Public School Accountability

Accountability in K-12 education is a concept through which student outcomes are assessed and reported to stakeholders. At its core, accountability centers on how well schools deliver services in terms of students' academic achievement of a set of curricular standards; however, accountability is currently equated most heavily with teacher quality and student performance on basic skills assessments under the guidelines set forth by The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). This article defines accountability, discusses the historical context of curricular goals and assessment and then focuses upon NCLB, standardized testing and teacher performance.

Keywords Accountability; Adequate Yearly Progress; Confidence Intervals; Instructional Sensitivity; N-Size; No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB); Socioeconomic Status; Standards-based Reform

Overview

Accountability in education refers to a local educational agency's (LEA) responsibility to meet the expectations of its stakeholders. Districts as well as individual schools are required to meet the goals set forth by the state and federal governments. According to Finn (2007), while it may be one of the most commonly used words in contemporary American education, its definition is, at best, nebulous; he describes four strategies through which accountability can be defined and achieved.

The Compliance Interpretation

A compliance interpretation of accountability is the most traditional, hierarchical and bureaucratic of those outlined by Finn (2007). Working within the existing system, this model involves adopting standards and measuring progress against them, managing available resources and their distribution and quality control. It is a top-down framework in which "participants in the enterprise are chiefly accountable for...obeying instructions and managing inputs and processes" (Finn, 2007, p. 24). LEAs are chiefly accountable to themselves and to the government agencies that set forth the standards and administer funding.

Professional Norms & Expertise

The professional norms and expertise definition, or professional accountability model, is characterized by putting faith in the expertise of professionals and professional groups such as noted researchers, accrediting agencies and professional organizations (Finn, 2007). Although there are elements of accountability to standards-based compliance and the policies set forth by elected bodies, and while some attention is given to serving clients, this framework holds LEAs to the "creeds, gurus, and belief structures of the educational profession" (Finn, 2007, p. 25). The highest standards of professionalism rather than standards-based assessment or client satisfaction are the basis for this definition of accountability (Finn, 2007).

Consumerism

The third model includes a definition of compliance that centers on consumerism and makes LEAs answerable to their clients through "market dynamics" (Finn, 2007, p. 26). Private and charter schools respond to this type of accountability on a regular basis as they risk losing enrollment and revenue if they are not responsive to client needs. Some of these principles have filtered into public education with the various manifestations of public school choice, virtual and magnet schools and voucher systems (Finn, 2007). "It remains, however, the most controversial of these four strategies, for it's the only one that employs a flexible definition of public education [which] allows tax-generated monies to flow into schools not directly controlled by governmental bodies" (Finn, 2007, p. 26).

Standards-Based Reform

Finally, the most widely accepted definition of accountability in education today involves standards-based reform, especially in light of the policy-making decisions of elected bodies and the current goals set forth by The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). The model is a hierarchical, externally-imposed framework for change wherein standards for achievement for children are set, testing is done to measure that achievement and consequences for both children and practitioners are imposed if standards are not met (Finn, 2007). Within standards-based reform, it is most often an outside non-educational agency or political body that establishes the standards for the individual entities (e.g., the children, the teachers, the school, the school district, the state, etc.) to achieve and that determines how that achievement will be measured (Finn, 2007). Rewards for meetings goals and sanctions for under-achievement are then dispensed at the discretion of that same outside agency.

Of the four strategies, standards-based reform is the most directly related to academic achievement, in part because the older compliance and professional accountability models failed to focus sufficiently on student outcomes (Finn, 2007). Insofar as the accountability model that is most likely to result in effective educational and increased student achievement in public schools, standards-based reform has begun to emerge as the best practice despite the difficulty in implementation (Finn, 2007). According to Finn (2007), "there's plenty of evidence that private schools do a pretty good job both of producing relatively high-achieving students and of satisfying their clients. There's mixed evidence with respect to charter schools, most of which are still new" (p. 31).

The current and most widely accepted view of accountability in public education centers on the attainment of benchmarks in the areas of reading and mathematics. Seen as the most critical areas for student achievement and success by the legislative bodies that impose the standards, states and school districts strive to meet these goals, often to the exclusion of other curricular areas. This focus upon basic skills, however, is relatively new as historically, the goals of public education were significantly broader (Rothstein & Jacobsen, 2007).

