SJR 498

Commission on Educational Accountability

August 5, 1999, Richmond

The work of the 20-member Commission on Educational Accountability, comprised of 11 legislative members, six nonlegislative members, and three ex-officio members, will be complemented by two task forces. HJR 723 created a special seven-member task force to "examine the impact of the SOA on local school division budgets," and, similarly, HJR 566 created a 15-member task force to explore the integration of the SOL in secondary school curricula and programs focusing on workforce development skills. Both task forces, as well as the full commission, are to submit interim findings and recommendations by November 1, 2000, and final reports by November 1, 2001.

Introduction to Accountability: Standards, Assessments, and Consequences

Perhaps best illustrating the educational accountability concept is the image of a tripod whose three legs are clearly stated goals, prompt and accurate information about progress toward them, and positive and negative consequences that follow from the information. Accountability initiatives in public education are as varied and diverse as the states and school systems implementing them. Well-defined, measurable academic standards or expectations are now seemingly the norm across the U.S, the achievement of which increasingly forms the basis for school and division approval or accreditation. Linked to these content or academic standards are performance standards, or proficiency levels, the attainment of which must be appropriately and accurately assessed.

The importance of test validity--whether the test assesses what it is designed to measure--and test reliability--whether the test examines an adequate range of material and whether its results can be "trusted"--increases as states use test results to determine student promotions, faculty salaries, and school rewards or consequences. Test "fairness" or "bias" addresses not only test administration and security, but also flaws and assumptions that may place various racial, ethnic or gender groups at a disadvantage. To counter concerns regarding due process and potential discrimination, tests should be used for the purposes for which they were designed, appropriate notice given regarding new test requirements, and students provided the educational opportunities necessary to acquire the knowledge and skills measured by the tests. Performance standards need not be limited to academic test results, however. Although assessments remain by far the most popular performance indicator among the states, dropout and attendance rates, pupil discipline, post-graduate tracking, and expenditures also appear in a number of state accountability models.

The third leg of the accountability tripod--consequences--may incorporate incentives and rewards as well as sanctions for academic performance. Consequences for poor performance may include required remediation, school closures, and staff removal. Although still a relatively new practice, consequences for poor educational performance have been credited for motivating improvement in some schools. Education scholars note that any consequences--positive or negative--should be consistent and equitable and should recognize improvement as well as compliance. One clear consequence for academic performance lies in school accreditation: of the 30 states having state accreditation systems, 17 have linked pupil performance to accreditation.

Policymakers recognize that the implementation of standards, assessments, and consequences alone will not automatically improve public education; increasing the capacity of school divisions, schools, and personnel to provide students with the instruction necessary to meet higher educational standards is also seen as an integral part of the accountability movement. Teachers will require professional development and training opportunities aligned with curriculum standards and assessments, while administrators must be effectively trained to implement new accountability requirements. Included among capacity-building initiatives are revised teacher licensure and professional development requirements; professional development centers; and funding for tutorials, remediation, and extra support services for certain students.

Accountability in Other States

March 1999 marked the passage of several education reform initiatives by the California legislature. Drawing upon features of the Texas accountability system, one such measure incorporates an "academic performance index" for schools and provides financial incentives for school improvement as well as high performance. The measure also includes federal and state funds to support reform efforts at schools deemed "low-performing," empowers the state superintendent to reassign principals, to close schools, and also to assume the rights and duties reserved to the local school board. Also passed was legislation requiring the development and implementation of a high school exit exam and providing for reading initiatives in grades K-4.

In Florida, school vouchers or "Opportunity Scholarships" may soon be available to students attending failing schools as part of the comprehensive "A+ Plan for Education." The vouchers may be applied to a sectarian or nonsectarian private school as well as another public school. In Illinois, indicators of performance and improvement include state and local assessments as well as student attendance, retention, expulsion, and graduation rates. Schools performing well or showing improvement may receive recognition or rewards. Also contemplated in the Illinois statute are school district improvement plans and state assessment requirements.

Recognizing that "an education crisis exists in the Chicago Public Schools," the 1995 Illinois General Assembly abolished the terms of all Chicago Board of Education members, replacing them with a five-member, mayoral-appointed Chicago School Reform Board of Trustees. All Chicago public schools, regardless of performance, were to develop a three-year school improvement plan. The general superintendent might place schools "on remediation" or "on probation"; in contrast, successful schools may be designated as "Learning Zones"--referred to in the statute as "the educational version of enterprise zones"--and granted certain flexibility.

