Northwest Regional Comprehensive Center
Printed from: http://nwrcc.educationnorthwest.org/state-accountability
Upcoming Events
State Accountability Systems
Resources below are the result of a search of policy and practices in state educational agencies and a review of documents produced by organizations and agencies that review and conduct research on accountability models that states have implemented. This search strategy was chosen in response to the request for examples of what other states have done. While the search included attention to research findings on accountability systems, no such studies were found.
Starred (*) resources in this section come from Marianne Perie and Brian Gong at the Center for Assessment (http://www.nciea.org/). Marianne has done an extensive literature review of the topic and recommended these publications to review for standard criteria for evaluating accountability systems.
Brian added this note in an email message to the NWRCC (March 2007):
Accountability systems always are designed to serve some purpose(s), and typically entail many interdependent design decisions. Most of these criteria do not provide direction on what the design decisions should be (e.g., what the purpose of the accountability system should be), nor do they address the details of trade-offs, which are often the most complex and important aspects of making an accountability system elegant and workable (e.g., how demanding should the accountability system be, in terms of what indicators and measurements are valued and available to the state?). Of course, criteria and rubrics are intended to specify qualities, not tell how to achieve those qualities, so a criterion might be, for example, "Evidence that the system produces acceptably reliable accountability decisions," but the criteria would not say how to achieve reliable decisions (and might not even say what is acceptable in terms of reliability since there are no professionally agreed upon standards). I think these criteria would be most useful when applied by someone who already knows quite a bit about accountability systems. If the state is trying to improve its system, not evaluate it formally, then two other resources might be useful: a) working through documenting the validity of the accountability system, and b) looking at other states' systems.
|
A Framework for Examining Validity in State Accountability Systems Forte Fast, E. & Hebbler, S. (2004). Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. * This CCSSO report lays out a framework under which one can examine the validity of a state accountability system, focusing on four core concepts: goals, consequences, decision rules, and performance indicators. |
|
Building a Workable Accountability System Ananda, S. & Rabinowitz, S. (2001). San Francisco: WestEd. * This brief for policymakers and educators identifies the questions that must be answered in designing or evaluating an accountability system. It summarizes the issues, provides options, and also identifies potential problems. |
|
Characteristics of Successful Districts Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (2006). Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. The rubrics contained in Characteristics of Successful Districts are a part of a larger guide to help Wisconsin districts build on their unique strengths. Further, these rubrics are tools for school districts to gain a fuller understanding of their needs. |
| Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) Accountability Systems |
|
Designing School Accountability Systems: Towards a framework and process Gong, B. & ASR SCASS. (2002). Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. * This CCSSO report is meant to assist states in making decisions about designs for accountability systems. It lays out ten central questions that must be answered in any accountability design, and then explores possible directions states can go in answering the questions. |
|
Grading the Systems: The Guide to State Standards, Tests, and Accountability Policies Cross, R.W., Rebarber., T and Torres, J. (2004). "This report looks at six elements of K-12 accountability systems in 30 different states. Each state is rated on standards, test content, alignment of tests to standards, test rigor, testing trustworthiness and openness, and accountability policies." (abstract from author) |
|
Issues in Designing State Accountability Systems Harbin, G., Rous, B., & McLean. M. (2004). Chapel Hill, NC: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center. The purpose of this working document is to provide a resource for state policy makers and researchers who are interested in collaboratively designing and implementing rigorous and systematic accountability models that yield accurate data. (abstract from author) |
|
Lessons About the Design of State Accountability Systems Hanushek, E. & Raymond, M. (2002). Harvard University. Test based accountability systems are now a central feature of U.S. education policy. Accountability systems are implemented as a way of improving student outcomes through new, highly visible incentives. In analyzing the effectiveness of such state systems, the correct comparison is not accountability versus no accountability, but the differential effects related to the type of system that is employed. The alternative systems that have developed have very different incentives. While research on the outcomes of accountability systems is growing rapidly, it still represents a young and highly selective body of work. The existing research suggests that schools definitely respond to the incentives of accountability systems, but the form and strength of such responses is highly variable. This paper characterizes the incentives of different systems and reviews the existing evidence about outcomes. (abstract taken from author) |
| Ohio Department of Education Accountability System |
|
Standards for Educational Accountability Systems [Policy Brief 5] Baker, E., Linn, R., Herman, J., & Koretz, D. (2002). Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST). * This document puts forth 22 standards for educational accountability systems, divided into five domains: System components, testing, stakes, public reporting, and evaluation. These standards are intended to provide guidance to states and districts in developing or reviewing their own accountability systems. These standards represent models of practice from three perspectives: research knowledge, practical experience, and ethical considerations. |
|
Statewide Educational Accountability Under the No Child Left Behind Act--A Report on 2006 Amendments to State Plans Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) published this report that summarizes requests submitted by states in 2005-06 to amend their educational accountability plans under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) and the resulting decisions of the U. S. Department of Education. The report is the fourth in a series of CCSSO papers describing the development and amendment of state accountability plans. |
|
Title I Accountability and School Improvement From 2001 to 2004 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. (2006). Washington, D.C. This report presents the key findings over the three years of the study. Findings from 2002-03, the first full year of NCLB implementation, showed that states and districts were making progress in implementing accountability systems under NCLB but that big gaps remained between their existing systems of accountability and the NCLB vision of coherent systems that support all schools and all students to reach high standards. During 2003-04, educators at all levels of the education system continued efforts to implement the accountability provisions of NCLB closing the gap in some areas, but not all as described below. (abstract from the ERIC database) |
| U.S. Department of Education: Decision Letters on Each State's Final Assessment System Under NCLB |
|
U.S. Department of Education: State Accountability Plans Provides links to every state's accountability plan under NCLB. |
|
Using Student Longitudinal Growth Measures for School Accountability Under No Child Left Behind: An update to inform decisions Gong, B., Perie, M. & Dunn, J. (2006). Dover, NH: Center for Assessment. There are multiple ways to implement common design decisions for a growth model consistent with the underlying principles of NCLB. This paper is intended to help states design an NCLB-compliant growth model system. It includes a summary of the main features of the proposals submitted in February 2006 under the USED Growth Model Pilot Program. (abstract from Center for Assessment) |
