School Finance

This year, the president and the Department of Education (ED) have taken on a new challenge — re-imagining the teaching profession through the Recognizing Educational Success, Professional Excellence, and Collaborative Teaching (RESPECT) program. The White House rolled out RESPECT on February 15 of this year with the mission of transforming the teaching profession into a highly respected, effective, and well-paid career. Last week, ED released additional details about RESPECT, focusing on strategies to elevate teachers, which were developed after consulting teachers, school leaders, analysts, and policymakers.

The newly released details about RESPECT read like a manifesto, full of lofty ideas and aspirations that would, ideally, dramatically alter the teaching profession. Proposed strategies include:  reorganizing classrooms, schools, and the school year to allow for more flexibility in serving students; shared responsibility for student achievement between teachers and principals; an overhaul of teacher training programs; greater opportunities for professional advancement; teacher evaluations; and higher teacher and principal compensation.

To further this agenda, the White House has requested $5 billion from Congress. But instead of including the program in its ten year budget request, the administration proposed it outside of the regular 2012 appropriations. This would effectively mean that the spending would not have to be offset.

As proposed, ED would distribute the funds to states and consortia of school districts through a competitive grant process. Winning states and districts would be selected based on applications they submit proposing work based on the strategies outlined above.

While existing research supports these strategies, the real question is whether or not states have the capacity to tackle such a wide-reaching reform program amid budget cuts and personnel reductions. One need not look any further than the School Improvement Grant (SIG) program. As we discussed in a previous post, states distributed millions of dollars in SIG grants to districts to turnaround the lowest-performing 5 percent of schools. According to the Government Accountability Office, many states and districts ultimately lacked the capacity to successfully implement the required reforms. As a result, progress on school improvement has stalled while districts spend their time developing data systems or competing with other districts to re-staff their schools.

If states struggled to find the capacity to support their districts during SIG implementation, how will these same states build the capacity to re-envision the entire teaching profession, from training to evaluation to compensation? While crafting a competitive grant program that relies on states to shape the direction of the efforts and provide capacity provides states with greater control over education, it could  set up states to flounder or fail once again.

Both RESPECT and SIG have the potential to foster innovation and push bold reform agendas. But ED should consider the challenges that states have faced in implementing SIG grants, including the fact that capacity is not established overnight, regardless of available funds. Of course, RESPECT is far from a done deal – it seems unlikely that Congress will pony up $5 billion for a new education initiative during tough fiscal times.  But if RESPECT is implemented, the Obama administration should be wary of the limitations of state capacity. It is likely that the Department of Education will have to provide states and districts with significant support to ensure the funds are spent wisely and in a way that has a real impact on students.

The topic of student loans is being debated in the Senate this week, with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle hoping to pass legislation that would curb rising interest rates. Without legislation, interest rates on federal student loans will double from their current rate of 3.4% to 6.8% beginning on July 1st. A recent article in the New York Times provides a good summary of this debate.

Hawaii teachers union leader wants to revisit contract members rejected earlier this year

Who would pay for proposed Michigan free-tuition plan with annual price tag in the billions?

University of Wyoming trustees hear that Gov. Mead’s request for 8 percent budget cuts will cost $15.6M

Louisiana panel rejects testing bill

Hawaii teachers union leader wants to revisit contract members rejected earlier this year
Facing the threat of losing $75 million in Race to the Top funds this year, the Hawaii State Teachers Association (HSTA) is asking teachers to reconsider a proposal for a new teacher evaluation system that incorporates student test scores in teacher ratings. HSTA members rejected the measure in January, citing that they didn’t have enough information or time to review the plan to make an informed decision. Without a comprehensive evaluation plan, the U.S. Department of Education is likely to rescind the state’s remaining Race to the Top funds. Hawaii governor Neil Abercrombie noted that a new “clear, current, and correct” agreement must be crafted and voted on because the original agreement is no longer valid. This time, HSTA will be invited to assist with development of the new teacher evaluation tools. More here.

