Accountability Reform
Overview
Education accountability 3/4 asking students, educators and institutions to be responsible for education outcomes3/4 is gaining attention and influence as state and local policymakers implement sweeping accountability reforms. This year both Georgia and Colorado enacted comprehensive accountability policies. The Colorado Legislature enacted legislation, emulating similar school grading reforms in California and Florida that will grade schools using an A-F scale. The Colorado legislation also created a system of sanctions and rewards based on specified improvement indicators. The Georgia legislature passed the A-plus reform act, based on the extensive education proposal initiated by Governor Roy Barnes. The A-Plus reform act eliminates tenure protections for new teachers, establishes a grading system for schools and develops rewards and sanctions. The bill stipulates that if schools that receive poor grades for three or more years state education officials can authorize the removal of school personnel or allow parents to transfer their children to other public schools.
After decades of focusing on inputs such as funding levels, curriculum offerings, and resources, American education now is highlighting student learning and achievement. Statewide standards form the foundation for accountability reform. After the establishment of academic standards, state policymakers turned their attention to creating statewide assessments, accreditation and systems of rewards and sanctions. These new accountability approaches differ from traditional systems due to their heavy emphasis on student achievement, looking at the schools as the mode of improvement, publicly reporting district and school scores, and attaching rewards and sanctions based to specified performance levels. Within this new system questions are arising as to how to include all students in this system and how to establish fair assessments, performance levels, sufficient rewards and appropriate sanctions. While consensus is growing on the need for 'outcome' based accountability, there is significant debate concerning the 'best' way to provide school accountability.
State Legislative Activity
During the past three years, more than half of the states have enacted new policies that address accountability and assessment, including the following:
- Alabama
classifies schools each year based upon student performance on the statewide achievement states. Schools that are placed on Academic Alert3/4 if a majority of student's score below the 23rd percentile on the Stanford Achievement test3/4 are required to achieve specified improvement. If progress it not made in a year, the schools are assigned an Academic Improvement Team of professionals appointed by the State Superintendent of Education.
- California
enacted the Public Schools Accountability Act that mandates that schools are publicity ranked using he Academic Performance Index (API). The API is a complex formula that is based on statewide tests cores for the first 3-5 years (starting with 1/2000) and will eventually include high school graduation rates, dropout rates, and school attendance rates. Based on the API, the Superintendent of Public Instruction develops an expected annual percentage growth target for schools based on their API baseline score.
- Delaware
passed the Educator Accountability Act of 2000 that requires student performance indicators to be used in teacher evaluations3/4 Delaware Performance Appraisal System II (DPASII). Teacher evaluations will include student performance and improvement based on the Delaware Student Testing Program in reading, writing and math.
- Connecticut
requires the state board of education to prepare a list of elementary and middle schools, by school district, that are in need of improvement based on student performance on the statewide examination. Each local board of education on the list must meet with the commissioner of education to discuss the process of improving school performance. The state publishes a report card on every school, including the performance on the statewide test.
- Florida
enacted a comprehensive accountability plan that assigns a letter grade based on performance. Any student who has spent the prior school year at a school that receives a performance grade of "F" for any two school years (in a four-year period) can apply for a voucher.
- Georgia
passed the A-plus Education Reform Act in 2000 that eliminates tenure for beginning teachers, grades schools from A to F based on student performance on statewide assessments, and implements a system of rewards and sanctions for schools. The A-plus act also includes salary increases for teachers in determined shortage areas (mathematics, science, foreign languages, special education etc.).
- Hawaii
requires the director of education to establish a comprehensive accountability system, including a student assessment program and a school profile that reports on student performance measures, school attendance, dropout rates, and parental involvement for each school.
- Mississippi
authorized student assessment standards for student promotion and graduation in the public schools, defined standards for the implementation of a performance-based accreditation system for individual schools and school districts, and authorized the state Board of Education to enter into long-term contracts for student assessment.
