Indiana and Illinois: PARCC Meets Politics
Indiana and Illinois: PARCC Meets Politics Poster
Jaida Harris & Lindsay McCrea
Georgetown University
Introduction
Illinois and Indiana are neighboring states with similar, yet diverging, narratives of education policy. In the era of the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSS), Indiana and Illinois maintained a theory of action of school accountability focused on the outcomes of standards-based reforms and correlating high-stakes assessments. New standards, connected to assessments, would create a system of accountability for teaching and learning that would ultimately promote student achievement and college and career readiness of students in the state. This was encouraged by national trends to increase student achievement in accordance with No Child Left Behind’s (NCLB) mandate of one hundred percent of students being college and career ready by 2014. As 2014 inched closer, the federal government and states ratcheted up initiatives to ensure that student achievement as measured by standardized tests was the education policy priority.
To that end, Illinois and Indiana each pursued education policy to reform their state standards, championing the development of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) initative in 2009 and 2010 and the new assessment metrics that followed. In each state, the state government decided reforms in standards and assessments would enable them to hold districts, teachers, and students accountable for learning, in a way that would support goals of making American students globally competitive and prepared for college and career. However, challenges arose when the time came for assessing the standards in the 2014-2015 school year, and Indiana became the first state to back out of Common Core. Because of their political and institutional contexts, Illinois and Indiana differed in their approaches to standards-based reform with the goal of increasing students’ college and career readiness. On the surface, the stories of accountability in Illinois and Indiana are relatively similar, but this proved to have diverging outcomes in student achievement along the way, particularly for different groups of students.
The purpose of this paper is to compare how two states who are seemingly similar in population, size, and geography could vary in student outcomes for different populations. To do this, we explore the following research question: How did different approaches to standards and assessments lead to different outcomes in Illinois and Indiana? We first studied the history of accountability reform in both states, tracking the trajectory of standards-based reforms and corresponding assessment reforms within the political and educational context of both states. Using student achievement data, popular literature, and school funding data, we compared how policies were impacted by political actors and decisions at the state and federal level, as well as the role of funding in contributing to the differences in outcomes. We conclude that achievement outcomes between Illinois and Indiana were a result of different approaches to funding, intense politicization of the CCSS, and setbacks in implementation due to insufficient teacher and school leader preparation. Although each state took a different route to college and career readiness, ultimately, their students are faring only slightly better now than they were in 2009.
Background
Illinois is home to over two million students, making it the fifth largest student population in the country. The state has 1,052 districts and 4,175 schools, meaning that most districts are relatively small, with an average of about 1,900 students per district (Illinois State Board of Education, 2018). Its largest district is Chicago Public Schools (CPS), with 630 schools and 392,558 students, which is significantly larger than other districts in the state. CPS is also the fourth largest district in the country, drawing the spotlight of education reform to the city and its home state. The state also has 61 charter schools, 47 of which are authorized by CPS (ISBE, 2018). In the last fifteen years, the state has become a minority-majority in terms of student demographics, with the LatinX population jumping ten percentage points between 1998 and 2013 (Delgado & Zumbach, 2013). About a quarter of Illinois’s students are LatinX, while about 17% are black and just under 50% are white. Half of all students are eligible for the federal free and reduced price meals program.
Indiana is about half the size of Illinois by population, and more of its students are located in rural areas. About 70% of Indiana’s 1,046,757 students are white, 12% are black, 11% are hispanic, and 2% are Asian (Indiana Department of Education, “Compass: State of Indiana,” 2018). Therefore, Indiana is less racially and ethnically diverse than Illinois. Just under half the students in Indiana are eligible for free or reduced price lunch, which is similar to Illinois. Although Indiana is geographically commensurate to Illinois, Indiana’s 1,921 schools compose 418 districts, making the average district size about 2,500 students, larger than the average Illinois school district. The largest school district is Indianapolis, which is less than a tenth of the size of CPS, with 67 schools and about 31,000 students.
Both states have a majority rural population, but the size and scale of CPS in Illinois makes the educational landscape in that state unique. Because Illinois has a more significant urban population, it must consider different education policy reforms and impacts than Indiana. The political climate of each state differs as well: whereas Indiana has voted Republican in every presidential election since 1968 with the exception of 2008, Illinois has voted Democrat since 1992 (270towin.com). As Republicans typically advocate for more state and local control, and Democrats push for greater social services – like education – to be provided by the federal government, this impacts the ways in which education policy is adopted, implemented, and responded to in each state.