Who would pay for proposed Michigan free-tuition plan with annual price tag in the billions?
This week, Democrats in the Michigan State Senate introduced legislation that would allow Michigan high school graduates to attend state colleges and universities for free. The proposal would be costly—an estimated $1.8 billion annually—and would be paid for with increased revenue from closing unspecified tax loopholes. Lou Glazer, founder of the think tank Michigan Future, testified that an investment in higher education is an investment in the economy. James Hohman from the Mackinac Center free-market think tank disagreed with Glazer’s analysis and contended that jobs, not better higher education, would strengthen the state’s economy. Based on the lack of support from Senator Jack Brandenburg (R-Harrison), the Finance Committee Chairman, the bill is unlikely to pass. More here.

University of Wyoming trustees hear that Gov. Mead’s request for 8 percent budget cuts will cost $15.6M
According to an order from Governor Matt Mead, Wyoming must make steeper cuts to its fiscal year 2013 budget than anticipated. The culprit is the drop in natural gas prices from an expected $3.25 to $2 per thousand cubic feet. For each dollar reduction in natural gas prices, the state loses $200 million in revenue. As a result, state agencies—who were already preparing for a 4 percent cut in their budgets—must now brace themselves for an 8 percent cut. The University of Wyoming, which is the only four-year public university in the state, will see its budget cut by $15.6 million in the 2013 fiscal year. Because approximately 80 percent of the university’s budget accounts for personnel costs, the university will likely have to make cuts to staff in addition to athletic recruiting, student services, class sizes, and scholarship money. More here.

Louisiana panel rejects testing bill
Louisiana’s House Education Committee rejected a Democrat- proposed bill that would allow students—with parental permission—to opt out of taking state academic assessments. The measure was rejected by a vote of three in favor to twelve against. Representative Patricia Smith (D-Baton Rouge), the bill’s sponsor, defended the bill by calling it a vehicle to increase parental choice. Erin Bendily, an assistant deputy superintendent for the state Department of Education, attacked the legislation and noted that testing requirements are mandated at the federal level, not the state level. More here.

Ever since the Department of Education (ED) released guidance on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) waivers, policymakers have debated the merits and problems surrounding the new accountability systems that states proposed. The waivers, if ED approves them, allow states to replace the accountability system Congress put in place under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) – Adequate Yearly Progress – with their own rules.  ED just released letters from their peer reviewers to each of the 27 states that submitted waiver applications in the second round. After comparing these letters to the first round of approved waivers, it looks like ED is not holding states to the reviewers’ recommendations.

Thanks to EdWeek, 13 of these letters are publicly available. Among the many shortcomings the reviewers identified, states’ treatment of student subgroups (students with disabilities, English language learners, minority students, and students living in poverty) in their school accountability grades featured prominently in the letters. It is not surprising that the reviewers were concerned about the treatment of subgroups in the waivers – many stakeholders have expressed similar concerns. Indeed, even the Department of Education’s guidance on how it will evaluate ESEA waiver applications explicitly requires states to address subgroup achievement. Has ED changed its tune after recognizing the challenges this created for the majority of schools?

For example, reviewers dinged Kansas’ waiver application for proposing to measure the achievement gap by comparing the performance of the top- and bottom-performing 30 percent of students instead of separating out student subgroups. Kansas also proposed using alternative assessments for subgroups and failed to demonstrate how they would collect data on individual subgroups over time to identify trends. The reviewers concluded that as it stands, the state’s new accountability framework could potentially mask the performance of struggling subgroups.

This is not the first time that reviewers have been concerned about subgroups. We recently examined three state waivers—from Colorado, Florida, and New Mexico—approved in the first round of waiver applications. ED approved Florida’s and New Mexico’s applications even though their school grade frameworks did not include the achievement of individual subgroups.

From our read of Florida’s original waiver application and the reviewer feedback on the proposal, reviewers criticized Florida’s application because, like Kansas, the state did not include individual subgroup achievement in school grades. Specifically, Florida’s plan ditches traditional ESEA subgroups and instead accounts for the performance of the 25 percent of students with the least test score growth from year to year, assuming that this 25 percent captures most of the students in these subgroups.