North Carolina's "ABCs of Public Education" plan combines performance growth standards, recognition and incentives, and assistance and intervention. Reflecting the ABCs initiative is the statutory School-Based Management and Accountability Program, which provides school boards with increased budget flexibility and authorizes the grant of waivers from certain regulations that may inhibit reaching local accountability goals. School improvement plans, incorporating annual performance goals set by the state board, are to be developed by each school. The accountability program also provides for the dismissal and removal of administrators and teachers in low-performing schools and the appointment of interim superintendents. Modifying this program was the 1997 "Excellent Schools Act," which directed the alignment of student performance standards with standards developed for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). A significant accountability component of the act is teacher preparation and competency, as teachers in low-performing schools, upon recommendation of principal or assistance team, would be required to pass a "general knowledge" competency test.

Texas' educational accountability system incorporates a statewide assessment initiative and makes receipt of a high school diploma contingent upon passage of exit-level assessments in English and mathematics (Texas Assessment of Academic Skills or TAAS). Results of these assessments, as well as SAT scores, dropout and attendance rates, and the number of graduating students meeting recommended high school course requirements, are among the "academic excellence indicators" adopted by the State Board of Education to determine school performance.

Accountability in Virginia

The concept of educational accountability is not new to Virginia's public school system. The standards, assessments, and consequences integral to any accountability initiative are primarily found in the Standards of Quality (SOQ), mandated by the Virginia Constitution and set forth in the Code of Virginia. Setting forth broad policies and minimum educational requirements for Virginia's public schools, the SOQ set minimum educational goals and requirements; localities may, and often do, surpass these standards. The SOQ also provide for the establishment of the SOL and the SOA.

The second leg of the accountability tripod--assessments--is also addressed in the SOQ, which direct the Board of Education to prescribe measures for the Virginia State Assessment Program. The board's 1995 revisions to the Standards of Learning in English, mathematics, science, and history/social science prompted creation of tests reflecting these new SOL. These assessments, according to the Standards of Accreditation, will be the "primary evaluation of student academic achievement for the purpose of [accreditation]." Not neglected among these various student accountability initiatives are measures designed to increase the capacity of all students to meet the enhanced academic standards.

Boosting educational opportunities for at-risk four-year-olds and other student populations has received renewed legislative commitment in recent years, comprehensively addressed in the Virginia Omnibus Educational Act of 1995. Also supporting students are measures empowering school boards to reduce pupil-teacher ratios and class sizes in elementary schools; requiring the creation of standards for all remediation programs; and incorporating in remediation efforts students failing the SOL assessments for grades 3, 5 and 8, reflecting the phasing out of the Literacy Passport Test (LPT).

Curriculum standards and assessments firmly established, the application of assessment results and performance indicators--consequences--remains the outstanding component in the Commonwealth's educational accountability model. The 1997 revisions to the SOA set forth new criteria and processes for individual school accreditation and clearly state that schools' accreditation shall be based "primarily" on pupil achievement, as evidenced by scores on the SOL tests and other assessments. The SOA delineate four accreditation categories: Fully Accredited, Provisionally Accredited, Accredited with a Warning, and Accreditation Denied. The SOA are silent, however, as to the ramifications and effect of denial of accreditation. Recent legislative initiatives designed to increase the capacity of schools and school divisions address school safety and pupil discipline, school construction, technical assistance, and corrective action plans.

In the Commonwealth, accountability for professional personnel is primarily addressed through training, licensure, and employment laws and regulations. Pursuant to Standard 3 of the SOQ, the Board of Education is to establish requirements for the licensure of teachers, principals, supervisors, and other professional staff. Statutory provisions also help ensure accountability for quality instruction by underscoring requirements for probationary and continuing contract employment as well as suspension and dismissal. Perhaps prompted in part by revisions to the Standards of Learning and Accreditation, a variety of recent legislative measures have sought to equip teachers with the skills necessary to provide the highest quality instruction, targeting elementary teacher planning time, teacher proficiency in educational technology, leadership standards, professional development, and teacher preparation, evaluation, and employment.

Issues for Study

The mission prescribed by SJR 498 is a comprehensive one. In addition to the specific directives cited in the resolution, staff noted additional issues for potential commission consideration, such as the effectiveness of current accountability initiatives; coordination between the executive and legislative branches in the development of accountability measures; efficacy and appropriateness of possibly codifying specific portions of the SOA; consequences and assistance for school failure to achieve accreditation; potential rewards for excellence; factors to be included in establishing performance expectations, goals, and accreditation standards; and any additional efforts to provide all students the educational opportunities needed to acquire the knowledge and skills required by the SOL and SOQ.

