Nevada clearly links its star rating system and its school-identification system.


Nevada plans to identify all of its one-star schools and all downward-trending two-star schools, as well as the bottom 5 percent of schools, as schools in need of comprehensive support. However, the plan does not have similar alignment for schools with low-performing subgroups, and there’s uncertainty about the state’s proposed rules to identify schools in need of targeted support. Similarly, the state could provide greater clarity around its definition for schools identified for “additional targeted support.”


Nevada will give a label of “not rated” to any school that exclusively serves students with disabilities.


The state indicates it has an alternative performance framework that applies to these schools, but it’s potentially problematic if the systems are not well aligned, especially if it creates incentives for students with disabilities to be sent out of traditional schools.


Nevada emphasizes the importance of state assessments by including a school’s participation rate in its accountability system.


However, the state could strengthen its plan by imposing consequences for missing this target sooner than in the proposed timeline of three consecutive years. In addition, Nevada should consider monitoring participation rates going forward to ensure low-performing students are not inappropriately excluded from the assessment system.




Louisiana’s A-F school rating system provides stakeholders with a single, clear, summative rating to understand school performance and demonstrates how it will identify close to 17 percent of its schools for comprehensive support and improvement, well above the 5 percent required under federal law.



Choose a state to see their plans for identifying schools: