# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Project-learning teaching strategies can also improve your everyday classroom experience.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Managing a Classroom

Every teacher faces a challenge when it comes to managing his or her classroom. The decisions and actions a teacher takes in this area can be the difference between peaceful productivity and complete chaos. The actions and attitudes of the teacher during the first few class sessions set the tone for the rest of the term. Because it is so important, the most effective teachers create a classroom management plan well in advance of the first class session. Although some management techniques will change depending on the students and grade level, many of the underlying basic strategies of classroom management remain the same. The strategies we'll discuss in this lesson involve rules, the learning environment, student engagement and student-teacher relationships.

Rules

For most teachers, the foundation of a managed classroom is a clear set of rules and consequences. Teachers need to establish general rules of conduct to ensure the classroom runs smoothly. Imagine you teach a fifth grade history class. What kind of rules would you create? The rules that are needed change with every class, and most teachers agree that the students should be included in creating them. The general strategy is to have an idea of what rules are needed, but then include the students in actually creating them as well as the consequences for breaking them. When students have a say in the matter, they have ownership in what has been decided and are more motivated to follow the rules.

It's recommended that teachers devote a portion of the very first day of class to coming up with rules and consequences. Starting with a short list of categories, like 'General Classroom Behavior' and 'Use of Materials,' the teacher facilitates discussion, and the students create a set of rules expressed in their own language.

Most teachers agree that it's best to create only a few rules (5-8 is the rule of thumb), as it's too hard to remember a long list. Of course, teachers also need to determine how they will personally enforce the rules and consequences as well as how to handle conflict. We discuss strategies for discipline and reducing undesirable behaviors in another lesson.

This strategy for creating rules could also be used to determine routines for each class. Unlike rules, rituals and routines don't have consequences, but they are an important part of managing the classroom. They are the repeated activities that students learn to expect as part of your particular class. For example, you could create a routine in your history class where you always write the schedule for the day on the board, along with directions for an extra activity if any students finish early. Knowing what to do and being able to predict what comes next makes students feel competent, which not only helps them learn, but also contributes to a positive learning environment.

Learning Environment

The learning environment greatly affects students and their learning, so it's also an extremely important part of classroom management. The learning environment is the way the classroom works and feels. It includes the physical environment as well as the social or emotional environment within the classroom. Teachers want all students to feel motivated, challenged, supported and physically comfortable. The right management strategies lead to a positive learning environment, which promotes productivity and respect.

The physical environment includes physical aspects such as desk arrangement, decorations, lighting, temperature, etc. This is the way the classroom works. Imagine that history class you teach again. How would you arrange the desks and decorate the room? Each physical aspect can affect learning and creativity as well as the ability to concentrate and maintain attention. It's important that the space be attractive, well lit, comfortable and clean. The physical environment is often the first impression of the class as students enter and conveys the teacher's approach to managing instruction and learning. For example, if you arranged the desks in your history classroom so they are clustered into groups and facing each other, it promotes interaction and shows that you - the teacher - value collaboration. If there are stations set up throughout the room, it indicates that the class will be engaging and hands-on.

When students walk into a classroom every day, they need to feel ownership. Their creations and projects should be on display, as the more they see themselves in the environment, the more they feel valued. They should also feel confident of where to find anything they may need, such as supplies or a place to turn in their assignment.

Beyond the physical environment, the learning environment also includes the social and emotional aspects of the classroom. This is the way that the classroom feels. Students thrive in environments where they feel safe and respected and where there is an atmosphere of purposefulness and confidence in learning. This is certainly not always an easy task for teachers, but there are many strategies that help to create this type of environment. One strategy is to build and maintain positive student-teacher relationships, which we'll discuss later in this lesson.

Another strategy is to give students an opportunity to express their opinion and contribute ideas. We already talked about including them in creating rules, consequences and routines, and that is a strategy that goes a long way towards creating a positive learning environment. It keeps them involved and invested in the subject.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
classroom management techniques - video & lesson transcript | study.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Classroom Management Techniques - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Every teacher faces a challenge when it comes to managing his or her classroom. The decisions and actions a teacher takes in this area can be the difference between peaceful productivity and complete chaos. The actions and attitudes of the teacher during the first few class sessions set the tone for the rest of the term.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 2015, the Every Student Succeeds Act, or ESSA, replaced the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act, or NCLB, as the nation's major K-12 education law, continuing that law's focus on increasing the quality of public education. To fulfill this mission, ESSA requires states to measure, report on, and improve public school performance. Given the 14-year gap between ESSA and NCLB, the ways in which the old law measured and improved school quality were no longer useful in improving student outcomes. States began requesting exemptions from the law's more punitive measures in 2011.

NCLB relied heavily upon a pass/fail system to measure school performance based on targets for test scores and graduation rates. ESSA marks a significant shift away from NCLB in a number of areas but none more so than the requirements for how states must hold districts and schools accountable for improving student outcomes. In particular, there are three key shifts in the approach to accountability.

First, ESSA moves beyond NCLB's focus on test scores and graduation rates to a broader view of student and school success by requiring additional indicators and emphasizing the importance of a more holistic approach to accountability. Second, ESSA distributes responsibility for improvement among states, districts, and schools rather than focusing entirely on school-level actions directed by the state. And third, ESSA provides more flexibility at the local level for school improvement, requiring evidence-based strategies rather than the specific interventions of private tutoring and school choice that were mandatory for all struggling schools under the NCLB's school improvement grants program.

The new law's vision for accountability recognizes that states need to build a systemic approach to prepare all students for college and careers-and they must do so quickly. While states are required by law to fully implement their accountability systems in the 2017-18 school year, even more urgently, workforce needs are changing rapidly. According to a recent study by the Center on Education and the Workforce, 99 percent of all jobs created since the market crash of 2008 require at least some postsecondary training. Most students can no longer compete in the economy without advanced training beyond a high school education. Furthermore, while graduation rates on the whole are on the rise and more low-income students and students of color are attending college, their rates of high school and college completion lag behind national totals. If all children are to succeed in college and careers, then states must continue to tackle the persistent gaps in educational attainment for particular groups of students.

However, ESSA's approach is incomplete. Systems built solely for ESSA compliance inform states, districts, schools, and the public of what outcomes students met without explaining why they met them. As a result, states have been building toward more comprehensive accountability systems in recent years. In a 2014 report on next-generation accountability systems, the Center for American Progress reviewed how states were expanding their accountability systems to better support school and district improvement. The report identified five broad categories into which states are organizing their reforms and used those categories to formulate a new concept for accountability. The categories are:

Measuring progress toward college and career readiness

Diagnosing and responding to challenges via school-based quality improvement

State systems of support and intervention

Resource accountability

Professional accountability

Building off of that review, this report describes a comprehensive approach to school accountability that encompasses each of these categories and goes beyond ESSA's vision to help states, districts, and schools understand what led to their results. The report reviews the ESSA accountability requirements; describes a broader vision for student and school success; details a system for process management that fosters systems-level accountability to help states understand how well they are progressing toward that broader vision; and provides considerations that states should keep in mind when building accountability systems.

The report's school accountability approach emphasizes two equally important goals for these new systems: 1) ensuring that accountability systems drive toward equal education opportunities by creating a system for identifying and acting on chronic low performance by particular groups of students and 2) ensuring that accountability systems are broadly framed in order to drive toward a comprehensive conception of student and school success and a culture of continuous improvement rather than just shame and punishment.

In order to achieve these goals, CAP proposes that states think holistically when choosing the data used to measure student, school, and district success, as well as consider carefully how data are used. We suggest that states build two connected components for their system. One component is an ESSA-required system that leads to actions to improve school quality, and the other component is a system that helps states understand what led to those outcomes.

This approach follows CAP's belief-laid out in its 2014 report-that an ideal accountability system is meaningful for all schools when it embeds what ESSA requires within a broader system for driving improvements and supports. This includes a broad set of measures for student success; attention to district-level, not just school-level, accountability; development of systems for supporting schools and districts; improvements in how teachers are trained and supported; and accountability for how resources are allocated.

The Every Student Succeeds Act describes a continuous cycle of reporting student data, issuing school classifications, and using collected data to inform local interventions and supports. (see Figure 1)

As depicted in Figure 1, each of the activities that states undertake play a critical role in an accountability system. Furthermore, there are specific requirements for each of these activities within ESSA.

Student outcome data provides the bedrock for the entire system. ESSA requires that these data drive school classifications and school improvement efforts. In addition, these data provide transparency-or an honest accounting of how well students are doing. To serve each of these purposes, states will use a wider range of long- and short-term outcomes, as well as contextual data about the conditions of learning present in schools and districts, than was required by NCLB. What follows is a brief description of ESSA's requirements for what must be reported and how schools are to be classified and improved.

Data reporting

States must annually and publicly report on how well all of their public school students are performing on the following measures, as well as set goals for the first, second, and fourth indicators.

1. Academic achievement in reading and math for third grade through eighth grade and once in high school

2. High school graduation rate

3. Growth or another academic indicator for elementary and middle schools

4. English language proficiency for English learners only

5. At least one measure of school quality or student success

Additionally, states must collect and report on a new, more varied set of data than the five indicators listed above. These new data provide insights into levels of student engagement and the availability of resources that support broader student learning. These data include access to advanced coursework, exclusionary discipline rates, chronic absenteeism, professional qualifications of educators, per-pupil expenditures, and postsecondary enrollment rates.

School classifications

States must use the five indicators listed above for the 2017-18 school year, and every three years thereafter, to identify a subset of their lowest-performing schools according to the performance goals that states set for the specific indicators listed above.

Collectively, there are five types of low-performing schools, including those receiving ESSA funds under Title I of the law as well as any public schools meeting the criteria listed below.

Comprehensive support and improvement schools, identified once every three years

Lowest-performing: Lowest-performing 5 percent of schools in the state participating in Title I

Low graduation rate: Any public high school with graduation rates less than 67 percent

Chronically low-performing subgroup: Any Title I school previously identified for targeted support and improvement that fails to meet the state's exit criteria after implementing interventions

Targeted support and improvement

Consistently underperforming subgroup: Any school with one or more consistently underperforming subgroups, identified annually

Low-performing subgroup: Any school with one or more subgroups performing at or below the rate of all students in a school that is in the bottom 5 percent of schools statewide; any Title I schools so identified become "chronically low-performing schools" after failing to meet exit criteria

School improvement

Identified schools must implement evidence-based interventions and supports until they meet state-set exit criteria, and districts must support these schools in selecting and implementing the interventions and supports that fit the schools' identified needs. Districts with several identified schools must review resource allocation and address it in the schools' improvement plans. States must also identify additional actions for schools that fail to meet state-set exit criteria.

Because ESSA's school quality and improvement requirements are limited to the above measures, states should consider what a broader vision for school and student success looks like.

College and career readiness is a central policy goal of the Every Student Succeeds Act and a running theme of the law, even though the legislation falls short of defining or even mentioning the term outright. To varying degrees, the requirements for key provisions of the law-including standards, assessments, accountability, school improvement, other student supports, and educator effectiveness-speak to the need to prepare students for advanced training after high school and specifically call for students to receive a "well-rounded education." As a result, the law acts as a broad framework for college and career readiness that states can further define through their implementation of the law. At the same time, states were working to define college and career readiness for several years prior to ESSA being passed.

Definitions of college and career readiness are formal and informal statements on what range of academic knowledge and cognitive and practical strategies states believe that their systems of education should provide to students so that they are successful in college, the workforce, and society. Formal definitions have been codified in various ways, whether through state laws, regulations, or other major policy documents. Informal definitions are not codified specifically but are recorded in documents such as applications for federal funding.

In its review of both formal and informal state definitions of college and career readiness, a 2014 report by the College and Career Readiness and Success Center notes that state definitions mention the following, to varying degree and frequency:

Mastery of core academic content knowledge, including math, reading, writing, science, social studies, and history

Attainment of skills related to critical thinking and problem-solving

Skills related to social emotional learning, collaboration, and communication

Civic and community engagement skills

Regardless of their formality, definitions of college and career readiness can be important drivers of state-level policy. By providing a common understanding of the term, they can promote coherence among the policies and strategies that relate to K-12 education but that reside outside its explicit scope. These policy areas may include but are not limited to a state's health and development, social services, early learning, higher education, and workforce systems.

