The national evaluations of standards are not entirely consistent. However, they do indicate that, while Louisiana may be doing better than most other states, it must still improve its educational standards. BESE has recognized this fact and a statewide effort is underway to clarify the standards and make them more understandable. BESE recently discussed the need to bring to the attention of Fordham and other rating groups steps that have been taken to improve statements of standards for English Language Arts, Social Studies, Health, Physical Education, Arts, Secondary Math and Middle Grades Math.

ACCOUNTABILITY POLICY CHANGES

The state’s accountability system has undergone almost constant revision and refinement since the initial policies were adopted in early 1999. These new policies typically originate as a recommendation to BESE’s Committee on Accountability and Assessment and are approved by BESE as a Notice of Intent under the Administrative Procedure Act. The proposal is published in the Louisiana Register to allow 60 days for review and comment. BESE can then vote final adoption.

PAR has identified and reviewed some three dozen distinct policies adopted or given initial approval through January 2001 that relate to accountability and testing. The bulk of these new policies strengthened or improved the accountability system. However, several have or would soften some aspects of the program as originally envisioned. The more controversial of these are optional promotion/retention policies for fourth-graders and eighth-graders who fail the "high stakes" tests. In addition, BESE has also discussed a controversial proposal to provide options to the standard high school diploma but has postponed making any decision until later this year.

The following is a discussion of the more significant changes and proposals BESE has adopted or is considering.

Changed School Performance Labels

Initially, School Performance Labels given to schools based on their School Performance Scores (SPS) included the following categories: School of Academic Excellence (SPS of 150.0 or above), School of Academic Distinction (SPS 125.0 to 149.9), School of Academic Achievement (SPS 100.0 to 124.9), Academically Above Average (SPS state average to 99.9), Academically Below Average (SPS 30.1 to state average), and Academically Unacceptable (SPS of 30 or below). The SPS scale scores were initially set so that a school scoring at the national average would receive a SPS of 100. Thus, labeling a school with a SPS score of less than 100 as Academically Above Average would mislead the public as to the true level of performance of that school. Therefore, the above and below average labels were changed to Academically Above State Average and Academically Below State Average to avoid confusion. Unfortunately, the change is sometimes ignored as some documents continue to use the old labels.

Two Below-Basic Classifications for Students

A controversial decision was made by BESE to split the below-grade-level group into two classifications–"Unsatisfactory" and "Approaching Basic." Only students in the "Unsatisfactory" group are to be retained and/or remediated under "high stakes" testing. Students performing below grade level in the "Approaching Basic" category are promoted even though they lack certain grade level skills.

Splitting the below-grade-level group was supposed to be temporary to allow a phasing in of the "high stakes" policy. Had this not been done the failure rate on the spring 1999 Math test would have been 59% for the state’s fourth grade and 61% for the eighth grade. Current intentions are to modify the policy to retain and/or remediate all students scoring below the "Basic" category beginning in 2004.

Transfer Policy

Another recommendation of the advisory commission was to allow students in schools in Corrective Action Level III or Academically Unacceptable schools in Corrective Action Level II to transfer to other public schools in the district. The parents were to be able to select a school other than the nearest one if they provided transportation. In addition, if no academically acceptable school is available in the district, the parent could transfer the student to another district, but the parent provides transportation.

The policy adopted by BESE was to require districts to transfer the student, upon parental request, to the nearest acceptable school or outside the district if no academically acceptable school is available. These schools could not be in Corrective Action Level II or III and the school or district could refuse to accept a student if there is insufficient space, a desegregation order prevents the transfer, or a student has been subject to disciplinary actions for behavioral problems. Limiting the choice to the nearest acceptable school makes it even more difficult for parents to have their children moved to a better school. It increases the probability that a student will have to remain in a poorly performing school, mainly due to limited space availability in other schools and possible court restrictions on student transfers.

Promotion of 16-Year-Olds

One of the early policy changes was to require that eighth grade students, who are 16 years of age on or before September 30, be moved to a high school campus or an alternative program, even though they failed to pass the "high stakes" LEAP 21 testing requirement. The latest change appeared as a rule in the November 20, 1999 Louisiana Register. While this might be regarded as a weakening of the program, the logic of placing such students in an alternate, age-appropriate setting is inescapable. A three-year age difference at this level raises issues more problematic than social promotion.