Playing with PARCC: Accountability Reform in Illinois and Indiana
Illinois: Early Adopter of Curriculum Standards
Illinois began to use student achievement data to inform education policy even before the publication of A Nation at Risk in 1983 drew the nation’s attention to the need for education reform (Deaton, Glenn, & Gross, 2015; Hurst, Tan, Meek, & Sellers, 2003). In 1978, the state introduced the Illinois Inventory of Educational Progress (IIEP), which selected a random sample of students in order to assess their academic achievement and understanding. The results were used to guide decision-making within the state and the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) made the results available for teachers and administrators (Deaton, Glenn, Gross, 2015; Illinois State Board of Education, 1973). The IIEP was used until 1999 when the first round of the Illinois Standards Achievements Tests (ISAT) were introduced. The ISAT was based on the 1985 Illinois Learning Goals adopted by the state and was administered for 15 years (Deaton, Glenn, Gross, 2015; ISBE, 1999).
In 2011, Illinois was awarded $42.8 million as part of Phase 3 of the Race to the Top (RTTT) federal grant programs. Race to the Top grants, enacted by President Obama in 2009, were awarded to states for “creating the conditions for innovation, and reform by […] ‘adopting common core standards’” (Lang, Lavenia, Vogel, 2015; McGuinn, 2012; US Department of Education, 2009). In 2011, Illinois joined the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) Consortium in accordance with this grant (ISBE, 2018). These funds created and sustained specific programs at the state and district level, many of which shouldered the adoption and implementation of college and career readiness standards, namely, the CCSS (ISBE, 2018). The CCSS were first officially implemented in the 2013-2014 school year, and the PARCC assessment was first administered in Illinois during the 2014-2015 school year (ISBE, 2018).
Half of Illinois’ RTTT funding directly supported 32 districts, or Local Education Authorities (LEAs) in “adopting more rigorous standards and assessment; recruiting, evaluating, and retaining highly effective teachers and principals; building data systems that measure student success; [and] building state capacity and support” (ISBE, 2018). Additionally, 43% of RTTT funding went to 16 capacity building and support projects at the state level, such as new teacher preparation programs, a new state report card system, and statewide professional coaching on curriculum and instruction aligned to the CCSS (ISBE, 2018). RTTT allowed Illinois to both expand its charter school system and develop and enact a new teacher evaluation system through the Performance Evaluation Reform Act (PERA) (McGuinn, 2012). Although the RTTT award increased Illinois’ funding, by joining the PARCC consortium Illinois solidified its commitment to intense education reform and committed to a path of policymaking that would support this commitment.
Illinois’s PERA system became a controversial aspect of their wave of accountability reforms between 2010 and 2015. Under this system, districts were responsible for designing and implementing a teacher and principal evaluation system that consisted of student growth measures as a “significant factor” in determining teacher and school rating (ISBE, 2015). Any school receiving funds as part of Illinois’ Race to the Top programs were required to implement new evaluation systems by the start of the 2012-2013 school year, and Chicago schools were required to implement the new system by the start of the following school year. All other schools were given until the start of the 2015-2016 school year to implement the new systems. However, even in districts who had not yet implemented the system, teachers and principals were rated using these measures beginning in September 2012 (ISBE, 2015). Chicago teachers, researchers, and advocates wrote an open letter to mayor Rahm Emanuel in 2012 in protest of the new evaluation system (Strauss, 2012). The letter cited concerns such as CPS specifically not having the capacity to be adequately trained for new assessments, designing assessments, and the instructional shifts that accompanied the CCSS (Strauss, 2012). Because the standards were such a drastic shift, and student proficiency rates were expected to be lower, teachers and school officials continued to push back on holding teachers accountable for student learning by this measure until instruction had also shifted to support students’ learning at this level.
Though Illinois has been using PARCC for three years, the assessments have recently caused an influx of controversy (Krishnamurthy, 2018). The negative backlash about extended testing times has caused the state to reconsider its affiliation with the consortium and its assessments. In 2016, Illinois announced that it would no longer use PARCC as its measure of achievement for high school students (Rado, 2016). In 2018, ISBE decided to begin their search for a new test developer (Krishnamurthy, 2018). Though the state plans to replace the PARCC assessment, it will keep several PARCC test items and has not published plans to leave the consortium (Sawchuk, 2018).
Indiana: Are you in, or are you out?
Assessments used to hold teachers and students accountable began to emerge in the aftermath of A Nation at Risk, and Indiana was one of the first states to consider reforms targeted towards standards and corresponding accountability measures (DiTommaso, Hiller, Plucker, 2012). A Nation at Risk drew attention to the need for alignment between curriculum standards and standardized assessments to measure teaching and learning in schools, which then propelled a standards-based reform movement nationally through the 1980s and into the 1990s. The ‘A+ Program’ passed by the Indiana General Assembly in 1988 established the Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress (ISTEP+) (DiTommaso, Hiller, Plucker, 2012). Even in the early stages of standards-based accountability, many doubted the effectiveness of the systems (Cohen, 1990; Hurst, et al., 2003). The $40 million program was an attempt to reform Indiana’s public education system, but because of extensive backlash the legislation received, the policy was not as successful as expected (DiTommaso, Hiller, Plucker, 2012; Gold, 1988).
