Educators question cost of school accountability plan

The Legislature is eager to hold schools accountable for performance because it's good for students — and because if there's no accountability system by summer, it could lose $60 million in federal money.

But at a committee hearing Wednesday, education lobbyists questioned whether budget writers would allot enough money to implement the Legislature's quickly evolving plan. Others questioned whether schools that failed to meet new standards would face any real consequences.

Almost all critics prefaced their testimony by saying they supported school accountability, but ...

"It's impossible to understand what help will be provided under this legislation," said Mark Joyce of the state school administrators association.

About $750,000 is available for the plan in the two-year budget the House approved this month, said the bill's primary sponsor, Sen. Jane O'Hearn, R-Nashua.

Federal money, O'Hearn said, will pay for the accountability program at schools receiving federal Title 1 aid — about 250 of the state's 460 schools.

Lawmakers need to come up with the plan to comply with the federal No Child Left Behind law and a state Supreme Court ruling. Last April the court said the state can't rely on voluntary performance standards or excuse districts from meeting minimum standards because they don't have enough money.

Schools would have to meet targets set by the state board of education for:

— third-grade reading test scores;

— grade retention (the percentage of pupils held back); and

— the percentage of pupils who graduate from high school.

And by the 2013-2014 school year, all pupils would have to score at the 'basic' level or above on statewide assessment tests.

If a school didn't reach the targets, it would be required to come up with an improvement plan with the state's assistance. Unlike some previously proposed accountability plans, the state could not take over schools that failed to make progress.

Joyce and others said the statewide assessment tests were not designed to hold schools accountable; gains-based tests, which measure the progress of individual students from year to year, would be more appropriate, they said. They also questioned empowering the state board, a politically appointed body, with so much rule-setting power.

O'Hearn has the same concerns, and noted that the legislation calls for a transition to gains-based testing. The House may modify her bill to take the rules making power away from the board and give it to the Legislature.

"It's still a moving target," O'Hearn said.

The House Education Committee will vote on it by May 7, said Chairman Stephen L'Heureux, R-Hooksett.