Cheri C. Magill , Editor

Education Accountability Update

Through Article VIII of Virginia’s Constitution, the portion of Virginia code called the Standards of Quality, and the state Board of Education’s Regulations for Establishing Standards for Accrediting Public Schools in Virginia, various entities are responsible for maintaining “public schools of high quality” in the Commonwealth. Responsibilities are shared among the General Assembly, the State Board of Education, the Virginia Department of Education, and local school boards.

Educational accountability is a concept that is not new to Virginia educators. In 1995, the Department of Education introduced revised Standards of Learning in English, mathematics, science, and history/social science. The Department of Education began the development of statewide tests correlated to these Standards, and they were first administered in 1998. In 2000, the Virginia Board of Education adopted revised Regulations Establishing Standards for Accrediting Public Schools in Virginia (SOA). These regulations tied the performance of students on statewide assessments to schools’ accreditation ratings for the first time.

As the SOA have continued to be implemented, Virginia has done much to revise the way it determines the “quality” of schools and school divisions and the manner in which it provides a statewide system of support to schools and school divisions. Academic Reviews are conducted in schools receiving the Board’s lowest accreditation rating. The Board of Education proposed revisions to the Standards of Quality (SOQ), and the General Assembly approved those revisions in the 2004 session. The Board is proposing additional revisions to the SOQ for the 2005 General Assembly to consider.

Under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), Virginia developed an accountability workbook describing how it would implement the accountability components required by the legislation. The Board of Education has sought and is continuing to seek waivers from certain provisions of that law. The Board has provided public notice that it intends to revise the SOA, giving careful consideration to what it has learned as a result of implementing the current accountability system and giving careful consideration to the accountability requirements of NCLB.

This paper summarizes the implementation of Virginia’s accountability system since 1995, describes the accountability requirements of NCLB and accompanying federal regulations, and describes Virginia’s system for implementing the accountability components of NCLB. Action the Board of Education has taken or intends to take regarding revisions to the SOQ and SOA are also addressed.

Description of Virginia’s Accountability System

Prior to the 2004-2005 School Year

The Standards of Learning (SOL) in English, mathematics, science and history/social science underwent extensive revision and were adopted by the Board of Education in 1995.  A program of annual assessment of student achievement began in the 1997-1998 school year using tests correlated to the Standards in English, mathematics, history/social science, and science in grades 3, 5, 8, and at the end of certain high school-level courses.  Tests included in the statewide assessment program were the SOL tests, the Virginia Alternate Assessment Program (for certain students with disabilities), and Board-approved substitute tests correlated to the Standards (AP exams and IB tests, for example). Since the late 1990’s, the Standards and accompanying assessments have been reviewed and revised on a regular basis. 

In September of  2000, the Virginia Board of Education adopted revised Regulations Establishing Standards for Accrediting Public Schools in Virginia (SOA).  These regulations tied the performance of students on statewide assessments to schools’ accreditation ratings for the first time.  Through the 2003-2004 school year, in addition to meeting specific pre-accreditation criteria, schools must have had certain percentages of students passing statewide assessments in each of the four content areas to have received one of four accreditation ratings: 

• Fully Accredited (FA):  at least 70% of students passed assessments in each of the four content areas
• Provisionally Accredited Meets State Standards (PAMSS):  student pass rates in any of the four content areas were less than 70%, but met benchmarks established by the Board
• Provisionally Accredited Needs Improvement (PANI):  student pass rates in any of the four content areas were below the benchmarks established by the Board, but were within 19 percentage points of that needed for full accreditation
• Accredited with Warning (AW):  student pass rates in any of the four content areas were more than 19 percentage points below that required for full accreditation

From the first year of implementation through the 2003-2004 school year, the number of schools rated Fully Accredited increased, and the number of school rated Accredited with Warning decreased, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1:  Comparison of School Accreditation Ratings, 1999-2000 through 2003-2004

Source:  Virginia Department of Education

The SOA describes specific requirements for schools rated Accredited with Warning, the lowest accreditation rating available.  Schools with this rating are required to undergo an academic review; develop, implement, and monitor the implementation of a three-year school improvement plan based upon the results of the review; and, if warned in English and/or mathematics, are required to adopt an instructional method that has been shown to improve student achievement in that content area.

Through the Academic Review process adopted by the Board of Education, teams of educators provide technical assistance to warned schools by analyzing the systems, processes and practices in place related to specific focus areas.  The main focus areas are school improvement planning, curriculum alignment, data analysis, professional development, and use of instructional time.  Teams develop reports of their findings and provide technical assistance to schools in developing and implementing three-year improvement plans that incorporate the findings.

Schools’ three-year improvement plans are approved by the local school board and submitted to the Department of Education.  Schools report to the Department annually on the status of the implementation of their plans.

