Reposted from original posting for client company ProExam.
Most readers are probably familiar with the fascinating curve ball the 2015 Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, known as ESSA, has thrown into state-level mandated accountability indices. In addition to a set of “substantially weighted” academic indicators, states are to add to them “at least one additional indicator of school quality or student success beyond test scores.”
Although we are presently in a moment of political uncertainty with regards to the future of all federal policy and legislation, there is some reason to think ESSA will stand as is: it was passed, after all, in legislation by the Republican-controlled House and Senate before being signed by a Democratic President.
Let us first applaud the inclusion of this additional indicator, what the media is usually labeling (though not entirely accurately) the “Non-academic Indicator” (NAI) or “Non-academic Factor” (NAF) to the mix. This is great news: we know today more than ever before how important it is to broaden our gauges of educational effectiveness.
When considering only the effect of a teacher on students’ test scores, Jackson finds that higher-quality teachers provide a small boost of 0.14 percentage points to high school graduation rates.
When Jackson considers the effect of teachers on both test scores and noncognitive skill factors, their effect on noncognitive skills is shown to matter more, with higher-quality teachers raising high school graduation rates by 0.74 percentage points.
Moreover, teachers who are adept at raising test scores and teachers who excel at instilling noncognitive skills are often not the same people.
In other words, if and when we incent, recognize, and reward those teachers who successfully raise test scores, and we don’t do the same for those teachers who enhance noncognitive skills, we have the potential unintended consequence of actually depressing high school graduation rates—by driving away or changing the practices of the very teachers having the most positive impact on graduation.
It’s been about a year since ESSA was made law, and in that time much attention has been directed to the new non-academic factors requirement, with some wide debate about which particular additional factor(s) should be selected for inclusion in the state level accountability index. There have been multiple recent studies and presentations, including:
- Brookings’ Hamilton Project (“Lessons for Broadening School Accountability under ESSA”)
- Transforming Education (“Expanding the Definition of Student Success Under ESSA”)
- The National Education Policy Center and the University of Colorado (“Making the Most of ESSA”)
- Chiefs for Change (“ESSA Indicators of School Quality and Student Success”)
- ASCD (“ESSA and Accountability Frequently Asked Questions”)
- Emphasis on use of multiple NAF data sources
- Debate over the pros and cons of the use of SEL measurement
- Frontrunner status for chronic absenteeism
- Importance of support for educators’ effective use of NAF data and for accompanying evidence-based interventions
Let’s look at each in turn.