- New Mexico
identifies schools that qualify for intervention, using multiple indicators of performance and accreditation standards, which include adequacy of performance in required subject matter, adequacy of pupil activities, adequacy of professional development, and adequacy of writing curriculum. The state team identifies schools that qualify for intervention and makes recommendations to the state's Educational Standards Commission (ESC). The ESC then assigns a liaison to work with the school and identify resources.
- Texas
designed assessment instruments to assess students' essential knowledge and skill sin certain grade levels and requires the Texas Education Agency to adopt secondary exit-level assessments to be administered to students in 11th grade. Schools and districts can receive cash awards for exemplary student performance, but are subject to intervention and, ultimately takeover if achievement falls below minimum standards.
- Utah
enacted legislation in 1999 that provides for annual criterion-referenced achievement testing of students in all grade levels and norm referenced testing of students in grade three, five, eight and ten. The state board of education is required to develop assessment mechanisms for determining demonstrated competency in courses required for high school graduation; and provides for an external evaluation of core curriculum, content standards, objectives and assessments.
Standards
Statewide student standards are sweeping across the country with states establishing benchmarks for what students need to know and be able to do at each grade level. In 1997, 31 states had adopted standards in four core academic subjects3/4 English, mathematics, science, and social studies. By 1999, 44 states had adopted standards in those subjects and all states, except for Iowa, have adopted standards in at least one subject. Proponents of standards argue that clear and specific standards can help to guarantee all children, regardless of background or socioeconomic status, a rigorous academic curriculum. Standards can also ensure alignment among district and state assessments.
While standards have been adopted in virtually all states, the implementation of standards is an entirely different issue. Many educators and policymakers are questioning if teachers are receiving adequate professional development to help facilitate the integration of standards into the classroom. In Virginia the state department of education is asking all 87,000 public school teachers in the state how they believe their schools are handling the Standards of Learning program, which incorporates statewide standards, assessments and a system of accreditation for schools and districts. The on-line survey will ask teachers about their teaching method, whether there is sufficient classroom instructional time and if they believe they are receiving quality staff development. State officials hope the survey will provide information about how the standards are being implemented and the usefulness of the professional development. The results from the survey will be part of an indicator of school performance on the annual school report card.
National organizations, like the American Federation of Teachers and the Thomas Fordham Foundation, rate the quality of state standards each year. In 1999, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) found that the over all quality of standards was continuing to improve. Twenty-two states, up three from 1998, had standards that were "generally clear and specific and grounded in particular content to meet AFT's common core criterion." The AFT report did find that states had the most difficulty establishing clear standards in English and social studies than in math and science. The Fordham Foundation gave the states an average grade of C-minus for 2000, up from a D-plus in 1998. They argued that states have become more serious about their responsibility to identify essential knowledge and skills; however, a majority of states hold 'mediocre' expectations for their students. While these organizations differ in their overall assessments of state standards, they clearly show the need for states to continually evaluate and strengthen their content standards, including assessing how the standards are being received and implemented at the school site.
Assessments
Virtually all states have turned to standardized testing to measure student achievement. By 2000, every state except Iowa will administer at least one form of a statewide test. States are working to ensure their tests are aligned with state standards. According to Education Week, the number of states that administer student assessments that are explicitly aligned with standards in at least one subject climbed from 35 in 1997-98 to 41 in 2000.
Types of testing programs vary dramatically across states. Some states use a commercially produced norm referenced test to assess student achievement3/4 norm referenced tests measure student's performance against that of other students across the nation. While norm referenced tests allow students to be compared to a national measure, the tests are not necessarily aligned to specific state standards. Approximately forty-two states use a criterion-referenced test. Criterion referenced tests measure student performance against specific content standards. One of the concerns with multiple choice assessments is that they do not accurately measure student growth. Many states are now looking at developing more authentic assessments that require students to demonstrate their knowledge in a portfolio or through extended writing responses. 1998, for example, Kentucky overhauled its testing program and employed an assessment that combines essays, multiple-choice questions and a writing portfolio. Vermont requires eighth grade students to complete a portfolio assessment in both English and mathematics. According to Education Week, ten states now require students to incorporate portfolios of written projects or write extended response to questions in subjects other than English.
