Sanctions for Low Achieving Schools

State

Sanctions Found on State Web sites or Related Links

Alabama

Schools and systems with low achievement are rated Academic Alert 1,2,or 3. In Alert 1 schools, personnel engage in self-study and develop school improvement plans. If test scores do not improve, they are placed on Alert 2 status. Alert 2 schools work with a team appointed by the State superintendent. If their scores do not improve they are placed on Alert 3 status. Alert 3 schools receive state intervention with a full assistance team intended to work with local superintendents, school boards, school staff, and the community to ensure “every possible step” is taken. No clarification of “every possible step” was provided.

Arizona

The public is notified of school performance through School Report Cards.

Arkansas

Schools and systems receive the following designations according to the number of consecutive years of low performance: High Priority Status for one year, Alert Status for two years,Low Performing Status for three years, and Academic Distress Phase I Status for four years. The Department of Education can mandate specific intensive interventions for schools that receive any of these designations. Interventions may include specific one-year goals in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development or a summer school program for students performing below grade level.

Colorado

The amount and type of sanctions provided to low-achieving schools are based upon local decisions.

Connecticut

Schools identified as Priority Schools must develop a school improvement plan and begin the accreditation process with the New England Association of Schools and Colleges. The local board must monitor progress. If insufficient progress is not made within two years, the board can take one or more actions: close and reconstitute the school, restructure the grades and programs, provide site-based management, or provide interdistrict choice.

Delaware

Policies concerning sanctions for low-achieving schools or systems are currently under development to be implemented in 2001.

Florida

Schools receiving a School Performance Grade of D or F may receive intensive assistance or intervention. This may include on-site assistance, preference for awarding grants, and priority for other discretionary funds. In addition, Grade F schools may have their bargained contracts renegotiated.

Georgia

All Schools/systems designated Nonstandard must submit a corrective action plan to the State Board of Education. If the State Board finds that the school/system is making unsatisfactory progress toward its plan, it may take one of the following actions: increase the school system’s local fair share to finance the corrective actions, require the local school system to raise funds from local revenue sources to finance the corrective actions, or file a civil action in county court to determine if any local school board member or local superintendent has prevented or delayed the corrective action plan implementation. If the court finds that any officials have prevented or delayed implementation of the plan, it may order them to implement the plan. If not carried out, the court may remove the official and appoint a temporary replacement. (Note: schools that are accredited members of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools are exempted from these requirements).

Illinois

Schools that do not meet state goals are designated Level I Schools. Level I schools are placed on an Academic Early Warning List for a minimum of one academic year and are subject to an on-site visitation. Level I districts must submit revised School Improvement Plan (SIP). School districts that fail to submit or implement their required SIP may lose state funds by school district, attendance center, or program as determined by the State Board of Education. A school that has been on Academic Early Warning for two consecutive years and has made inadequate progress may be placed on the Academic Watch List. If a school remains on Academic Watch for two years may have local school board members removed and have an independent authority operate the school or district. In addition, these schools/districts may not be recognized by the state and have the State Superintendent direct the reassignment of pupils and administrative staff. If a school district is non-recognized in its entirety, it is automatically dissolved and realigned with another school district or districts.

Kansas

Every four years, each school is to report to the public (in the primary languages of the community) any accreditation deficiencies and plans for their correction. All local and state level accreditation reports are to be given to the public upon request.

Kentucky

Consequences for schools that fail to meet Board of Education requirements may include: a scholastic audit to recommend needed assistance, school improvement plans, eligibility to receive Commonwealth school improvement funds, education assistance from highly trained staff, evaluation of school personnel, or student transfer to successful schools.

Louisiana

Schools with low achievement receive corrective actions that increase in their level of intensity as schools fail to show adequate growth. (Level I is considered assistance—See Appendix D.) Level II schools are assigned a highly trained Distinguished Educator (DE) by the state to work in an advisory capacity to help improve student achievement. DEs make public reports to the school board including recommendations. For Academically Unacceptable schools in Level II, parents may transfer their child(ren) to higher performing schools. Level III schools are also assigned a DE to serve in an advisory capacity. For all schools in Level III, parents may transfer their child(ren) to higher performing schools. Districts must develop a Reconstitution Plan in Level III and submit it for approval. If a Level III school does not show growth equivalent to 40% of its growth target or 5 points, which ever is greater, in its first year at this level the school will be reconstituted before the next school year. If the school’s Reconstitution Plan is not approved, the school will lose its state approval and state funding.

