State education board discusses new system
Accountability strategy raises several questions
The state Board of Education’s conversation last week about a new accountability system raised multiple questions, including how to define academic growth at the high school level, how much chronic absenteeism should count against schools and how to ensure that the system is easy to understand.
Virginia Department of Education officials presented the board Wednesday with an overview of their work, including feedback from close to 400 people, including teachers, parents and school administrators, during meetings held around the state in the last few weeks.
The VDOE hopes to have the system in place by the summer with data collection beginning in 2024-25.
Work began in the fall after the board voted to develop new metrics. The current accreditation system has been criticized for being confusing and masking changes in achievement.
A June report from the secretary of education and the superintendent of public instruction recommended that Virginia divide its program into two systems — one for accountability and one for accreditation — similar to what most other states have.
The accreditation system will focus on what officials call “inputs,” such as whether schools are complying with program and building safety requirements.
The accountability system will include indicators of achievement, growth and student readiness.
Questions remain on how best to define growth and readiness.
Officials last week said feedback showed that most people favor a system that would give growth equal, if not more, weight as achievement, especially at the K-8 level.
However, there were questions on how to measure it in high school, where subjects do not necessarily build on each other.
Department officials suggested a K-8 accountability system that uses a simple “mastery” index for achievement and gives equal weight to growth. Officials suggested a similar index for high schools, along with prioritizing graduation and readiness measures over growth. One option could be to drop the growth indicator at the high school level until a new measure could be established.
The board also discussed the fairness of using chronic absenteeism as the measurement for readiness at the elementary level.
Board members agreed on the importance of attendance, but some wondered how to minimize the negative impact chronic absenteeism can have on a school’s accountability score when a large part of the problem is out of the schools’ control.
Suggestions included less emphasis on chronic absenteeism and exploring ways to expand the definition of attendance.
A few board members suggested adding a few questions to tests that kids already take to help measure readiness.
A more defined plan will be presented to the board in March, then to the public. Superintendent of Public Instruction Lisa Coons said that the timeline can be extended if board members are not ready to move forward in March.
Board president Grace Creasey said it was also important to remember the purpose of revamping the system.
“We are focused on transparency and ease of understanding of this system.”