Respecting Diversity among States

Abstract

THERE is nothing like tracking down 2,000 state policies to reinforce one's understanding that states do not approach problems or policy in the same way. Education policies in California fill 17 volumes. Alaska's consist of one short chapter of a codebook that also covers elections, guardianships, and trusts. States such as Texas select textbooks at the state level; Colorado constitutionally prohibits that practice. In similar fashion, states have taken different approaches to meeting the requirements of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. Not that policy makers in Montana want anything less for their kids than those in Tennessee. They just don't go about it the same way. As staff members at the Education Commission of the States tracked down over 2,000 policies related to state implementation of NCLB, they found refreshing differences in approaches. Here are a few examples of this diversity. School Recognition In Illinois, a school that meets AYP (adequate yearly progress) criteria for two consecutive school years is exempt from review and approval of its improvement plan for the next two school years. In Maryland, the state board of education may, on the recommendation of the state superintendent, give monetary or nonmonetary rewards to schools that significantly close the achievement gap between subgroups or that exceed AYP in reading or in mathematics for two or more consecutive years. Ohio has developed the State Superintendent's Schools of Promise program, which is designed to heighten awareness of the potential of Ohio schools to close achievement gaps. Among other things, the program includes annually identifying schools that meet or exceed specific student performance and diversity criteria; issuing news releases about these schools and awarding banners identifying them as Schools of Promise; and holding forums, network meetings, professional conferences, and other events that draw attention to programs, policies, and practices that contribute to the success of these schools and the achievement of their students. Persistently Dangerous Schools States are using a variety of factors and approaches to identify persistently dangerous schools. Most states consider offenses or incidents occurring during a three-year period, some consider a two-year period, and a few consider a combination of two and three years. Some states use a specific number of offenses; others use a percentage of the student population; and still others rely on a combination of a specific percentage of student enrollment for some offenses and a specific number for other offenses. The percentage rates range from one-half of 1% to 6%. Definitions of offenses or incidents range from detailed lists of offenses to more generic descriptions. And the specifics of each state policy will determine the number of schools deemed to be persistently dangerous. As a means of identifying schools at risk of being designated persistently dangerous, Arkansas requires schools and districts to report transfers under the unsafe-school option and the Public School Choice Act. In Indiana, a panel of local and state school safety experts determines whether a school that has met the established criteria for the third consecutive year should be identified as persistently dangerous. Schools identified as persistently dangerous in Mississippi and North Dakota have an opportunity, prior to final determination, to provide additional information to the state department of education or the state board of education. South Dakota's policy considers all offenses occurring on school property, at school-sponsored events, or on buses -- 24 hours a day, 12 months a year -- whether committed by or victimizing students, school personnel, or nonschool personnel. Virginia's policy requires principals to distinguish between assaults that don't result in bodily injury and those that do. In some cases, state policies involving the designation of persistently dangerous schools contain certain limits or exemptions. …