Maryland

If a school does not have satisfactory or better scores in all student performance areas or if the average of its results do not demonstrate substantial and sustained improvement based upon the implementation of its school improvement plan, the State Board of Education may require the school to be reconstituted.

Massachusetts

Policies concerning sanctions for low-achieving schools or systems are currently under development.

Mississippi

If the corrective action recommendations are not implemented or if the school’s deficiencies are not corrected by the end of the probationary period, the school district may have its accredited status withdrawn by the Commission on School Accreditation and the status of the district will be listed as Accreditation-Withdrawn.

Nevada

Schools designated as Demonstrating a Need for Improvement must pay for and administer required tests to grades 4, 8, and 11 until Adequate, High, or Exemplary achievement is attained. The Department of Education will monitor this testing to ensure that all eligible students in attendance are given an opportunity to participate. The Demonstrating a Need for Improvement designation has additional implications for school improvement plans, state funding and may, over time, impact school administration. For example, these schools are not eligible to receive money for remedial programs made available by legislative appropriation.  Also, if a school is designated Demonstrating a Need for Improvement for 3 consecutive years for inadequate achievement (or 2 consecutive years for low test participation rates), the school is placed on Academic Probation and must develop a plan to improve the achievement of students as measured by required tests and or the participation rates.

New Jersey

Districts that do not improve during the Level II (assistance) process will have a Level III evaluation. The Level III evaluation process provides an external audit called a Comprehensive Compliance Investigation conducted by the Commissioner to examine the district's governance, management, and fiscal operations. A corrective action plan is then ordered by the Commissioner. Failure to improve may result in further interventions such as withholding state aid, initiation of a state takeover of the school district, or any other actions that the Commissioner deems necessary and appropriate. These actions may include restructuring of curriculum/programs, redirection of expenditures, retraining or reassignment of staff, developing staff professional development plans, conducting a comprehensive budget evaluation, enforcing spending at the full per-pupil "thorough and efficient" amount, and reviewing collective bargaining agreements. Similar corrective actions may be taken in a Level II district after three consecutive years of failure. (During 1998-2000, there have been no Level III districts; however, sanctions have been imposed in two Level II districts. In the 1990s, the state has taken over and currently operates the three districts of Newark, Jersey City, and Paterson.)

New Mexico

Although no sanctions are specified, the accountability indicators are used in the process of determining accreditation status. Furthermore, the State Legislature assigned responsibility for setting sanctions to the State Department of Education.

New York

Schools determined to be the farthest from meeting the State Standards may have their registration reviewed. Title 1 schools are required to demonstrate adequate yearly progress; however, no specific activities or consequences were given.

North Carolina

Low-Performing Schools are defined as those that fail to meet their expected growth or gain standard and either have significantly less than 50% of their students performing at or above grade level (K-8 schools) or fail to be at or above Achievement Level III (high schools). Parents are notified of low-performing schools. These schools are reviewed yearly by the state board. Based on their percentages of students below grade level or Achievement Level III and their lack of growth, a group of schools are targeted to receive mandatory assistance. If these schools fail to improve by their next annual review, assistance may continue or further action such as the dismissal or demotion of educational employees may be taken. Furthermore, districts may lose their accreditation if half of their schools are identified as low-performing.

Ohio

All Schools are reviewed using a three-level process: All schools are to receive a general review using state criteria in Level One. In Level Two, any school/district that fails = 1/2  - < 2/3 or = 2/3 of the criteria is sent a copy of the level-one findings. The school/ district has 30 days to submit a written refutation to the Department of Education. If the school/district fails to respond or provides insufficient evidence to refute the level-one findings they proceed to Level Three.  In Level Three, any school/district that failed = 1/2  - < 2/3 of the criteria will be sent written notification. Any school/district that failed = 2/3 of the criteria will have an on-site review conducted to verify and discuss the Level One data. After a Level Three review, any school/district that fails = 2/3 of the criteria is identified as Deficient and is required to submit a corrective action plan. Any district designated as Continuous Improvement, Academic Watch or Academic Emergency must develop and adopt a three-year Continuous Improvement Plan (CIP) that contains an analysis of why the district failed to meet the standards and specify strategies and resources to be used to address the problem. CIPs will be developed after a minimum of one public hearing and made formally available to the public.