Special Education Waivers

For the 1999-2000 school year, special education students who took LEAP 21 and failed were promoted to the next grade if they went to summer school and were recommended for advancement by their school building-level committee. This waiver was extended to the 2000-01 school year, but parents were not given the option to request that their student be retained. Special education students who are given alternate assessment and out-of-level testing are not subject to the "high stakes" testing provisions.

This policy advances special education students to the next grade and requires their continued participation in the testing program for inclusion in the school’s SPS calculation as specified in the accountability program rule.

Fourth Grade "High Stakes" Testing Retention/Promotion Policy

The fourth grade "high stakes" retention policy has been changed by BESE to require only one year of remediation if the student continues to fail the LEAP 21 English and/or Math tests. Thus there is a one year retention limit.

Another change allows school districts to decide locally what they will do with students that fail the LEAP 21 testing provisions. Two options were created. Option 1 students repeat the fourth grade, receiving remedial training in the failed subject(s). Option 2 students are placed in a transitional grade (sometimes labeled locally 4T or 4.5) and take remedial training in the failed subject(s) and classes in the other subjects at the next grade level. A repeating fourth-grader who fails the tests may move on to the fifth grade.

The new retention policies will apply for the first time to fourth-graders who fail the LEAP 21 tests this year (2000-01). These new policies reflect the argument that holding a fourth grade student for more than one year is not effective and may even be counterproductive. However, others argue that promotion after one year of remediation is still social promotion and that allowing a student to move on who has not attained grade level competency reduces the pressure on the student, the parents and the system to be accountable.

Eighth Grade "High Stakes" Testing Retention/Promotion Policy

BESE recently approved a new policy that allows school districts to move an eighth-grader who has completed one year of remediation, attends summer school and passes one of two LEAP 21 tests to a transitional grade (not the ninth grade) on the high school campus. The policy also allows parents of such students to decide if their child should enter a pre-GED/Skills Option.

As initially discussed in November, this proposal had not yet been fleshed out and it drew a great deal of opposition. The proposal was challenged as a major step backward from the original "high stakes" concept. At its December meeting, BESE approved a compromise that made the policy change more palatable. Initial details of a pre-GED/Skills Option were presented and the requirement for remediation was continued. In addition, the change would require students to attend summer school and pass either the Math or English LEAP test before moving on to a high school campus.

The original eighth-grade "high stakes" policy was very similar to the fourth grade policy, except there was no one-year limit on retaining students. The local school district had the discretion to place students who fail the English and/or Math LEAP 21 tests in one of two options. They could be retained in the eighth grade (sometimes labeled 8R) with special remedial classes OR moved to a high school campus in a transitional grade (sometimes labeled 8.5).

In spite of the added clarification, the new eighth grade progression policy remains quite complex– enough so that the Louisiana Department of Education (DOE) staff began developing flow charts to explain it. If finally adopted, the policy will apply for the first time to eighth-graders who are currently repeating the grade or in remediation on the high school campus.

This new eighth grade policy might be considered by some to be a form of social promotion. However, while the policy gives students optional paths beyond the eighth grade it no way assures them of a high school diploma. The GEE 21 remains the gatekeeper to the regular diploma. Students using these new options would still have to complete the standard requirements, including passing the exit exam, to receive a standard diploma or complete the requirements and pass the test for a Louisiana Equivalency Diploma (GED).

PROPOSALS STILL UNDER CONSIDERATION

High School Diploma Options

BESE has been considering a controversial proposal to add several high school diploma options, some of which would not require passage of the GEE 21. A final decision has been delayed until later this spring.

The proposal would retain the current diploma requirements in a "Standard Diploma Option." Currently, students must complete 23 Carnegie units of high school courses and pass the GEE 21 for a diploma.

The proposal would add two advanced diplomas under the "Standard Diploma Endorsement Options." Under these options, students could earn an academic or career/technical endorsement on their diplomas if they pass all components of the GEE 21, complete 18.5 Carnegie units of core courses (23 Carnegie units total), meet the high school graduation requirements, meet the TOPS and/or TOPS Tech course requirements, and meet several other performance requirements.

The proposal would also add one or two lower level diplomas. The "Provisional Diploma Option" would award a diploma to students who complete 23 Carnegie units of courses, meet the course requirements for graduation, fail one or more parts of the GEE 21, and have passed the eighth grade "high stakes" LEAP 21 test.

