Educational Accountability and Reauthorization of the ESEA

Educational Accountability and Reauthorization of the ESEA

March 23, 2015
Educational Accountability and Reauthorization of the ESEA
Federal policies aiming to improve the effectiveness of
inadequate so that these inadequacies may be addressed.
schools have historically focused on inputs, such as
AYP standards under the NCLB must be applied to all
supporting class-size reduction and compensatory programs
public schools, LEAs, and states that receive Title I-A
or services for disadvantaged students. Over the last two
grants. However, consequences for failing to meet AYP
decades, however, interest in developing federal policies
standards for two consecutive years or more need only be
that focus on student outcomes has increased. The No Child
applied to schools and LEAs participating in Title I-A.
Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB; P.L. 107-110), which
comprehensively reauthorized the Elementary and
Schools or LEAs meet AYP standards only if they meet the
Secondary Education Act (ESEA), included several such
required threshold levels of performance on all indicators
provisions. NCLB marked a dramatic expansion of the
for the “all students” group and any subgroup for which
federal role in supporting standards-based instruction and
data are disaggregated. When Title I-A schools do not make
test-based accountability.
AYP for two or more consecutive years, they become
subject to a range of increasingly severe performance-based
The 114th Congress is actively considering legislation that
accountability requirements.
would reauthorize the ESEA. One of the most complex
issues that Congress is considering during the
Educational Accountability Post-NCLB
reauthorization process is how, if at all, to modify existing
Since the ESEA was last comprehensively reauthorized by
accountability requirements and what the federal role in
NCLB, recent developments have taken place that possibly
educational accountability should be.
played a role in changes made to state accountability
systems: (1) the development and release of the Common
NCLB and the Evolving Federal Role in Education
Core State Standards (CCSS); (2) the Race to the Top
Accountability
(RTT) State Grant competition and RTT Assessment Grant
Requirements related to reading and mathematics standards
competition; and (3) the ESEA flexibility package provided
and assessments were first included in Title I-A of the
by the Department of Education (ED) to states with
ESEA through amendments made by the Improving
approved applications.
America’s Schools Act (IASA; P.L. 103-382) of 1994. The
NCLB expanded on these Title I-A provisions to require
Under the provisions of the ESEA, states have had the
annual testing in several grades, include science as a tested
flexibility to select their own standards and assessments.
subject, require accountability for subgroup performance,
This flexibility has led to the development of different
and add specific performance targets and consequences
accountability systems in each state. Concerns related to the
when targets are not met. Title I-A authorizes federal grants
diversity of accountability systems and consistent
to local educational agencies (LEAs) and is the largest
expectations for students, among other issues, spurred a
source of federal support for public elementary and
movement led by the National Governors Association and
secondary education.
the Council of Chief State School Officers to develop the
CCSS. State adoption of the CCSS is voluntary.
The NCLB requires states participating in Title I-A to
develop and adopt standards and assessments in
While the federal government did not have a role in
mathematics and reading each year in grades 3-8 and once
developing the CCSS, the Administration has incentivized
in high school, and in science once in grades 3-5, 6-9, and
the adoption and implementation of the standards through
10-12. The 17 required annual assessments must be aligned
RTT Grants, and the ESEA flexibility package. It is not
with the state’s academic content and achievement
possible to assess how many states would have adopted the
standards and include at least three levels of performance
CCSS in the absence of these incentives.
(advanced, proficient, and basic). These standards
generally apply to all students. State accountability plans
RTT Grants were initially authorized under the State Fiscal
were required to incorporate concrete movement toward
Stabilization Fund (SFSF) included in the American
meeting an ultimate goal of all students reaching a
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA; P.L. 111-5).
proficient or higher level of achievement in reading and
Under the RTT State Grant program, grantees agreed to
mathematics by the end of the 2013-2014 school year.
implement reforms, including enhancing standards and
assessments. ED specified that participating states had to
Under NCLB provisions, performance on assessments is
adopt “internationally-benchmarked standards and
one indicator used to determine whether schools and LEAs
assessments that prepare students for success in college and
are making “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) toward
the workplace.” While they were still under development at
meeting performance standards. The AYP requirements
the time the RTT State Grant competition was announced,
identify schools and LEAs where performance is
the CCSS was one set of standards that states could use to
meet this requirement. States were also evaluated on the
https://crsreports.congress.gov