Schools warned in English and/or mathematics are expected to include in their plans the means by which they will select, adopt, implement and monitor the effectiveness of instructional methods designed to improve student achievement in those content areas.  The Board of Education maintains an approved list of such methods from which schools may choose.

2004-2005 School Year and Beyond

As explained in the SOA, beginning with the 2004-2005 school year, stakes have been raised for Virginia’s public schools.  While criteria for full accreditation in secondary schools (middle and high schools) has not changed, for elementary schools to become fully accredited, all of the following conditions must be met:

• At least 70% of students pass statewide assessments in mathematics;
• At least 75% of students pass statewide assessments in English;
• At least 50% of students pass statewide assessments in grade 3 science;
• At least 70% of students pass statewide assessments in grade 5 science;
• At least 50% of students pass statewide assessments in grade 3 history/social science; and
• At least 70% of students pass statewide assessments in grade 5 history/social science.

In addition, the two provisional accreditation ratings no longer exist.  Schools either meet all established pass rate conditions to be rated Fully Accredited, or they do not meet all established pass rate conditions and are rated Accredited with Warning.

More schools in Virginia are rated Fully Accredited in 2004-2005 than in any of the previous years. This school year 1,546 schools are rated Fully Accredited, and 253 are rated Accredited with Warning.  Schools’ accreditation ratings from the past two years are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2:  Comparison of School Accreditation Ratings, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005

Source:  Virginia Department of Education

Schools rated Accredited with Warning are still held to academic review, improvement planning, and instructional method adoption requirements of the SOA.  However, the Board approved procedural changes to these requirements in the fall that allow local school superintendents to have more oversight and responsibility for these requirements in their schools that, at the very least,  have not been rated Accredited with Warning in the prior two school years and that are close to full accreditation in the current school year.

Summary of Accountability Requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) requires states to describe how all of their schools, school divisions, and the states themselves will be deemed to have made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) with regard to improving the academic achievement of all students and students in specific subgroups (economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities, students identified as limited English proficient, and students in each of the major racial/ethnic groups present in the state).  The law and accompanying federal regulations require, in part, that states develop and implement:

·    grade level content and achievement standards in reading/language arts and mathematics;

·    statewide assessments correlated with these content standards in grades 3-8 and at least once in high school; and

·    annual measurement of AYP for all  schools, school divisions and the states themselves that includes student participation in assessments, student performance on those assessments, and student performance in another academic indicator.

At least 95% of all students and students in each subgroup enrolled in grades where statewide assessments are administered must participate in the statewide assessments.  States must establish annual measurable objectives for student performance on academic assessments and on the other academic indicators.  States must use graduation rate as the other academic indicator for high schools, and must select another academic indicator for elementary and middle schools.  States must determine a statistically valid number (minimum “n”) below which the number of students in a subgroup will NOT be disaggregated to determine AYP.

In addition, states must:

·   identify annually all schools and school divisions that make and do not make AYP;

·    implement rewards for all schools making AYP for at least two consecutive years and specific types of rewards for Title I schools making AYP for at least two consecutive years;

·    implement sanctions for all schools and school divisions that do not make AYP for two consecutive years; and

·    implement specific sanctions for Title I schools and school divisions receiving Title I funds that do not make AYP for two consecutive years.

To make AYP, schools, school divisions and states must show that at least 95% of all students and of each subgroup of students participated in statewide assessments.  They must meet one of the three following conditions, also:

1. All students and all subgroups of students meet all annual measurable objectives for statewide assessments AND all students must meet annual measurable objectives for the other academic indicator; OR
2. All students and all subgroups of students meet the annual measurable objectives for statewide assessments and all students show progress in the other academic indicator; OR
3. Student groups NOT meeting annual measurable objectives for statewide assessments have reduced failure rates of 10% from the year before in those assessments and make progress on the other academic indicator.

All schools that do not make AYP for two consecutive years must have sanctions.  For Title I schools, specific sanctions are described in the legislation and in federal regulations accompanying NCLB.  All school divisions that do not make AYP for two consecutive years must have sanctions, and the specific sanctions are described in NCLB.  Sanctions for states that do not make AYP for a number of years will be implemented by the US Department of Education within the next two school years.  Sanctions increase in severity for schools, school divisions and states that continue not to make AYP.

Standards-Based Reform
Opponents of standards-based reform perceive that “teaching to the test” inhibits instructional creativity, limits instructional content and promotes wrote memorization. Those supporting standards-based reform state that content standards are independent of teaching methodology, delineate a minimum of what is to be taught and require higher-level thinking skills. Proponents argue that sound teaching practices require aligning what is taught with what is to be tested.

