Accountability
The proposed framework demands accountability for financial transactions, student outcomes, and teaching standards. Again, this would only apply to private-school choice programs, even as federal education accountability for public schools was neutered with the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015. Reporting and testing requirements changed as states were allowed to propose their own systems. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was imperfect, perhaps in design and certainly in implementation, but it meant that every school in every district in every state was asked to meet the same goals.
Look at Oregon, a reliably blue state that has a near-zero probability of ever passing private-school choice legislation. Oregon also ranks last among all states in demographically-adjusted math and reading scores on the 4th-grade National Assessment of Educational Progress. Just one-quarter of Oregon’s 4th-grade students scored proficient on the national reading test, a statistic that hasn’t changed appreciably since at least 1998. I’m a proud product of Portland Public Schools, but Oregon is failing miserably to educate most of its students.
Under NCLB, failing to meet a test-score target for even one subgroup of students would require a school to take action. What does Oregon’s latest accountability plan say? “In Oregon’s new accountability model, a school or student group must be low in multiple indicators in order to be identified for . . . support.” In other words, Oregon made it easier for schools to continue serving students poorly. Even more astoundingly, Oregon’s 2017 ESSA plan states, “students who achieve Level 3 or Level 4 [on the state assessment] are considered on track to being college and career ready,” and on the same page also states, “attaining Level 3 or Level 4 on statewide assessments is not a requirement for graduation.” Oregon graduates students from high school who, by their own standards, are not college or career ready. Nobody is being held accountable for the performance of those students. And Oregon is not alone.
Ironically, the states carrying the torch for “old-school” accountability are some of the states now adopting private-school choice programs: Louisiana, whose newest private-school choice program will launch in 2025–26; and Tennessee and Texas, both of which have recently signed new choice programs into law. Louisiana’s accountability system includes all students in grades K–12. The state’s FAQ document reads, “Is it realistic to expect every student to reach proficiency? We believe that the answer is ‘yes.’” It goes on to tell parents that “if your child typically struggles in a subject, he or she may receive more individualized instruction during the school day.” This strikes a different tone than Oregon’s “an anomalously low result in a single indicator will not identify a school [as needing support].”
It’s true that private schools in Louisiana won’t be beholden to the state’s accountability system. But with a high level of transparency and the state’s commitment to every student growing every year, it’s possible parents will be satisfied with their public option and won’t want to look for an alternative. Part of a robust choice system is the freedom of parents to choose public schools when they are right for their child. More crucially, demanding that states apply an accountability frame to private-school choice while accepting that they lower the bar on what public schools are expected to achieve is a double standard that serves nobody.
Baker et al. assert that “parents should have access to [private-school curricular] information to allow them to make appropriate choices on behalf of their children.” Yet in recent years, parents requesting information on curricula from public schools have been denied access (in Maryland, Michigan, and California, for example). Parents should be able to see the materials being used to teach their children, regardless of whether the school is private or public.