When NCLB was enacted in 2003, by far the most stringent federal education policy to date, Indiana had already established an accountability system that rated schools based on their students’ proficiency rates on state standardized tests. The main adjustment Indiana had to make to meet its requirements was the incorporation of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) into their accountability system (DiTommaso, Hiller, Plucker, 2012), which meant that they apply sanctions when schools did not meet the minimum required student achievement, a number which increased each year. However, as the decade continued, many schools were still not meeting AYP under NCLB. So, during the Obama administration, Indiana applied for a waiver (IDOE, 2015; DiTommaso, Hiller, Plucker, 2012), which meant that they agreed to adopt college and career ready standards and assessments, develop a system to differentiate school performance, and establish teacher and principal evaluation systems (Reed, Scull, Slicker & Winkler, 2012). This coincided with the national reform initiative around CCSS, which began in 2009.
With the rise of assessment consortia, and mounting federal pressures to increase student growth and performance, Indiana opted to enroll in the PARCC consortium in 2010. By joining the consortium, Indiana agreed to formally adopt the “college and career ready” CCSS (IDOE, 2018). Though Indiana did not directly receive a RTTT grant, the PARCC consortium received $300 million from RTTT (King, 2011). With this funding, PARCC strived to “create an assessment system that will help states dramatically increase the number of students who graduate high school ready for college and careers” (Boyd, 2010). This meant that all member states of the consortium, including Illinois and Indiana, were required to adopt the PARCC Exam in the 2014-2015 school year at their own expense, with the promise of motivating teachers to better align curriculum and instruction to the standards prescribed by the PARCC exam.
However, Indiana never administered the PARCC exam. Indiana announced its exit from the PARCC consortium in the spring of 2014, just before the first year where the PARCC assessments would be released. Indiana was the first state to exit from common core consortia, and was quickly followed by Oklahoma and South Carolina. Many other states unsuccessfully introduced legislation to repeal the standards, demonstrating the contention around the standards and their high-stakes assessments. Critics cite the diminished autonomy of state and local governments and increased connection to the priorities of the federal government and U.S. Department of Education, a view promoted by Indiana republicans such as then-Governor Mike Pence. The support for this decision by parents and state officials alike solidified the state government’s decision, and Indiana remarkably wrote new college and career ready state academic standards, the Indiana Academic Standards (IAS), and a new state test, a revised version of the ISTEP+ for the following school year, and remained in compliance with federal law (McInerny, 2015).
Outcomes in Student Achievement, 2009-2017
Outcomes on State Assessments
Prior to these shifts in state standards, students were, for the most part, relatively successful on state standardized tests in both Illinois and Indiana. The majority of students met or exceeded proficiency levels on 4th and 8th grade math and ELA tests in both states between 2011 and 2014 (The Nation’s Report Card, 2018). In 2015, both states saw a precipitous drop in student achievement and proficiency on state tests. This was the first year for the PARCC in Illinois, and the first year for the college and career readiness assessment, the revised ISTEP+, in Indiana. On the PARCC exam, only 32% of Illinois 8th graders were considered at or above proficient in math in 2015, as compared to 60% on the state math test in 2014, and 85% in 2013 (The Nation’s Report Card, 2018). Similarly, Indiana witnessed a sharp decline when they switched to the new ISTEP+ in 2015, based on the revised IAS for college and career readiness. Whereas 81% of 8th graders were considered proficient in math on the previous version of the test, the new, more rigorous test showed that only 53% were college and career ready (see Figures 1 and 2).
Figure 1. Percent of 8th Graders who scored at or above proficient on the Illinois state math standardized assessments, the ISAT and, starting in 2015, the PARCC, between 2009-2017 (Illinois State Report Card, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017), as compared to their respective scores on the National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP) test (The Nation’s Report Card, “Illinois State Profile,” 2018).
Figure 2. Percent of 8th Graders who scored at or above proficient on the Indiana state math standardized assessment, the ISTEP+, between 2009-2017, as compared to their respective scores on the National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP) test (The Nation’s Report Card, “Indiana State Profile,” 2018).
The shift to college and career readiness standards proved challenging in both states. The new assessments were intended to be more rigorous and more skill-based, but the severe drop in achievement demonstrates a breakdown in the teaching and learning process. In Illinois, the CCSS were first implemented in the 2013-2014 school year, even though students were formally assessed by the previous exam. In this year, teachers were supposed to have a “pilot” year that allowed them to transition to teaching the new standards without evaluation implications. Although teachers were not all evaluated using the PARCC scores for 2014, the drastic shift required in instruction was evidently an obstacle to student success with the new standards. PARCC scores composed “a significant portion” of teachers’ evaluation scores starting in 2015, which was also the first year that the PARCC was offered (ISBE, 2018). The scores validated teachers’ pushback of using test scores to evaluate all Illinois teachers that year.