The stakes attached to testing are increasing year after year. Several states are attaching accreditation and ratings to schools based upon student performance on assessment. In Virginia, starting in 2006 only schools whose pass rates exceed 70 percent on the statewide assessments in history/social sciences, mathematics, English and science will be eligible for accreditation. In 1999, only seven percent of the schools in Virginia met the state requirement The State Board of Education has proposed dropping some of the penalties and extending the time frame for implementation. Furthermore, the state created a Virginia Technical Advisory Committee- commissioned to report annually to the state board on the assessments' validity and reliability and propose recommendations for improvements.
In addition to using assessments to determine school and district accreditation, twenty-eight states have in place or are considering high school exit exams. Exit exams are creating concern from parents and educators questioning the use of a test to determine whether or not a student will graduate. In Wisconsin parents mobilized in 1999 to protest the state's high school exit exam because they argued it was unfair for a students graduation to be based on a single measure. The Wisconsin legislature responded to these concerns and in 2000 the exams will only be one of several factors in deciding whether or not a student can graduate. In Indiana, students who pass the ISTEP-Plus graduation exam graduate, students who fail the math or English portion have to satisfy rigorous requirements to be eligible for a waiver to graduation. In 2003, the Massachusetts graduation test will be implemented3/4 students must score at the proficient or advanced levels on all tenth grade tests in order to receive a high school diploma. Students in Massachusetts have joined together in mass protest of the states assessment program. In May 2000, student's hand delivered 7,000 signatures to demand the state repeal the law that makes passing the MCAS a graduation requirement. The students complained that the MCAS are taking away from creativity, wasting valuable class time and forcing teachers to teach to the test.
High stakes testing is accompanied by a myriad of questions and concerns for policy makers, educators, and community members to consider.
- Is the statewide test a valid and fair measure of student growth?
- What type of assessment would best measure student growth and performance?
- Should this assessment be the sole measure of accreditation, promotion or graduation? If not, what over indicators should be included?
- Does this accountability system include all students; including students with disabilities and language minority student? If so, are there alternative assessments in place and accurate measurements of performance?
As states become embroiled in implementing assessment programs, questions about how to fairly measure and report student achievement has become a national debate. At the federal level, high stakes testing is gaining increasing attention3/4 as exemplified by President Bush's comprehensive education proposal to require annual testing for all students in grades 3 through 8. The implementation of high stakes testing programs in several states is causing public outcry and dissention in communities, schools and in the capitols, over the use and validity of testing.
Types of Testing
All fifty states have turned to standardized testing to measure student achievement. Types of testing programs vary dramatically across state lines. Some states use a commercially produced, norm-referenced test to asses student achievement (norm referenced tests measure a student's performance against that of other students across the nation). Although norm referenced tests allow students to be compared to a national measure, the tests are not necessarily aligned to specific state standards. Approximately 42 states use a criterion-referenced test. A criterion referenced test measures student performance against specific content standards. A concern with these multiple-choice assessments is that they do not accurately measure student growth. Several states, including Kentucky and Vermont, are developing more authentic assessments that require students to demonstrate their knowledge in a portfolio or through extended writing response. Vermont requires eight grade students to complete portfolio assessments in both English and mathematics. Kentucky overhauled its testing program in 1998 and employed an assessment that combines essays, multiple-choice questions and a writing portfolio.
The assessment story is becoming contentious in states where high stakes, such as promotion to the next grade or a high school diploma, are being attached to student test scores. In California, a small but growing number of California educators are urging parents to tell their kids to skip the state's annual standardized test. In one school in Saratoga California ninety percent of the second-graders did not take the state exam and in San Jose, a third of students had test-exemption notes from home. California is three years into the standardized testing and reporting accountability program that mandates annual testing of second through 11th grade students. Parents and educators in opposition believe the test is biased against students with limited English proficiency and pressures teachers to teach to the test.
