The USDOE announced a couple days ago the six states approved for "differentiated accountability" plans (Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Illinois, Maryland, and Ohio). The purpose of the program according to the Department is to "assist those states by targeting resources and interventions to those schools most in need of intensive interventions and significant reform." Targeting resources to the neediest of needy schools clearly makes sense, but I share Mike's concern relative to how this program might loosen the pressure on suburban schools in particular. One of the key flexibilities under the new program is that "the state clearly defines its process for categorizing?? schools" and from the looks of it, each pilot state is absolutely elated to do so.
Recall that under the current NCLB system, if a school fails to meet AYP two years in a row, it is labeled "in need of improvement." Since all subgroups of students must also meet AYP benchmarks, that's meant that many "successful" suburban schools--previously judged to be so based on aggregate student performance--now find themselves "in need of improvement" when one or more of their ESL, special education, Latino, etc. populations don't make adequate gains.
The Differentiated Accountability program essentially gives states permission to develop kinder, gentler labeling systems for these suburban schools and others. In Maryland, Indiana, and Illinois, for example, it's out with the "in need of improvement" label and in with the "focused needs" and "comprehensive needs" labels. Schools that make AYP in the "all students" subgroup but not in one or more of the other subgroups are "focused needs" schools, while schools that do not meet AYP for their "all student" subgroup are comprehensive needs schools. Many suburban schools, then, rid themselves of that nasty in need of improvement label. The implication is that they just need to "focus" a little more. After all, according to USDOE, they are "just missing the mark."
Read a couple of the state press releases from the pilot states and it's easy to see that the states are just as eager to craft new labels for schools as they are to craft new policies for them to help students. In Maryland, for instance, schools in their first three years of improvement are now in the "developing stage." In Florida, schools in their first four years of not making AYP are in "preventive" improvement.
To be fair, there are other (unsurprising) changes that states have proposed in this new program (like switching the order of when the tutoring and choice provisions are offered to struggling students). But the power in a name ceases to amaze me. The public attention (and yes, bad press) that suburban schools sometimes receive for not meeting the academic needs of their special student populations is a welcome spotlight. The in need of improvement label is the scarlet letter they understandably wish to banish. But there's a difference between a label that provides a more precise school description intended to better funnel resources and one that attempts to sugarcoat matters when schools fail needy students. I want to give states the benefit of the doubt and say they are simply doing the former. But my cynical side says let's not forget that "developing," "focusing," and "preventive" schools still need improvement too.