Other Discussion and Testimony

Commission members noted the need for information regarding the experience of states having had assessments in place for some time; teacher recruitment and retention; and alternative licensure. Describing the implementation of a "fair, reasonable, and constructive" accountability model as "journey" in its beginning stages, board president and commission member Kirk Schroder noted the 14-day turnaround time in test results negotiated by Virginia with vendor Harcourt Brace, and that mixed results in timeliness may be the shared responsibility of the vendor as well as school divisions that may delay gathering and returning test documentation. Other assessment and accreditation issues being considered by the board include special populations, such as English as a second language (ESL) and transfer students, and the local option of including SOL assessment results on student transcripts.

Citing low social studies SOL assessment scores, the board president stated that a resource guide for the social studies SOL has been developed for use this school year; additional guides for other subjects are anticipated. A permanent SOL Test Advisory Committee has been appointed to advise the board in recommendations to improve the assessment program. A five-member Test Expert Committee will be appointed later this summer. Although Harcourt Brace assists as the SOL test vendor, Virginia school teachers develop SOL test questions, which are reviewed by a bias committee. While sample test items have been made available in the last month, the release of test items and prior tests is also being considered, as a sufficient "bank" of tests and questions accumulates. The timing of test administration--particularly in schools using block scheduling--was also noted. The viability of computer testing and related test security, validity, and reliability questions were also discussed. Giving teachers and schools an itemized test result analysis to facilitate summer remediation efforts was cited. The board anticipates releasing a proposal for consequences of failure to attain school accreditation this fall, with public comment to follow.

Continuing the SOL assessment review, State Superintendent for Public Instruction Paul Stapleton highlighted recent SOL expositions, Department of Education and First Lady Gilmore websites devoted to SOL issues, and technical assistance funds as mechanisms for equipping teachers and schools in preparing students for the SOL tests. Citing reading as a priority in improving student achievement, the superintendent also noted a Forum on Reading hosted by the department and the First Lady. Also assisting schools and teachers will be eight "best practices" centers, located in the eight superintendent regions.

SOL Scores

Scores on all 27 SOL tests statewide improved in 1999. Large gains were noted in Algebra I and II, as well as in fifth grade writing and in third and fifth grade history/social science. Scores for African-American pupils increased in 26 of 27 tests; passing rates for grade 8 English: Reading, Literature, and Research remained unchanged. While a gap exists between the passing rates of white and African-American students on the SOL Assessments, passing rates of African-American students increased more than those of white students in 16 of 27 tests.

Commission members inquired as to what factors may have contributed to the improvement in passing rates overall. Local media reports noting remarkable results in several jurisdictions were briefly noted. Alexandria posted a 66 percent passing rate for Algebra II, increasing 38 percentage points over the previous year; Arlington Algebra I passing rates increased 19 percentage points, to 70 percent. Outstanding improvements in the fifth grade writing test were cited in Buckingham County, with a 72 percent passing rate (47 percent the previous year) and in Caroline County, with 69 percent (39 percent in the previous year). Also of note was Tidewater Park Elementary in Norfolk, where 51.4 percent of fifth graders passed the history test; none of the school's fifth graders had passed this test the previous year.

Virginia Standards of Learning Assessments
Statewide Passing Rates: Spring 1998 and Spring 1999

Standards of Learning Test	1998 % Passing	1999 % Passing	Change: 1998 to 1999
Grade 3
English	53	61	+ 8
Mathematics	63	68	+ 5
History & Social Science	49	62	+13
Science	63	68	+ 5
Grade 5
English: Reading, Literature, Research	68	69	+ 1
English: Writing	65	81	+16
Mathematics	47	51	+ 4
History & Social Science	33	46	+13
Science	59	67	+ 8
Computer/Technology	72	81	+ 9
Grade 8
English: Reading, Literature, Research	64	67	+ 3
English: Writing	67	70	+ 3
Mathematics	53	60	+ 7
History & Social Science	35	40	+ 5
Science	71	78	+ 7
Computer/Technology	63	72	+ 9
High School
English: Reading, Literature, Research	72	75	+ 3
English: Writing	71	81	+10
Algebra I	40	56	+16
Algebra II	31	51	+20
Geometry	52	62	+10
Earth Science	58	65	+ 7
Biology	72	81	+ 9
Chemistry	54	64	+10
World History to 1000 A.D. & Geography	62	68	+ 6
World History 1000 A.D. to Present & Geography	41	47	+ 6
U.S. History	32	34	+ 2

Source: Virginia Department of Education, Division of Assessment and Planning (http://141.104.22.210/VDOE/NewHome/pressreleases/jul2999.pdf)

The commission briefly reviewed a proposed work plan, which will incorporate five meetings in each year of its study.

The Honorable Emmett W. Hanger, Jr., Chairman
Legislative Services contact: Kathleen G. Harris

THE RECORD