Oklahoma

An annual report to the Legislature will be made to identify all districts that have at least one Low Performing or High Challenge school that includes test scores and data on indicators for each school and intervention actions taken or planned to ensure “the proper education of the students of each such school.” Interventions used by the State Board of Education can include: “provision of guidance/assistance to the school/school district; special funding; reassignment of district personnel; transfer of students; operation of the school by personnel employed by the State DOE; mandatory annexation of all or part of the local school district; and placing operation of the school with an institution of higher education as a developmental research school….”

Oregon

The district determines sanctions for schools that submit inadequate improvement plans and is responsible for ensuring that each school improvement plan is implemented as appropriate. Final district decisions about the program improvement status of these schools will be reported to the state. Also, School Report Cards served as public notification of poor performance.

South Carolina

Schools designated Below Average or Unsatisfactory must implement school-/district-developed strategies for improvement. If a school/district fails to improve despite significant assistance from the Department of Education, a State of Emergency may be declared, the principals may be replaced or transferred back to classrooms forfeiting principal-level salary, and additional unspecified consequences may result.

Tennessee

A school/system may be placed on Notice for 1 year or on Probation if it fails to meet the state’s rules and regulations or performance standards. Schools/districts that do not achieve the required rate of progress or fail to maintain set levels of attendance or dropout rates may be placed on Probation. After one year on Notice, any school/system that does not improve to expected levels may be placed on Probation. While on Probation, the discretionary powers of the director of schools or the Local Board of Education (LBE) may be restricted to ensure implementation of recommendations. After 2 consecutive years on Probation, a system may have its LBE and superintendent removed from office. 

Texas

Districts that contain any Low-Performing campuses, even those with Exemplary or Recognized campuses, or that underreport student data may not be designated higher than Academically Acceptable. For Low-Performing campuses and Academically Unacceptable districts, initial sanctions may include: “issue of public notice, a public hearing by the district board of trustees, submission of a improvement plan for state review, and an on-site peer review.” (Any campus rated Low-performing for the first year due solely to a high dropout rate is exempted from the on-site peer review.) Additional interventions/sanctions may be assigned based upon the on-site visit. Campuses or districts rated as Low-Performing and Academically Unacceptable respectively in consecutive years are subject to stronger sanctions, such as the assignment of a monitor or management team. Also the Public Education Grant Program (PEG) “permits parents with children attending a poor performing school to transfer their children to another public school, even one outside district boundaries, that had higher performance results.”

Vermont

Schools are reviewed biannually. Schools determined to be making inadequate progress will be given written notice of specific actions to be taken to fulfill standards. If insufficient progress has been made after two years, the State Board of Education may “continue technical assistance, adjust district boundaries or responsibilities of the superintendent, assume administrative control to correct deficiencies, or close the school and require the district to pay tuition to another school.” As of Fall 1998, sanctions taken have not been based on performance data developed under the new assessment system.

Washington

Policies concerning interventions for low-achieving schools or systems are currently under development.

West Virginia

If a school on Temporary Accreditation status fails to obtain approval of its revised Unified Improvement Plan (UIP) within a set time period or if a school on Conditional Accreditation status fails to meet the objectives and time line of its revised UIP or to achieve Full Accreditation by the date specified in the revised plan, then the school may be classified as Seriously Impaired. For Seriously Impaired schools, the State Board appoints an Improvement Consultant team to make recommendations. If progress is not made within six months, the County Board will be placed on Temporary Approval status. The County board will receive consultation and assistance to improve personnel management, to establish more efficient financial management practices, to improve instructional programs and rules, or to make any other improvements as necessary. If the impairment is not corrected by the set date, the County Board shall be given Nonapproval status. Students attending Seriously Impaired schools that fail to improve within a year may transfer once to the nearest Full Accreditation school at the Seriously Impaired school’s expense.