Accountability
The New Jersey Department of Education annually provides academic accountability ratings to its schools and districts. The system helps to identify schools and districts that need support in preparing students for postsecondary success. This ensures equitable access to high-quality education and academic excellence.
New Jersey’s approved ESSA state plan outlines how schools will be identified for support and improvement, how long schools will remain in status, and the exit criteria that will be used to determine whether schools can exit status.
Accountability Data
- Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rates
- No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) - Archive
- Illustrative Time and Activity Report for Federally Funded Staff (Monthly)
- Semi-Annual Certification of Federally Funded Staff (100% funded)
- Illustrative Time and Activity Report for Federally Funded Staff (Annual)
- A Discussion of Supplement vs. Supplant
ESEA Collaborative Monitoring
New Jersey’s ESSA state plan uses the following indicators to annual meaningfully differentiate public schools in New Jersey:
ESSA Required Indicators | New Jersey State Plan Indicators | Weight | Long-Term Goal (Updated as of January 2025) | Measures of Interim Progress (Updated as of January 2025)** |
---|---|---|---|---|
Academic Achievement |
|
30%* | Future goal is that 100% of all students and each student group will meet or exceed grade-level expectations on the statewide English language arts (ELA) and mathematics assessment.
ESSA long-term goal is to close the gap between 2022-2023 baseline performance and the future goal by 20% over six years (by 2028-2029). After six years, new long-term goals will be established based on 2028-2029 baseline data. |
Unique annual targets for years 1-5 will be established based on student group 2022-2023 baseline data. The annual targets will initially be based on the annual amount of progress to reach the long-term goal in six years, with progress equally distributed across the six years. Each year, targets will be reviewed. If the previous year’s annual target was not met, the remaining annual targets will be adjusted to reflect the amount of annual progress required to reach the long-term goal in the remaining years. The long-term goal does not change. |
Academic Progress (Elementary & Middle Schools) |
|
40%* (ES/MS Only) | Not Applicable | Annual targets are based on a state-defined standard. |
Graduation Rate (High Schools) |
|
40%* (HS Only) | Future goal is that 95% of all students and each student group will graduate within four years of entering 9th grade, and 96% of students will graduate within five years of entering 9th grade.
ESSA long-term goal is to close the gap between Cohort 2022 baseline data and the future goal by 25% over six years (by 2028). After six years, new long-term goals will be established based on Cohort 2028 baseline data. |
Unique annual targets for years 1-5 will be established based on student group Cohort 2022 baseline data. The annual targets will initially be based on the annual amount of progress to reach the long-term goal in six years, with progress equally distributed across the six years. Each year, targets will be reviewed. If the previous year’s annual target was not met, the remaining annual targets will be adjusted to reflect the amount of annual progress required to reach the long-term goal in the remaining years. The long-term goal does not change. |
Progress Towards English Language Proficiency | Progress towards English Language Proficiency (ELP) | 20% | By 2028-2029:
|
Annual targets for each group will represent a yearly one-percentage point increase over the baseline for each of the six years. Each school within the two stratified groups will have the same annual targets. |
School Quality or Student Success | Chronic Absenteeism | 10% | Not Applicable | Annual targets are based on the statewide average for students in grades served by each school. |
*For academic achievement and academic progress, the total weight in the table above is split evenly between ELA and Mathematics. For graduation rate, the total weight in the table above is split evenly between 4-year and 5-year graduation rates. Weights will be adjusted if data is not available for any indicators. See the annual technical guide in the School & District Accountability section below for more details about weighting and adjustments.
**Individual school, district, and student-group annual targets for academic achievement and graduation rate can be found in the annual target spreadsheets in the School & District Accountability section below.
The NJDOE will identify schools in the following four federal categories every three years:
- Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI): Overall Low Performing:
- Title I schools with a summative score in the bottom 5% of Title I schools.
- Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI): Low Graduation Rate:
- Any high school with a four-year graduation rate of 67% or less
- Additional Targeted Support and Improvement: Low Performing Student Group (ATSI):
- Any schools with one or more student groups with a summative score that would be in the bottom 5% of Title I schools
- Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI): Chronically Low Performing:
- Title I schools identified as Additional Targeted Support and Improvement: Low Performing Student Groups (ATSI) that are identified for three or more consecutive years, i.e., ATSI schools that do not meet exit criteria.
The NJDOE identified schools for CSI and ATSI status in fall 2023, based on data from the 2022-2023 school year. The next identification of schools in these categories will be in fall 2026, based on data from the 2025-2026 school year.
Annually, NJDOE will identify schools in the following federal category:
- Targeted Support and Improvement: Consistently Underperforming Student Group (TSI):
- Schools with one or more student groups that missed annual targets or standards for all indicators for two years in a row.
For purposes of ESSA accountability, only schools and student groups with data for 20 or more students are included in calculations.
Exit Criteria for Schools Identified for Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI)
- It no longer has a summative score that is at or below the 5th percentile of Title I schools; and
- It demonstrates improved student performance on accountability indicators as compared to student performance at the time of identification for comprehensive support and improvement;
- Its four-year graduation rate is above 67 percent, if a high school; and
- It successfully implemented its approved comprehensive support and improvement plan as confirmed by NJDOE.
Exit Criteria for Schools Identified for Additional Targeted Support and Improvement for Low Performing Student Groups (ATSI)
- It no longer has a student group with a summative score that is at or below the 5th percentile of Title I schools; and
- It demonstrates, for the student group for which the school was identified as in need of additional targeted support and improvement, improved student performance on accountability indicators as compared to student performance at the time of identification.
Exit Criteria for Schools Identified for Targeted Support and Improvement for Consistently Underperforming Student Groups (TSI)
- Misses interim targets for all available indicators for two consecutive years; and
- Performs below the State average for all available indicators for two consecutive years.
What is a Resource Allocation Review?
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requires the New Jersey Department of Education (Department) to periodically review resource allocation in local education agencies (LEA) that serve a significant number of Comprehensive and Targeted schools (ESEA §1111(d)(3)(A)(ii)). State agencies have considerable flexibility and autonomy to design these reviews, determine what data should be included, and decide how to collaborate with schools and LEAs to ensure reviews are helpful instead of burdensome.
Resource allocation refers to how LEAs distribute money and other resources to schools. The fiscal resources considered in the review will include all federal, state, and local dollars, as outlined in New Jersey’s School Performance Reports.
The Resource Allocation Review (RAR) is not an evaluation or accountability measure and does not result in punitive action against a school or LEA. The purpose of the RAR is not to surface specific action steps but rather to foster conversation that connects resources to outcomes. The NJDOE will share the results of the RAR with each LEA selected based on the criteria to facilitate a non-evaluative discussion. The opportunity to partner with LEAs in examining the relationship between resource distribution and student outcomes will not only meet the technical requirements of ESEA §1111(d)(3)(A)(ii) but also serve as a leading indicator when completing Resource Equity Reviews in subsequent school improvement plans.
Selection Criteria
LEAs were selected based on the following criteria:
- 67% or more of the schools within the school district identified as being in need of improvement (minimum of 4 schools within the school district).
Frequency
The NJDOE will conduct the RAR every three years or when schools are identified as being in need of comprehensive support.
Purpose and Goals of the Resource Allocation Review
The RAR helps school districts and schools understand the current state of how assets (fiscal, personnel, etc.) are designated to be used as part of the continuous improvement process. This review will enable the school district to identify areas of strength and opportunities to ensure each student served is provided with the necessary resources to ensure equitable access to high-quality education and achieve academic excellence. Establishing and maintaining a continuous improvement mindset instead of meeting compliance requirements is important to gain valuable information for decision-making focused on improving student outcomes.
A review of resource allocation could have a range of goals; the ESSA law states that the central purpose of the RAR is school improvement. Additionally, the review may assist in examining the utilization of allocations. Toward this end, there are several ways that the RAR could ultimately help with school improvement, including that the review could:
- Identify resource allocation inequities when comparing schools or programs across the LEA.