Massachusetts is facing a large public outcry against the graduation tests. In May 2000, hundreds of students did not take the graduation exam and traveled to the state capital to hold a protest rally against the high stakes assessment. The students delivered 7,000 signatures to the governor, demanding that Massachusetts repeal a law tying graduation to a passing mark on the test. The MCAS exam will not affect graduating seniors until 2003, but estimates from last years exam show 25,000 of the 220,000 seniors would not have graduated, or approximately 11 percent. The Massachusetts Teachers Association began a $600,000 advertising campaign against the high stakes MCAS exam.
According to Education Week, 2001, twenty-seven states rate schools primarily on the basis of test scores, 14 states have given their education departments the power to close, take over, or otherwise overhaul chronically low-performing schools. Eighteen states currently withhold diplomas from students who fail to pass the statewide graduation exam, while five states3/4 Alaska, Arizona, California, Massachusetts, and Washington3/4 have begun to administer exit exams, but are not attaching diplomas to results. In three states3/4 Louisiana, North Carolina and New Mexico3/4 students are required to pass exams both for graduation and promotion. Georgia introduced legislation this session to do the same. Twenty states reward successful schools with money for high or improving test scores.
As states move closer to implementing graduation exams, several have passed or are considering legislation to delay or modify their original programs. The state board of education in Alabama approved a one-year delay in requiring passing scores on the math and science sections of the state's new high school graduation exam. When sophomores in Alaska took the graduation exam for the first time in spring of 2000, approximately two-thirds failed the math section, more than a quarter of the students failed the reading section and more than half failed the writing portion (results from 8,230 sophomores who took the test). These results have led to fears of large numbers of students not graduation in 2002 and have let to a plethora of proposals to delay the exam by legislators and Governor Tony Knwoles. The Alaska State Board Of Education recommended pushing back the state's exit-test requirement from 2002 to 2006. The Governor has proposed delayed in the graduation exam until 2006. Other plans include allowing students who did not pass the exam to graduate as long as they have a C average or a high attendance rate.
In March 2001, the North Carolina State Board of Education proposed to alter the rigid demands on school performance. The board voted to give the highly criticized writing test less weight in elementary and middle school ratings and to not count the scores of thousands of special education students in the state's formula for assessing school performance. The board also endorsed the State Superintendent's plan to give more aid to the state's lowest-performing schools, by reducing class size, extending the school year and giving teachers longer contracts. The plan still must win approval from the General Assembly. In Wisconsin, parents mobilized in 1999 to protest the state's high school exit exam, arguing that it was unfair for a student's graduation to be based on a single measure. The Wisconsin Legislature responded to these concerns and 2000 used the exams used as only one of several factors to decide whether a student can graduate. The local school district is responsible for developing a high school graduation policy and will address how performance on the state tests, course credits, and teacher recommendations factors into the graduation decision.
Legal Considerations
Attaching stakes to assessment ushers in a host of legal considerations. Several states have faced litigation over the use of assessments. The significant Florida case, Debra p. v. Turlington, addressed the equitableness of any statewide assessment. The case concerned African-American students in schools that had not implemented appropriate curriculum or provided their students to learn the subject matter that Florida's statewide test was assessing. The assessment was part of the requirements for earning a diploma. The court recommended a phase in of the test over a four-year period to allow all students equal access to adequate curriculum.
In a Texas case, a civil rights group argued that schools with predominately African-American and Latino students, particularly in poor communities, are less likely to adequately prepare students for the test and the test adversely impacts minority students. In January 2000, The U.S. district court judge, in GI Forum et al v. Texas Education Agency, upheld the use of the Texas statewide assessment as a standardized test that measures knowledge rather than predicts performance, and thus, does not discriminate against minority students. The court also found that the Texas tests is not used as a sole indicator, but is used in addition to course completion and attendance when awarding diplomas.
