������Ƶ

Earlier today, President Obama signed into law the “,” which will reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) for the first time since 2001. This is a big deal. Its predecessor, the now infamous , became nearly a household name after many schools were unable to meet its expectations for student learning and were targeted for intervention.

However, some have that the story is less about how different the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) is from No Child Left Behind (NCLB), but how different it is from the that outgoing Secretary of Education Arne Duncan approved–with major conditions–to allow states chafing against NCLB’s student achievement targets and interventions some latitude.

Just how different is the new “ESSA” law from “NCLB” and “waivers” when it comes to school accountability? Some clear answers to the question exist, but some are .

On the clear, similar side of things, under ESSA, states will still be required to assess schools’ performance and intervene in those that are struggling the most. And states must continue to test students annually in math and English Language Arts in grades 3-8 and once in high school, and use test results to inform their assessment of schools’ performance. Finally, states are still required to break out school performance by student demographic subgroups (although unlike with waivers, they cannot combine subgroups to create “”), and intervene in schools where specific subgroups of students are performing poorly.

On the clear, different side of things, ESSA differs from NCLB in that it: 1) limits the number of schools states must target for improvement (the bottom five percent of its schools, schools with student subgroups performing as poorly as the “bottom five percent,” and high schools with a graduation rate below 67 percent), 2) largely leaves decisions on how to identify low-performing schools up to each individual state, and 3) gives local educational agencies first go at what interventions must be taken in struggling schools. States must only step in if the LEAs are unsuccessful in helping schools improve, and a role for the federal government to step in is virtually nonexistent. However, for 42 states and the District of Columbia, these changes to the law will actually not require huge changes in their policies and practices. They many of these things as part of their NCLB waiver plans.  

But there’s one ESSA accountability requirement that , despite having the latitude to do so. Although ESSA enables states to largely develop their own systems for rating and ranking schools to identify the lowest performers for interventions, the law provides some guidelines for what states must include in assessing schools’ performance. And, , those guidelines require states to “add at least one, additional indicator of a very different kind into the mix. Possibilities include: student engagement, educator engagement, access to and completion of advanced coursework, post-secondary readiness, school climate/safety, or whatever else the state thinks makes sense.”

But do we really know how to measure student engagement, school climate, and the like?

Based on the accountability systems we’ve seen states develop under waivers, my guess is that states will be more likely to lean toward measures that may seem most directly tied to student achievement, such as access to and completion of advanced coursework. However, many would argue that student engagement and school climate are (and it is because of those arguments that these elements made it into the new law). But do we really know how to measure student engagement, school climate, and the like?

A 2014 ������Ƶ report, , attempts to answer this question. In this report, my colleague Laura Bornfreund and I highlight several evidence-based, common, and nascent approaches to developing and assessing certain student skills and competencies, such as engagement, in order to help inform policy and practice. In particular, we make a case for which types of assessments–such as school climate surveys–hold the most promise for use in school and educator accountability systems, and cautions about which do not. We also discuss what types of systems and supports must accompany any such assessments in order to ensure that they meet their objective of helping schools strengthen students’ skills in these areas. For example, we discuss the need for schools to look at data not only assessing outcomes related to these skills, but also to assess school and student needs, and whether tools being used to address those needs are being implemented well.

While including additional measures in state accountability systems holds potential for providing a broader picture of whether students are prepared for academic, professional, and personal success, it holds as well. For example, when trying to use surveys to assess certain self-reported skills, such as “growth mindsets,” the vantage point of the respondent directly influences his or her responses: that is, the higher your peers’ skills are in a given area, the lower you will rate your own skills, and vice versa. Such relative ratings are not sufficient for determining which schools states should identify for improvement. Thus, states must carefully assess the tools and evidence before moving forward with incorporating new measures into their school accountability systems. We will be watching to see how states respond to this new school accountability requirement and flagging promising and concerning decisions as they arise.

to view the full Skills for Success report. “