Background

The creation of public education system in the United States was a primary concern for the founding fathers, who believed that education was fundamental to creating an informed citizenry, which could make sound political decisions and continue the growth of the democracy that was being designed (Rothstein & Jacobsen, 2007). Benjamin Franklin emphasized physical education equally with intellectual development and believed that history should be used as a springboard for the teaching of morality, ethics, reading, speaking and writing (Rothstein & Jacobsen, 2007). In his initial state of the union address, George Washington instructed the Congress to encourage schools to teach students the values of citizenship, especially where it concerned the protection of their rights, and to be aware of the difference between oppression and rightful authority (Rothstein & Jacobsen, 2007).

The concept of diversity in education is not a recent development and dates back to both Washington and Thomas Jefferson. "Washington also urged a public education system that could foster a sense of national identity when students from diverse backgrounds learned together under the same educational roof" (Rothstein & Jacobsen, 2007, p. 3). Jefferson spent a great deal of time structuring the public education system in Virginia in large part due to his believe that the most reliable means through which to prevent a return to tyranny was education. According to Rothstein and Jacobsen (2007), Jefferson's goals for a comprehensive educational system were

To give every citizen the information he needs for the transaction of his own business; To enable him to calculate for himself, and to express and preserve his ideas, his contracts and account, in writing; To improve, by reading, his morals and faculties; To understand his duties to his neighbors and country, and to discharge with competence the functions confided to him by either; To know his rights; To exercise with order and justice those he retains; and to choose with discretion the fiduciary of those he delegates; and to notice their conduct with diligence, with candor, and judgment; And, in general, to observe with intelligence and faithfulness all the social relations under which he shall be placed (p. 4).

Clearly, students' moral, ethical and political development was as important to Franklin, Washington and Jefferson as was their achievement in reading, writing and mathematics.

The nineteenth century marked a continuation and expansion of the comprehensive view of public education. Horace Mann, the first superintendent of the Massachusetts Educators, also advocated a balanced set of educational goals that stressed the importance of political awareness in the clear context of democratic values, as well as other curricular areas such as vocal music, environmental awareness, public health policy, physical education and ethics (Rothstein & Jacobsen, 2007). Mann advocated an accountability system within education that judged not only students' achievement but also students' commitment to and excitement about continued learning (Rothstein & Jacobsen, 2007).

The tradition continued into the twentieth century, when, in 1918, a committee commissioned by the federal government to review secondary education issued its report demanding a "balanced approach to education, urging schools to take responsibility for physical activity and health, academic skills, responsible family behavior and morality, vocational preparation, appreciation of the arts and training for democratic civic participation" (Rothstein & Jacobsen, 2007, p. 5). In the aftermath of the turmoil of the early part of the twentieth century and the time preceding the Second World War, the American Association of School Administrators joined with the National Education Association to convene an Education Policies Commission, which in turn "set forth 'four great groups of objectives' for public education: self-realization, human relationships, economic efficiency and civic responsibility" (Rothstein & Jacobsen, 2007, p. 6). The commission's 1938 report was reflective of the world and national climate and emphasized math and literacy skills as important components of education (Rothstein & Jacobsen, 2007). The report also stressed other areas for development, specifically outlining the importance of "developing students' morality, justice and fair dealings, honesty, truthfulness, maintenance of group understandings, proper respect for authority, tolerance and respect for others, habits of cooperation, and work habits such as industry and self-control, along with endurance and physical strength" (Rothstein & Jacobsen, 2007, p. 6).

No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

It is interesting to note, then, that at the beginning of the twenty-first century, and amidst new national and world crisis, the legislature enacted the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110), which makes states accountable only for test scores in areas of basic academic skills and discounts the historic balanced list of outcomes generated throughout national history (Rothstein & Jacobsen, 2007). Rothstein and Jacobsen (2007) notes "at various times throughout American history some goals have been emphasized more than others, there always has existed a consensus around a broad set of goals, a consensus that stands in stark contrast to the philosophy of No Child Left Behind" (p. 3).

In January 2002, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was signed into law and became the most recent and comprehensive attempt at standards-based education reform. The law reauthorized many programs aimed specifically at improving the performance of elementary and secondary schools by increasing the accountability for states, school districts and schools. It also empowered parents with more options for school choice and increased focus on literacy skills for children. The law did not set national standards for assessment or achievement; rather it charged individual states with those tasks. States relying on federal funding for education have had to comply with the requirements of NCLB. The central goal of NCLB is for students to be proficient, according to reported test scores, in the areas of reading and mathematics by the end of the 2013-14 school year (Hoff, 2007). Students are tested in the areas of reading and mathematics in grades 3, 8 and once in high school. By then end of the 2007-2008 school year, students will also be tested in the area of science once in grades 3-5, once in grades 6-8 and once in grades 10-11 (NCLB, 2002).

