Highlights
Federally mandated intervention. No Child Left Behind waivers created the designations of priority and focus schools – schools with the lowest test scores (priority) and largest achievement gaps (focus). Every Student Succeeds continues to require states to identify and intervene in the lowest-performing 5 percent of schools, and schools where subgroups of students perform poorly.
State and district flexibility with corrective actions. Under both No Child Left Behind and Tennessee’s waivers, the federal government influenced the options for school intervention. While Every Student Succeeds still requires intervention in low-performing schools, states and school districts may pick their own corrective actions. The Achievement School District and Innovation Zones, originally created to turn around priority schools, remain options under the new law.
Flexibility with school choice. Previously, districts with schools identified for improvement had to give students the option to transfer to another school in the district, and pay for their transportation. Every Student Succeeds allows, but does not require, districts to offer school choice and transportation.
Intervention Timelines
No Child Left Behind
No Child Left Behind’s accountability system revolved around Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). States set yearly goals for schools and districts, and all students were required to reach proficiency by the end of the 2013-14 school year. 1 Schools that failed to meet their annual targets went through varying stages of intervention: school improvement, corrective action, and finally restructuring.
Schools and districts that did not make AYP for two years in a row were identified for either school improvement or district improvement. After failing to make AYP for another two years, schools or districts were then identified for corrective action. Finally, if a school did not make AYP after a year of corrective action, it was identified for restructuring. At this point, it was subject to state takeover. In each stage of intervention, the federal government required states to choose from specific actions when dealing with schools and districts.
At any point, schools or districts that met AYP for two years in a row were removed from their intervention categories. 2
Tennessee's 2015 Waiver
Under the most recent No Child Left Behind waiver, Tennessee uses two types of accountability: schools are graded on relative accountability, and districts are measured based on absolute accountability.
Schools: Relative Accountability
Relative accountability measures a school’s performance against other schools in the state. Priority and focus schools, which the federal government required states to identify to receive a waiver, are both examples of relative accountability. 3
Priority Schools
Every three years, Tennessee identifies 5 percent of all schools (not just Title I schools) as “priority.” Priority schools have the lowest test scores in the state, and may also have low graduation rates. 4
Once a school is identified as “priority,” Tennessee chooses from four intervention options outlined in its waiver. It may remove the school from its district and place it in the Achievement School District (ASD) or an Innovation Zone (I-Zone). The district may implement one of four possible federal School Improvement Grant turnaround models. Or, finally, the state may leave the school under district guidance with the option to move the school to the ASD if it does not improve. 5
Schools must remain in the ASD for at least five years, at least three years in an I-Zone, and three years under a SIG turnaround model. After the minimum stay, schools then exit their priority status if they are not identified on the next priority list, or if they meet their achievement targets two years in a row.
Alternatively, schools may exit their priority status in fewer than three years if they show dramatic improvement. A priority school whose test results subsequently improve so that the school is no longer in the bottom 15 percent is taken off the priority list the next year. A priority school whose scores are no longer in the bottom 10 percent (but still within the lowest 15 percent) the next year is designated as “priority improving.” If the school continues to improve, it may exit priority status the next year. 6
Focus Schools
Tennessee also identifies 10 percent of schools as “focus.” Focus schools have large achievement gaps between subgroups of students, or subgroups with particularly low test scores. Schools with graduation rates lower than 60 percent may also be designated as focus schools, if they have not already received “priority” status. 7 Districts with focus schools work with the Tennessee Department of Education to develop plans to improve subgroup performance and close achievement gaps. 8
Schools exit their “focus” status when they are not identified on the next focus list three years later. Schools may exit more quickly, however, if they show improvement in their struggling areas 9
Districts: Absolute Accountability
Absolute accountability measures all school districts’ performance against the same goals. Tennessee’s accountability system evaluates districts in two areas: student achievement and achievement gap closure. Districts are scored in each of these two areas, and the results are averaged into a final score. Districts may receive one of four possible designations:
- In Need of Improvement: The district is “not showing even minimal evidence of meaningful student progress.” 10 The district must analyze its results and plan for improvement in the next year. District staff must meet with Department of Education officials, and the district is subject to further monitoring and follow-up support.
- Progressing: The district is improving, but not meeting expectations. The district must analyze its results and create an improvement plan. If the district is designated as Progressingfor two years in a row, it will automatically be identified as In Need of Improvement the next year.