Furthermore, definitions help these state-level systems determine the most appropriate ways to measure college and career readiness from their own unique perspectives and authority. For example, there are important benchmarks within parent-child interactions in children's early years that affect their lifelong ability to learn. A 1995 study from the University of Kansas showed that higher-income children were exposed to 30 million more words than children from low-income homes. The study also showed later deficits in learning associated with this gap. Given this reality, vocabulary attainment in the early years might be an important measure to collect for both health and early learning systems.

State definitions of college and career readiness can also promote coherence within the K-12 education system, specifically as states develop plans and strategies to implement ESSA. The most obvious example of this is through states' adoption and implementation of academic standards and assessments that align with the knowledge and skills students need to enter credit-bearing coursework in college. To be sure, state adoption of college- and career-readiness standards-such as the Common Core State Standards, as well as their aligned, high-quality assessments-meet this requirement.

Furthermore, states can also address college and career readiness in how they measure and classify school performance. For example, there might be age- or grade-band specific benchmarks that schools and districts should pay attention to, such as vocabulary attainment, and states can collect and report this information. States may not wish to use the entire range of knowledge, skills, and experiences related to college and career readiness in the measures they use to classify school performance, but much of this information can be useful to inform local educational practice within districts, schools, and classrooms.

At the same time, states are already using a number of college- and career-readiness indicators in their school classification systems. Most of these apply to high schools, making the case for learning more about which earlier college- and career-readiness benchmarks are important to track for a student's earlier education and development. For more information on what college- and career-readiness indicators states are currently using to classify school performance, see CAP's "Making the Grade" report.

To create an accountability system that explains not just what outcomes were reached but what decisions led to those outcomes, states should consider measuring the effectiveness of coordination among and between each level of the system: states, districts, and schools.

Designing and measuring effective coordination and interaction between states and districts

Clearly distinguishing who is responsible for ensuring that students are college and career ready; what they are responsible for; and how they are responsible helps each level of the system-states, districts, and schools-use their limited resources to reach a commonly understood goal for student and school success. Likewise, states can support more effective interaction within and between each level of the system when they know who does what in order to ensure effective leveraging of the tools and resources that the state provides.

Any highly functioning system continually audits its resources and reassesses how to allocate them to meet its goals. The same is true for systems of education.

Defining inputs, processes, outputs, and outcomes

States, districts, and schools have their own unique resources to contribute to education, which this report refers to as inputs, or the resources that provide a basis for public education. The terms inputs and resources are used synonymously in this report. Inputs include standards, curricula, and course schedules.

Each level of the system has its own process for using these resources, or its own method and timeline for using the inputs. A process includes a state's system for building district capacity to improve school performance.

Outputs are the short-term results, such as student growth rates, and outcomes are the long-term benefits that a public education should deliver, such as proficiency and graduation rates. Outputs and short-term benefits are also used synonymously in this report.

One desired outcome of K-12 education is college and career readiness for all students. However, states' short-term goals-or outputs-for college and career readiness should differ by school and context. Some schools may need more aggressive targets for student growth or for improving how safe and nurtured students feel on campus-commonly referred to as a school's climate-than other schools. On the other hand, the baseline expectations for long-term outcomes should be the same for all schools. This means that over time, all schools should be expected to meet the same long-term targets for proficiency and graduation.

In designing systems of healthy interaction within and between states, districts, and schools, the critical questions states must ask are: What are the reasonable, short-term outcomes that states, districts, and schools can expect? How are these measured and by whom and how often are the results reviewed? States' answers to these questions should inform their development of the metrics, benchmarks, and processes foundational to their accountability systems.

As Figure 2 shows, there should be a direct relationship among inputs, processes, outputs, and outcomes within state, district, and school systems, as well as between each of them. For example, a state's academic standards ought to determine the type of curriculum-inputs-and teacher training-processes-that districts provide. Table 1 below shows how states can organize a system of inputs, processes, outputs, and outcomes. This organization is meant to be illustrative, not exhaustive.

States have been working toward building comprehensive, next-generation accountability systems that are made up of multiple components, including:

Measuring progress toward college and career readiness

Diagnosing and responding to challenges via school-based quality improvement

State systems of support and intervention

Resource accountability

Professional accountability

Understanding how all of these components fit together within a system of inputs, processes, outputs, and outcomes can bring greater clarity to how to operationalize these systems cohesively.

The matrix detailed in Table 1 below shows how such a system can be organized. Note that the list included in Table 1 is not comprehensive enough to represent the entire scope of state work within accountability, but it is a start. States may wish to list additional items on this list that further capture the breadth of their work.

The inputs below are important foundational components of the public education system. It is essential that states effectively manage these inputs internally and deliver them successfully to districts. To do so, states must have the capacity to build and maintain high-quality inputs and effective processes in each of the categories of accountability. A first step toward building this capacity should include an assessment of the current status of inputs and processes, measured against the goal of college and career readiness. For example, states may wish to review the extent to which course curricula reinforce the state's college- and career-readiness standards or conduct a similar review with respect to the state's educator standards and licensure requirements. The goal of this review would be to measure the extent to which a state's inputs and processes will result in the attainment of college and career readiness for all students. The following sections detail how each level of the system can have the greatest effect on student outcomes.

State actions

State governments are far removed from classrooms. Still, state-level processes can and do affect student outcomes. For example, academic standards are a key state-level input that has a major impact at the local level. A critical component of the academic standards adoption life cycle, which includes the development, review, and adoption of academic standards, is also the implementation of those standards. To be effective in teaching students to meet the adopted standards, teachers must receive information about what technical and instructional shifts are necessary to ensure student achievement. While teacher preparation and professional development are not generally thought of as accountability indicators, students are not likely to achieve the standards if teachers and leaders are not adequately prepared to teach them. Therefore, measures of teacher practice can be an important set of metrics for states to collect and review continuously.