The change in state-administered test scores demonstrates the differences in rigor between the previous versions of the state test and the college and career ready (CCR) tests. The experience of both states in switching to CCR standards and corresponding assessments impacted the role of the test as well; they illuminated the gaps in student understanding that were clearly not met by the attempt to shift instruction to meeting new standards. This, in conjunction with value-added teacher evaluation systems such as PERA, created an environment where the CCSS seemed too rigorous, to the detriment of the teaching and learning process. It is unclear whether the benchmarks and standards were unreasonable or whether teachers and students were simply unprepared for the change; in neither case, the state standardized test reflect the radical change caused by the implementation of the new standards in Illinois and Indiana.
Outcomes on NAEP
In terms of how the shifts to CCR standards actually impacted student skills, some, albeit very little, progress was made in student achievement on the National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP). Because this is a test given nationally, NAEP is commonly used as a point of comparison between different states. In the case of Illinois and Indiana, NAEP scores are also important to examine as a consistent measure of student achievement, as the state standardized tests, teacher evaluation practices, and curriculum standards changed in both states, so those measures cannot be used to assess the impact of the state accountability systems in either case. As Figures 1 and 2 show, there is a slight increase in student achievement in Illinois and Indiana on 8th Grade Math between 2009 and 2017, which is mirrored across other grade levels and subject areas. Whereas the state achievement test data portrays a steep decline in student achievement, the NAEP scores demonstrate that CCR did not significantly impact students’ achievement from one year to the next.
Differences in Student Subgroups, 2009-2017
Between 2009 and 2017, Indiana and Illinois did not differ greatly on their overall NAEP scores. Both states consistently scored with between 32% and 39% of students at or above proficient overall. However, that picture looks quite different when broken out by subgroup. Illinois’ gaps between White and Black students narrowed from White students outscoring Black students by an average of 39 points in 2009 to 29 points in 2015 (see Figure 3). Indiana, on the other hand, saw growth in its gaps between subgroups during the same period, from a gap of an average of 25 points in 2009 to an average of 37 points in 2015. These trends repeated when comparing White and Hispanic students on NAEP (see Figure 4), and a similar pattern is found when examining students who were and were not eligible for free and reduced price lunch. Although Indiana’s gaps remained larger between these groups, Illinois’ gaps shrank, and Indiana’s grew (see Figure 5).
Figure 3. Gaps between average scores of White and Black students on the 8th Grade Math NAEP Test, 2009-2017, in Illinois and Indiana. In Indiana, these gaps widened, whereas in Illinois, these gaps narrowed through 2015, and returned in 2017 (The Nation’s Report Card, “Student Groups and Gaps,” 2018).
Figure 4. Gaps between average scores of White and Hispanic students on the 8th Grade Math NAEP Test, 2009-2017, in Illinois and Indiana. In Indiana, these gaps widened, whereas in Illinois, these gaps narrowed through 2015, and returned in 2017 (The Nation’s Report Card, “Student Groups and Gaps,” 2018).
Figure 5. Gaps between average scores of students who were and were not eligible for free and reduced price lunch on the 8th Grade Math NAEP Test, 2009-2017, in Illinois and Indiana. In Indiana, these gaps widened, whereas in Illinois, these gaps narrowed through 2015, and returned in 2017 (The Nation’s Report Card, “Student Groups and Gaps,” 2018).
In fact, 2015 was the only year in which Illinois’s gaps between subgroups were smaller than those of Indiana. In 2017, the first year of NAEP in which Illinois was not receiving additional Race to the Top funds, the gaps in Illinois returned. Although Illinois’s students outscored Indiana’s students on NAEP fairly consistently, Illinois was not able to maintain raising achievement for its underperforming groups. The most recent NAEP scores show that Indiana significantly narrowed gaps compared to 2015, whereas in Illinois, these gaps widened to almost their pre-CCSS levels.
Diverging Stories, Similar Outcomes
Although Illinois and Indiana joined the same consortium for CCR standards and assessments around the same time, and both implemented the CCSS, the states diverge in both their methods and their outcomes for different groups of students. However, their history of accountability reform ends in much the same way: both states have moved away from PARCC, as test scores are dropping and backlash continues. The differences in accountability policies between the two states did not significantly change outcomes in the long-term for students generally or in individual groups in Illinois, and Indiana maintained the same level of student achievement and about the same disparities between subgroups between 2009-2017 (see Figures 1 and 2). As the NAEP scores support, Indiana saw slight, gradual progress throughout 2009-2017, despite tumultuous accountability policy changes. Illinois remained at a similar level of proficiency throughout this period. Several factors may account for the differences in these stories, including differences in funding, federal policy contributions, and the role of the PARCC consortium.
