Title page
Contents
SUMMARY OF STUDY DESIGN 6
LITTLE CHANGE IN STATE CONTENT STANDARDS BY 2018, DISTRICTS INCREASED SUPPORT TO IMPLEMENT THEM 6
STATES BROADENED MEASURES THAT IDENTIFY STRUGGLING SCHOOLS, DISTRICTS INCREASED IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES AT THOSE SCHOOLS 11
STATES AND DISTRICTS INCREASINGLY USED PERFORMANCE DATA AS A MEANS TO SUPPORT EFFECTIVE TEACHING 17
REFERENCES 25
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 28
APPENDIX: SUPPORTING TABLES REFERENCED IN THE REPORT 29
Exhibits
Exhibit 1. Study timeline compared with ESEA policy timeline: 2013-14 to 2021-22 5
Exhibit 2. Number of states making changes to English language arts (ELA) or math content standards since April 2014, by Common Core State Standards (CCSS) status: 2017-18 8
Exhibit 3. Percentage of districts that used materials or engaged in activities to align curriculum or instruction to ELA or math state content standards: 2013-14 and 2017-18 10
Exhibit 4. Number of states that reported using selected measures to differentiate school performance: 2013-14 and 2017-18 13
Exhibit 5. Annual percentage-point increase in achievement and attainment required to meet long-term goals, by state 15
Exhibit 6. Percentage of districts reporting that selected improvement activities occurred in their low-performing Title I schools: 2013-14 and 2017-18 16
Exhibit 7. Percentage of districts using teacher performance evaluation practices: 2013-14 and 2017-18 18
Appendix Exhibits
Exhibit A.1. Number of states by extent of change to high school graduation requirements for a standard diploma for students entering in fall 2018 (class of 2022) compared to students... 30
Exhibit A.2. State summative assessments in English language arts and math, by grade level: 2014-15 and 2017-18 31
Exhibit A.3. Number of states that monitored the implementation of current state content standards for English language arts or math: 2013-14 and 2017-18 32
Exhibit A.4. Number of states that provided supports to help the understanding and implementation of current English language arts (ELA) or math state content standards: 2013-14 and 2017-18 33
Exhibit A.5. Percentage of districts that used supports to help English learners and students with disabilities meet state content standards: 2013-14 and 2017-18 34
Exhibit A.6. Number of states that used selected measures to differentiate school performance: 2013-14 and 2017-18 35
Exhibit A.7. Number of states that used measures of student achievement growth for reading and math achievement, by type of growth measures used: 2013-14 and 2017-18 35
Exhibit A.8. Number of states that reported examining school-level performance of subgroups other than those statutorily required for accountability: 2013-14 and 2017-18 36
Exhibit A.9. Median minimum subgroup sizes and number of states by minimum subgroup sizes for reporting student achievement in 2017-18 compared to 2013-14 37
Exhibit A.10. Long-term goals for academic achievement and graduation rates relative to baseline rates and timelines: 2017-18 38
Exhibit A.11. Increase in proficiency rates required to meet states' long-term goals and target years for achieving proficiency goals: 2017-18 39
Exhibit A.12. Number of states that identified Title I Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) schools and number of schools identified: 2017-18 40
Exhibit A.13. Number of states that required selected interventions in lowest-performing Title I schools: 2013-14 and 2017-18 41
Exhibit A.14. Number of states that provided additional resources to lowest-performing Title I schools: 2013-14 and 2017-18 42
Exhibit A.15. Percentage of districts that reported selected interventions and changes were implemented in lowest-performing Title I schools and Title I schools with low-performing subgroups: 2017-18 43
Exhibit A.16. Number of states requiring teacher performance evaluation practices: 2013-14 and 2017-18 45
Exhibit A.17. Number of states and percentage of districts requiring classroom observations with a professional practice rubric, student achievement growth, and at least three performance categories... 46
Exhibit A.18. Number of states that examined the distribution of teacher quality/effectiveness within the past 12 months and the measures used: 2013-14 and 2017-18 47
Exhibit A.19. Percentage of districts that examined the distribution of teacher quality/effectiveness within the past 12 months and the measures used: 2013-14 and 2017-18 48
Exhibit A.20. Number of states that found substantial inequities in the distribution of teacher quality/effectiveness and took actions to address inequities: 2013-14 and 2017-18 49
Exhibit A.21. Percentage of districts that found substantial inequities in the distribution of teacher quality/effectiveness and took actions to address inequities: 2013-14 and 2017-18 50
Exhibit A.22. Number of states examining the effectiveness of teacher preparation programs within the past 12 months, by factors used for this assessment: 2013-14 and 2017-18 51
Exhibit A.23. Number of states that reported on the effectiveness of their teacher preparation programs within the past 12 months: 2013-14 and 2017-18 51
Exhibit A.24. Percentage of districts that received Title II, Part A funds that reported funding activities and the average percentage of supporting funds from Title II, Part A, by activity: 2017-18 52
Exhibit A.25. Number of required in-service days for teachers and percentage of districts using specific professional development and support practices: 2013-14 and 2017-18 53