How Do State Leaders Want to Change the Every Student Succeeds Act? 

Perspectives on Accountability: A Survey

This is the fifth and final post by our 2024 summer interns, based on the assessment and accountability projects they designed with their Center mentors. Courtney Stone, a doctoral student at Arizona State University, worked with the Center’s associate director, Chris Domaleski.

Since its passage in 2015, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) has been criticized as a reform without a repair, a retreat from equity, a mirage of flexibility, and a continuation of the same dominant structure of testing and accountability perpetuated by No Child Left Behind (NCLB). According to a new survey, however, most education leaders who work directly with assessment and accountability programs recommend few or only minor changes to ESSA’s accountability requirements.  

These results are nuanced, however, and include key caveats. So, what exactly do state education leaders think about ESSA’s accountability requirements? Do they favor other accountability alternatives? Do they see ESSA as misaligned with state education priorities? 

These are a few of the questions I sought to answer with this project, a mixed methods study in which I surveyed 51 and interviewed nine state education leaders in assessment and accountability. 

The study may have generated more questions than answers, though. I’m now considering additional questions, such as: How is flexibility meaningful within the context of accountability systems? How should we view “appropriateness” as we consider the criteria of ESSA requirements? How do we grapple with the seemingly contradictory findings of little support for major changes to ESSA and majority support for a few accountability alternatives that are currently not permitted under federal law?

In short: it’s complicated. 

How well is ESSA aligned with states’ accountability priorities?

From my interviews, I learned that state accountability priorities generally focus on test results, and measures of other factors such as whole child, equity, and college and career readiness. The participants said they found ESSA helpful because it offers a credible framework that is a support in moving equity-related priorities forward.

But that framework can also be viewed as a hindrance. For example, while participants appreciate the need to identify schools that need support, ESSA functions as a one-size-fits-all approach to diverse states, districts, and schools that differ in their needs, contexts, and resources. 

Participants generally find ESSA’s accountability requirements defensible, but noted the challenges of operating within them. They said that ESSA’s standardized requirements can be restrictive to states that struggle with inadequate capacity to allocate resources to all schools identified for support.

Participants also noted that it’s difficult to add information (i.e. teacher retention, student surveys, measures of well-being) to accountability systems due to ESSA’s disaggregation requirements, their concern with the corruptibility of such measures, and their wish for meaningful comparability across schools and states.

What do state education leaders think about ESSA’s accountability requirements?

In a survey, I asked state education leaders who work with accountability systems to share their perspectives about whether various ESSA requirements should be changed. The survey focused participants on three key aspects of ESSA: designations, indicators, and design decisions.

For example, the items in the indicator group asked respondents to consider, for each required accountability indicator, whether they favored no changes, some changes, or major changes. Figure 1 shows the survey results, grouped into these three categories.

Figure 1. Responses on ESSA Designations, Indicators, and Design Decisions

Although a very small number from the survey, the ESSA designations requirement received the highest number of participants recommending major changes or removal of the requirements.

Luckily, the interviews provided meaningful context to this finding as I heard often from participants that the concerns state education leaders do have with ESSA lie not necessarily with the requirements themselves, but with the criteria within the requirements (e.g. timing). In fact, ESSA as a framework seems reasonable to our participants, but there is tension in leveraging the flexibility within its requirements. 

Perhaps most interestingly among the interview findings, when participants were asked for their feedback on the appropriateness of the percentage of schools identified (i.e. for CSI, TSI, and ATSI), I noticed that many grappled with what appropriateness means and most equated appropriateness with  “capacity to support.”

If we view appropriateness as the capacity to serve identified schools, participants agreed then that the requirements are appropriate. However, if by appropriate we are referring to the actual number of schools that need additional support from the state, many participants in states that design their systems to minimize the number of identified schools opined that there are, of course, many unidentified schools that could use the additional support.

On the other hand, those who highlighted states with identification percentages much higher than the 5% for CSI expressed concern about the mismatch of support to identifications. One participant mentioned that “if everyone is on the list, then nobody is on the list.” 

What alternative accountability proposals to improve ESSA do state education leaders support?

None, right? That might seem like the case based on our survey findings on ESSA requirements. But it is important to distinguish between those who support changes to existing requirements and those who support new ideas and approaches, as new ideas don’t obviate the existing requirements.

Based on the survey, I found support from a majority of participants for three potential accountability proposals: 1) include different assessments in the academic achievement indicator (e.g., science, social studies), 2) allow for a distinct approach to accountability for exceptional schools (e.g., alternative schools), and 3) permit states to implement an innovative accountability pilot program (Table 1). 

Table 1. Survey Responses to Proposed Accountability Alternatives to Improve ESSA

Include different assessments in the academic achievement indicator (e.g., science, social studies)	57.78%
Lift the constraint to assess students annually	26.67%
Lift the constraint to assess students in the required grades (e.g., allow grade band testing)	37.78%
Allow for a distinct approach to accountability for exceptional schools (e.g., alternative schools).	73.33%
Allow schools flexibility in selecting some or all indicators for accountability designations.	33.33%
Permit states to implement an innovative accountability pilot program for a select group of schools or LEAs in order to explore promising accountability practices.	62.22%

Why the strong support for a handful of alternatives?

Some interview participants shared that they have successfully incorporated different assessments into their accountability plans, perhaps explaining the high level of support received for that specific alternative.

In all interviews but one did the participant(s) specifically mention —very compellingly, may I add—that ESSA disincentivizes and punishes exceptional schools. Given that the proposed alternatives presented to respondents are not currently a part of ESSA requirements, perhaps state education leaders view a distinct accountability approach to exceptional schools as something that would need to be added to the law and is not an issue that can be rectified by changing existing current requirements.

Let’s start the conversation

My efforts to learn from state education leaders about ESSA offer more of a starting point than a resolution. It’s clear that state leaders are very thoughtful when it comes to considering the merits and limitations of ESSA. They acknowledged that some requirements are reasonable and help elevate policy priorities, while others may need focused changes. Such changes may help systems work in certain contexts (e.g., alternative schools) or avoid implementation challenges (e.g., identification rates that exceed state capacity). 

These insights lay the foundation for important conversations that should continue. Those conversations should focus on strategies that can improve the implementation of ESSA in the short term and perhaps inform the reauthorization of ESSA in the longer term. I hope the findings from this project can contribute to productive conversations.