link to page 2
Educational Accountability and Reauthorization of the ESEA
extent to which they demonstrated a commitment to
Teacher Issues
improving the quality of their assessments as evidenced by
Policymaking at the federal level reflects a growing belief
participation in a consortium of states that “is working
that improving educational outcomes depends greatly upon
toward jointly developing and implementing common,
increasing the quality of classroom instruction. In enacting
high-quality assessments ... aligned with the consortium’s
the NCLB, Congress also amended Title I-A to establish a
common set of K-12 standards.”
requirement that all teachers in core academic subjects be
highly qualified. States are also required to take steps to
ED administered a separate grant competition to award
ensure that poor and minority children are not taught at
RTT Assessment Grants to two consortia of states. Both
higher rates than other children by inexperienced,
winning consortia use the CCSS as the common standards
unqualified, or out-of-field teachers.
to which their assessments will be aligned. States were able
to indicate whether they were going to participate in a
Over the past several years, Congress and the
consortium to develop assessments aligned with common
Administration, in particular, have become increasingly
standards in the RTT State Grant applications.
interested in teachers’ performance in the classroom and the
effectiveness of their instruction. This has led to such
In 2011, the Administration announced the availability of
federal efforts as the Teacher Incentive Fund program. The
an ESEA flexibility package for states. The package
RTT State Grant program also focused on this issue. ED
provided waivers that exempt states from various NCLB
developed the first federal definition of an “effective
requirements related to academic accountability, teacher
teacher” and required grantees to measure a teacher’s
qualifications, and funding flexibility. In order to receive
effectiveness based, in part, on student growth in
the waivers, states must agree to meet four principles
achievement and to use this measure within an overall
established by ED: (1) adopting college- and career-ready
teacher evaluation system that would inform recruitment,
expectations for all students; (2) state-developed
development, rewards for, and retention of teachers. Similar
differentiated recognition, accountability, and support; (3)
requirements were included in the principles that states had
supporting effective instruction and leadership; and (4)
to agree to meet to receive approval of their application for
reducing duplication and unnecessary burden. The CCSS
the ESEA flexibility package.
could be used to meet the adoption of college- and career-
ready standards requirement.
Selected ESEA Accountability Reauthorization
Issues
To receive a waiver for assessments, a state must develop

and administer, “annual, statewide, aligned, high
State standards: Congress may consider whether to
-quality
require states to adopt college- and career-ready
assessments, and corresponding academic achievement
standards.
standards, that measure student growth in at least grades 3-8
and once in high school.” One way a state educational
 State assessments: Congress may consider whether the
agency (SEA) may demonstrate compliance with the “high-
federal testing footprint needs to be made smaller.
quality assessments” requirements is by participating in a
 Performance targets: Congress may consider whether to
state consortium funded by RTT Assessment Grants.
continue to require states to establish goals for student
performance (as is required under current law and the
Figure 1 indicates which states have adopted the CCSS or
ESEA flexibility package).
have an approved state application for the ESEA flexibility
package.
 Low-performing schools: Congress may consider
whether a certain number or percentage of schools must
Figure 1. CCSS and the ESEA Flexibility Package
be identified as low performing and whether any
specific actions must be taken with respect to low-
performing schools.
 Teachers: Congress may consider whether to require
states to develop teacher evaluation systems, based in
part on student achievement, or provide states with the
opportunity to use ESEA funds to develop such systems.
Rebecca R. Skinner, Specialist in Education Policy
IF10157

Source: Prepared by CRS based on The Common Core State
Standards Initiative State Map, and ED, ESEA Flexibility Map.

https://crsreports.congress.gov

Educational Accountability and Reauthorization of the ESEA

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10157 · VERSION 2 · NEW