The last option was tentatively labeled a "Skills Diploma" and has not been publicly released. This option has been identified as being primarily for special education students, but it may be available for some regular education students. This option could award some form of certificate or diploma to students who complete specific course requirements but fail to pass either the LEAP 21 eighth grade test or the GEE 21.

It is unclear how or if the proposed diploma options would be incorporated into the accountability program. The endorsement options would not likely have a negative impact. However, if schools were rewarded in their SPS scores by counting lower-than-standard diplomas or certificates in their graduation rates, the proposal could be viewed as a major weakening of the accountability program.

High School SPS Formula

A proposal not approved at BESE’s December meeting could be resurrected. This proposal was to change the formula for calculating school performance scores (SPS) for high schools by reducing the weight given testing from 90% to 70% and making a new (but yet undefined) graduation rate 20% of the score. The proposal could be considered again after BESE debates other diploma options.

THREATS TO PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

Potential threats to the full implementation of the accountability program include legal challenges, reactions to the new graduation exit exam, reactions to implementation of local school choice policy plans, funding problems and teacher job actions.

Legal Challenges

Several lawsuits have been filed in federal and state court to block or delay implementation of the fourth and eighth grade "high stakes" testing policy. The complainants are groups primarily based in the New Orleans area, including Parents for Educational Justice and Parents Against Testing Before Teaching. To date, the courts have ruled in favor of the state and the "high stakes" testing program.

Having failed initially in the courts, Parents for Educational Justice filed a civil rights complaint with the U. S. Department of Education, charging that "high stakes" testing has a disproportionate impact on poor and minority children. This is the fifth investigation of alleged civil rights violations stemming from statewide tests. The other four (North Carolina, Texas, Ohio and Nevada) were settled voluntarily with the states committing to taking steps to help students who have trouble passing the exams, such as providing summer school and accelerated programs. However, the agreements did not require those states to stop using the exams. Louisiana has already implemented statewide summer school programs.

Legal challenges remain a potential, although not imminent, threat to the accountability program.

Reaction to the New Graduation Exit Exam

When the state’s 10th graders take the new and more difficult graduation exit exam (GEE 21) for the first time this spring, the failure rate is expected to be much higher than for the old exam. The DOE has estimated that 35% of the students taking the Math exam for the first time will fail, compared to 25% for the old Math exam. For English, the failure rate is estimated at 28%, compared to 20% on the old test. A high failure rate on the new exam could provoke a public reaction and fuel further demands to ease the policy.

In 1984, BESE adopted a policy requiring passage of a graduation exit exam (GEE) to receive a diploma from a public high school. After seven years of debates, interference, funding problems, and political and public outcry, the exit exam was finally given to the class of 1991.

To pass the original GEE, the student had to perform at an eighth-grade level. But the new exam requires students to function at the 10th grade level. GEE 21 includes four tests: Math, English/Language Arts, Science and Social Studies. Tenth-graders will take the Math and English/Language Arts tests this year and, as 11th graders next year, will take the Science and Social Sciences tests.

Students have five opportunities to pass the English/Language Arts and Math components and three opportunities to pass the Science and Social Studies components and still graduate on time. Students must only retake the parts they fail, and may continue to take the tests after completing the other graduation requirements and leaving high school.

Students in the class of 2003 will only be required to pass the Math and English/Language Arts components to graduate. Subsequent classes will be required to pass the Math, English/ Language Arts, and either the Science or Social Studies tests. Considering the increased difficulty of the new exam, the accountability program is probably not being compromised by requiring passage of fewer components for graduation.

Deletion of the "Approaching Basic" Category

Another critical point in terms of its potential to arouse parental resistance is the plan to raise the passing score on the LEAP 21 tests in 2004. Removing the "Approaching Basic" category will require students to perform at the "Basic" level in order to pass the tests. It is imperative that the educational standards be well developed and clarified well in advance. To stave off efforts to lower passing scores, it will be necessary to show that the standards are well integrated into the curricula and that students are being taught the material on which they will be tested.

Local Implementation of Public School Choice Plans

Students in "Academically Unacceptable" schools in Level II Corrective Action are eligible to be transferred, at their parent’s request, to the nearest acceptable public school under certain conditions. Several schools will likely be in this category for the next school year.