- Achieving: The district is meeting expectations. The district participates in the state planning process as normal.
- Exemplary: The district is exceeding growth targets. The district may receive funding flexibility and create local plans without state approval.
The new accountability system was designed in 2015, with the intent to be implemented in the 2015-16 school year. 11 Due to incomplete or partial testing data, however, district classifications for 2015-16 will not proceed as planned. Prior to this system, the Department of Education used four similar district classifications: Exemplary, Intermediate, In Need of Improvement, and In Need of Subgroup Improvement. 12
Every Student Succeeds
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) retains several features from the waivers. States are still required to have accountability systems – however, they have freedom to design their own frameworks and interventions. 13 And, unlike Adequate Yearly Progress, the U.S. Department of Education cannot specify any goals or timelines for states’ progress. 14
As under the waivers, states must still identify and intervene in certain types of low-performing schools. Similar to the "priority" designation, schools identified for comprehensive support and improvement may score in the lowest 5 percent of Title I schools on the indicators measured by ESSA (test scores, English language proficiency, etc.), or have graduation rates under 67 percent. 15 Schools identified for targeted support and improvement are similar to those previously classified as focus schools, and may have low subgroup performance. 16
Additionally, states identify schools with subgroups of students performing in the lowest 5 percent. If the school does not improve within a state-designated timeframe, the state identifies the school for comprehensive support and improvement. 17
Unlike No Child Left Behind’s accountability system, where schools were given one to two years to improve before being identified for increased intervention, ESSA allows states and school districts to set the timelines for improvement. 18, 19 The state may give schools identified for comprehensive support up to four years to improve. At that point, the state takes “more rigorous action,” including intervention at the school level. 20 In the past, “more rigorous” state action has involved removing a school from its district and placing it in the Achievement School District.
Tennessee’s Adequate
Yearly Progress
Tennessee used the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) system from 2003 to 2011. The state’s first waiver was approved in January 2012.
During those nine years, the state as a whole made Adequate Yearly Progress three times: elementary and middle schools made AYP in 2007 and 2008, and high schools made AYP in 2009. In all other years, the state failed AYP for both elementary/middle and high schools.
In Tennessee and across the country, more and more schools were identified for intervention as No Child Left Behind’s 100 percent proficiency requirement grew closer. In 2007, 1,378 of Tennessee’s 1,714 schools were in good standing, or 80 percent. In 2011, that number dropped by nearly half – 841 schools, or about 48 percent, were in good standing.
Source:
Tennessee Department of Education, State Report Cards, 2003-2011, https://www.tn.gov/education/topic/report-card (accessed Jan. 20, 2016).
Tennessee's Waiver Accountability
Tennessee released its first list of priority, focus, and reward (top performing five percent) schools in 2012. That year, there were:
- 83 priority schools;
- 167 focus schools; and
- 169 reward schools.
In 2014, there were:
- 85 priority schools;
- 150 focus schools; and
- 168 reward schools.
Tennessee's newest waiver was approved in July 2015. As such, the state has not yet classified districts using the four new categories: In Need of Improvement, Progressing, Achieving, andExemplary. The state planned to publish the ratings based on the new accountability system at the end of the 2015-16 school year, but partial testing data will delay full implementation of the new system.
Source:
Tennessee Department of Education, 2012 School Accountability, https://www.tn.gov/education/article/2012-school-accountability (accessed Jan. 20, 2016); Tennessee Department of Education, 2014 School Accountability, August 26, 2014, https://www.tn.gov/education/article/2014-school-accountability (accessed Jan. 20, 2016).
School Choice
Under No Child Left Behind, districts with schools identified for improvement had to allow students to transfer to another school in the district. 21 School districts also had to pay for those students’ transportation. 22 In their second year of school improvement, schools had to provide supplemental educational services, such as tutoring, to Title I students. 23
Tennessee’s waiver gave school districts discretion on allowing students to transfer and providing supplemental educational services. The state planned to track students who received supplemental services, and provide districts with information to decide whether those services were effective. 24
With the passage of Every Student Succeeds, these actions remain options, but are no longer mandated in federal law. Districts with schools identified for comprehensive support and improvement (loosely analogous to priority schools under the waiver) may give students the option to transfer schools, and may pay for their transportation. 25
School Funding
Under No Child Left Behind, schools identified for improvement had to use parts of their budgets in specific ways. Schools had to spend at least 10 percent of their Title I, Part A money on teacher and principal professional development. 26 School districts also had to spend an amount equal to 20 percent of their Title I, Part A funds on supplemental educational services and transporting transfer students. Such funding could come from any source – federal, state, or local – and districts were not required to spend the full 20 percent if they could meet the requirements using less. 27, 28
Every Student Succeeds specifies that schools identified for comprehensive support and improvement may not spend more than 5 percent of their Title I, Part A money to transport students to other schools. 29 Schools identified for comprehensive improvement may provide supplemental educational services at their districts’ discretion; however, ESSA does not place any requirements or limitations on federal funding for these services. 30
1 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, USC 20 (2012), § 6311(b)(2)(A) et seq.