- What does a school or set of schools look like relative to its peers?
- What changes in school district allocation could help?
- Help LEA and school leaders connect resource allocation to student outcomes.
- Generate high-quality discussions between school district and school leaders to uncover opportunities and obstacles to more strategic resource use to improve student performance.
- Create urgency among school and school district leaders for leveraging resources to do more for students.
- Minimize the burden by tapping existing data and coordinating with other requirements.
- Examine the LEA’s current resource allocation profile and identify trends.
- Engage in meaningful discussion on the opportunities and challenges to more strategic resource utilization.
- Guide LEA leaders in periodic resource equity reviews to leverage resources and maximize student outcomes.
Resource Allocation Review Question Prompts
School District Leadership Questions
- Which school spends the most per student? The least?
- Are variations in spending aligned with student needs? Why or why not?
- Do you think changes are needed in how the school district allocates resources?
- Is there a school that spends less than the average but is higher performing?
- Is there a school that spends more than the average and is higher performing?
- Is there a school that spends more than the average and is lower performing?
- Is there a school that spends less than the average and is lower performing?
- Does each of our principals know which quadrant they're in?
- Does this information provide any ideas about how to manage the school district's schools?
- How do your elementary schools compare to others with similar poverty levels in the state?
- Are any in the lower right quadrant (meaning it spends more but gets lower outcomes than similar peers)? Does the school know it is relatively expensive and produces lower outcomes than peers?
- Are any in the upper left quadrant (meaning it is better at leveraging its dollars to do more for students than similar peers)? Does the school know that it beats the odds for its students with the money it has?
- How do your middle compare spending and math outcomes to others in the state? Do your middle schools get a fair amount of money? Is there a school where the school district should be making a push to improve outcomes?
- How do your high schools compare spending and outcomes to others in the state? Do your high schools get a fair amount of money? Is there a school where the school district should be making a push to improve outcomes?
School Leadership Questions
- How does your school's spending compare to others in the school district and to similar schools in the school district?
- Does the spending seem fair? Are variations in spending aligned to student needs?
- Do you think changes are needed in how the school district allocates resources to schools?
- How do your school's outcomes compare to similar schools?
- How can you use this information? What would you say to your teachers/parents?
Parents and Community Member Questions
- How does your school's spending compare to others in the school district? To similar schools in the school district?
- What trends do you see across the school district? Does anything surprise you?
- Does the spending seem fair? Are variations in spending aligned to student needs?
- Do you think changes are needed in how the school district allocates resources to schools?
- How do your school's outcomes compare to similar schools?
- How, if at all, could this information help school district and school leaders improve student outcomes?
- How could this information be used to make decisions about how the school district distributes money to its schools?
Board Member Questions
- What trends do you see across the school district?
- Which school draws down the most per student? The least?
- Are variations in spending aligned with student needs? Why or why not?
- Do you think changes are needed in how the school district allocates resources to schools?
- Is there a school that is higher performing and spending more than the average?
- Is there a school that is lower performing and spending more than the average?
- Are any schools "beating the odds" with the money they have? Are there any promising spending practices across types of schools?
- Does this information give you any ideas about how to manage your schools?
- To what extent could this information be used to make or change decisions about how money gets allocated to schools in our school district?
- How do your elementary schools compare to others with similar poverty levels in the state?
- Are any in the lower right quadrant (meaning it spends more but gets lower outcomes than similar peers)?
- Are any in the upper left quadrant (meaning it is better at leveraging its dollars to do more for students than similar peers)?
- How do your middle compare spending and math outcomes to others in the state? Do your middle schools get a fair amount of money? Is there a school where the school district should be making a push to improve outcomes?
- 14. How do your high schools compare spending and outcomes to others in the state? Do your high schools get a fair amount of money? Is there a school where the school district should be making a push to improve outcomes?