In January 2001, the Department of Education's office for civil rights released a resource guide of tests in making high stakes decisions about students. The OCR guide is an attempt "to assemble the best information regarding test measurement standards, legal principles, and resources to help educators and policymakers frame strategies and programs that promote learning to high standards in ways consistent with federal non discrimination laws." The report contains information on the legal and test measurement principles that should guide the appropriate use of assessments3/4 with information on how to include students with limited English proficiency or students with disabilities. Some of the issues that have been considered by federal courts in assessing the legality of specific testing practices for making high stakes decisions include:
- The use of an educational test for a purpose for which the test was not designed or validated;
- The use of a test scores as the sole criterion for the educational decision,
- The nature and quality of the opportunity provid3ed to students to master required content, including whether classroom instruction includes the material covered by a test administered to determine student achievement;
- The significance of any fairness problems identified, including evidence of differential prediction of a criterion and possible cultural biases in the test or in test items; and
- The educational basis for establishing passing or cut off scores.
Funding High Stakes Testing
According to a study done by PEW and Stateline, states collectively spent $400 million this year to test students. California spent $44 million, followed by Texas at $16 million, and third, Massachusetts spending $20 million. The type of test a state uses affects the costs, off the shelf tests cost between $5 and $15 per student to administer, but states that choose to develop their own test aligned with state standards can spend from $25-$50 per student. In 2000, the Wisconsin legislature authorized the state to spend $4 million over the next two years to design and implement their high school exam. Furthermore, developing and administering a state exam is only one aspect of testing, states also need to fund the collecting and reporting of student and school performance data.
Research
In July 2000, the American Education Research Association developed a position statement on high stakes testing. The following statement presents a set of conditions "essential to sound implementation of high stakes educational testing programs:"
Protection Against High Stakes Decisions Based on a Single Test: Decisions that affect individual students' life chances or educational opportunities should not be made on the basis of test scores alone. Other relevant information should be taken into account to enhance the overall validity of such decisions. As a minimum assurance of fairness, when tests are used as part of making high stakes decisions for individual students such as promotion to the next grade or high school graduation, students must be affording multiple opportunities to pass the test.
Adequate Resources and Opportunities to Learn: When content standards and associated tests are introduced as a reform to change and thereby improve current practice, opportunities to access appropriate materials and retraining consistent with the intended changes should be provided before schools, teachers or students are sanctioned for failing to meet the new standards. In particular, when testing is used for individual student accountability or certification, students must have had a meaningful opportunity to learn the tested content and cognitive processes.
Validation for Each Separate Intended Use: Tests valid for one use may be invalid for another. Each separate use of a high-stakes test, for individual certification, for school evaluation, for curricular improvement, for increasing student motivation, or for other uses requires a separate evaluation of the strengths and limitations of both the testing program and the test itself.
Full Disclosure of Likely Negative Consequences of High Stakes Testing Programs: Where credible scientific evidence suggests that a given type of testing program is likely to have negative side effects, test developers and users should make a serous effort to explain these possible effects to policymakers.
Alignment between the Test and the Curriculum: Both the content of the test and the cognitive processes engaged in taking the test should adequately represent the curriculum. High stakes should not be limited to that portion of the relevant curriculum that is easiest to measure. Because high stakes testing inevitably creates incentives for inappropriate methods of test preparation, multiple test forms should be used or new test forms should be introduced on a regular basis, to avoid a narrowing of the curriculum toward just the content sampled on a particular form.
Validity of Passing Scores and Achievement Levels: When testing programs use specific scores to determine 'passing' or to define reporting categories like 'proficient' the validity of these specific scores must be established in addition to demonstrating the representativeness of the test content. The purpose and meaning of passing scores or achievement levels must be stated.