In addition to these state-specific functions, states must identify and respond to low capacity and performance at the district level. While it is important that states pay attention to all district practices for teaching and learning, ESSA speaks to some very specific district-level capacities that states must monitor. In particular, these include the capacity of districts to implement evidence-based reforms in schools identified as low performing, as well as their capacity to monitor the distribution of resources when districts have a preponderance of these schools within their districts.

District actions

In many ways, district-level processes can have the greatest impact on student outputs and outcomes. For example, among all in-school factors, research has shown teachers to have the greatest impact on student achievement. Additionally, low-income students and students of color are disproportionately taught by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers. Districts, not states, control hiring, placement, and professional development processes. Therefore, accountability systems should measure district-level outputs such as equitable distribution of effective teachers and mastery of instructional practice.

In addition, since decisions about the distribution of resources to schools occurs primarily, though not entirely, at the district level, accountability systems should include measures of district-level resource distribution and how well-aligned resources are to student needs.

Districts must also monitor school-level capacity to carry out school functions. Although this monitoring should be broad in scope when capturing matters of teaching and learning, districts must pay special attention to schools identified as low performing to ensure that they carry out implementation of school improvement efforts effectively. Additionally, districts may also want to closely monitor schools not identified for improvement but whose performance indicates that the school is struggling. Paying sufficient attention to schools that are doing well overall is another important function of districts and part of the system of continuous improvement. Understanding the strategies for continuous improvement of schools not identified for improvement is a less understood topic; as a result, CAP is considering developing a resource that describes state and district approaches to supporting these schools.

School actions

Many of the conditions governing school decision-making are beyond the control of school teachers and leaders. However, there are critical areas in which principals and teachers have significant authority to make important changes that positively affect students. For example, there is significant evidence demonstrating that both lowering the rate of expulsion among students of color and establishing a culture of high expectations signaling that all children can and should excel often lead to higher student achievement and graduation rates.

Unlike districts or states, schools are best positioned to establish a positive, inclusive, safe, and nurturing culture and climate. How well school leaders assess personnel and student needs around safety, inclusivity, and high expectations is an important set of metrics to include in an accountability system.

Figure 3 shows a flow chart of inputs, processes, outputs, and outcomes in an accountability system. If both inputs and the processes through which they are used are high quality, states can expect to see positive student outcomes. Without high-quality inputs and processes, any positive short- and long-term outcomes will happen sporadically and in spite of the accountability system-not because of it.

Including specific metrics that assess the inputs and outputs of state, district, and school actions is critical to understanding the reasons for short- and long-term outcomes. The next section explores how that information should be collected and reported to ensure that each level's actions are coordinated.

As states consider how to design their processes, they should keep the following considerations in mind.

Anchor the system with goals and expectations

College and career readiness is one desired outcome of the K-12 education system. Defining college and career readiness with a level of specificity makes it easier to identify which inputs and processes at the state, district, and school levels contribute to achieving this goal. The state should also consider articulating additional goals for the system, such as preparing graduates to be effective participants in our democratic government.

In addition, an explicit and agreed-upon definition of college and career readiness is a powerful tool to create cohesion not just within the K-12 education system but also between the other systems that support long-term student success. For example, a state definition of college and career readiness also makes it easier for the state K-12 system to engage with the labor and higher education systems to create a more efficient network of college and career pathways.

In addition to student outcomes, there may be other critical goals for a school accountability system to achieve, such as fair and effective distribution of inputs. States could also set goals for the delivery and distribution of resources to districts and schools.

Clearly stating the goals for the system and aligning accountability metrics to those goals creates an important north star for which all actors within the system should aim.

Use data to monitor the health of the system

Tracking inputs and processes can provide states with essential contextual information. This information can give states critical intelligence that can help them anticipate or diagnose problems and facilitate problem-solving.

States may wish to understand how well-aligned inputs are to student needs and how inputs are used by districts and schools to address student needs. This type of data can also be critical to collect and review at the district and school levels.

However, in order for educators and policymakers to be candid about how well a system of inputs and processes is working, states ought to think carefully about what, if any, stakes are attached to the results. How that information is acted upon should foster a spirit of continuous improvement.

Define what quality inputs and processes look like

Low-quality inputs will likely result in low-quality outcomes. Therefore, states ought to spend time defining what high-quality inputs look like. For example, states may define a high-quality data system as one that tracks K-12, postsecondary, and workforce outcomes for all students.

Likewise, low-quality processes will likely lead to low-quality outcomes. It may be useful for states to describe the elements, listed below, of a high-quality process according to the literature on general process design:

Consistency: States communicate to districts and school exactly what to expect in a timely manner.

Quality: Inputs and processes meet the needs of districts and schools.

Efficiency: Processes aim to minimize cost.

Effectiveness: Processes satisfy the goal of college and career readiness for all students.

Developing this level of clarity ought to be a collaborative effort among states, districts, and schools, as the latter two can provide critical local, contextual information not readily available to states about the types of inputs and processes that meet local needs. When inputs or processes fail to meet standards of high quality, states, districts, and schools can course correct.

Each of these considerations applies equally to the horizontal and vertical relationships between the inputs, processes, outputs, and outcomes.

Another factor critical in the design of an accountability system is how state-level indicators identify schools most needing support, as well as drive behavior at the district and school levels.

Considerations for indicators that classify school performance

Regular measurement and reporting keeps schools and districts focused on what actions to take to improve performance. As described in the overview of the Every Student Succeeds Act, classifying school performance carries specific and enhanced consequences for schools identified as low performing. These schools must implement evidence-based interventions and must exit low-performing status within state-set timelines. Given this reality, states should take special care when selecting indicators that they will use to classify schools. ESSA requires indicators to be valid-or measure what they purport to measure; reliable-measure a specific result consistently over time; and comparable-measure the same element of performance across different schools.

When selecting indicators to classify schools into categories, states should also examine three additional characteristics for each indicator: differentiation between schools, relationship to key student outcomes, and ability to drive behavior. Based on these characteristics, states can then determine the most appropriate way to use them in the system-for example, in classification of schools, public reporting, or needs assessment and improvement planning-as well as the appropriate level-state, district, or school-at which to use them.