The framework upon which NCLB is structured relies heavily on the idea that testing is central to having teachers teach and students learn (Levenson, 2007). Thus, there progress toward setting, meeting and assessing academic goals has been made while the curriculum has continually been narrowed so that students are able to achieve on the standardized tests. Teachers are teaching to the tests, and students are learning only what is being tested (Levenson, 2007). Levenson (2007) argues that while some blame resistance to change for the continued lack of improved performance in American schools, "others are beginning to argue it is unrealistic for educators to assume total responsibility for overcoming the significant effects on children of poverty, homelessness and poor health (p. 3).

Applications

Within the framework of standards-based reform under NCLB, teachers are held accountable for the performance of their students. According to Ingersoll (2007), "Since the seminal Nation at Risk report in 1983, a seemingly endless stream of studies, commissions, and national reports have targeted low teacher quality as one of the central problems facing schools" (p. 2).

Teacher Performance

One perception is that schools do not hold teachers accountable for instruction or for meeting curricular goals; it suggests that teachers are not doing their jobs within their individual classrooms (Ingersoll, 2007). The result, according to this viewpoint, is that there is poor performance on standardized tests and low achievement among students. At the heart of this perception is the belief that poor teachers are the result of poor teacher preparation programs, a poor knowledge base, a lack of commitment to and engagement with the profession and a general lack of effort and ability (Ingersoll, 2007). Those who support this perception believe an increase in the centralized control of school would hold teachers more accountable and "advocate standardized curriculums, teacher licensing examinations, merit-pay programs, and explicit performance standards coupled with more rigorous teacher and school evaluations. Many of these accountability mechanisms have been put in place with the implementation of No Child Left Behind" (Ingersoll, 2007, p. 2).

While accountability in schools is important and teacher performance is a primary concern, it often obfuscates the ways that school management and organization contribute to the problems that exist (Ingersoll, 2007). School districts and schools themselves are highly centralized organizations; principals and school boards make the key decisions in schools that shape the instructional program including curricular decisions and textbook choice. Teachers do not. According to Ingersoll (2007):

Teachers often have little input in decisions concerned with their course schedules and class sizes, the office and classroom space they will use, and the use of school discretionary funds for classroom materials. On average, teachers have limited control over which courses they are assigned to teach and which students will be enrolled in their courses. In addition, teachers generally have little input into school-wide behavioral and disciplinary policies and rarely have the authority to have disruptive students removed from their classrooms, even temporarily. Likewise, teachers often have little say about what kind of ability grouping their school uses or about student placement in those groups. They typically have little influence over decisions concerning whether to promote particular students or hold them back. They usually have little input into hiring, firing, and budgetary decisions; the means and criteria by which they or the school administrators are evaluated; and the content of their own on-the-job development and inservice training programs (Ingersoll, 2007, p. 3).

One of the distinguishing characteristics of professionalization of an occupation is the degree of power and control that practitioners have in the making of workplace decisions (Friedson, 1986 as cited in Ingersoll, 2007). Professional employees usually enjoy a degree of freedom, control and autonomy in their professional practice, and they are usually able to approach senior management about issues that arise (Ingersoll, 2007). They have an impact on the development and character of their profession in ways that those in other occupations not classified as professions do not. Teachers, however, do not have power and control over key decisions commensurate with their professional status and preparation. According to Ingersoll (2007):

As a result, teaching is an occupation beset by tension and imbalance between responsibilities and power. On the one hand, the work of teaching...is both important and complex. But on the other hand, those entrusted with the training of this next generation are not entrusted with much control over many of the key decisions concerned with this crucial work (p. 3).

He argues that accountability without the power to make crucial decisions is both unfair and harmful (Ingersoll, 2007).

Under the current system of teacher accountability, teachers focus too much instructional attention on test preparation thereby depriving students of the broader elements of the curriculum not assessed on the accountability tests (Popham, 2007). Further, under pressure from governing bodies, schools and teachers are forced to interpret results to demonstrate achievement even when students are not attaining requisite knowledge rather than addressing issues of effective instruction and remediation (Popham, 2007). Levenson (2007), recognizes the drawbacks of the accountability system currently in place and suggests instead "a standards-based world of shared responsibility for student learning...[so that] if some part of this necessary context for all students reaching mastery is missing, educators, community leaders and advocates need to figure out together how to put it into place" (p. 3).

