Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accountability Systems topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate education panel reviews ASAP accountability framework, level‑5 supports and limits of A–F grades
Summary
Department staff told the Senate Education Committee that Arkansas’s ASAP accountability system emphasizes tailored supports rather than fixed cutoffs, but committee members pressed on the public role of A–F grades, demographic correlations with school scores, and the high‑stakes consequences tied to level‑5 districts.
Julie Holt, a bureau staffer, told the Senate Education Committee that the Arkansas Education Support and Accountability Program (ASAP) runs alongside the federal Every Student Succeeds Act and is intended to set expectations, report progress, celebrate success and prompt targeted supports for struggling schools. She briefed lawmakers on how the state shifted from the proficiency threshold approach used under earlier law to ASAP’s multi‑level support structure created by Act 930.
Holt described five levels of support: level 1 provides general resources and publicly available data; levels 2–4 involve progressively greater ADE assistance; and level 5 is the most intensive designation, the only level that carries statutory consequences. ‘‘Level 5 is a little bit different story,’’ Holt said, explaining that the state board must vote to place a district in level 5 and that the state can remove a superintendent or school board or pursue reconstitution or consolidation if exit criteria are not met.
Under the state’s exit plans, Holt said schools with F letter grades must meet both qualitative and quantitative criteria to leave level 5. ‘‘The latest … growth scores, they have to have a growth score of 80,’’ she said, adding that a score of 80 marks performance ‘‘right on target for what we expect them to do.’’ Holt also warned that exit plans have similar structures across level‑5 districts even though the support tasks within them are tailored to district needs.
Committee members focused on how A–F letter grades — which are derived from the ESSA school index (weighted achievement, growth, graduation and school quality measures) — shape public perception and funding distribution. Holt and Department of Education staff noted that letter grades are state law and are the most visible element of school reporting; they also presented analyses showing moderate negative correlations between the ESSA index and demographic measures such as percent free‑and‑reduced‑price‑lunch and percent Black students.
Several lawmakers questioned whether the cutoffs were set to force a bell‑curve distribution and whether the grading system inadvertently ‘‘shames’’ lower‑performing schools rather than help them. Deborah Kaufman of ADE said standard‑setting used blind proxy data and broad stakeholder input and that the process did not impose a bell curve. Lawmakers asked the department to supply additional research on the labeling effects and to provide district‑level context when high‑stakes decisions, such as level‑5 interventions for districts like Little Rock, are under consideration.
No formal votes or motions were taken during the presentation. Committee members asked for follow‑up materials (for example, district progress reports and additional analyses) and department staff said they would provide those documents on request. The committee adjourned after a later presentation on English‑learner issues.
Next steps: Committee members requested further documentation and district reports to inform any legislative consideration of grading, rewards, or statutory changes to the accountability framework.
