Indiana School Accountability Rankings Show Modest Change

“It is encouraging to see the number of schools that are maintaining a good standing despite steadily increasing expectations,” said Suellen Reed, state superintendent of public instruction. “Many schools are making the changes needed to boost student achievement, but we’d certainly like to see a greater degree of improvement across the board.”

Passed by the state legislature in 1999 – two years ahead of the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act – PL 221 places Indiana schools and corporations into one of five categories based upon ISTEP+ test data: Exemplary Progress, Commendable Progress, Academic Progress, Academic Watch or Academic Probation.

Public schools, with the exception of charter schools, that place in the lowest category, “Academic Probation,” are subject to interventions designed to provide the additional support needed to improve student achievement.

A slightly higher percentage of schools – 8 percent (147) this year vs. 7 percent (125) last year – were placed in probation in 2006-2007. Of the schools on probation last year, 39 percent (48) climbed to a higher category while the other 74 schools remained on probation for a second year.

PL 221 placements are based on the percentage of all students who pass the English and math ISTEP+ tests (averaged across subjects and grade levels) as well as the improvement in passing percentage of students over time. PL 221 also incorporates the federal Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) measure. Schools that do not make AYP for two consecutive years can place no higher than the middle category (Academic Progress). About 10 percent (196) of schools’ category placements were lowered due to AYP this year, up from 8 percent last year.

“In many respects, Indiana’s accountability system holds schools to a higher standard than No Child Left Behind because it measures improvement as well as performance,” said Dr. Reed. “At the same time, PL 221 may be a more meaningful indicator since it tracks the progress of the same groups of students over time rather than simply comparing grade levels from year to year.”

Reed noted that though the federal and state accountability systems have rightly focused schools’ efforts on raising the academic achievement of all students, both systems remain limited measures by relying on the percentage of students passing state assessments rather than measuring actual student improvement on these tests (both toward and above passing). In addition to ongoing conversations at the federal level regarding modifications to NCLB, Reed and the State Board of Education expect to discuss changes that would transition PL 221 to a true improvement model.