States could consider indicators that do not meet these three characteristics or that are otherwise not technically valid, reliable, and comparable across schools for other purposes in their accountability system but should not use them to classify schools.

Meaningful differentiation of school quality and performance

Generally, indicators used to classify schools for intervention purposes should distinguish performance between schools. Meaningful differentiation helps states prioritize which schools need the most support in improving and helps parents understand how their children's school measures up to others.

As a result, states should analyze whether similar types of indicators differentiate more effectively than others. For example, if schools cluster around a value or range of values on a particular indicator, this indicator may not provide useful information to distinguish school performance. Meaningful differentiation would likely show performance across a range of values, showing performance at the bottom, middle, and top of the performance spectrum.

Historically, indicators including academic proficiency rates and graduation rates have widely varying performance from school to school, while indicators such as attendance rates typically have the same performance across all schools. In contrast, looking at chronic absenteeism would likely identify outliers in terms of performance. Also, while states are required to measure academic proficiency indicators-which are static, point-in-time indicators within their school classification systems-there may be an opportunity to measure specific aspects of proficiency data, such as growth or scale scores, which are further described below. That is, ESSA may provide states an opportunity to use differentiation within an indicator, as well as differentiation between schools.

The use and importance of scale scores in reporting standardized test results

There are three different ways to report scores on standardized tests. The first is through a raw score, which is a sum total of points based on correct answers. The second is through a percentage-correct score. The third is a scale score. Scale scores transform raw scores into a different set of values and are necessary because states often develop different editions of the same standardized test. Different test editions help prevent cheating but can make comparing scores challenging. Scaled scores ensure that scores on different editions of the same test mean the same thing and can be compared.

While differentiating between school performance is important, indicators that do not differentiate well might still be useful for school classification if they send critical signals about what is important and what schools should focus on. For example, nearly every school has high attendance rates, so this indicator does not differentiate among school performance. However, states may still be interested in attendance data and may wish to measure rates of chronic absenteeism, or the number of students who miss 10 or more days of school in a year. Schools would perform well on this measure if they reduce rates of chronic absenteeism, and states could focus their attention on schools not reducing these rates.

For indicators used to inform decision-making at the district or school level, and not used to classify schools at the state level, differentiation of schools is less important. What matters more to districts and schools is that teachers and school leaders can act on the data.

Actionable data may not meet the technical standards required by ESSA but are useful in informing practice. Examples of this type of data include measures of social and emotional learning, or SEL, which are the skills and abilities that provide a foundation for lifelong learning and development. The Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning describes five core competencies that make up SEL. These are self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision-making. While there are existing assessments that measure aspects of SEL for particular groups of students, none of these assessments' purpose is to hold schools accountable for students' SEL. Nonetheless, providing local educators with insights into how well students are developing their SEL can be useful to inform instructional practice.

Relationship to key student outcome measures

The flexibility to include nonacademic indicators, such as chronic absenteeism in school classification systems, provides an opportunity for states to identify indicators that provide unique and useful information about a school's performance and key student outcomes. For example, states should include indicators that have a strong correlation with particular outcomes-including proficiency or graduation rates-but including too many of these can be redundant. On the other hand, another indicator might be so weakly correlated that it may have little or no relationship to critical student outcomes. As a result, states would not want schools to focus on this indicator. Ideally, indicators used for classification purposes would have a moderate to strong relationship with key student outcome measures, particularly long-term outcome measures such as college completion rates.

However, some indicators have weaker relationships with long-term outcomes but still provide useful information at the district and school levels that local educators can act upon. Indicators are particularly actionable when they can inform real-time decision-making for district or school resource allocation or another aspect of educational practice. Growth data that comes from assessments administered during the school year, for example, can help educators adjust their instructional practice throughout the year.

Indicators that drive behavior

Indicators used to classify schools should drive the kind of behavior that states want to see at the district and school levels. That is, these indicators should support schools in taking actions focused on the advancement of a state's goals.

An indicator may not have strong relationships with student outcomes or provide meaningful differentiation between school performance but still provide value in a school classification system, particularly if that indicator signals what a state values and drives behavior that states want to see at the district and school levels. For example, parent engagement, as measured by survey responses, may not be correlated with student outcomes or differentiate among school performance but is an activity that the state wishes that schools would emphasize.

In this case, it will be important for a state to describe and be transparent about what value the indicator represents in cases where that is unclear and what action districts and schools should take based on school performance on that indicator.

Some indicators may not have all three characteristics shown in Figure 4, above. To maximize the value that they provide to policymakers, administrators, and educators, however, indicators used to classify school performance would ideally share all three. As a result, when making decisions about what indicators to use for school classification, states should analyze the extent to which possible indicators have one or more of these characteristics.

Accountability systems should drive continuous improvement toward making college and career readiness a reality for all students. To do so, states must build accountability systems that exceed ESSA's requirements and focus on coherence within the entire system-from schools to districts to state educational agencies. CAP's accountability framework calls for states to continuously monitor resources provided to districts and schools and ensure that they have the capacity to use them effectively. As a result, states will set goals and monitor progress against key functions such as training and support of teachers, as well as the distribution of financial and material resources. Finally, states should think through their mechanisms to support districts to use all of these resources effectively, while districts should pay attention to building school capacity.

Laura Jimenez is the Director of Standards and Accountability for the K-12 Education Policy team at the Center for American Progress.

Scott Sargrad is the Managing Director for the K-12 Education Policy team at the Center.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A New Vision for School Accountability - Center for American Progress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2015, the Every Student Succeeds Act, or ESSA, replaced the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act, or NCLB, as the nation's major K-12 education law, continuing that law's focus on increasing the quality of public education. To fulfill this mission, ESSA requires states to measure, report on, and improve public school performance.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Active Learning Classrooms: Sharing responsibility for learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Johnson and Johnson on Cooperative Learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Johnsons and Johnsons have great and matchless contribution in the field of cooperative learning. Cooperative learning is doubtlessly a great way of learning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
101 Things You Can Do in the First Three Weeks of Class | Office of Graduate Studies | University of Nebraska-Lincoln

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The following list is offered in the spirit of starting off right. It is a catalog of suggestions for college teachers who are looking for fresh ways of creating the best possible environment for learning. Not just the first day, but the first three weeks of a course are especially important, studies say, in retaining capable students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BCTF > Accountability in public education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Bush Institute at the George W. Bush Presidential Center

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For the first half of the last century, Americans lived with a deep inequity built into their education system. Communities were allowed to educate minority students in schools that were separate from and unequal to the campuses in which white students enrolled.
02.05.2015
In 1954, the Supreme Court famously struck down that political and economic perversion in its landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision. In theory at least, the color of a student's skin would no longer determine the school they attended.

