69传媒

The Every Student Succeeds Act has maintained a core element of its predecessor, the No Child Left Behind Act, by requiring states to publicize the performance of students of color, children from low-income backgrounds, and others from important demographic groups, not just the overall student population. And although the 2015 law grants states and districts new flexibility in several essential ways, ESSA still requires states to connect the performance of key subgroups to decisions about schools.

But what exactly that means, and how states are interpreting it in their plans for the law, has proved to be one of the most divisive parts of ESSA, even as states begin reporting that sensitive data from the 2017-18 school year.

On the political front, the issue has evolved into one of the main strategies for congressional Democrats and others to attack U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos.

The crux of their argument: the connection between subgroup performance and how schools are rated, as well as which schools are targeted for specific improvement strategies.

States say they鈥檝e taken advantage of the flexibility they鈥檝e been given in ESSA while also ensuring that all students are given the attention they deserve, said Kirsten Carr, the senior program director for student expectations at the Council of Chief State School Officers.

鈥淭his is a learning process, and as we go through it, state leaders are committed to continuous improvement,鈥� Carr said.

But critics of states鈥� approaches argue that parents and the public will get a false impression that some schools are doing well and don鈥檛 need interventions, even though some groups of students are lagging behind.

鈥淣ow that we鈥檙e getting into implementation and seeing what the plans had produced, [Democrats] are feeling disappointed that, perhaps, what they thought was in the bill isn鈥檛 actually what they got, at least as far as how this administration is interpreting what the law requires,鈥� said Anne Hyslop, an independent education consultant who previously worked at the U.S. Department of Education in the Obama administration.

In an analysis of state ESSA plans, the civil rights advocacy group The Education Trust said DeVos鈥� agency has not held states accountable for failing to protect many students from falling through the cracks, stating, 鈥淲e cannot depend on the federal government to protect or advance the rights of students of color, students from low-income families, English learners, and students with disabilities.鈥�

How 69传媒 Are Judged

So far, DeVos has approved plans from at least 37 states, as well as from the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. In a speech to the CCSSO, DeVos ripped into states for鈥攇enerally speaking鈥攐pting to merely comply with the law and not demonstrate how they planned to innovate. But she鈥檚 insisted publicly that the plans she鈥檚 approved comply with the law and therefore merited getting the official blessing.

One main point of contention has been how subgroups figure into states鈥� summative ratings for schools. Some states have chosen to implement and publish a text-based descriptor, index score, grade, or some kind of overall rating for schools, including Arizona, Florida, Illinois, New Mexico, and Tennessee.

In a statement, the Education Department said that because ESSA does not explicitly require states to create systems that use a scale of stars or A-F grades to judge schools, 鈥渋t does not violate ESSA for states to include one set of criteria rather than another鈥� when states have set up those systems.

But the law does require states to put together a system of 鈥渁nnual meaningful differentiation鈥� to distinguish how different schools are performing on state exams, graduation rates, and other indicators. Democrats in Congress and others are saying that states鈥� A-F and other ratings systems represent that requirement to differentiate schools. Therefore, they鈥檝e argued, those systems must comply with the law鈥檚 requirement that they break out subgroups鈥� performance and factor them into ratings.

鈥淵our failure to implement this requirement will result in an incomplete picture of school performance that leaves communities of color, low-income parents, parents of students with disabilities, and parents of students who are English-learners in the dark,鈥� three Democratic caucuses representing heavily black, Asian-American, and Hispanic House districts wrote to DeVos in March.

Passed Over for Help?

The other big disagreement is about how subgroup performance affects which schools are tagged as needing some kind of improvement strategy.

States are supposed to identify schools as needing 鈥渢argeted support鈥� when a student subgroup is 鈥渃onsistently underperforming.鈥� What does the latter term mean? That鈥檚 been left up to states. They鈥檙e also supposed to identify schools requiring 鈥渁dditional targeted support鈥� when a subgroup is doing as poorly as the lowest-performing students in the state.

Given states鈥� prerogative over which groups can be tagged as 鈥渃onsistently underperforming,鈥� some have decided to merge the definition of schools requiring more targeted support with how they define consistently underperforming subgroups. or provide very similar definitions for both. Jurisdictions that have taken this approach include the District of Columbia, New Mexico, and Washington state, Hyslop said.

Although she didn鈥檛 single out specific states for criticism, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., the top Democrat on the Senate education committee, raised concerns about how some approached the matter, saying in a hearing earlier this year that, 鈥淚 believe in this law and I鈥檓 not going to stop raising these issues until the department resolves them.鈥�

However, the Education Department said that the law 鈥減rovides no basis for the department to prohibit a state from selecting criteria (for consistently underperforming groups of students) that overlap with the criteria for additional targeted support.鈥�

鈥楶ractical Impact鈥�

The CCSSO鈥檚 Carr says that just because a state doesn鈥檛 conform to a narrow interpretation of what the law requires doesn鈥檛 mean it isn鈥檛 taking the issue seriously, while also complying with ESSA.

Oregon, for example, will identify a school for targeted support if at least one student subgroup meets the same criteria used for identifying a school for comprehensive support.

And Louisiana will use more than one definition for a school needing targeted support. 69传媒 with subgroups performing at the same level as schools with F grades for two straight years, as well as schools with out-of-school suspension rates more than twice the national average, will receive the 鈥渦rgent intervention required鈥� designation. (The Pelican State will use A-F grades for overall school ratings, in keeping with its pre-ESSA accountability system.)

鈥淓very state does account for subgroups in some way,鈥� Carr said. 鈥淓very state is clearly paying attention to that issue, and then will work with their districts to see how those schools can improve.鈥�

ESSA does not give the federal government a direct role in which school improvement strategies districts and states use.

Hyslop, the education consultant, said she is less concerned about how those subgroups play into school ratings than about how school improvement decisions might not account for struggling student subgroups that deserve attention.

鈥淭he practical impact of the second issue is larger than the practical impact of the first [issue],鈥� she said.