Several school districts have already begun developing transfer plans in case they are needed. The Orleans Parish School District is receiving assistance from the DOE in developing its transfer plan. The Orleans Parish School Board has requested a waiver to the provision allowing transfers to schools across district lines if no "Academically Acceptable" school in the district is available. The East Baton Rouge Parish School Board has asked for a waiver from developing a school choice plan because of the desegregation order. BESE has not approved either waiver request.

The transfer provision could easily run into difficulties. In some cases, there may be many students eligible to transfer, but few vacancies at other schools. In addition, school districts will likely be reluctant to accept students from neighboring districts because they will also have limited space and the local share of student funding will not follow the student. Also, notifying parents of eligibility for a transfer (or rather the failure to notify) has created problems in other states and could also be a problem here.

School attendance zones and school enrollment caps created under desegregation court orders might provide additional complications.

Funding

The governor’s 2001-2002 Executive Budget recommends a funding level of $61.2 million in state general funds for the "School Accountability and Improvement Program." This program provides funding for specific aspects of the state’s accountability program, but it also includes funding for related programs such as charter schools, K-3 Reading and Math Initiative, and curriculum enhancement activities. Major proposed changes from the current year’s budget affecting the accountability program include almost $26 million in additional funding for the following:

At the end of 2001, School Performance Scores will be released for all of the state’s public schools. For elementary and middle schools, the first accountability cycle will end and new growth targets assigned. "Academically Unacceptable" schools that fail to score above 30 will be placed in Corrective Action Level II. In addition, other schools will be placed in Corrective Action Level I if they fail to meet their current growth targets. High schools labeled "Academically Unacceptable" will also be placed in Corrective Action Level I. Additional support and assistance is supposed to be provided to schools in corrective action. With more schools in corrective action for the next fiscal year, the state will have to fund Distinguished Educators for K-8 schools in Corrective Action Level II, fund a pilot program for Distinguished Educators to be placed in academically unacceptable high schools, and provide other resources to assist schools in developing and implementing plans to increase student achievement. The accountability program also calls for rewards for schools that meet or surpass their Growth Targets.

The Accountability Program also requires school districts to adopt or implement programs needed to improve student achievement. These programs require funding that many poorly funded school districts do not have. The additional programs may include:

• Training programs for teachers in poorly performing schools
• Curriculum reviews to align them with state standards
• After school, Saturday, and summer remediation programs
• Alternative programs (pre-GED/Skills Program)
• Recruitment of high quality teachers
• Technology improvements

Holding schools accountable for student achievement but not giving them additional support and assistance to help them improve could threaten the existence of the entire plan.

Another growing threat to the accountability program is the possibility that teacher job actions, such as walkouts or sickouts, in pressing for pay increases could interrupt the scheduled spring LEAP testing. If the governor cannot adequately mollify teachers with a plan to fund pay raises in the 2001-02 budget, the actions could continue into spring. This might give parents ammunition to argue that their fourth and eighth grade children were not adequately prepared for the "high stakes" tests.

ACCOUNTABILITY IN ORLEANS PARISH

PAR’s monitoring project places a special emphasis on following the implementation of the accountability system in New Orleans. Orleans Parish will undoubtedly provide the strongest test of the state’s accountability program and offer the stiffest resistance to its implementation. The consequences of "high stakes" testing will likely bear heavily on this district’s large number of at-risk students. In order to make any meaningful improvement in the educational level of the state as a whole, it is imperative that progress be made in the low-performing schools in New Orleans.

Early on, the Orleans Parish School Board attempted to block a BESE requirement that it identify the parish’s lowest performing schools, a precursor to the start of the accountability program. The board has also adopted a resolution condemning the state’s LEAP 21 "high stakes" testing policy. Even the New Orleans City Council joined in with a resolution opposing the testing policy. Furthermore, it was a New Orleans group that brought suit challenging the testing policy.

According to the latest Louisiana Department of Education data, of the 53 K-8 schools labeled "academically unacceptable" statewide in 1999, 48 were located in the Orleans Parish School District. These 48 schools comprised roughly half of the district’s K-8 schools. Another 40 of the district’s schools were labeled "academically below state average" leaving only 12 rated in the higher categories. (See Table 2).

Table 2

Improvement in Orleans Parish School Performance Scores

(Number and Percent of Schools Placed in Each Category)

The initial school labels were assigned using the School Performance Scores based on tests given in 1999. To be labeled "academically unacceptable," a school had to score 30 or less on a point system that bestowed a "school of academic excellence" label for a score of 150 or above.