Florida’s response to the comments? Not much. Florida did concede by adding that they would use school improvement plans to intervene in schools in which any subgroup of students failed to meet the state’s achievement goals for two years in a row. But as far as we can tell, Florida made no changes to its school grade system in its approved waiver plan. Instead, Florida justified its use of the lowest-performing 25 percent of students by claiming that many schools did not have enough students in each subgroup to be properly measured under NCLB’s accountability system.

So the real question is—is ED taking the reviewers’ feedback about subgroups seriously? In the case of Florida, the Department approved the waiver even though the state made no substantive changes to its inclusion of subgroups in school grades. Will ED take a firmer hand with this second round of waivers? Or will states be allowed to obscure the performance of their neediest students in their school accountability grades? 

This was originally posted on Higher Ed Watch's sister blog, Ed Money Watch.

Every year the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) directs a huge chunk of federal spending to higher education for veterans education benefits — more than $1.7 billion in the 2009-10 school year alone. But VA education benefits are often overlooked in education policy discussions. This is largely because of a lack of transparency in the VA budget. The agency doesn’t make good accounting information readily available. On top of these opaque budgeting practices, little information is available on the effectiveness of the current iteration of the GI Bill, how schools spend that money, or the degree to which veterans actually benefit from these programs. That’s starting to change. But policymakers can do more.

President Obama issued an executive order last week to crack down on how schools use VA and Department of Defense (DoD) funds. (Benefits for veterans are provided through a slew of VA programs, most notably the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Active duty servicemembers receive funding through the Department of Defense’s Tuition Assistance Program, rather than through the G.I. Bill.)

Under the president’s order, all schools enrolled in VA’s Post-9/11 GI Bill program (approximately 6,000 institutions) will be encouraged—and all DoD Tuition Assistance participating institutions mandated—to improve transparency and provide documentation of tuition and fees, financial aid information, and details of student outcomes at the school – much like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) proposed “Know Before You Owe” sheet. The order also restricts the recruiting practices of Institutions participating in veterans education benefit programs.

Fewer students mean less Washington state money for schools

More layoffs for massive California school district

Nebraska college system raises tuition 3.5 percent

Nevada legislators question higher education funding formula

Fewer students mean less Washington state money for schools
Though Washington state lawmakers passed a fiscal year 2013 budget that does not include any new cuts to K-12 education, lower-than-anticipated growth in student enrollment means that overall spending levels for public schools will decline by $61 million from 2012 levels. The most recent estimate of student enrollment for 2013 – over 1 million students – dropped by about 10,000 compared to previous estimates. In total, the fiscal year 2013 budget includes $6.8 billion for K-12 school districts; but some districts will receive less state funding than they did in 2012 due to declining enrollment. The enrollment shortfall, one official said, is caused by minimal population influx due to stagnant statewide employment numbers and fewer families moving from private to public schools because of the recovering economy. Although districts allegedly offered financial incentives for parents to enroll their students – thereby guaranteeing more funding for the district – the legislature passed a ban on those practices last year. Predictions from the state suggest that enrollment may increase before the start of the 2014 school year. More here…

More layoffs for massive California school district
The board of the second-largest school district in California, San Diego Unified School District, this week voted to send layoff notices to about 2,600 credentialed and non-teaching staff members contingent on whether the state provides it with additional funds. The district is facing a $122 million deficit for fiscal year 2013; the layoffs would be effective in the 2012-2013 school year. San Diego Unified has already laid off about 2,000 employees since 2008, and anemic state revenue and diminishing state aid to the district are forcing the district to make further cuts to fill this new shortfall. Other districts in the state are also facing shortfalls. However, Governor Jerry Brown’s state budget for fiscal year 2013 would close a $9.2 billion shortfall with cuts, as well as new tax revenue, provided voters approve the tax measure in November. If the tax measure fails, schools and community colleges will face nearly $5 billion in budget cuts on top of those already laid out in the state budget, and the cuts will hit mid-school year, complicating districts’ budgets. More here…