Within a decade, the search for justice gave birth to another big idea: Not only would racial walls come down on campuses, no longer would it be right to have major gaps between the academic achievement of white and minority students. This muscular notion led to the Elementary and Secondary School Act of 1965, which later became known as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

The law embodied the belief that schools in disadvantaged communities would receive the resources to provide their students a decent education. At the same time, the nation needed to know whether poor and minority students were achieving in their classes. America's progress depended upon their progress as well as that of white and higher income students.

Arising from this big idea came another revolutionary concept. School districts and campuses would be held responsible by policymakers and taxpayers if they did not provide a decent education for every student. This idea came to be known as school accountability, and it was built around three principles: Creating rigorous academic standards, measuring student progress against those standards, and attaching some consequence to the results.

Those core values remain a central, yet contested element in American education. Fierce discussions roil across states about who should hold schools accountable, how they should hold them accountable, and what should happen if schools do not show progress for all their students.

The debate is intensifying with many states easing up on their expectations for students, educators, and parents questioning annual, independent exams. As that debate continues, it is important to remember our past and why the concepts behind school accountability arose. It also is essential to understand why they still matter.

Accountability's Proud Parentage

The history of school accountability first tells us that the idea and its principles have strong parentage. They have drawn the support of Democrats and Republicans, leaders of business and the civil rights community, and parents and educators.

Look back to 1965 and Lyndon Johnson's passage of his historic education law. The legislation moved through the U.S. House of Representatives with 263 votes. A strong majority of 73 senators similarly passed the law in their chamber.

As a senator, Robert F. Kennedy argued during debate over the bill to evaluate the progress of all students. Emerging as a voice for the poor and left behind, Kennedy said during a 1965 Senate hearing on the law:

"I think it is very difficult for a person who lives in a community to know whether, in fact, his educational system is what it should be, whether if you compare his community to a neighboring community they are doing everything they should be, whether the people that are operating the educational system in a state or local community are as good as they should be.

"...I wonder if we couldn't have some system of reporting...through some testing system that would be established (by) which the people at the local community would know periodically...what progress had been made."

Of course, Johnson's imprint was all over this bipartisan bill and its principles. The Democrat even signed the act at the one-room schoolhouse that he attended on the banks of the Pedernales River in Johnson City, Texas. Johnson observed at the time: "As President of the United States, I believe deeply no law I have signed or will ever sign means more to the future of America."

During this same period, policymakers started developing the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Advocates in the War on Poverty wanted to know whether all students were moving ahead. By the end of the 1960s, the standardized test was given voluntarily in schools.

Ever since that period, school accountability has continued to evolve.

In the 1970s, as desegregation took hold, students started improving on the NAEP exam, which became known as the "Nation's Report Card." The nation also began to implement the idea of equity in terms of resources and facilities for disadvantaged students and their schools.

In Dallas, for example, the school district finally began to assess students who previously had not been tested. Before the early 1970s, the Dallas school district was not required to give the Iowa Test of Basic Skills exam to minority students.

In the 1980s, the Reagan administration's "A Nation at Risk" report prompted states to get more serious about elevating their expectations for students. The report shocked many Americans as it detailed how U.S. schools were falling behind campuses around the world.

The economy was then becoming more global, and President Reagan embraced the report's recommendations to raise academic standards, measure students' mastery of those standards, and improve the curriculum that schools use in their classrooms. President Reagan spent many weeks and months promoting the report and its concepts. As he put it upon receiving "A Nation at Risk":

"You've found that our educational system is in the grip of a crisis caused by low standards, lack of purpose, ineffective use of resources, and a failure to challenge students to push performance to the boundaries of individual ability-and that is to strive for excellence."

In Reagan's last term, Education Secretary William J. Bennett took these beliefs even further. If more dollars were going to flow into schools to improve their work, there had to be some way of measuring for results. The secretary even kept a map on his wall showing various levels of progress across the states.

During the 1980s in Texas, Ross Perot championed "No Pass, No Play" as a way to alert schools and students alike that star athletes would not shine under Friday night lights if they did not achieve in the classroom. "No Pass, No Play" attracted national attention as the standards-and-accountability effort took further shape.

Texas' Republican Governor Bill Clements also set Texas up to become a leader in the school accountability movement. He pressed state legislators to fund a commission to examine whether the state's schools were preparing students for an economy that was turning exceedingly technological. This commission provided the framework for the accountability standards that the state would later adopt.

In the 1990s, the standards-and-accountability movement picked up even greater momentum. After a 1989 summit involving President George H.W. Bush and the nation's governors, including then-Governor Bill Clinton, leaders from both parties started pushing for more rigorous assessments of student performance. They supported regular means of examining students to see if they were meeting higher expectations.

The proof of this bipartisan backing was evident when Democratic and Republican governors started building upon each others' committment. That was particularly true in states such as Massachusetts, North Carolina and Texas when they passed school accountability laws. The RAND Corporation published a paper in 2000 citing both Texas and North Carolina as the two states that got it right and made the greatest gains in student achievement in the decade.

In Texas' case, GOP Governor George W. Bush of Texas and Democratic Lt. Governor Bob Bullock backed requiring an annual state examination of students. They also supported a clear breakdown of the results.

By breaking apart the data, parents and educators could see how well schools were serving students from all backgrounds. Intentionally or not, schools previously could hide low-performing students behind the forward march of their high-performers. Being able to see school performance data in terms of race, income, disability, and gender tore down that wall. Indeed, gains were made for all students.

Mathematics Proficiency in Texas by Race

In the 2000s, another bipartisan coalition came together to build upon the foundation of the previous four decades. After becoming president, George W. Bush partnered with Republican Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, Democratic Rep. George Miller of California, Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, and Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire to pass the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).