Opportunities for Meaningful Remediation for Examinees Who Fail High Stakes Tests: Examinees who fail a high stakes test should be provided meaningful opportunities for remediation. Remediation should focus on the knowledge and skills the test is intended to address, not just the rest performance.
Appropriate Attention to Language Differences Among Examinees: If a student lacks mastery of the language in which a test is given, then that test becomes in part, a test of language proficiency. Unless a primary purpose of a test is to evaluate language proficiency, it should not be used with students who cannot understand the instructions of the language of the test itself.
Appropriate Attention to Students with Disabilities: In testing individuals with disabilities, steps should be taken to ensure that the tests score inferences accurately reflect the intended construct rather than any disabilities and their associated characteristics extraneous to the intent of the measurement.
Careful Adherence to Explicit Rules for Determining Which Students Are to be Testing: When schools, districts, or other administrative units are compared to one another or when changes in scores are tracked over tie, there must be explicit policies specifying which students are to be testing and under what circumstances students may be exempted from testing.
Sufficient Reliability for Each Intended Use: Reliability refers to the accuracy or precision of test scores, It must be shown that scores reported for individuals or for schools are sufficiently accurate to support each intended interpretation.
Ongoing Evaluation of Intended and Unintended Effects of High Stakes Testing: With any high stakes testing program, ongoing evaluation of both intended and unintended consequences is essential. In most cases, the government body that mandates the test should also provide resources for continuing program of research and for dissemination of research findings concerning both the positive and the negative effects of the testing.
Reporting
How states use performance results is an important piece of accountability polices. From determining what to include on school report cards to how that information is disseminated and explained to the public, accurate and fair reporting can be a powerful tool for improvement measures. As of January 2000, at least 40 states issued school report cards. The majority of states include student performance on assessments in their report cards. Dropout and graduate rates are often included and some states, including Colorado, are including indicators of community involvement and school safety. While states vary in their capacity to collect, analyze and report information, it is important that all states provide information in a way that is clear, understandable and constructive. The public needs to understand the different aspects of their state accountability systems, without public support these reforms will fade over time.
Texas publishes two report cards annually. The Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) provides reports at the district and school level on student performance indicators as well as profile data; including student, staff, and financial information that provide a context for interpreting the results. The AEIS data serve as a basis for all accountability ratings, awards and reports. The second report card is the School Report Card3/4 the Texas Education Agency provides each school with a custom report card that must go to each student's family. This report card includes: attendance rates, dropout rates, performance on statewide assessment and college admissions examinations, end of course examinations, completion of the state board of education's recommended high school program, student/teacher rations and administrative and instructional costs per students. Maryland has been issuing report cards at the district and state level since 1991. The data, including student performance, mobility, dropout rates, and finance information, are reported by gender and race/ethnicity. In Ohio, the state includes a selection of questions that parents can ask the schools in regard to information on the report card.
Accreditation/Ratings
What indicators state policymakers use to determine if a school or district is high or low performing is an extremely contentious and delicate issue. Florida enacted a comprehensive school accountability package in 1999. The state assigns each school with an A, B, C, D, or F 3/4 the grades are based on student achievement on the reading and mathematics sections of the Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test (FCAT) and a writing test. Schools rated F twice in a four year period are considered 'chronically failing' and students then become eligible for private school vouchers. Florida was first state to assign letter grades and California followed closely behind by assigning grades to schools this year based on their Academic Performance Index (API). Critics of the Florida and Colorado program argue that the grades do not take into consideration external factors, including the social and economic considerations low-income areas face. California's complex ranking system, the API, compares the academic performance of schools with similar ethnic and economic characteristics. However, the ratings are still based on assessment scores. For the first three to five years these rankings will be based solely on tests scores until the state develops valid high school graduation, dropout, and school attendance rates.