Nebraska college system raises tuition 3.5 percent
This week, the Nebraska State College Board of Trustees voted to raise tuition by 3.5 percent in the 2012-2013 school year at three colleges. The schools affected are Chadron State College, Peru State College, and Wayne State College. The tuition increase means that in-state students will pay an additional $4.75 per credit hour, a total of $71 for a full-time student’s 15-credit semester. The Board also voted to increase online tuition from $10 to $12.50 per credit hour, and established an across-the-board tuition rate – $50 per credit hour – for dual enrollment classes in which high school students enroll in college courses. Graduate student’s credit hour costs will also increase by $6 per hour per the Board’s vote. In all, the three schools enroll about 9,000 students annually. More here…

Nevada legislators question higher education funding formula
Nevada’s chancellor of higher education Dan Klaich testified this week before a legislative committee on his own proposal to rewrite the state’s funding formula for public colleges and universities. But according to the Committee to Study the Funding of Higher Education, the proposal treats each institution’s course completion rates equally regardless of the grades students receive; provides equal funding for courses at universities and community colleges; and cuts rural schools’ budgets severely enough to threaten their ability to stay open. The current funding formula utilizes enrollment and growth figures to divide funding, but the new proposal would also incorporate successful outcomes – course completions, albeit without regard for the grades students earn in the course. The formula would also allow institutions to keep any tuition and fee revenue they collect from their students, rather than redistribute it across campuses as it is now. The committee also voted to create two subcommittees that will review higher education funding in Nevada. More here…

Florida Gov. Rick Scott signs $70 billion state budget bill

Mississippi college tuition could grow by 14 percent

Idaho state Board of Education OKs tuition hikes

Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal signs education bills that tweak state funding

Florida Gov. Rick Scott signs $70 billion state budget bill
Florida’s fiscal year 2013 budget, signed into law this week, adds an additional $1 billion for public K-12 schools over 2012 levels. This $1 billion will go towards covering the cost of over 30,000 new students and to fill the shortfall caused by reduced local revenue and the expiration of the ARRA (stimulus) funds. Despite the additional funds, K-12 education funding levels will still be $300 million less than 2012 levels, and much lower than 2008 levels – the state has cut education spending each year since then.  In addition to increases in K-12 education funding, though, the state cuts higher education funding for colleges and universities by $300 million from 2012 levels. The budget increases tuition rates at public postsecondary institutions by 5 percent from the 2011-2012 school year to help cover those cuts. According to Scott’s budget, schools will independently increase tuition by the maximum allowable amount – 15 percent – while maintaining the per-credit fees currently in place. Of concern is that Scott simultaneously denounces any tuition hike over 5 percent and at the same time assumes a 15 percent increase in his budget. More here…

Mississippi college tuition could grow by 14 percent
The Mississippi College Board held a preliminary vote this week to approve a 14 percent tuition hike for public colleges and universities over the next two years. If the bill passes, in 2013 students will pay about $5,800 (an average of $383 over 2012 levels), and approximately $6,200 in 2014.  Average out-of-state tuition will also increase by $1,139 in 2013. These increases are on top of a 7 percent tuition hike in the 2011-2012 school year. Schools say the tuition hike is necessary to make up for declining state funding. Additionally, beginning in fiscal year 2013,  a new law takes effect that will allow colleges or universities to waive out-of-state tuition in favor of in-state tuition for students outside Mississippi, potentially reducing schools’ tuition revenue. The Board’s final vote will be May 7. More here…

Idaho state Board of Education OKs tuition hikes
Idaho’s state Board of Education this week approved tuition increases for public colleges and universities, though the hikes were less than have been approved for schools in recent years. Tuition will be increased even though the state’s fiscal year 2013 state budget provides an 8.6 percent increase for higher education over 2012 levels. Increases for all but two of the schools – University of Idaho in Moscow and Boise State University – were unanimous, and those two passed on a 5-2 vote. Board members say the increases are needed because schools are still recovering from previous years’ spending cuts and struggling to cover the costs of educating undergraduate students. Board members also noted that the schools still provide a good value to students relative to schools with similar tuition levels. Furthermore, school officials said that they will need these funds to retain faculty and provide a variety of course offerings to students. More here…

Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal signs education bills that tweak state funding
Georgia Governor Nathan Deal this week signed a series of bills into law that will tweak the Quality Basic Education funding formula that has been in place for the last 20 years. According to Deal, the goal of the new system is ultimately to base funding levels on student achievement rather than on school enrollments, though not all of the bills dealt with this issue. The legislative changes were largely based on the preliminary recommendations of an education finance commission appointed last summer. One measure passed by the legislature will have schools evaluated by student performance, a provision also included in the state’s No Child Left Behind waiver application. Another bill signed into law will increase funding for the highest-poverty school districts. Although the legislature approved some of the commission’s recommendations, it did not approve one recommendation to repeal a law that requires districts to spend at least 65 percent of their funds on classroom expenses including teacher salaries and curriculum materials. The commission’s final recommendations will be submitted by this September. More here…

The Obama administration has made improving struggling schools a major part of its education agenda. One piece of that effort is the School Improvement Grant (SIG) program, which received a large one-time influx of  $3 billion through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).

This SIG funding came with a host of new regulations for the program, including a requirement that schools use the funds to implement one of four strictly-defined reform models. The models range from replacing some principals and teachers at schools, to complete school closure. But although schools had lofty aspirations, a recently-released Government Accountability Office (GAO) report suggests that many districts didn’t have the capacity or expertise to see them to fruition.

As a quick refresher, in 2010 the Department of Education divvied up $3.5 billion in SIG funds (including regular appropriations) to states in proportion to their share of Title I funds. States then distributed the funds to eligible school districts – those either in the bottom 5 percent in terms student performance or high schools with graduation rates below 60 percent – through a competitive grant process. Schools could receive a maximum grant of $2 million each year for three years. States selected the winning proposals and distributed the funds to districts beginning in mid-2010. Districts in some states received their SIG funds just weeks prior the start of the school year in which they had to implement their selected school turnaround plans.

The GAO report discusses the degree to which states provided capacity and oversight to districts as they adopted their school reform models based on a survey of all 50 states and the District of Columbia. From these surveys and through conversations with officials at the U.S. Department of Education, state education agencies, and districts, GAO identified several areas where states and districts lacked the resources, capacity, or oversight to effectively implement their respective reform plans.

For example, California, Nebraska, Rhode Island, and Texas all cited budgetary constraints as a major obstacle to effectively administering the SIG program. Though all states were allowed to use up to 5 percent of the funds for administrative purposes, California only used 0.5 percent of its funds for this purpose. It appears that the state, due to budget restrictions, was unable to hire more staff to work on the program and the existing administrative staff was already over-extended.

But money was not the only resource districts and schools were short on. In many states, districts and schools – particularly those in rural areas that already faced staffing shortages – found it difficult to recruit new principals and teachers to replace ineffective school staff. According to the Department of Education, three of the states being monitored did not provide adequate oversight to ensure that schools actually replaced their principals – one of the criteria for schools receiving SIG funds. If staffing schools with high quality teachers and principals is a cornerstone of school improvement, it appears that some schools are already set up for failure.

GAO also noted that many schools struggled to make school reform decisions based on achievement data, either because they did not actually have access to the necessary data or because they lacked the expertise to analyze the data towards meaningful decisions. Schools become SIG-eligible based on their test outcomes. It is troubling that some of the nation’s lowest-performing schools still do not have the capacity to harness this information and learn from it.  

When it came time to determine whether schools and districts should receive continued SIG funding, many states renewed grants even when districts were failing to implement their school turnaround plans. States likely understood that these districts faced many challenges with abbreviated timelines and limited capacity. Indeed, some states explicitly acknowledged these difficulties. However, it is unclear whether these states were responsive to their districts’ needs or are currently providing outreach to ensure these problems don’t persist.

