This paper will look into Virginia’s accountability measures within their ESSA plan. It will establish Virginia’s indicators for identifying and aiding struggling schools. As well examining Virginia’s ESSA plan, it will compare it to past policies tied to the No Child Left Behind Act and examine their effectiveness.
Accountability Measures
Virginia’s ESSA plan breaks down it’s accountability measures into several indicators. They include Academic Achievement, Graduation Rate, English Language Proficiency, and Chronic Absenteeism.
The first indicator, Academic Achievement. is measured through Virginia’s Standards of Learning (SOL’s) . SOL tests are reviewed by both Virginia teachers for relevancy and fairness, but also the Board of Education for setting standards within the test itself. The success rate and growth of Academic Achievement is strictly measured through SOL scores from reading and mathematics, it also important to note that the states expectation is that all students are required to take SOL’s. To indicate success within academic achievement, a school must reach its targeted pass rate for the year broken down by subgroups. If unable to reach the targeted pass rate, schools are also eligible to meet the academic achievement indicator by reaching the target goal comprised of a three year average including the current test year. The long-term goals of their plan are to bridge gaps within achievement of specific subgroups. For achievement purposes the subgroups are broken down into categories based on race, economic status, ability status, and English learners. The plan allocates a seven year timeline to achieve goals within standardized testing, with the expectation that all subgroups will reach the initial average by the seven year mark for all indicators. Failing schools are identified as not meeting target goals of subgroups within the seven year plan, however it is important to note that Virginia reviews accountability measures reports every three years.
The second indicator of accountability measures is Graduation Rate. Virginia’s plan utilizes the Federal Graduation Indicator (FGI) to measure the graduation rate, and will continue to report data from the previous calendar year. To identify failing schools, they set the benchmark for the four-year graduation rate at or below sixty seven percent. Their growth model determines a seven year plan that annually strives to incrementally increase graduation rates within underperforming subgroups, with the seventh year goal for all subgroups at eighty four percent. If the goal is reached early than expected, they include a growth model that stipulates that the subgroup must improve from the prior year. Schools are identified as failing if they do not meet the yearly target set for subgroups and or if they do not improve from the year prior.
While Virginia openly acknowledges that the first two indicators receive most of the weight when it comes to identifying failing schools, English Language Proficiency (ELP) is the third most important indicator in their accountability measures. Virginia continued the use of ACCESS from 2007, an English language proficiency assessment. Based on the data obtained from ACCESS 2.0 and working alongside World-Class Instruction Design Assessment (WIDA), they determined a five-year growth model based on data from the 2015-2016 assessment year. The baseline for achievement was set at the 20th percentile which equates to forty four percent with the seven-year goal set at fifty eight percent proficiency. This indicator is different in that its success is not dependent on subgroups, since English learners comprise their own specific subgroup, failure is defined as not meeting annual target goals or improving from the year prior. Again, this data is only reviewed every three years, the minimum established by ESEA.
The final indicator for accountability is chronic absenteeism. Chronic absenteeism is defined as missing ten percent or more of the school year. The goal is for all subgroups and students to achieve a rate of chronic absenteeism less than ten percent. However, while this is an accountability measure, many subgroups are already at or well below the set goal. The two subgroups it identifies with needing yearly target goals are economically disadvantaged students and students with disabilities. The goal for many subgroups it to maintain progress and the end goal for all subgroups would actually be worse than many of them initially start at. Failures for this indicator depends on the subgroup, for students falling in subgroups dealing with economic status or ability status, failure would be defined as not meeting yearly projected goals. For the other subgroups failure is defined as an increase in their chronic absenteeism rate above ten percent.
Improvements for Failing Schools
For aiding failing schools Virginia has listed three options for providing support within the plan. Failing schools can either receive targeted support, additional targeted support, and comprehensive support. Schools are identified for support by meeting conditions within the three steps process. The difference between schools requiring targeted support and comprehensive support depends on the number of subgroups failing to meet interim progress. Targeted support is enacted when subgroups fail to meet yearly goal. However, the same steps for identifying failing schools is listed for comprehensive support as well, the only separate indication is Title I schools failing to meet requirements as well as receiving denial in accreditation. Additional target support guidelines are enacted if the school fails to meet guidelines for receiving comprehensive support but does not meet the exit criteria for targeted support.
It is important to note however that Virginia’s ESSA plan does not list details about how it plans to aid schools identified for support. In an independent review of Virginia’s ESSA plan it gives Virginia the lowest possible score for supporting schools, their reason being that there is no information regarding how it plans to support failing schools. The plan lists some information regarding technical support for struggling schools, which is operated by an independent agency, however services or plans for helping struggling schools is not found within the plan. The plan also does not mention how it plans to allocate resources or any funding that may be associated in providing services to struggling schools. Overall, Virginia gives vague criteria for identifying failing schools and then in return offers little to no help within their plan to aid these schools.
Effectiveness Compared to No Child Left Behind
Based on an independent review and lack of information within Virginia’s ESSA plan I’m inclined to say that Virginia’s schools will face similar problems that occurred during the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Virginia’s main issues come with their expectations and overall lack of information for implementing support in failing schools. Many of the benchmarks for subgroups are determined based on the comprehensive average of all subgroups, meaning some groups will have already met this goal and other groups have to make extremely wide gaps in achievement within seven years. This is extremely problematic because groups that are already meeting the targeted goal are not offered additional guidelines for improvement. On the other end, it expects specific subgroups to bridge tremendously large gaps within a very short period of time.
As if some schools are almost set up to fail, Virginia does not indicate how it will provide support to failing schools as well as provide information for schools to achieve expected targeted goals. It offers criteria of what failing looks like, but no solution or support to those schools. Throughout the independent review, it consistently gives Virginia’s plan low scores in all categories with the major overarching theme being lack of information and plans for implementation.
Like No Child Left Behind, Virginia has set what appear to be unattainable goals in a short amount of time and offers little support within their plan. This plan almost feels like a sloppy reincarnation of NCLB policies labeled as an ESSA plan. Virginia’s accountability measures still include the basic fundamentals of NCLB such as annual testing, the expectation to close achievement gaps entirely, and attendance requirements. However, their plan misses the mark by failing to include information of how it plans to hold failing schools accountable. Considering the unpopularity of NCLB policies and the stark similarity within the ESSA plan, I can only predict and assume that Virginia’s ESSA plan will have the same effectiveness as NCLB. Without providing solutions and information regarding how the state plans to hold failing schools accountable, Virginia’s ESSA plan is not much different than the directed course of NCLB. All things considered, I do not see major changes in school reform for Virginia within this plan. Unless individual schools are able to magically solve reform problems without resources or guidance, which is wishful thinking to say the least, failing schools will likely continue to fail.