2 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, USC 20 (2012), § 6316.
3 Tennessee Department of Education, Tennessee ESEA Flexibility Request, July 2015, pp. 54, 71, and 85, http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/flex-renewal/tnrenewalreq2015.pdf (accessed December 5, 2015).
4 Tennessee Department of Education, Tennessee ESEA Flexibility Request, July 2015, p. 71, http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/flex-renewal/tnrenewalreq2015.pdf (accessed December 5, 2015).
5 Tennessee Department of Education, Tennessee ESEA Flexibility Request, July 2015, p. 72, http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/flex-renewal/tnrenewalreq2015.pdf (accessed December 5, 2015).
6 Tennessee Department of Education, Tennessee ESEA Flexibility Request, July 2015, pp. 83-84, http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/flex-renewal/tnrenewalreq2015.pdf (accessed December 5, 2015).
7 Tennessee Department of Education, Tennessee ESEA Flexibility Request, July 2015, p. 85, http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/flex-renewal/tnrenewalreq2015.pdf (accessed December 5, 2015).
8 Tennessee Department of Education, Tennessee ESEA Flexibility Request, July 2015, pp. 87-88, http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/flex-renewal/tnrenewalreq2015.pdf (accessed December 5, 2015).
9 Tennessee Department of Education, Tennessee ESEA Flexibility Request, July 2015, p. 44, http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/flex-renewal/tnrenewalreq2015.pdf (accessed December 5, 2015).
10 Tennessee Department of Education, Tennessee ESEA Flexibility Request, July 2015, pp. 41, 45-51, 53, and 63, http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/flex-renewal/tnrenewalreq2015.pdf (accessed December 5, 2015).
11 Tennessee Department of Education, 2015 District Accountability, https://www.tn.gov/education/article/2015-district-accountability (accessed Feb. 29, 2016).
12 Tennessee Department of Education, 2015 District Accountability, https://www.tn.gov/education/article/2015-district-accountability (accessed Feb. 29, 2016).
13 House Education and Workforce Committee, ESEA Conference Report Summary: S. 1117, The Every Student Succeeds Act, http://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/esea_conference_report_summary.pdf (accessed Dec. 8, 2015).
14 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Public Law 114-95, § 1111(e)(1)(B)(iii), 2015.
15 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Public Law 114-95, §§ 1111(c)(4)(D), 1111(d)(1), 2015.
16 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Public Law 114-95, § 1111(d)(1), 2015.
17 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Public Law 114-95, §§ 1111(c)(4)(D)(i)(I), 1111(d)(2)(C), 1111(d)(3)(A)(i)(II), 2015.
18 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, USC 20 (2012), § 6316.
19 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Public Law 114-95, § 1111(d)(2)(B), 2015.
20 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Public Law 114-95, § 1111(d)(3)(A)(i), 2015.
21 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, USC 20 (2012), § 6316(b)(1)(E).
22 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, USC 20 (2012), § 6316(b)(9).
23 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, USC 20 (2012), §§ 6316(b)(5)(B), 6316(e).
24 Tennessee Department of Education, Tennessee ESEA Flexibility Request, July 2015, pp. 104-105, http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/flex-renewal/tnrenewalreq2015.pdf (accessed December 5, 2015).
25 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Public Law 114-95, § 1111(d)(1)(D), 2015.
26 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, USC 20 (2012), § 6316(b)(3)(A)(iii).
27 .S. Department of Education, No Child Left Behind: A Desktop Reference, September 2002, p. 15, https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/nclbreference/reference.pdf (accessed Dec. 14, 2015).
28 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, USC 20 (2012), § 6316(b)(10).
29 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Public Law 114-95, § 1111(d)(1)(D)(v), 2015.
30 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Public Law 114-95, § 1003A, 2015.