or college. The high school model allows students who pursue a vocational course of study the option of receiving employment training while in high school, but the model reinforces the need for all students to succeed academically because the school's rating is also dependent on academic test scores.
In the 1998 - 1999 school year, other components may be added. These include a comprehensive test in reading and mathematics administered in 10th grade to measure growth since 8th grade, the school's passing rate on the high school 10th grade competency test, dropout rates, and any additional EOC tests that may be mandated by the state. Based on "expected gain composite" scores, schools are designated as either meeting "Expected" or "Exemplary" growth standards, or they receive "No Recognition," meaning that the school did not meet its expected growth but was not low-performing.
While the "expected gain" measure checks whether students are making sufficient progress, the state is also concerned that students perform at high levels on state assessments. Therefore, the state has also initiated a "performance composite," which measures whether sufficient numbers of students are performing at high levels (Level III or IV on the EOC tests). If a school did not meet its expected growth and the majority of its students are performing below Level III or IV on the tests, the school is designated "Low-Performing." These schools are required to inform the parents in their communities of the designation; in addition, a state assistance team may be assigned by the State Board of Education.
State assistance team members "may be currently practicing teachers and staff, representatives of higher education, school administrators, retired educators, and others the State Board of Education considers appropriate." (Department of Public Instruction, 1997, p.29) The role of the state assistance team is to provide help for low-performing schools in evaluating the teaching and learning environment and providing services to help make improvements to the educational program. The ABCs legislation sets out the expectations and functions of the state assistance teams. These include a review and investigation of school operations and recommendations for improvement; semi-annual evaluations of school personnel; collaborating with school staff, central offices, and local board in the design, implementation, and monitoring of a school plan; making recommendations and reviewing progress as a school plan is implemented; and reporting to the local board of education, the community, and the State Board of Education on the school's progress.
According to the Department of Public Instruction, members of the state assistance teams are rigorously screened and receive extensive training in the ABCs law and school improvement processes. In addition, team members who are evaluating teachers in low-performing schools must "have successfully completed the 24 hours of Teacher Performance Appraisal Training." (p.28)
Belinda Black, a consultant in the Division of Accountability Services Reporting Section, acknowledges that there has been some "consternation" at the local level over the computation of scores among borderline schools that are judged as not qualifying for a reward under the "Expected" or "Exemplary" growth standards. The state has an appeal process in place and continues to refine its accountability measures. Despite concern at the local level, the results of the state's assistance team program look promising. Of the 15 schools that were assigned teams in the first year of the program, all except one "were exceeding their expectations, and the other one met" the expected growth composite score.
State Intervention and Reconsitution-Eligible Schools: The Maryland School Performance Program (MSPP) is widely recognized as a comprehensive accountability system that
- Measures student achievement through a system of state indicators and standards holding all schools to the same level of performance
- Publicly reports school performance information through an annual report card
- Initiates a school improvement process
- Provides benchmarks for sanctions and rewards based on school performance and progress
In addition, MSPP mandates a system of state intervention for the state's lowest performing schools. MSPP indicators measure school, district, and state performance in relation to state standards on assessments, dropout rates, and attendance and then judges schools and districts against their own growth from year to year. In order to determine whether schools are measuring up, MSPP examines both absolute performance and progress. Maryland schools are then determined to be "Above Standards and Improving," "Above Standards and Not Improving," "Below Standards and Improving," or "Below Standards and Not Improving."
Schools which are significantly below state standards and not improving become eligible for state intervention or reconstitution. However, decisions "about reconstitution are a last resort and based on the school's own history and circumstances, not school-by-school comparisons." (NASBE, 1998, p.38)
Under regulations adopted by the State Board of Education in 1993, school reconstitution is defined as changing one or more of a school's administration, staff, organization, or instructional program. These regulations set forth both "the procedures for identifying schools in need of reconstitution and giving local school systems the opportunity to address the specific problems of identified schools. State intervention is a last step if the local reconstitution effort has not had the desired result of enabling the school to meet state standards or progress towards meeting the standards." (Maryland Department of Education)
By January 15 of each year, the State Superintendent of Schools announces "Reconstitution-Eligible Schools." The school systems must respond by submitting a local school reconstitution proposal by March 15. The proposal is the basic framework that addresses the areas in which the board is declining or failing to show sustained progress. If the proposal is approved by the State Board, a transition plan with specific activities and deadlines is submitted by May 15. By the following January 15, schools must submit a "full scale, long term reconstitution plan."
In 1995, two middle schools and one elementary school were named as "reconstitution-eligible." In 1996, an additional 37 schools were named, followed by 10 schools in 1997. On January 28, 1998, Maryland State Superintendent of Schools, Nancy S. Grasmick, issued a press release identifying the latest schools to be added to the list: "The nine schools named from Prince George's County include five middle schools and four elementary schools. The remaining twenty-nine schools are located in Baltimore City and include nine middle schools and twenty elementary schools. Today's announcement brings the total number of reconstitution-eligible schools in Maryland to ninety, seventy-nine of which are in Baltimore City." (Maryland Department of Education, January 28, 1998)
The latest announcement in 1998 was based on 1996 and 1997 performance data and did not reflect recent changes in the management of the Baltimore City Schools System, a troubled urban system under state scrutiny since at least 1992. (Anderson and Lewis, 1997) According to Grasmick, "We will approach reconstitution with the newly named Baltimore City schools in a comprehensive way. We will ask Baltimore's Interim CEO Robert Schiller and the New Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners to craft an overarching management plan outlining how they will steer all of their reconstitution-eligible schools to success." Through state reconstitution, Maryland intends to emphasize accountability by holding all schools to the same standards for students, ensuring that schools and school systems receive local support and direction, and providing a "safety net" for Maryland families. The State Department of Education maintains a toll-free information line to answer questions from parents and school staff members regarding reconstitution.
Anderson, A. B. & A. C. Lewis. (1998). Accountability: Academic bankruptcy policy brief. Education Commission of the States. Available on-line: <http://www.ecs.org>.
Department of Public Instruction. Public Schools of North Carolina, State Board of Education. (1997, November). A guide to the ABCs for high schools.
Maryland Department of Education. (1998, January 28). State announces reconstitution eligible schools. Available on-line: <http://www.msde.state.us/sco/pressreleases/980128.html>.
Maryland Department of Education. (1998, November 12). School reconstitution: State intervention procedures for schools not progressing toward state standards, fact sheet 5. Available on-line: <http://www.msde.state.md.us/sco/factsheets/fact5.html>.
National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE). (1998, October). Public accountability for student success, standards for education accountability (The Report of the NASBE Study Group on Education Accountability). Alexandria, VA: Author.