During negotiations over that legislation, which was an update of President Johnson's earlier law, Kennedy picked up on the passion of his brother Bobby for making sure all students were moving ahead. Their common belief in that fundamental idea led the Massachusetts Democrat to champion NCLB.

President Bush used the phrase "soft bigotry of low expectations" as a way to explain the need for this legislation, which required all states to see whether their students were meeting the standards of their states. Importantly, the law ensured the results are transparent so parents, schools and taxpayers can see how well each group of students performs in a district and on a campus.

Prior to that requirement, annual exams were not given in most states. When state tests were required, they usually were offered once in elementary school, once in middle school and once in high school. Nor was the data usually reported in an easy-to-understand way so parents, taxpayers and educators could see how schools performed according to the race, income, disability, and gender of their students. And, disturbingly, there were few consequences for any of the results.

In our current decade, accountability has come to include using data from test scores to give a fuller and more contextual evaluation of classroom teachers. A number of states and school districts are including some form of classroom data in their reviews of instructors. In states like Tennessee and cities like Dallas and Houston, use of student data is becoming part of the way to evaluate the job performance of teachers.

The strong flow of information also is being used to measure how much students grow in a subject each year. Annual data allows schools to measure student growth in a more accurate way and give credit to a teacher's hard work in catching a student up.

The Difference Accountability Has Made

For a time, student progress flowed from these efforts. Student scores on key indicators showed a movement forward, even if there was still plenty of room for improvement. The advancement was especially true for poor and minority students, the very ones the accountability movement was given birth to benefit.

Nationally, the data shows that test scores in key subjects like math and reading rose. Sometimes, they rose dramatically, especially as the era of accountability with consequences took root.

National math scores, age nine by race

Data source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Long-Term Trend Mathematics Assessments, scale from 0 to 500.

National reading scores, age nine by race

Data source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Long-Term Trend Reading Assessments, scale from 0 to 500.

Math scores of nine-year old Hispanic students on the NAEP exams improved from 1999 to 2008 by the equivalent of almost two grades. Likewise, NAEP math scores for nine-year old African-American students increased over that time by about one-and-a-half grades.

Scores in the make-or-break subject of reading shot up, too. From 1999 to 2008, black and Hispanic nine-year olds grew by two grade levels in reading, according to NAEP results.

Similarly, the achievement gap between white and minority students started to close. The gap narrowed most noticeably during the period when the nation vigorously focused on results.

In the 1990s, when the idea of serious consequences for school performance was only starting to develop in states, the achievement gaps between whites and students of color actually grew in some key areas. But in the era of strengthened accountability, the gaps narrowed for nine- and thirteen-year old African-American and Hispanic students between 1999 and 2008 in such critical areas as math.

At the same time, scores for white students in 2008 were the highest ever in both reading and math for nine- and thirteen-year olds. What was good for poor and minority students was good for all students.

These trend lines confirm what education researchers have found when examining school accountability. A review of 14 studies by researchers David Figlio and Susannah Loeb show that annual tests and sanctions have led to higher scores. Their study concludes: "...the preponderance of evidence suggests positive effects of the accountability movement in the United States during the 1990s and early 2000s on student achievement, especially in math."

Similarly, a 2013 study in the American Economic Journal reveals that states, districts, and schools have responded to data from tests. A review of Florida's accountability system showed that educators focused on subjects being tested and ensuring that curricula and instruction align with what is being tested.

Some people will look at reports like these and think there is an undue emphasis on testing. Or they may think that education is being distorted just to improve test scores. What they really show is that effectively teaching to the standards set by state leaders can lead to student success.

Accountability in Retreat

Yet here we are, nearly five decades after the birth of this big idea, and school accountability is losing momentum. How could that be? How could reforms that helped improve student performance, especially among minority students, start to lose favor?

Several reasons explain the waning support.

For starters, these classroom gains were hard-gotten. They took a toll on people, including among supporters of accountability. Change-agents often grow weary of pushing a boulder up a hill. No matter how compelling their cause, the process wears them down. That was true in this debate, where some wanted change faster than it came. They lost interest and moved on.

"I fear that the soft bigotry of low expectations is returning, and for the sake of America's children, that is something we cannot allow. [...] Whatever difficulties we face, they will not be addressed by weakening accountability."

Educators called upon to implement higher standards also started pulling back. The higher the bar went up to show success, the greater the challenge they faced. Resistance built up among superintendents, principals and teachers.

Some districts also overdid testing. They administered too many of their own benchmark tests before their state's annual exam. Currently, states are only required to administer one annual test in reading and math in grades three through eight and once in high school. A Center for American Progress study found that districts administer more tests than states. In one district in Kentucky, students were tested 20 times a year. The state only required four of them.

Accountability's concepts have not always been implemented well, either. There is no other way around it: mistakes were made. One example is the school rating systems that states have developed using data from their annual tests. Those rankings often are too confusing or unfathomable for parents and educators to understand. Even worse, the data was often provided too late to use in making decisions about where to send their children to school.

Part of the backlash also has been orchestrated and well-financed. Teacher unions have strongly supported the opposition. They have poured money into efforts to resist independent, objective tests. So have parent groups in some states.

Never mind that those exams provide data for schools and parents to see how well campuses are performing compared to others within a town or state. Never mind that such tests show how well an educator is helping his or her students improve. Never mind that the results may show where an instructor needs professional help.

Union leaders continue to make full-throated complaints against standardized testing. "The fixation on testing and data over everything else is a fundamental flaw in how our nation approaches public education," wrote Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, in a Huffington Post blog entry.

The concepts also have been watered down as states have received waivers from the No Child Left Behind Act. In some cases, states were given exemptions from the law's key requirement to show adequate yearly progress.

Similarly, the revolt over the Common Core's standards and assessments has contributed to the pushback against school accountability. In states like California and New York, parents and educators are rising up against the testing that goes along with those standards.

Beyond Common Core, some states have decided on their own to weaken some of their academic standards and annual exams. Texas legislators decided in their 2013 session to allow some students to skip annual tests in grades three-thru-eight. The Obama administration wisely overruled that idea as it considered giving Texas a waiver from NCLB.