The GAO report reveals some significant shortcomings in the implementation of SIGs so far. However, it also raises some important questions about how the Department should move forward with the program. For example, it is clear that districts need more technical assistance and capacity to implement the Department-mandated reforms. But who is ultimately responsible for increasing school capacity – the federal government, states, or districts?

And though prior to 2009 the Department established two systems to help schools boost their capacity for school reform – Comprehensive Centers and Regional Educational Laboratories – they haven’t necessarily filled the capacity vacuum among the lowest-performing schools. These schools either don’t have sufficient access to Department services, or they need more support than is currently available to them.

Similarly, many states renewed district grants even when districts were far behind schedule. What is the right balance between providing extra flexibility to struggling districts and ensuring districts are accountable for the funds they receive? Currently, the Department provides funds, and expects states and districts to oversee implementation. But states have not yet effectively met the needs of their most struggling schools, raising the question of whether a more active federal role is needed.

The School Improvement Grant program can only succeed if schools and districts are given the tools necessary to implement their chosen reform models. Giving districts funds when they lack the capacity to use them wisely seems akin to expecting a team of rookies to win the World Series – anything can happen, but the odds are against them. 

Legislators plan lawsuit to trim aid to shrinking Pennsylvania schools

California teachers’ pension faces $65 billion shortfall

Missouri Senate panel endorses roughly $24 billion budget plan

Idaho State University, University of Idaho to seek smaller tuition increases

Legislators plan lawsuit to trim aid to shrinking Pennsylvania schools
Ten Pennsylvania state legislators are planning to file a lawsuit in Commonwealth Court to end a section of the state’s education finance formula that they argue is unconstitutional.  The “hold harmless” provision guarantees districts at least the same base state funding as they received the previous year, regardless of enrollment shifts.  By overturning the provision, the lawmakers hope to win extra money for fast-growing districts and reimburse them for the funds they would have earned had the provision not been implemented in 1991.  According to one legislator involved with the case, approximately three-quarters of the state’s school districts would stand to lose funds if the provision is overturned.  Because so many lawmakers’ constituents would be negatively affected, he said, a political solution would be difficult to reach. More here…

California teachers’ pension faces $65 billion shortfall
Figures released this week by the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) show that the pension fund contains only 69 percent of what it needs to cover the cost of the benefits owed over the next thirty years.  To put itself in a secure financial position, CalSTRS deputy chief executive Ed Derman said, the program would need to increase its cash intake by 13 percent over the next three decades – something that would require legislative approval.  This will be problematic, given that lawmakers are currently preparing to debate the governor’s proposal to cut state pension contributions.  The California teachers’ pension system is the second-biggest public pension fund in the country, and its thirty-year shortfall could top $64 billion. More here…

Missouri Senate panel endorses roughly $24 billion budget plan
A fiscal year 2013 budget approved by the Missouri State Senate Appropriations Committee this week totals $24 billion, about $86 million less than the state House approved in its version of the budget.  The plan would cut money for state pre-kindergarten grants and child care subsidies for low-income parents. However, state funding for public institutions of higher education would remain unchanged at fiscal year 2012 levels, as was the case in the House despite a proposal from the governor to cut funding for higher education by 15 percent.  Additionally, public K-12 schools would receive a slight increase in funding – $5 million over 2012 levels. The budget plan is now subject to a vote by the full Senate, which must be completed by May 11, according to law.  More here…

Idaho State University, University of Idaho to seek smaller tuition increases
Idaho State University is set to reveal its lowest tuition increase request in over ten years at an Idaho State Board of Education meeting next week.  Over the past ten years, ISU’s tuition increases have ranged from 4.75 percent in 2006 to 9 percent in 2010.  In 2013, however, the institution is requesting a 4.73 percent increase over current 2012 academic year tuition levels.  The University of Idaho is also recommending a smaller tuition increase – 6.1 percent – than it has in recent years.  This increase would provide a 2 percent salary bump for system employees.  The Idaho legislature voted earlier this year to lift state spending on higher education, providing more than $18 million in additional state funds for public colleges and universities in fiscal year 2013 as it did in 2012. More here…

Under the accountability structure put in place by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), states are required to bring all of their students to proficiency in math and reading by 2014. Schools and districts are held accountable for the performance of students in particular “subgroups” as determined by race, socio-economic status, and participation in certain programs like special education. Because states aren’t going to achieve this goal, the Department of Education announced in November 2011 that states could apply to have the requirements waived if they proposed – and the Department accepted – alternative student performance plans.