Similar to Florida, the Alabama accountability system classifies its schools based on student performance; however, they delegate schools into three specific categories. If 50 percent or more of the students score above the 40th percentile on the achievement tests then they are classified as Academic Clear. If a majority of its students score below the 40th percentile then they are placed under Academic Caution and if a majority of its students score below the 23rd percentile then they are placed in Academic Alert. The State Superintendent of Education is empowered to intervene in or take control of schools or a school system on Academic Alert when they have not met their improvement targets after 3 years.
State Intervention
How states reward and sanction schools and districts vary widely from state to state. Thirteen states currently offer monetary rewards to successful schools3/4 California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas and Utah. In New Mexico the Legislature appropriates funds to high performing schools on a per pupil basis3/4 during the 1997 legislative session $500,000 was appropriated to 104 schools and in 1999 the fund for rewards increased to $1.9 million. In California the Governor's Performance Award Program provides monetary awards to schools that meet or exceed their growth targets or to schools that demonstrate comparable improvement in academic achievement by all significant ethnic and socio-economically disadvantaged subgroups. In 2000 the Governor and State Board approved $25 million in grants for 200 of the state's lowest-performing schools as part of this improvement program.
As part of larger accountability reforms, approximately eighteen states have enacted legislation that allows them to intervene in a district deemed low performing. Thirteen of those states include the assignment of state staff as part of the assistance. In North Carolina the state assigns teams of five to six members to work in a low-performing school for a year. In Mew Mexico low performing schools are required to develop a school improvement plan. If after two years, no progress has been made the Educational Standards Commission takes steps to have a diagnostic team visit the school. These special teams are sent to analyze and diagnose problems and make recommendations for improvement. In California, the Superintendent of Public Instruction invites schools that score below the 50th percentile on the statewide achievement test to participate in the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP). In this program external evaluators are assigned to schools where they establish improvement plans and growth targets. Other states intervene by recruiting master teachers and administrators to specific schools. South Carolina pays the salaries and yearly bonuses for three years for exemplary teachers to teach in schools that were designated as low performing. Furthermore, the state funds the salaries and includes a 25 percent bonus for principals in these schools.
In some instances, the state is leveraging change by altering the governance of local school districts. In large urban districts, like Chicago, Baltimore, and Oakland, mayors have been granted greater control over the city's public school system. In 1995, the Illinois legislature transferred control of the Chicago public schools to Mayor Richard Daley, giving him control of the budget and responsibility appoint school board members, the board president and the district's chief executive officer. In 1999, Michigan's Governor John Engler successfully pushed legislation that handed Detroit May Dennis Archer the power to appoint a new school board and chief administrative office to supervise the city's schools. While the overall impact of mayoral control remains to be seen, this governance model has allowed states to intervene in low-performing school districts and still ensure a certain degree of local control.
As accountability policies take hold across the country it will be critical for policymakers to continually reassess their systematic reforms. It will be important to:
- Ensure alignment across all aspects of reform3/4 from standards and assessments, to reporting, and accreditation.
- Communicate clearly the performance indicators used for accreditation and reporting to administrators, teachers and community members. Is there clear understanding among policy makers and educators of the goals and outcomes, modes of implementation, etc.?
- To provide fair and accurate measures of student growth and performance, including all students in these assessments.
- Identify existing policies and practices that are working to build school improvement.
- Provide adequate professional development and support for teachers to ensure high quality instruction in all schools and for all students.
- Allow sufficient opportunity for feedback among all stakeholders, including students, teachers, administrators, parents, local policymakers and state actors.
- Consideration of the uniqueness of districts and communities, being careful of strict external systems imposed on local decisions making.
- Include funding for systemic and regular evaluation of programs and reforms.
Accountability Publications
Quality Counts 2000, Who Should Teach? Education Week.
Quality Counts 1999, Rewarding Results, Punishing Failure. Education Week
Standards-Based Accountability Systems: Policy Brief. Guidance for Developing an Accountability System. April, 2000. Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning
Additional information on the web:
Council of Chief State School Officers
Education Commission of the States
National Association of State Boards of Education
 Education Home Page
|
