High Stakes for High Schoolers: State Accountability in the Age of ESSA, Part II
Saved in:
| Title: | High Stakes for High Schoolers: State Accountability in the Age of ESSA, Part II |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Petrilli, Michael J., Griffith, David, Wright, Brandon L., Thomas B. Fordham Institute |
| Source: | Thomas B. Fordham Institute. 2016. |
| Availability: | Thomas B. Fordham Institute. 1701 K Street NW Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20006. Tel: 202-223-5452; Fax: 202-223-9226; e-mail: backtalk@edexcellence.net; Web site: http://www.edexcellence.net |
| Peer Reviewed: | N |
| Page Count: | 291 |
| Publication Date: | 2016 |
| Sponsoring Agency: | Bloomberg Philanthropies Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Thomas B. Fordham Foundation |
| Document Type: | Reports - Research Numerical/Quantitative Data |
| Education Level: | High Schools |
| Descriptors: | High Stakes Tests, Accountability, State Regulation, State Standards, High School Students, High Achievement, Incentives, Growth Models, Summative Evaluation, Academic Achievement, Educational Indicators, Advanced Placement Programs, Systems Analysis, State Programs, Program Effectiveness, Program Evaluation |
| Geographic Terms: | United States |
| Abstract: | A companion piece to "High Stakes for High Achievers: State Accountability in the Age of ESSA," this report appraises states' current (or planned) accountability systems as they affect high-achieving students in high school. They were examined and rated based on whether they incorporate under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) the following principles to motivate schools to prioritize high achievers: (1) give high schools incentives for getting more students to an advanced level of achievement; (2) use the flexibility provided by ESSA to rate high schools using a true growth model--that is, one that includes the progress of individual students at all achievement levels and not just those who are low-performing or below the "proficient" line; (3) Make growth--across the achievement spectrum--count at least as much as achievement when determining summative high school ratings; and (4) include an indicator that encourages high schools to help able students earn college credit before they graduate. The authors found that most current (and planned) state accountability systems provide high schools with few incentives to focus on their high-achieving students. Their analysis indicates that just four states--Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas--have truly praiseworthy systems when it comes to focusing attention on these students, though four others--Alabama, Idaho, Louisiana, and New York--are clearly moving in the right direction in their proposed frameworks. [Foreword by Chester E. Finn, Jr. To read "High Stakes for High Achievers: State Accountability in the Age of ESSA," see ED570126.] |
| Abstractor: | ERIC |
| Entry Date: | 2018 |
| Accession Number: | ED579520 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | A companion piece to "High Stakes for High Achievers: State Accountability in the Age of ESSA," this report appraises states' current (or planned) accountability systems as they affect high-achieving students in high school. They were examined and rated based on whether they incorporate under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) the following principles to motivate schools to prioritize high achievers: (1) give high schools incentives for getting more students to an advanced level of achievement; (2) use the flexibility provided by ESSA to rate high schools using a true growth model--that is, one that includes the progress of individual students at all achievement levels and not just those who are low-performing or below the "proficient" line; (3) Make growth--across the achievement spectrum--count at least as much as achievement when determining summative high school ratings; and (4) include an indicator that encourages high schools to help able students earn college credit before they graduate. The authors found that most current (and planned) state accountability systems provide high schools with few incentives to focus on their high-achieving students. Their analysis indicates that just four states--Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas--have truly praiseworthy systems when it comes to focusing attention on these students, though four others--Alabama, Idaho, Louisiana, and New York--are clearly moving in the right direction in their proposed frameworks. [Foreword by Chester E. Finn, Jr. To read "High Stakes for High Achievers: State Accountability in the Age of ESSA," see ED570126.] |
|---|