Funding Structures in Illinois and Indiana
One major difference between Illinois’ & Indiana’s accountability policies were their approaches toward educational funding. Because Illinois is more populous and, on average, wealthier than Indiana, Illinois’ total revenue for 2015 was over $30 billion, whereas Indiana was just over $10 billion (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015). However, the average per pupil funding in Illinois was about $12,000, whereas Indiana was about $9,500 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015). Although both states receive about equal funding from the federal government (about 10%), over 60% of Indiana’s educational revenue comes from the state, whereas only 35% of Illinois’s funding comes from the state (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015). These differences are attributable to state-level decisions, and thus the political context of each state matters when comparing their funding structures.
However, because so much of Illinois’s funding comes from local sources, great disparities across districts persist within the state, with some of the worst funding gaps in the country (Ushomirsky & Williams, 2015). In Indiana, the highest poverty districts receive about 12% more state and local funds per pupil than the lowest poverty districts; in Illinois, the highest poverty districts, like Chicago Public Schools, receive 19% less state and local funding. Federal funding can support the needs of diverse populations, such as low-income or special needs students, who require more funding to support equitably. Proportionately, about the same percentage of federal funding in each state comes from federal programs such as Title I and IDEA (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015). However, Race to the Top funding additionally supplemented districts in Illinois who were already receiving these funds, such as CPS, which composes almost 20% of the state’s population. Indiana does not have a comparatively large, high-need district, so resources can be distributed more equally throughout the state without disadvantaging a large portion of the population. Thus, Indiana can support more districts locally through supplementary state funding, and does so by supplementing districts with lower local revenues with state funding (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015).
This is important to note, as this enables districts throughout Indiana to implement programs to support diverse needs of students, potentially leading to smaller, albeit consistent, gaps between student groups. Illinois’s approach also means that certain populations were receiving targeted funding to help close gaps, as evidenced by the NAEP data during the years the Race to the Top funds were distributed. Illinois’s Race to the Top programs focused efforts and attention on CPS and other high-poverty districts. Forty-one percent of low-income students were impacted by Race to the Top programs (ISBE, 2018). This helped make up for funding inequities within Illinois, and this additional support may have contributed to Illinois’ ability to close gaps between groups of students. However, this funding ended in 2015. High-minority, high-poverty schools still lack the funding they need to even meet the state’s “adequate funding” guidelines: in 2017, CPS was $2 billion short of this measure (Sharkey & Montgomery, 2017). Despite the increase in funding to these targeted districts between 2012 and 2015, high gaps in funding persist in Illinois.
Federal Policy Contributions
Federal Policy in Illinois. The federal grant awarded to Illinois by the Race to the Top program allowed the state to develop and implement education reform policies, strategies, and programs. This also spurred an increase in the frequency of educational policy reforms that were enacted nationally from 10% pre-Race To The Top (2001-2008) to 68% post-Race To The Top (2009-2014) (Howell, 2015). Illinois enacted roughly only 20% of education reform policies in 2010, while in 2014 the state enacted roughly 70% of proposed education reform policies (Galer, 2015).
Although Illinois had the resources to implement widespread and far-reaching policies, the programs they implemented under RTTT were not as effective as intended, as evidenced by the state’s lack of progress on NAEP. In 2014, the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) conducted a thorough review of Illinois’s performance during the 2012-2013 school year, analyzing the state’s accomplishments, failures, initiatives, challenges, and goals. The DOE acknowledged Illinois’s goals of designing programs to support CCR for all students and to support the transition to CCSS (Department of Education, 2012). Illinois experienced a significant increase in graduation rates between 2012 and 2015; however, NAEP scores for 4th and 8th grade reading and 8th grade math only insignificantly increased during the same years. (See Figure 1 and Figure 2) (Department of Education, 2012).
Though these slight increases can possibly be connected with Illinois’ implementation of CCSS in 2011, with the multitude of factors at play in Illinois, we can only hypothesize the true root of the insignificant growth. The sharp decrease in student proficiency as measured by PARCC can possibly be attributed to a variety of factors such as poor assessment development by PARCC, poor standard alignment to PARCC, and poor training on teaching the new standards. Though Illinois received funds to implement education reform policies, strategies, and programs in order to increase CCR for all students and transition CCSS, it seems that the state did not use high-quality, evidence-based policies, strategies, and programs to achieve adequate progress towards its’ goal.
Political Influence on Accountability Policy
Political Influence in Indiana. In Indiana, the decision to leave the PARCC Consortium can be attributed to its political climate. Republicans held the governorship and the state senate since 2005, and gained control of the state house in 2011, after the CCSS had been adopted by the state board of education. The CCSS were not supported by the Republican party; in fact, states who have found “alternatives” and repealed CCSS were “congratulated” in the party’s 2016 platform (Republican National Committee, 2016). It is no surprise, then, that Indiana – a Republican leaning state – chose to opt out of PARCC. This can be isolated as primarily a political decision. Rewriting college and career ready standards and piloting, field testing, and administering a new assessment to match – a process required under federal law – was predicted to cost the state even more money (Timmerman, Pattison, & Stover, 2013), weakening an economic argument. Additionally, repealing the standards was arguably a political stunt and resulted in no real change since Indiana’s new standards continue to be based on common core (Ujifusa, 2014), some even saying they are “strikingly similar” (Nicks, 2014). So, the problem was also not with the content or the mission of the standards but with the CCSS name. Thus, Indiana’s actions with the CCSS exemplify the crucial role of politics in accountability reform.
Recommendations & Conclusions
Recommendations
Though both Illinois and Indiana have been avid supporters of education reform policies, improvement can be made within both states education systems. In order to support diverse populations of students and ensure their success, state government must consider the ways in which policies impact various groups of students and the teaching and learning process. Although the following recommendations were crafted to address issues found in Illinois and Indiana, they are general, research-based recommendations that can be applied in different states. In order to support college and career readiness, state governments should adhere to the following guidelines for reforming standards and corresponding accountability measures:
- Standards-aligned curriculum, instruction, and professional development for teachers, principals, and district leaders
- Equitable funding structures to ensure districts get what they need
- Evidenced-based reform measures to ensure recommended strategies are effective in improving student achievement
Through these measures, states can shift curriculum standards and corresponding accountability practices while supporting teachers and school leaders and minimally disrupting the learning process to promote equity for all students.
Standards-Aligned Curriculum, Instruction, and Professional Development. In recent years, both Illinois and Indiana have either modified or completely changed their academic standards and assessments. Academic standards are essential for “rich and challenging curriculum”, while assessments are measures for student learning (Gandal, 1995, p.84; Colorado Department of Education, 2016). Although modifying standards to be more rigorous is critical, it is essential that states constantly evaluate and review their standards and assessments to ensure its alignment to curriculum, instruction, and professional development (Marcone & Sireci, 2009). Often high-stakes decisions are determined by student performance on assessments; therefore, it is important for states to be certain that academic standards and standardized assessments are aligned to those three elements (La Marca, 2001; Norman, 1999). Validity is at stake if there is insufficient alignment between these elements (Marcone & Sireci, 2009.) Overload and fragmentation can hinder alignment. State and federal governments too frequently impose condensed implementation periods, leading to misalignment between curriculum, instruction, and professional development (Roach, Neibling, & Kurz, 2008).
Additionally, it is the state’s responsibility to ensure that curriculum, instruction, and professional development meet the requirements of standards and standardized tests, especially if test scores are used in evaluation measures. As was the case in Illinois (Sharkey & Montgomery, 2017), inadequate support and professional development for teachers and insufficient time to practice and receive feedback on new instructional practices results in dismal achievement on standardized tests. This then impacts a chain of evaluation and data collection that is connected to serious sanctions. When switching to new standards, states must ensure that teachers and school leaders are well-equipped to make the shift successful for their students, for the sake of their own evaluation and ideally students’ learning.
Equitable funding structures. At the basis of implementing statewide reforms is the ability for each district to provide for the needs of its students. Without equitable funding structures at the state level, a state cannot expect each district with its unique needs to successfully support the teaching and learning of all of its students. Therefore, a funding structure similar to that of Indiana, where the majority of funding comes from the state government, may prove beneficial in closing achievement gaps between students. However, as we saw in Illinois, additional programs are needed as well to concentrate on supporting the academic outcomes of traditionally underperforming groups: minorities, low-income students, English Language Learners, and students with special needs. Additional resources are required to educate these groups (Sharkey & Montgomery, 2017), so funding and specialized programs should target supporting schools with high populations of these students specifically.
Evidence-Based Education Reform Policies. In the ISBE mission, the board expresses its dedication to advocating for enhanced education policies (ISBE, 2018). In the IDOE mission, the department states its dedication to providing high quality innovative supports to all schools, teachers, students, and parents (IDOE, 2018). Both states’ missions show a commitment to implementing the most effective policies to ensure student success. In order to fulfill this goal, however, these states must ensure that evidence-based education reform policies are enacted. Currently, under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) it is required that states use evidence-based practices to ensure the implementation of effective policies, programs, and strategies within schools (Wilson, 2017). States have more flexibility under ESSA than they did under NCLB, and they should use this opportunity to their advantage (Fleischman, Scott, & Sargrad, 2016; Wilson, 2017). With the flexibility provided by ESSA, states can track effective practices and adjust them to fit the needs of its student population–the same can be done at the district level. By implementing evidence-based education reform policies, states will help yield significant and sustained school improvement and better outcomes for students (Fleischman, Scott, Sargrad, 2016).
