The current system of accountability included in the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is sorely mismatched to what is known about high school reform and does not accurately identify, prioritize, or drive improvement actions in low-performing high schools.
The accountability system is leveraged by the Title I program, which directs funding to disadvantaged students. But because only 8 percent of students benefiting from NCLB’s Title I are high school students, the accountability system (and accompanying improvement support) does not apply to the vast majority of high schools.
Even if the funding issue is set aside, the goal of identifying low-performing schools and closing achievement gaps is severely undermined at the high school level. Measures of student proficiency are based on inconsistent and low state standards and often measure basic math and reading skills, not the students’ levels of preparation for college and the workforce. Additionally, the law does not require graduation rates to be calculated consistently, disaggregated, or improved over time. And, despite the intent to leverage improved teaching, learning, and outcomes, NCLB’s school improvement provisions are not designed to drive high school improvement. For example, NCLB mandates that low-performing schools must take certain actions when they don’t meet annual progress goals, but because high schools often don’t receive the Title I funds that trigger and support this requirement, it lacks teeth at the high school level. Furthermore, the federally mandated improvement actions—including school choice and tutoring—are generally not effective at the high school level.
The existing federal-state role configuration should be reversed in order to design a better system of accountability for high schools. The federal government should work collaboratively with national leaders to set expectations and provide the impetus and infrastructure for high school improvement, and federal focus should shift from process to monitoring outcomes and leveraging systems of support. Meanwhile, states should be held responsible for meeting shared achievement standards while using state-designed systems to identify and diagnose underperforming schools and districts, and to tailor school improvement accordingly. At the high school level, additional resources and support should be provided and concentrated among the subset of high schools with greatest need.
Specifically, federal policy should take a more balanced approach to secondary school accountability by requiring every state to develop a comprehensive system that includes an improved definition of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) that includes equally weighted measures of college- and work-readiness and high school graduation.
The statewide system should include multiple measures of student and school performance as part of the school improvement process. Supports and interventions triggered by accountability determinations should be specifically tailored to school and student needs and rooted in best practice and research. It should all be leveraged by a new federal investment targeted specifically to high school improvement.
To learn more about the solutions, click on one of the links below: