1). These funds support schools and districts with  high concentrations of students from low-income families. Stakeholders and Selected States View ESSA’s Accountability Provisions as Flexible

		Stakeholders See ESSA as Flexible and Said Some States Are Making More Changes to Their Accountability Systems Than Others

Representatives of all nine national stakeholder groups we spoke with  saw ESSA’s accountability provisions as somewhat flexible, with most  indicating that ESSA strikes a good balance between flexibility and  requirements. One stakeholder said, for example, that ESSA “threads  the needle very well” between giving states flexibility in designing their  accountability systems and placing requirements on states to help ensure  that all children have an opportunity to get a good education. Ohio’s and California’s Approaches to Incorporating ESSA Provisions into Their Accountability Systems

Ohio and California, the two states we visited, illustrate how different  states are using the flexibilities in ESSA to develop accountability  systems that are tailored to meet state needs as well as ESSA  requirements for each of the four key components of state accountability  systems: determine long-term goals, develop performance indicators,  differentiate schools, and identify and assist low performers. Differentiate Schools (distinguishing between levels of performance) accountability system, including the four  academic indicators, for all students and  for each subgroup of students; and  include differentiation of any school in  which any subgroup of students is  determined by the state to be consistently  under-performing. Under the proposal, schools would receive a letter  grade on each indicator. Ohio state officials  told us that they also intend to roll up indicator scores into an overall letter  grade for schools in 2018. California officials said they plan to distinguish performance of schools  and student subgroups by using a dashboard in which school and student  subgroup performance would be color-coded based on each of six state  indicators. Unlike  Ohio, California does not plan to aggregate the indicators into overall  scores for schools and student subgroups. In contrast, reporting individual indicators allows key  distinctions to be maintained in performance across a variety of factors. Developing and Implementing State Monitoring Plans Is a Key Next Step for Education in ESSA Implementation

Given current timelines, Education officials said that the department is  currently focused on the review and approval process for state plans and  providing assistance to states in developing their plans. Under ESSA, the  Secretary of Education is responsible for establishing a peer-review  process to assist in the review of state plans, and for approving state  plans that meet the requirements of ESSA. Education officials told us that they are developing monitoring protocols  that they will pilot with eight or nine states in early 2018. These protocols  are intended to guide in-depth reviews of state activities related to ESSA  implementation. ESSA requires states and Education to report annually on specific  aspects of ESSA implementation and states to submit significant changes  to their plans to Education for review (see sidebar for a summary of these  requirements). Annual report to Congress: ESSA also  requires the Secretary of Education to  submit an annual report to specified  congressional committees that provides  both national and state-level data on the  information collected from the states’  reports. On June 16, 2017 we provided a draft of this report to Education for  comment. Education provided technical comments on our  draft, which we incorporated as appropriate.
Why GAO Did This Study

Federal, state, and local governments spent about $640 billion in 2015 to educate nearly 50 million public school children in the United States. ESSA, enacted in December 2015, reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. To receive federal education funds for school districts with high concentrations of students from low-income families, ESSA requires states to have accountability systems that meet certain requirements, but gives states flexibility in how they design their systems.
GAO was asked to review states' early experiences with ESSA. This report examines (1) selected stakeholders' and states' views of ESSA's flexibilities as states redesign accountability systems, and (2) Education's next steps in implementing ESSA.
GAO interviewed representatives of nine prominent national education stakeholder groups, selected for their knowledge about state accountability systems; met with education officials in California and Ohio—states that were among those stakeholders cited as offering differing approaches to developing their systems; interviewed Department of Education officials; reviewed relevant federal laws and guidance; and reviewed accountability system guidance from California and Ohio and these states' draft state plans.
GAO is not making recommendations in this report. The Department of Education provided technical comments on a draft of this report, which we incorporated as appropriate.

What GAO Found

According to most of the nine education stakeholder groups GAO interviewed and officials in the two states GAO visited, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) strikes a good balance between flexibility to meet state needs and ESSA requirements. Accountability systems measure student and school performance to identify and assist low-performers. States are currently developing plans for accountability systems under ESSA. According to stakeholders, some states are using ESSA's flexibilities to significantly change their accountability systems while others are making more limited changes. Changes stakeholders discussed pertained mostly to four key components (see figure). GAO visited California and Ohio and these two states reported using ESSA's flexibilities to distinguish between levels of school performance, among other things. For example, Ohio plans to assign letter grades to schools on each of six performance indicators. Under Ohio's proposal, schools will also receive overall letter grades beginning in 2018. California plans to distinguish performance with grades for performance on each of six state indicators. Their proposed system will not provide overall scores for schools. California officials said reporting on individual indicators will allow them to show key distinctions in performance that an overall score could mask.
Four Key Components of Accountability Systems Under the Every Student Succeeds Act
Education officials said next steps in implementing ESSA are the review and approval of ESSA-required state plans, and to continue to provide technical assistance to states. Officials also said that they are developing monitoring protocols for in-depth reviews of states' ESSA-related activities and will pilot them in early 2018. ESSA also includes certain reporting and review requirements, for example, (1) annual state reports to Education on student and school performance; (2) annual Education reports to Congress on state reported data; and (3) approval by the Secretary of Education of significant changes to state plans.