Conclusions
The 2014-2015 school year was the capstone of five turbulent years in education policy in Illinois and Indiana. Both states felt renewed pressure to ensure their students were college and career ready, and eagerly joined the cause of supporting the CCSS. However, the state political dynamics of Indiana led to a sudden exit before the PARCC assessments were required, leading the state to scramble to create new college and career ready standards and assessments, rewriting their accountability system from the ground up. Illinois’s implementation of new programs aimed at supporting college and career readiness with funds provided by a RTTT grant afforded the state a unique opportunity to close achievement gaps in targeted districts. By 2017, both states seem to have returned to the status quo, despite the upheaval of Common Core.
However, the experimentation of policies in both states are beneficial to examining how different reforms can play out in similar circumstances. Additional programs and resources at the state and district level in Illinois proved successful in closing achievement gaps between groups of students. New standards for college and career readiness supported student achievement growth overall, as measured by NAEP, in Indiana. These two states demonstrate that the approach matters as much as the goal, and states should consider this when reforming their educational accountability systems.
Indiana and Illinois: PARCC Meets Politics Poster
References
270towin.com. (2018). Illinois. Retrieved from https://www.270towin.com/states/Illinois.
270towin.com (2018). Indiana. Retrieved from https://www.270towin.com/states/Indiana.
Boyd, S. (2010). PARCC submits application for Race to the Top funds. Achieve. [News Statement] Retrieved from https://www.achieve.org/parcc-submits-application-race-top-assessment-funds.
Cohen, Deborah (1990). Indiana Governor, School Chief Unite To Propose $9.5-Million Reform Plan. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1990/01/17/09210016.h09.html
Colorado Department of Education. (2016). The Role of State Assessments in Increasing Academic Achievement. Retrieved from https://www.cde.state.co.us/communications/stateassessmentsandacademicachievement
Glenn, K., Deaton, M., & James-Gross, L. (2015). Transitioning to Common Core: One District’s Story. Illinois School Board Journal, 83(2). Retrieved from https://issuu.com/iasbeditor/docs/march-april_2015_journal_final.
Delgado, J. & Zumbach, L. (2013). Minority student population in Illinois to surpass white students. The Chicago Tribune, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-met-school-report-card-minorities-20131103-story.html
Hiller, S. C., DiTommaso, A., & Plucker, J. A. (2012). The evolution of Indiana’s school accountability system. Public Law, 221, 2. Retrieved from http://www.ceep.indiana.edu/pdf/PB_V10N5_2012_EPB.pdf
Galer, Sarah. (2016) Race to the Top initiative spurs U.S. education policy reform, study finds. Retrieved from https://news.uchicago.edu/article/2015/07/24/race-top-initiative-spurs-us-education-policy-reform-study-finds
Gandal, . (1995).
Gold, Deborah (1998). Extensive Tests In Indiana Make Teachers Uneasy. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1988/04/13/29istep.h07.html#
Howell, William. (2015). Results of President Obama’s Race to the Top: Win or lose, states enacted education reforms. . Retrieved May, 2018, from http://educationnext.org/results-president-obama-race-to-the-top-reform/
Hurst, D., Tan, A., Meek, A., Sellers, J., & McArthur, E. (2003). Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1990 to 2000. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/2003020.pdf
Illinois State Board of Education (1973). Illinois Inventory of Educational Progress: executive summary.[Springfield, Ill.]: Illinois State Board of Education. Retrieved May, 2018, from https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/100803211
Illinois Report Card. (2018). State Snapshot. Retrieved from https://www.illinoisreportcard.com/State.aspx
Illinois State Board of Education. (1999). The Illinois state assessment 1999 technical manual. Retrieved from https://www.isbe.net/Documents/isat_tech_1999.pdf.
Illinois State Board of Education. (2012). Illinois Race to the Top. Retrieved from https://www.isbe.net/Documents/RttT_infographic.pdf.
Illinois State Board of Education. (2013). Assessments and Accountability: PARCC. Retrieved from https://www.isbe.net/parcc
Illinois State Board of Education. (2015). Non-regulatory Guidance: The Performance Evaluation Reform Act (PERA) and Senate Bill 7 (SB 7). [Government Document]. Retrieved from https://www.isbe.net/documents/pera_guidance.pdf.
Illinois State Board of Education. (2018). Assessment & Accountability: PARCC. Retrieved from https://www.isbe.net/Pages/PARCC-Place.aspx
Illinois State Board of Education. (2018). Charter School Biennial Report. https://www.isbe.net/Documents/2018_Charter_School_Biennial_Report.pdf
Illinois State Board of Education. (2018). Illinois Report Card Data. Retrieved from https://www.isbe.net/ilreportcarddata
Illinois State Board of Education. (2018). Illinois State Board of Education Vision, Missions, Goals. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.isbe.net/Documents/mission_statement.pdf#search=mission%20statement
Indiana Department of Education (2015). History of Indiana’s Accountability Systems. Retrieved from https://www.doe.in.gov/accountability/history-indiana’s-accountability-system
Indiana Department of Education. (2018). Compass: State of Indiana. Retrieved from https://compass.doe.in.gov/dashboard/overview.aspx.
