COMMENTARY: Nevada and school accountability

Nevada’s proposed plan to hold schools accountable for student outcomes does some things right, but it fails to meet the educational needs of high achievers — especially those growing up in poverty.

The proposal, submitted to education secretary Betsy DeVos this month as part of the state’s obligations under the new federal education law, the Every Student Succeeds Act, suffers from the legacy of its predecessor, No Child Left Behind. That law created incentives for schools to focus their energy almost exclusively on helping low-performing students get over a modest proficiency bar, while neglecting those who were likely to pass state reading and math tests regardless of what happens in the classroom.

A strong accountability system signals to schools that the progress of all students is important. And although Nevada’s adoption of annual summative school ratings is laudable, the rest of the proposed framework does little to gives its poor and minority high-achieving students the attention they desperately require and deserve. To remedy this, the state ought to amend its proposal to include four key improvements.

First, when calculating summative school grades, make growth of all students from one year to the next count for at least 50 percent. Growth measures do a far better job of capturing schools’ effects on children’s academic achievement than proficiency rates, which are strongly correlated with demographics, family circumstance, and prior achievement. To its credit,

Nevada recognizes the importance of growth, via its proposed use of student growth percentiles. But the draft plan doesn’t go far enough in making this a primary component of schools’ ratings — as it counts for less than 35 percent of summative grades in elementary and middle schools, and isn’t used for high school, at all. If lawmakers in Carson City don’t increase this to at least 50 percent for all schools, many will continue to be misjudged by policymakers and the public.

Second, for the academic achievement indicator required under federal law, give schools additional credit for getting more students to an advanced level on state assessments, instead of exclusively rewarding schools helping get kids to “proficiency.” As dozens of scholars and policy analysts explained in a letter submitted to the US. Department of Education in July 2016, proficiency rates are poor measures of school quality. Other measures — such as performance indices and average scale scores — would meet the act’s mandate without encouraging schools to focus narrowly on students performing near the proficiency line (something that is particularly pernicious for high-achieving poor and minority children).

For example, Nevada could create an achievement index that gives schools partial credit for getting students to a basic level of achievement, full credit for proficient, and additional credit for getting students to an advanced level. More than a dozen states already use such an index.

Third, Nevada ought to further signal that high achievers matter by making them a visible, trackable “subgroup,” akin to special education students or English language learners, and by publishing school ratings based on their progress. The state could define this group as every student who is achieving at or above an advanced level on statewide assessments and then report their growth in each school.

Nevada already has the tools required to compile such data, and making it public will give parents and policymakers more information so they can make better decisions.

Finally, the state should encourage high schools to help able students earn college credit before they graduate by measuring the percentage who succeed on Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate exams, which are among the best ways to challenge high performers. Nevada’s proposed system indicates no intention to do this, which is a mistake.

For too long low-income high achievers been an afterthought — a fate no child should suffer. The four changes proposed above will signal that Nevada is committed to providing these students with the education they deserve.

Michael J. Petrilli and Brandon L. Wright are president and editorial director, respectively, of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.