PRECISION AND VOLATILITY IN SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS

2006 ◽  
Vol 2006 (2) ◽  
pp. i-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walter D. Way
2002 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 91-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas J Kane ◽  
Douglas O Staiger

In recent years, most states have constructed elaborate accountability systems using school-level test scores. However, because the median elementary school contains only 69 children per grade level, such measures are quite imprecise. We evaluate the implications for school accountability systems. For instance, rewards or sanctions for schools with scores at either extreme primarily affect small schools and provide weak incentives to large ones. Nevertheless, we conclude that accountability systems may be worthwhile. Even in states with aggressive financial incentives, the marginal reward to schools for raising student performance is a small fraction of the potential labor market value for students.


Author(s):  
Morgan Polikoff ◽  
Shira Korn

This chapter summarizes the history and effects of standards-based school accountability in the United States and offers suggestions for accountability policy moving forward. It analyzes standards-based accountability in both the No Child Left Behind Act and the Every Student Succeeds Act, and discusses the effects of accountability systems. The authors argue that school accountability systems can improve student achievement, but that unintended consequences are possible. How accountability systems are designed—the metrics and measures used and the consequences for performance—has both symbolic and practical implications for the efficacy of the system and the individuals affected. Synthesizing what is known about the design of school accountability systems, the authors propose policy choices that can improve the validity, reliability, transparency, and fairness of these systems.


2019 ◽  
Vol 117 (2) ◽  
pp. 931-935
Author(s):  
Yuanyuan Chen ◽  
Shuaizhang Feng ◽  
James J. Heckman ◽  
Tim Kautz

Noncognitive skills (e.g., persistence and self-control) are typically measured using self-reported questionnaires in which respondents rate their own skills. In many applications—including program evaluation and school accountability systems—such reports are assumed to measure only the skill of interest. However, self-reports might also capture other dimensions aside from the skill, such as aspects of a respondent’s situation, which could include incentives and the conditions in which they complete the questionnaire. To explore this possibility, this study conducted 2 experiments to estimate the extent to which survey administration conditions can affect student responses on noncognitive skill questionnaires. The first experiment tested whether providing information about the importance of noncognitive skills to students directly affects their responses, and the second experiment tested whether incentives tied to performance on another task indirectly affect responses. Both experiments suggest that self-reports of noncognitive skills are sensitive to survey conditions. The effects of the conditions are relatively large compared with those found in the program evaluation literature, ranging from 0.05 to 0.11 SDs. These findings suggest that the effects of interventions or other social policies on self-reported noncognitive skills should be interpreted with caution.


2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 618-641
Author(s):  
Kelly McMahon ◽  
Ashley Johnson

The passage of ESSA in 2015 created a novel mandate for States to develop school accountability systems that use alternative measures of school quality beyond test scores. This created an opportunity for States to be innovative and make new forms of data available that could potentially lead to new strategies for improving schools. This study explored early experiments in alternative accountability measures in two urban districts. Drawing on interviews, documents, and observations gained through participant research, this study highlights the variable types of data the models made available to stakeholders and how those differences suggest different theories of change for improving schools. The findings highlight how different ways of specifying school quality point to different ideas about what schools should be responsible for improving.


2003 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 141-158 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jay Parkes ◽  
Joseph J. Stevens

2005 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 81-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Flowers ◽  
Lynn Ahlgrim-Delzell ◽  
Diane Browder ◽  
Fred Spooner

The purpose of this study was to examine teachers' perceptions of alternate assessments. A total of 983 teachers from five states participated in this study. The results suggest that teachers tended to agree that their students should be included in school accountability, but they did not agree with most items assessing the educational benefits of alternate assessments. Teachers reported that the most significant impact of alternate assessments is the increase in paperwork and demands on their time. In contrast, when teachers perceive alternate assessments counting in school accountability systems, more teachers report a positive impact for alternate assessments. Significant differences in positive impact of alternate assessment between testing approaches (i.e., portfolio, performance-based, checklist) were also found. Implications and recommendations are discussed


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document