Although elected officials in the parish have demonstrated a lack of full support for the accountability program, there are early indications of some improvement in the parish’s schools. Test scores are improving and some schools have shown remarkable improvement.

As expected, Orleans Parish had the poorest results of any district on the spring 2000 LEAP 21 exams. However, it showed improvement over the previous year. (See Figure 1 and 2.) The parish’s fourth-graders matched the small statewide improvement in the English/Language Arts portion but still with twice the failure rate (43%). On the Math portion, Orleans’ fourth-graders matched the small statewide improvement in the English/Language Arts portion but still with twice the failure rate (43%). On the Math portion, Orleans’ fourth-graders made significant improvement, with their failure rate falling from 63% to 53%. The parish’s eighth-graders exceeded the statewide improvement in both English and Math, but again with one of the highest failure rates of 35% and 61% respectively.

After the first year of the accountability program, School Performance Scores for Orleans Parish schools improved with the average school score increasing from 38.4 in 1999 to 44.7 in 2000, an average increase of 6.3 points. Notably, two "Academically Unacceptable" schools in the parish increased their scores by over 40 points. McDonogh #07 Elementary School ranked first and Robert R. Moton Elementary School ranked third with the highest score increases in the state.

In the first year, 18 of 55 schools that originally scored in the "academically unacceptable" category (when special education students were included) raised their test scores sufficiently to lose that label. However, the school scores are figured on a two-year cycle and new labels will not be assigned until this year’s test scores are calculated. Table 2 shows how the parish’s schools would have been labeled if the 2000 scores had been used.

A recent Times Picayune editorial warned that, "one year does not make a trend" but concluded that, while there was still a long way to go, the city schools have made a dramatic change from two years ago.

CONCLUSION

Student performance improvements from the 1999 to the 2000 tests suggest that the accountability program is working and should be continued. It is too early to tell how successful the program is, but the initial results are encouraging. The fact that several outside organizations have given the program high marks suggests that Louisiana has become a national leader in accountability.

Louisiana’s academic standards in some areas have been cited by national reviewers as needing improvement. Teachers need clear guidance on what students are expected to know at each grade level so that curricula can be aligned with the standards. In addition, the standards need to be constantly reviewed to ensure that they are aligned with the state’s assessment or testing program.

Most of the changes made to the accountability program since its inception have generally been improvements. The major changes, and the most controversial, are those that have altered the stringent consequences of "high stakes" testing originally designed to end social promotion at the fourth- and eighth-grade level.

Allowing students who fail the fourth grade a second time to move on probably reflects a reality that repeating for a third year would be counterproductive at this level for most students.

The new eighth grade LEAP 21 "high stakes" testing policy, now in the process of being formally adopted, adds flexibility to the accountability program. It is a fact that some special education students will never learn the material and pass the test. But it is more difficult to accept as a fact that some regular education students will not meet the low standard of passing the tests at the "Approaching Basic" or above level, even with remediation. The policy allows some students to progress to the next grade who are still well below grade level in Math or English/Language Arts. The compromise policy adopted by BESE gives such students options other than remaining in the eighth grade until they drop out. Although not perfect, the new policy, if carefully implemented, offers an acceptable solution to a difficult problem.

The planned pre-GED/Skills Option Program still needs to be fleshed out. A primary concern is that the program not be structured in such a way as to become a dumping ground for low achieving students. The skills training must be designed to adequately prepare students to become productive citizens.

BESE delayed action on high school diploma options until later in 2001. The idea of enhanced diplomas, recognizing extra effort and higher achievement, is commendable. However, the proposal to grant a less-than-standard diploma will meet justifiable resistance.

Funding could be a problem in making accountability work. Remedial classes, summer school and alternative programs such as pre-GED/Skills Option, will need additional resources.

While accountability has gotten off to a rocky start in New Orleans, early results indicate that significant improvements can be expected. Unfortunately, the school board and many parents do not yet appear to be completely on board with the reform effort.

Louisiana has developed a good program that will continue to require minor adjustments as new elements of the plan are implemented and problems arise. Great care must be exercised in making any policy changes to assure that the basic premise of the reform effort is not undermined. If the schools and their students are to be held truly accountable, they cannot be let off the hook whenever they begin to feel the consequences of their failures. Major policy changes should be resisted to give the program an opportunity to prove itself. At the same, common sense must not be discarded.