During that same session, legislators substantially reduced the number of tests that high school students must take. They also reduced rigorous course requirements for some high school students. The primary dissenter was Democratic Rep. Mark Strama of Austin. There may be ways to improve testing, he noted, but the reason for a clear, common assessment is that it "hold(s) all the kids across the state to the same standard."

The scene was a striking contrast to 20 years before. In 1993, a bipartisan majority of Texas legislators approved a new school accountability system.

Accountability's Next Chapter

So, the resistance is there. No one can question that. But, if this were the subject of heart disease, would we simply end the conversation? Or suggest that we quit testing the patient?

Of course not. We would continue to search for the right answers - for the patient's sake.

The same is true with school accountability, the ultimate aim of which is to improve student achievement. Student advancement has been the goal through Republican and Democratic administrations. There certainly are ways to keep improving upon these concepts, but education reform is never complete. We can't let the search for answers slow us down - for the students' sake.

Students increasingly need the means to become mobile after they leave high school, whether that means going to college or finding a good-paying job with an equally good future. They will enter a world that is more competitive, not less.

In fact, more than at any point in American history, economic and social mobility depends upon having higher-order skills. The ability to innovate and solve problems is increasingly valued in a service-oriented, technology-driven economy.

By contrast, low-skill jobs are not projected to grow substantially, as the Charles A. Dana Center at the University of Texas at Austin reports. Even middle-skill jobs are in less demand. Those jobs declined in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, according to a study by economist Anton Cheremukhin of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank. Jobs that required critical thinking increased in each of those decades.

Parents certainly understand the need to make sure their children are moving toward good opportunities. Polling data shows parents prefer actual achievement over gradual progress.

According to a survey by pollster David Winston, 58 percent of parents said they did not consider it a success if a student entered school a year behind and caught up half a grade over the course of that same year. Minority parents especially did not consider simply showing progress a successful outcome.

Sixty-one percent of African-American parents said catching up half a grade was not success. Sixty-five percent of Hispanic parents responded similarly.

Indeed, 60 years after Brown v. Board of Education and 50 years after the Elementary and Secondary School Act, the role of minority students remains critical to the future of the United States. Perhaps even more so.

The latest Census Bureau data for Hispanic students alone show they make up about a quarter of the nation's public school enrollment. That figure was up from 17 percent in 2000 and is projected to grow significantly, especially in large, diverse states like Texas and California.

We already see what a retreat from accountability can mean. Nationally, scores on leading indicators like the NAEP exams show stagnation over the last half-decade. The rapid gains in math and reading have tapered off for nine-year olds.

In Texas, data from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board shows that college completion rates for Latinos and African-Americans are starting to flatten out after several years of progress. That progress had been built upon the foundation of a strong K-12 system. Now that Texas has started to change that system, state policymakers should pay attention to the warning signs.

For these reasons, students cannot afford for policymakers, parents and educators to retreat from school accountability. Instead, this is the time to get more young Americans ready for post-secondary success, ready for the better jobs and ready to complete the extra education they will need to get to those better jobs. Put another way, now is the time to continue the climb to the summit of the mountain.

To be sure, there are ways to improve state accountability systems, as well as the No Child Left Behind law. As a nation, we need to have a conversation about how to mend, not end school accountability. That conversation should involve parents, educators and policymakers.

As a starter, we offer these suggestions:

Schools need annual, statewide independent testing in reading and math. They don't need a heavy volume of tests.

Overloading students with too many district benchmark exams is not productive. That is especially true when those tests are poorly aligned with a state's standards. Parents should be getting better information on the different types of testing, who requires the test, and the purpose of the test.

Schools need carrots to improve, not just sticks. For example, find ways to reward schools that show significant improvement in getting students ready for college or a career.

As a nation, we must preserve and build upon the principles that have led to gains in student achievement. If we do not know the difference between mending accountability as opposed to ending it, we will return to the world of leaving children behind.

This is something we cannot do. We cannot do it for the sake of our economy. We cannot do it for the sake of our children. And we cannot do it and remain true to the values of equality and justice that have marked our path since Brown v. Board of Education set out to eliminate the deep inequities within our education system.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For the first half of the last century, Americans lived with a deep inequity built into their education system. Communities were allowed to educate minority students in schools that were separate from and unequal to the campuses in which white students enrolled.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What are cooperative and collaborative learning?

Collaborative learning is a method of teaching and learning in which students team together to explore a significant question or create a meaningful project. A group of students discussing a lecture or students from different schools working together over the Internet on a shared assignment are both examples of collaborative learning.

Cooperative learning, which will be the primary focus of this workshop, is a specific kind of collaborative learning. In cooperative learning, students work together in small groups on a structured activity. They are individually accountable for their work, and the work of the group as a whole is also assessed. Cooperative groups work face-to-face and learn to work as a team.

In small groups, students can share strengths and also develop their weaker skills. They develop their interpersonal skills. They learn to deal with conflict. When cooperative groups are guided by clear objectives, students engage in numerous activities that improve their understanding of subjects explored.

In order to create an environment in which cooperative learning can take place, three things are necessary. First, students need to feel safe, but also challenged. Second, groups need to be small enough that everyone can contribute. Third, the task students work together on must be clearly defined. The cooperative and collaborative learning techniques presented here should help make this possible for teachers.

Also, in cooperative learning small groups provide a place where:

learners actively participate;

teachers become learners at times, and learners sometimes teach;

respect is given to every member;

projects and questions interest and challenge students;

diversity is celebrated, and all contributions are valued;

students learn skills for resolving conflicts when they arise;

members draw upon their past experience and knowledge;

goals are clearly identified and used as a guide;

research tools such as Internet access are made available;

students are invested in their own learning.

For more detailed descriptions of cooperative and collaborative learning, check out the books, articles, and Web sites listed on our Resources page.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What are cooperative and collaborative learning? Collaborative learning is a method of teaching and learning in which students team together to explore a significant question or create a meaningful project. A group of students discussing a lecture or students from different schools working together over the Internet on a shared assignment are both examples of collaborative learning.