Standardized Testing

Test scores remain central to the current system of accountability in K-12 education. Thus, large-scale, standardized assessment tools have become increasingly important for states and schools. Scores on these assessments influence legislators and policy makers and impact everything from funding to instructional methods (Popham, 2007). "The premise underlying the use of these accountability tests is that students' test scores will indicate the quality of instruction those students have received" (Popham, 2007, p. 1).

Those in favor of standards-based reform rely heavily on these tests and believe that teachers who know that their performance will be evaluated based upon the test scores of their students will be more effective and that those in authority will be able to intervene where test results indicate that inadequate instruction is being offered (Popham, 2007). Unfortunately, few tests in use are able to measure the effect of instruction on students' test scores; they are instructionally insensitive and therefore only able to measure whether or not students know the answers to the questions posited. According to Popham (2007): "A test's instructional sensitivity represents the degree to which students' performances on that test accurately reflect the quality of the instruction that was provided specifically to promote students' mastery of whatever is being assessed (p. 146).

Instructionally Sensitive Testing

A test that was instructionally sensitive could distinguish between effective and inadequate instruction and would allow interpreters to relate higher test scores to effective instruction in meaningful ways (Popham, 2007). The socioeconomic status (SES) of the student population is believed to have more influence than instructional quality on most accountability tests currently in use. "That is, such instructionally insensitive accountability tests tend to measure the SES composition of a school's student body rather than the effectiveness with which the school's students have been taught," (Popham, 2007, p. 147).

Instructionally sensitive assessment is a major factor in the creation of valid accountability program; however there are a number of factors that impact it. The first is that states tend to publish comprehensive curricular goals that cannot all be met. Hence, individual teachers or departments are left to determine which goals take precedence for their students, and they may not be the same as those being assessed in that year (Popham, 2007). Secondly, without a clear understanding of the skills and knowledge that will be assessed, it is difficult for teachers to prepare students for testing. Additionally, there must be a sufficient number of items on the test to allow evaluators and interpreters to determine if each goal has been achieved. According to Popham (2007), this is crucial, as "If teachers can't tell which parts of their instruction are working and which parts aren't, they'll be unable to improve ineffectual instructional segments for future students" (p. 149). Finally, items on the test must be judged to be sensitive to instruction by reviewers (Popham, 2007).

Instructionally sensitive evaluation instruments are an important factor given the current K-12 accountability focuses on student outcomes in terms of instruction.

Viewpoints

A number of issues have arisen in the five years since the enactment of NCLB, and it is currently scheduled for reauthorization with significant revisions proposed (Levenson, 2007; Hoff, 2007; Miller, 2007). The current administration advocates minimal changes to the existing legislation; however, current reporting systems exclude millions of children from the law's accountability system (Miller, 2007). Currently, the law allows schools to use large N-sizes, or numbers of children that must belong to a subgroup, in order to be included in its reports of adequate yearly progress (AYP) (Miller, 2007). Because schools can have N-sizes of up to 200, a subgroup of 199 would not be included in the school's disaggregated AYP. According to Miller (2007), "The damage from this loophole is enormous. Last year, in an exhaustive investigation, the Associated Press found that nearly 2 million students nationwide are simply left out of disaggregated AYP calculations, including an estimated 15 percent of minority students nationwide" (p. 2).

Another issue impacting a true measure of improvement is that the current law allows states to use wide statistical ranges, or confidence intervals, in the reporting of student performance in the areas of reading and math (Miller, 2007). Miller (2007) explains "Looking at one state, the [Congressional Research Service] found that the number of schools that did not meet their AYP targets increased by nearly 8 percent because the state used a confidence interval of 99 instead of 95" (p. 2). He asserts that as many as half the states are using confidence intervals of 99, making a real assessment of school performance and academic achievement difficult (Miller, 2007).

Allowing such wide variances for reporting progress weakens the accountability system that the legislation put in place. Miller (2007) suggests a number of reforms, among them allowing states to assess school performance using indicators in addition to reading and math examinations. He (Miller, 2007) states "If we keep a strong focus on student progress in reading and math, but also allow additional indicators to play a role, we can have a richer, better understanding of what's really happening inside our schools" (p. 2).