Interstate Implementation Variations
While NCLB provides fairly strict parameters for using student achievement when making AYP determinations, there are variations among states in defining data that will be used to determine student achievement and in exactly how student achievement calculations are made. As described above, Virginia uses student pass rates on statewide assessments as annual measurable objectives for schools, school divisions, and for the state. Other states use a student performance improvement index model, awarding “points” for various degrees of improvement in student achievement. Some states have not yet developed and implemented statewide assessments correlated to content standards, and their student achievement indicators rely on nationally-normed standardized tests.

All states must use graduation rate as the other academic indicator for high schools, and USED regulations clearly described how that indicator is to be calculated. States have great latitude in selecting the other academic indicator for elementary and middle schools. Most states use student attendance, and some use student performance on norm-referenced or criterion-referenced assessments that are used statewide. A few states, like Virginia, allow school divisions to select the other academic indicator from a limited list.

For these reasons, it is impractical and invalid to compare student performance from state to state. Because of the countless variations in AYP models used nationally, one cannot determine which states’ schools are of higher quality.

Allowable Modifications to Accountability Models
Since the passage of the law, USED has issued several communications re-interpreting the accountability components of NCLB. Final federal regulations addressing the accountability components were issued in December of 2002. The Secretary of Education and staff have also issued general letters of non-regulatory guidance and personal letters to various states’ chief education officers.

By analyzing states’ requests for modifications to their original plans based upon USED communications, Forte Fast and Erpenbach (2004) report adjustments that states have been allowed to make. These are categorized and listed below:

Assessments: Under specific circumstances, states have been allowed to add tests to their statewide assessment programs to address unique needs of assessing students with disabilities and students identified as limited English proficient. States have been allowed to “bank” proficient test scores of students who take statewide assessments earlier than the “official” administration of the test (Forte Fast and Erpenbach, 2004, p.4).

AYP Model: States have been allowed to identify for improvement/sanctions only those schools and school divisions that do not make AYP in the same content area for two consecutive years. States may use liberal rounding rules when calculating participation and performance. For elementary and middle schools, states may allow schools to choose from multiple other academic indicators for determining AYP. States may identify a different minimum “n” for certain subgroups of students. States may use confidence intervals when determining AYP results (Forte Fast and Erpenbach, 2004).

Inclusion of Students: Students with disabilities and students identified as limited English proficient may be considered still in these subgroups for up to two years after “release” from the respective program. States may exclude from participation rate students with emergency health conditions who are unable to be tested and, in those states having such provisions, students whose parents opt them out of the statewide assessment program (Forte Fast and Erpenbach, 2004).

Forte Fast and Erpenbach (2004) identify those modifications requested by states that USED has refused to approve. Off-grade level testing may only be used in AYP determinations for certain students with disabilities, provided that the percent of students taking such tests and considered proficient does not exceed one percent of the total tested population of the school division or state. While identifying schools and school divisions for improvement or sanctions may be limited to those not making AYP in the same content area for two consecutive years, this allowance does not extend to the student subgroup level. Approved modifications to states’ original plans may not be applied retroactively. Reversing the order of public school choice and of supplemental educational service sanctions for Title I schools identified for improvement is not allowable (Forte Fast and Erpenbach, 2004).
 

Virginia’s Implementation of NCLB

The most recent policies to implement the accountability components of NCLB were developed and adopted by the State Board of Education and approved with revisions by USED in May, 2004.  In Virginia’s Amended Consolidated Application Accountability Workbook, it is noted that content standards have already been developed and are being implemented; and that additional statewide assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics for grades 4, 6, and 7 will be implemented by the 2005-2006 school year as required.

The workbook describes how schools, school divisions, and the state will be determined to have made AYP.  To make AYP for the 2004-2005 school year, at least 95% of all students and all subgroups of students must have participated in statewide assessments and met one of the following conditions:

1. At least 61% of all students and all subgroups of students must have passed reading/language arts assessments and at least 59% of all students and all subgroups of students must have passed mathematics assessments.  High schools must have had at least a 57% graduation rate or shown improvement.  Elementary and middle schools must have had at least a 94% attendance rate or shown improvement OR, as predetermined by the division superintendent, have had at least a 70% pass rate in science assessments or shown improvement; OR
2. Student groups not having a 61% pass rate in reading/language arts and/or a 59% pass rate in mathematics assessments must have reduced their failure rates by at least 10% from the year before and each of those groups must have met the annual measurable objective for or made progress in the other academic indicator (science for high schools and attendance OR science for elementary as middle schools, as predetermined by the division superintendent).

There must have been at least 50 students in a subgroup for their participation rate and pass rate to be disaggregated for purposed of determining AYP.

Schools and school divisions receive their AYP results prior to the opening of school each fall, as required by NCLB.  For the 2004-2005 school year 1,344 schools made AYP and 459 did not; and 30 school divisions made AYP and 102 did not.  This is an improvement from the 2003-2004 school year, when 1,062 schools made AYP and 740 did not; and 18 school divisions made AYP and 114 did not.  These data are shown in Figure 3 and in Figure 4.

