High School-Level Accountability

High School-Level Accountability


This database provides 50-state information on the indicators, notifications/supports, sanctions and rewards established in state policy in response to federal and state-level accountability initiatives. Policies relate to high school-level (not district-level) accountability.

This database seeks to address the following questions:

1. Indicators

1A . What indicators/measures of quality does the state use to determine high school performance?

Although all states include graduation rate as an indicator, only one state includes college remediation.

1B. What indicators/measures are used for reporting purposes?

Six states report on school safety issues, and one reports on college remediation rate for high schools.

Information on why this issue matters is available through this link.

2. Notification and Supports

2A. Is the state required to provide written warning?

Currently, 33 states provide written warning to low-performing schools.

2B. Is the state or other entity required to provide technical assistance?

Forty-nine states make provisions for technical assistance.

2C. Is the state required to provide additional funding to a low-performing school?

At this time, seven states provide additional funding to a low-performing school.

2D. Is the low-performing school required to create and implement an improvement plan?

Forty-four states require low-performing schools to create and implement an improvement plan.

2E. Is another entity, such as the state, required to create an improvement plan for a low-performing school?

Twenty-seven states and the District of Columbia hold the low-performing school responsible for developing the initial improvement plan. If the school continues to be low-performing, ten states require another entity to create an improvement plan and eight states require another entity to assist in the developent of an improvement plan. Five states require the state, the district or the county board to create the plan.

Information on why this issue matters is available through this link.

3. Sanctions

3A. Does the state have the authority to place a school on probation?

Currently, 19 states have this authority.

3B. Does the state have the authority to remove a low-performing school's accreditation?

Twenty-two states have the authority to remove accreditation.

3C. Does the state have the authority to reconstitute staff?

At present, 43 states can use reconstitution in an effort to not only raise student achievement but also to improve the climate of the school.

3D. Does the state have the authority to reopen the school as a public charter school?

Twenty-two states allow low-performing schools to be closed and reopened as public charter schools.

3E. Does the state have the authority to take over the school?

Twenty-nine states are able to take over a low-performing school.

3F. Does the state have the authority to contract with an outside entity to operate the school?

Currently, 32 states and the District of Columbia have this authority.

3G. Can the state require some other major restructuring?

Twenty-eight states authorize some other form of major restructuring.

Information on why this issue matters is available through this link.

4. Rewards

4A. Does the state reward high-performing schools?

Thirty-nine states currently reward high-performance, and one state is developing a rewards program.

4B. Are the school rewards monetary or nonmonetary?

Sixteen states are have both monetary and nonmonetary rewards.

4C. Are reward recipients school and/or staff?

Schools receive the reward in 33 states, while both schools and staff receive the rewards in four states.

4D. Can school rewards be used for staff bonuses?

Only eight states allow the school reward to be used for staff bonuses.

4E. Are school rewards based on absolute performance or school improvement?

Ten states base the reward on school improvement, and 11 states base the reward on school improvement. Eighteen states base the reward either on school improvement or absolute performance.

Information on why this issue matters is available through this link.

Methodology:
Policies were collected from state statutes, recently enacted legislation (session laws), and rules and regulations. Where necessary, statewide initiatives created outside of policy were collected from state education agencies. The information will be updated as changes occur.

Last updated:
August 2008

Research was conducted by Melodye Bush. Please contact Jennifer Dounay Zinth at 303-299-3689 or jdounay@ecs.org with comments or questions about this database.



Utah

Indicators for High School Accountability
What indicators/measures of quality does the state use to determine high school performance?
  • Reading/language arts assessment scores
  • Mathematics assessment scores
  • Graduation rate
  • Participation rate.
What indicators/measures are used for reporting purposes?
  • Test scores and trends over the past four years on:
    •  norm-referenced achievement tests
    •  criterion-referenced tests with scores aggregated over two years and an indication of whether there was sufficient magnitude of gain in the scores
    • writing assessments in ninth grade
    • tenth grade basic skills competency requests
  • Average grade given in each math, science, and English course in grades 9 through 12 for which criterion-referenced tests are required
  • Achievement gaps that reflect differences in achievement of various student groups
  • number and percentage of dropouts
  • Course taking patterns and trends in secondary schools
  • Student mobility
  • Staff qualifications
  • Number and percentage of parents who participate in SEP, SEOP and parent-teacher conferences
  • Average class size
  • Average daily attendance
  • Incidents of student discipline, including suspensions, expulsions and court referrals
  • Number and percent of students receiving fee waivers and the total dollar amount of fees waived.
Sources Indicators: UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 53A-1-603, 53A-3-602.5

 

Notification and Supports for Low-Performing High Schools
State required to provide written warning? No
State or other entity required to provide technical assistance? Yes
State required to provide additional funding to low-performing school? No
Low-performing school required to create and implement improvement plan? Yes
Does another entity, such as the state, have to create an improvement plan for a low-performing school? No
Sources Notification: UTAH CODE ANN. § 53A-1a-107
Sanctions for Low-Performing High Schools
Does the state have the authority to place a school on probation? No
Does the state have the authority to remove a low-performing school's accreditation? No
Does the state have the authority to reconstitute staff? No
Does the state have the authority to reopen the school as a public charter school? No
Does the state have the authority to take over the school? No
Does the state have the authority to contract with an outside entity to operate the school? No
Can the state require some other major restructuring? No
Sources Sanctions: Not applicable
Rewards
Does the state reward high-performing schools? Yes
School rewards monetary or nonmonetary? Nonmonetary
Are reward recipients school and/or staff? Schools
Can school rewards be used for staff bonuses? Not applicable since rewards are nonmonetary.
Are school rewards based on absolute performance or school improvement? School improvement
Sources Rewards: UTAH CODE ANN. § 53A-1a-107

© 2018 by the Education Commission of the States (ECS). All rights reserved. ECS is the only nationwide, nonpartisan interstate compact devoted to education. 700 Broadway #810, Denver, CO 80203-3442

To request permission to excerpt part of this publication, either in print or electronically, please contact the Education Commission of the States’ Communications Department at 303.299.3609 or askinner@ecs.org.

Your Education Policy Team  www.ecs.org