The draft legislation reauthorizing NCLB demonstrates plans to revise the system of accountability by continuing to assess students' academic progress in reading and mathematics in grades 3 and 8 and then once again in high school, and testing them in science once in elementary school, once in middle school and once in high school by the end of the 2007-2008 academic year, but it also adds other indicators to give a more comprehensive look at achievement. Those indicators could include scores on states' tests in subjects other than reading and math, as well as on graduation and college-enrollment rates. (Hoff, 2007). The new version would also allow states to use growth models to track progress toward NCLB's goal that all students should score as proficient in math and reading by the end of the 2013-14 academic year (Hoff, 2007).

Terms & Concepts

Accountability: Within the context of K-12 education, accountability refers to the process through which states, LEA's and schools report their progress, at predetermined intervals, toward meeting short and long-term performance and improvement goals to their stakeholders and to the federal government.

Adequate Yearly Progress: Adequate Yearly Progress is a component of NCLB's accountability system and is based upon a set of performance goals that every school, LEA, and state must achieve within specified time frames in order to meet the 100% proficiency goal established by NCLB.

Confidence Intervals: A confidence interval is a statistical term used to indicate the reliability of an estimate; a result with a small confidence interval is considered more reliable than a result with a large confidence interval.

N-size: N-size is a statistical term used to describe the number within a sample group.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB): A reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which served at the primary federal law governing K-12 education. Among the goals of NCLB are to improve student achievement, to close achievement gaps and to educate all students to 100 percent proficiency by 2014.

Instructional Sensitivity: Instructional sensitivity refers to the degree to the quality of instruction offered to promote the learning of the material in preparation for and to be assessed on a test is reflected in the students' performance on the test.

Socioeconomic Status (SES): Socioeconomic status (SES) is based upon family income, parental education level(s), parental occupation(s), and social status within the community and is considered a factor that impacts academic achievement in children.

Standards-Based Reform: Standards-based reform involves the establishment of clear, measurable standards for all school children. In support of meeting those standards, resources are allocated, curriculum is designed and revised, assessments are designed, administered and interpreted and professional development activities are offered.

Bibliography

Finn, C. (2007). Real accountability in k-12 education: The marriage of Ted and Alice. Retrieved December 2, 2007 from: http://www.media.hoover.org/documents/0817938826%5f23.pdf

Ingersoll, R. (2007). Short on power, long on responsibility. Educational Leadership 65 , 20- 25. Retrieved December 2, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=27213649&site=ehost-live

Jacobsen, R., Saultz, A., & Snyder, J.W. (2013). When accountability strategies collide: Do policy changes that raise accountability standards also erode public satisfaction?. Educational Policy, 27, 360-389.Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=86258808&site=ehost-live

Levenson, M. (2007). A standards base and three new R's. School Administrator. 64 , 32-35. Retrieved December 2, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=26395744& site=ehost-live

Mei-Jiun, W. (2013). The effects of student demographics and school resources on California school performance gain: A fixed effects panel model. Teachers College Record, 115 4), 1-28. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=87024882&site=ehost-live

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).

Poole, S. (2011). The relationship between external accountability policy and internal accountability: A cross-state analysis of charter and traditional public schools. Journal of School Choice, 5, 261-280. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=65414028&site=ehost-live

Popham, W. (2007). Instructional insensitivity of tests: Accountability's dire drawback. Phi Delta Kappan. 89 , 146-155. Retrieved December 2, 2007 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=26993449& site=ehost-live

Rothstein, R. & Jacobsen, R. (2007). A test of time: Unchanged priorities for student outcomes. School Administrator. 64 , 36-40. Retrieved December 2, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24204092& site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Ash, K. (2007). NCLB accountability: Educators give views. Education Week. 26 , 12. Retrieved December 2, 2007 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=25386807& site=ehost-live

Astromovich, R. & Coker, J. (2007). Program evaluation: The accountability bridge model for counselors. Journal of Counseling & Development. 85 , 162-172. Retrieved December 2, 2007 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=24821036& site=ehost-live

Carr, N. (2007). The customer service approach. American School Board Journal. 194 , 62- 63. Retrieved December 2, 2007 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=26215119& site=ehost-live

Eaton, J. (2007). Institutions, accreditors, and the federal government, redefining their "appropriate relationship". Change. 39 , 16-23. Retrieved December 2, 2007 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=26496474& site=ehost-live

Gray, J., Goldstein, H. & Thomas, S. (2001). Predicting the future: the role of past performance in determining trends in institutional effectiveness at A level. British Educational Research Journal. 27 , 391-405. Retrieved November 25, 2007 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=5014877&s ite=ehost-live