Figure 3:  Comparison of Schools Making and Not Making AYP, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005

Source:  Virginia Department of Education 

Figure 4: Comparison of School Divisions Making and Not Making AYP, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005

Source: Virginia Department of Education

Schools and divisions that do not make AYP for two consecutive years in the same content area are subject to sanctions, as required by NCLB and accompanying federal regulations.  The 111 Title I schools that are currently identified for improvement under NCLB because they have not made AYP in the same content area for at least two years must develop and implement improvement plans.  They also must offer an opportunity for students to transfer to another school in the division, offer supplemental educational services, or prepare for reconstitution, depending upon the number of years for which they have been identified as needing improvement.  The non-Title I schools that have not made AYP for two consecutive years in the same content area are not held to the specific sanctions listed in NCLB.  The Board of Education determined that these schools must develop improvement plans meeting requirements of their local school divisions.  The 80 school divisions currently identified for improvement under NCLB because they have not made AYP in the same content area for at least two years must develop and implement improvement plans as required by the law.

As a state, Virginia has not made AYP for two consecutive years.  However, in 2003-2004 Virginia did not make AYP because of student participation rates and performance on statewide assessment in several areas.  In 2004-2005, Virginia narrowly missed making AYP by attaining 28 of 29 required AYP annual measurable objectives.

As has been the case with school accreditation, the stakes will be raised for making AYP.  NCLB requires that states periodically raise the annual measurable objectives for statewide assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics.  Therefore, to make AYP in the 2005-2006 school year schools, school divisions, and the state must not only meet the participation rate and other academic indicator requirements, but they must have a 70% pass rate in reading/language arts and mathematics.  Also, additional reading/language arts and mathematics assessments will be implemented in grades 4, 6, and 7, as required by the law; and student pass rates on these assessments will be included in AYP determinations.

The Board of Education is challenged to merge the requirements of NCLB with Virginia’s current system of accrediting schools without compromising the accountability system that it has had in place since 1995. The Board will no doubt continue to expect a statewide system of support to its schools, and will take necessary steps to align NCLB requirements with the accountability requirements of the SOA.

By using one set of criteria to determine accreditation ratings for schools and another set of criteria to determine AYP under NCLB, interesting and sometimes confusing results have occurred. From Figure 5 it is apparent that there is no direct correlation between accreditation rating and AYP status. For example, of the 1,546 schools rated Fully Accredited, 202 did not make AYP.

Figure 5: Comparison of Schools’ Accreditation Ratings and AYP Status

Virginia’s Board of Education continues to meet its responsibility for providing a high quality education for all students in Virginia. This is evidenced by its submission of revisions of the SOQ to the General Assembly, by its initiation of revisions to the SOA, by its efforts to seek from USED permission to use what it has identified as rational and effective policies and strategies in implementing the accountability components of NCLB, and by its charge to Virginia Department of Education staff to continue its statewide system of support to all schools and school divisions in Virginia. Virginia has shown also that it holds schools, school divisions, and local school boards accountable for improving student achievement Forthcoming policy changes will continue to support Virginia’s ongoing accountability reform.

Board of Education Agenda Item M.  (2005, January 12).  Virginia Department of Education.

Forte Fast, E. and Erpenbach, W. (2004).  Revisiting statewide educational accountability under NCLB:  A summary of state requests in 2003-2004 for amendments to state accountability plans.  Washington, DC: The Council of Chief State School Officers.  Retrieved January 12, 2005 from http://www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/RevistingStatewideEducationalAccountabilityUnderNCLB.pdf

Jackson, T. M. (2004, June 8) Letter to the Honorable Raymond Simon, Assistant Secretary Office of Elementary and Secondary Education [responding to USED required revisions to Virginia Board of Education Consolidated State Application Amended Accountability Workbook].

Simon, R. (2005, February 1).  Letter to Thomas M. Jackson, President, Virginia Board of Education [responding to waiver request for certain accountability requirements under NCLB].

Standards of Quality.  VA Code 22.1-253.13:1, et.seq. 

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.  Public Law 107-110.

Virginia Department of Education. (2004). Virginia Board of Education Consolidated State Application Amended Accountability Workbook. Richmond, VA: Author.

Virginia Department of Education website, http://www.doe.virginia.gov

34 CFR Part 200.  (December 2, 2002). 

Click to provide comment or additional information. (to: cepi@vcu.edu) Please indicate in e-mail copyright source and contact info for new inclusions.

Back to Top

Copyright © CEPI 2000
CEPI grants permission to reproduce this paper for noncommercial purposes if CEPI is credited.