Indiana Department of Education. (2018). History of Indiana’s Accountability System. Retrieved from https://www.doe.in.gov/accountability/history-indiana%E2%80%99s-accountability-system.
Indiana Department of Education. (2018). Historical ISTEP+. Retrieved from https://compass.doe.in.gov/dashboard/istep.aspx?type=state.
Indiana Department of Education. (2018). ISTEP+. Retrieved from https://compass.doe.in.gov/dashboard/scistep.aspx?type=state.
Indiana Department of Education. (2018). Mission Statements
King, Jacqueline (2011). Implementing the Common Core State Standards: An Action Agenda for Higher Education. American Council on Education. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED540255.pdf
Krishnamurthy, M. (2018). Illinois to change controversial PARCC test after this year. Retrieved from http://www.dailyherald.com/news/20180209/illinois-to-change-controversial-parcc-test-after-this-year.
LaMarca, Paul (2001). Alignment of standards and assessments as an accountability criterion. Practical Assessment, 7(21), 1-4. Retrieved from https://doaj.org/article/b4c948fcb15f4445b3655439216f386d
Lavenia, M., Cohen-Vogel, L., & Lang, L. B. (2014). The Common Core State Standards Initiative: An Event History Analysis of State Adoption. American Journal of Education, 121(2), 145-182. Retrieved from https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/679389.
Martone, A., & Sireci, S. G. (2009). Evaluating alignment between curriculum, assessment, and instruction. Review of Educational Research, 79(4), 1332-1361. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/docview/1928279449?pq-origsite=summon&accountid=11091
McGuinn, P. (2012). From No Child Left Behind to the Every Student Succeeds Act: Federalism and the education legacy of the Obama administration. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 46 (3), 392-415.
McInerny, C. (2015). Ditching the Common Core brings a big test for Indiana. National Public Radio. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/03/12/390688151/ditching-the-common-core-brings-a-big-test-for-indiana.
Nicks, D. (2014). Indiana Drops Common Core education standards. Time. Retrieved from http://time.com/36779/indiana-drops-common-core-education-standards/.
Rado, D. (2016). Illinois ends much-debated PARCC test for high school students. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-parcc-test-high-school-met-20160711-story.html.
Republican National Committee. (2016) Republican Party Platform, 2016. [PDF Document.] Retrieved from https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/static/home/data/platform.pdf
Roach, A. T., Niebling, B. C., & Kurz, A. (2008). Evaluating the alignment among curriculum, instruction, and assessments: Implications and applications for research and practice. Psychology in the Schools, 45(2), 158-176. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pits.20282
Sawchuk, S. (2018, February 26). Illinois Will Step Back from PARCC Test. Is New Jersey Next? Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2018/02/illinois_steps_back_from_parcc.html
Sharkey, J. & Montgomery, D. (2017). Students win when teachers are supported. The Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-teachers-cps-report-cards-evaluations-1201-20171129-story.html.
Strauss, V. (2012). Researchers blast Chicago teacher evaluation reform. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/researchers-blast-chicago-teacher-evaluation-reform/2012/03/28/gIQApdOfgS_blog.html?utm_term=.d2494af441de .
The Nation’s Report Card. (2018). State Profiles: Illinois. Retrieved from https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/profiles/stateprofile/overview/IL?chort=1&sub=MAT&st=MN&year=2017R3&sfj=NP.
The Nation’s Report Card. (2018). State Profiles: Indiana. Retrieved from https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/profiles/stateprofile/overview/IN?cti=PgTab_OT&chort=1&sub=MAT&sj=IN&fs=Grade&st=MN&year=2017R3&sg=Gender%3A+Male+vs.+Female&sgv=Difference&ts=Single+Year&tss=2015R3-2017R3&sfj=NP&selectedJurisdiction=IN.
Webb, N. L. (1999). Alignment of science and mathematics standards and assessment in four states (NISE Research Monograph No.18). Madison: University of Wisconsin–Madison, National Institute for Science Education. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED440852.pdf
Ushomirsky, N. & Williams, D. (2015) Funding gaps 2015: Too many states still spend less on educating students who need the most. Education Trust. [PDF Document]. Retrieved from https://edtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/FundingGaps2015_TheEducationTrust1.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. (2015). Public Education Finances: 2015. [PDF Document.] Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2017/econ/g15-aspef.pdf.
U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Race to the Top: Illinois Report, Year 2: December 2012-December 2013. [PDF Document.] Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/performance/illinois-year-2.pdf.
