Rating Arizona’s 2,015 public schools with a label of A-F helps the community identify the quality of the school. Letter grades were assigned from 2012-2014 and suspended in 2015 and 2016 as Arizona students transitioned to a new statewide test. Letter grades are based, in part, on how students perform on Arizona’s statewide test.
To grade schools in 2017, the Arizona Department of Education asked the community to participate in a Request For Information on the new A-F system’s components and methodology. However, in order to respond to 45 questions, the public must have extensive technical knowledge. Thus while the Department of Education is attempting to solicit feedback from the public, the unintended consequence is likely to be greater exclusion of all stakeholders.
Further, anyone submitting a response to the 45 questions in the Request For Information is excluded from participating as a technical or policy advisor during A-F methodology discussions.
Public Engagement
In 2014, the State Board of Education developed the A-F School Accountability Principles of Agreement[1] in preparation for the development of the new A-F formula. These Principles were created collaboratively with stakeholders and advocates to ensure the newly developed system aligned with the Board’s philosophical, technical and implementation expectations. In part, the Principles state:
“A coalition of technical and policy stakeholders must be consulted to create, evaluate and refine the methodologies used in the achievement profile to ensure transparency, feedback from the field and community, and compliance with Agreements.”
Additionally, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)[2] requires meaningful stakeholder participation in the development of the state’s accountability system. In the past, the Arizona Department of Education utilized technical advisors to support the development of accountability concepts, indicators and methodologies; they focused outreach efforts to school personnel through presentations and targeted communication strategies, and the general public had access to materials once they were available for presentations to the State Board of Education. In response to these newly stated expectations for increased public engagement the Department released a Request For Information (RFI) for Arizona School Accountability Components and System[3] to solicit stakeholder opinions and feedback. On the face of it, this new RFI process should yield more opportunities for broad stakeholder engagement in the development of the A-F accountability system.
Unintended Consequences
However, the purpose statement of the RFI strays from this goal. It states “this RFI solicits feedback from interested parties with any relevant expertise, systems or methodology they have developed or conceptualized which meet the intent of any of the components described below” (page 2). This language, “relevant expertise”, is likely to alienate the general public and exclude them from the process altogether. If the purpose statement doesn’t scare the public from responding, the introduction might. It makes it clear to the reader that responses should be framed within the new ESSA requirements, A.R.S. § 15-241, SB 1430, State Board’s Principles of Agreement, Superintendent Douglas’ plan as well as other historical documentation. While the RFI states that respondents are invited to respond to one, any or all of the 45 questions contained – the sheer magnitude of the document is likely to limit responses.
So then, it would seem that the RFI is really designed to solicit responses from the State Board’s coalition of technical and policy advisors. The technical advisory group is made up of individuals who represent a variety of education stakeholders; large and small districts, charter schools, online schools, alternative schools, etc. The policy advisors include the business and philanthropic communities as well as advocacy organizations. These groups represent individuals who have relevant expertise, have likely developed or conceptualized systems or methodologies, and have knowledge of the pertinent statutes and requirements described. Many of the Board’s advisors have also historically provided technical assistance to the Department in the development of prior accountability systems.
The RFI makes it clear that any and all developed or conceptualized systems and methodologies or any suggestions previously submitted for consideration must be resubmitted through the RFI for consideration. This requirement applies to both the general public and to any technical or policy advisor of the Board or Department. The RFI goes on to state, “respondents to this RFI will be excluded in evaluating and integrating responses which may or may not result in a high stakes accountability system and related competitions” (page 3). This exclusionary language creates a catch-22 and puts all of the State Board’s technical and policy advisors in an untenable position. That is to say, if any technical and/or policy advisor submits a response to suggest ways to create or refine the methodologies used in the achievement profiles they won’t be unable to participate in future accountability discussions and methodology decisions.
The Impact
Since 2014, Arizona schools and education advocates have been anxiously awaiting new letter grades. Due to a two-year moratorium negotiated between education advocates and the legislature, schools have been left holding on to legacy letter grades. This is great news for the 67% of schools that earned an A or B but not ideal for the remaining schools. As the 2016-17 school year approaches, the first year of the new accountability system’s implementation, little is known about how schools will be evaluated.
The issuance of the Department’s RFI puts the development of the state’s new accountability system in jeopardy. First, the RFI will likely limit new and innovative methodologies and concepts created by Arizona’s most qualified technical and policy experts because they are unlikely to submit responses. The resulting accountability system may look very similar to prior system; despite the opportunities for innovation provided by the revised state and federal statutes. Second, it restricts the State Board’s technical and policy advisors from carrying their explicit role to “create, evaluate and refine the methodologies used in the achievement profile” as outlined in the Board’s Implementation Principle. Each of these outcomes has the potential to undermine the newly developed system and introduce unnecessary distrust and skepticism.
References and Footnotes
[1] Arizona State Board of Education’s A-F Accountability Principles of Agreement, implementation agreements https://azsbe.az.gov/resources/f-school-letter-grade-accountability
[2] Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Dear Colleague Letter regarding collaboration http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/160622.html
[3] Arizona Department of Education’s Request for Information (RFI) for Arizona School Accountability Components and System http://www.azed.gov/accountability/rfi/