Many have argued that the waivers are turning the original intent of NCLB on its head. States have submitted extremely complicated, opaque, and watered-down accountability measures. Look no further than the myriad ways states propose to measure schools by how student subgroups perform.

Colorado, Florida, and New Mexico are three interesting cases. Despite the Department’s guidance requiring states to include data from individual subgroups in their plans, Florida and New Mexico chose to forgo subgroups defined in NCLB and instead create one “low-performers” subgroup. Colorado, on the other hand, hews to NCLB subgroups and the Department’s guidance, but still makes key changes. Below we discuss how each state’s approved plan treats student subgroups.

Colorado uses subgroup performance in three components of its performance framework: what the state calls growth; growth (or achievement) gaps; and postsecondary- and workforce-readiness. The framework accounts both for growth that English Language Learners make in traditional categories, as well as improvement in their English skills as measured by the Colorado English Language Acquisition Proficiency Assessment (CELApro). The state also disaggregates graduation rates and scores on state math and reading tests by subgroup to determine the degree to which schools are effectively reducing the achievement gap. In total, subgroup performance makes up 37.5 percent in a school’s grade in Colorado. So, while Colorado may not give the same focus to subgroups as they received under NCLB, the state still provides substantial weight to the performance of traditionally high-needs students.

Florida more or less scraps the NCLB subgroup framework and focuses instead on the 25 percent of students showing the least improvement from year to year, as well as students deemed “at-risk.” At-risk students are those who enter high school below grade level based on their eighth grade Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test scores in reading and math. Although in theory this measure likely captures the performance of subgroups, it has the potential to mask the degree to which individual subgroups are struggling or succeeding.

The state uses test outcomes of the lowest-performing 25 percent of students in its measure. But the state further complicates the issue by choosing to focus on the graduation rates of at-risk students instead – a likely overlapping but different population of students. In total, at-risk and low-performing students make up about 18.75 percent of a school’s grade in Florida’s model. But the metric also includes the performance of “acceleration” students, accounting for 18.75 percent of a school’s grade, too. (Acceleration refers to the number of students who took assessments higher than their grade-level and the scores on those tests—the top performers at schools.) By including the performance of accelerated students in a school’s grade and giving it the same weight, the state essentially negates the impact of struggling students on those grades.

Similar to Florida, New Mexico does not include disaggregated subgroup data for student growth or graduation rates. Instead, the state accountability metric separately accounts for the performance on state math and reading tests of the top 75 percent and lowest 25 percent of students. And rather than accounting specifically for the graduation rates of low-performing students, New Mexico includes graduation rates both for students who graduate in four years and those who graduate in five years. In total, low-performing and high-performing students each account for 15 percent of a school’s grade, and five-year graduation rates make up four percent of the grade. New Mexico, too, seems to allow the performance of its top performers to overshadow that of its lowest-performers in its metric.

Why did the Department grant the waivers to these states even though some of them stopped disaggregating subgroups—the explicit goal of NCLB? Certainly, the Department needed to give states a way out of the current system. But did they throw the proverbial accountability “baby” out with the bathwater? Or did the sheer complexity of the state proposals, some over 500 pages, obscure the reality of the new accountability measures by making them appear more rigorous?

It remains to be seen if these new metrics will dramatically change states’ accountability outcomes. However, by allowing states to develop their own accountability systems, the Department likely enabled states to minimize the impact of low-income, limited English proficiency, and minority students on their school accountability measures. This could ultimately give schools an opportunity to ignore the needs of these students, defeating the purpose of federal funds specifically targeted to them.