• Mission & Governance
• Services Overview
• How to Get Involved
• Standing Committees
• NCSL Foundation

• Issue Areas: A-Z
• State-Federal Relations
• NCSL Standing Committees
• News from D.C. and the States

• About State Legislatures
• Elections, Campaigns & Redistricting
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory
• Web Sites

• Online Guide to NCSL Services
• Staff Sections and Networks
• Meetings & Professional Development
• Staff Directories

• Meetings Calendar
• Online Registration
• Meetings Home Page
• Legislative Summit

• Bookstore
• State Legislatures Magazine
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory

Education Home Page
Education Policy Issues

Reporting, Accrediting,
Rewarding and Sanctioning School Performance

Maryland has been issuing report cards at the district and state level since 1991. The data, including student performance, mobility, dropout rates and finance information, are reported by gender and race/ethnicity. In Ohio, the state includes a selection of questions that parents can ask the schools in regard to information on the report card. The Heritage Foundation provides model report cards that are being used in several states; including Colorado, California, Arizona, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Texas, Georgia and Wisconsin.

What indicators state policymakers use to determine if a school or district is high or low performing is a delicate issue. Florida enacted a comprehensive school accountability package in 1999. The state assigns each school with an A, B, C, D or F, based on student achievement on the reading, mathematics and writing sections of the Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test (FCAT). Schools rated F twice in a four year period are considered "chronically failing" and students then become eligible for private school vouchers. Florida was the first state to assign letter grades and California followed close behind in 2001 by assigning grades to schools based on their Academic Performance Index (API). Critics of the Florida program argue that the grades do not take into consideration external factors, including the social and economic considerations low-income areas face. California's complex ranking system, the API, compares the academic performance of schools with similar ethnic and economic characteristics. However, the ratings are still based on assessment scores. For the first three to five years these rankings will be based solely on tests scores until the state develops valid high school graduation, dropout and school attendance rates.

Similar to Florida, the Alabama accountability system classifies its schools based on student performance; however, they delegate schools into three specific categories. If 50 percent or more of the students score above the 40^th percentile on the achievement tests then they are classified as Academic Clear. If a majority of its students score below the 40^th percentile then they are placed under Academic Caution and if a majority of its students score below the 23^rd percentile then they are placed in Academic Alert. The state superintendent of education is empowered to intervene or take control of schools or a school system on Academic Alert when they have not met their improvement targets after three years.

These are just a few examples of the type of accreditation systems states are developing to measure student, school or district performance. ECS has developed a more detailed account of the 25 states that publicly categorize or rank schools/districts, which can be accessed here.

In order to hold schools accountable there must be consequences attached to the performance results. Schools, districts and even states are held accountable by attaching sanctions and rewards to specific performance levels on assessments. Monetary rewards can include increases in teacher salaries or additional funding from the state or federal government. Non-monetary rewards are usually given in the form of public recognition. Sanctions can also be administered monetarily or non-monetarily. Monetary sanctions include a decrease in state or federal funding. Non-monetary sanctions, however, can include a variety of actions ranging from written warnings to state takeover of the school or district.

How states reward and sanction schools and districts vary widely from state to state. As of 2001, only four states-Delaware, Kentucky, Oklahoma and Texas-reward and sanction both schools and districts on the basis of performance. Thirteen states offer monetary rewards to successful schools-California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas and Utah.

In New Mexico the Legislature appropriates funds to high performing schools on a per pupil basis. During the 1997 legislative session $500,000 was appropriated to 104 schools and in 1999 the fund for rewards increased to $1.9 million. In California the Governor's Performance Award Program provides monetary awards to schools that meet or exceed their growth targets or to schools that demonstrate comparable improvement in academic achievement by all significant ethnic and socio-economically disadvantaged subgroups. In 2000 the governor and state board approved $25 million in grants for 200 of the state's lowest-performing schools as part of this improvement program.

As part of larger accountability reforms, approximately 18 states have enacted legislation that allows them to intervene in a district deemed low performing. Thirteen of those states include the assignment of state staff as part of the assistance. In North Carolina the state assigns teams of five to six members to work in a low-performing school for a year. In Mew Mexico low performing schools are required to develop a school improvement plan. If after two years no progress has been made, the Educational Standards Commission takes steps to have a diagnostic team visit the school. These special teams are sent to analyze and diagnose problems and make recommendations for improvement. In California, the superintendent of public instruction invites schools that score below the 50^th percentile on the statewide achievement test to participate in the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP). In this program external evaluators are assigned to schools where they establish improvement plans and growth targets. Other states intervene by recruiting master teachers and administrators to specific schools. South Carolina pays the salaries and yearly bonuses for three years for exemplary teachers to teach in schools that were designated as low performing. Furthermore, the state funds the salaries and includes a 25 percent bonus for principals in these schools.

In some instances, the state is leveraging change by altering the governance of local school districts. In large urban districts, like Chicago, Baltimore and Oakland, mayors have been granted greater control over the city's public school system. In 1995, the Illinois legislature transferred control of the Chicago public schools to Mayor Richard Daley, giving him control of the budget and responsibility to appoint school board members, the board president and the district's chief executive officer. In 1999, Michigan's Governor John Engler successfully pushed legislation that handed Detroit Mayor Dennis Archer the power to appoint a new school board and chief administrative officer to supervise the city's schools. While the overall impact of mayoral control remains to be seen, this governance model has allowed states to intervene in low-performing school districts and still ensure a certain degree of local control.

As accountability policies take hold across the country it will be critical for policymakers to continually reassess their systematic reforms. It will be important to:

• Ensure alignment across all aspects of reform-from standards and assessments, to reporting and accreditation.

• Communicate clearly the performance indicators used for accreditation and reporting to administrators, teachers and community members. Is there a clear understanding among policy makers and educators of the goals and outcomes, modes of implementation, etc.?

• To provide fair and accurate measures of student growth and performance, including all students in these assessments.

• Identify existing policies and practices that are working to build school improvement.

• Provide adequate professional development and support for teachers to ensure high quality instruction in all schools and for all students.

• Allow sufficient opportunity for feedback among all stakeholders, including students, teachers, administrators, parents, local policymakers and state actors.

• Consideration of the uniqueness of districts and communities, being careful of strict external systems imposed on local decisions making.

• Include funding for systemic and regular evaluation of programs and reforms.

More information on rewards and sanctions can be found in the ECS publication, Reporting, Rewarding and Sanctioning Schools and Districts.

Reporting, Accrediting, Rewarding and Sanctioning Resources

Visitor counts for this page.