Voices | | Northwest Education

NORTHWEST
EDUCATION

On the Road to Accountability
Summer 2005 / Volume 10, Number 4.
A publication of the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory

Research brief

Educators Grapple With NCLB’s Demands for Accountability By Anne Turnbaugh Lockwood

When the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act was signed into law in 2001, accountability became the new maxim nationwide. Schools and districts were charged with a hefty requirement: The achievement of all students must be boosted to 100 percent proficiency by the year 2014. Along the way, states have set intermediate targets that schools and districts must meet—with escalating sanctions for those schools and districts whose students do not meet NCLB’s adequate yearly progress (AYP) requirements. These AYP requirements apply to all subgroups of the student population.

Clearly, the new NCLB-mandated accountability measures pose stiff new demands for public educators. In the past, educational leaders and teachers have frequently pointed to outside influences far beyond their control that influence student achievement—and for which they should not be held accountable. Now, NCLB’s accountability provisions regard these arguments with a stringent response. No more rationalizing, the law says: Schools and districts are accountable for student achievement—regardless of ethnicity, race, English language status, special needs, or socioeconomic status.

Press for Accountability Causes Implementation Concerns

Admittedly, many educators are tackling challenges as they work to implement the law. Some feel torn between what they admire as the intent of the law and the issues related to its practical application. And they are not alone. According to Richard F. Elmore, a Harvard Graduate School of Education professor, “Accountability for student achievement is one of the two or three—if not the most—prominent issues in policy at the state and local levels right now” (Education Week Research Center, 2005). This is clearly demonstrated by the maelstrom over how schools and districts should be evaluated for student performance—since rewards or sanctions await. Any discussion of accountability is entangled with complicating factors. A smattering of these include funding, testing, and how accountability should be evaluated. Much legislation is criticized for inadequate funding, and NCLB is no exception (Center for Education Policy, 2005). Proponents of this view maintain that without an increase in funding, schools and districts may flounder on the shoals of good intentions—held unfairly to accountability requirements they cannot meet due to insufficient funds.

Testing has been another prickly issue. W. James Popham, an emeritus professor in the University of California, Los Angeles Graduate School of Education and Information Studies and an authority on assessment, points to serious shortcomings in state-chosen NCLB tests. Popham argues that NCLB seeks to evaluate schools by assessing students’ improvement on state-chosen NCLB tests. Yet, he finds it disquieting that a state’s chosen NCLB tests might not detect instructional improvement, even if it has occurred (Popham, 2005).

This, he contends, could have Draconian repercussions. Schools that do not meet AYP requirements might not be failing, and schools that do meet AYP requirements might, in fact, “be doing a dismal instructional job.” Finally, Popham raises concerns that state-chosen tests might be more sensitive to students’ socioeconomic status than to a school’s instructional success. Strong words. But Popham is not alone in his worries about how accountability is measured under NCLB.

Value-Added Accountability: Another Dimension

Other experts on assessment raise the issue of value-added accountability. While NCLB has strong accountability requirements, based on student achievement scores on state tests and whether they meet AYP requirements, these tests do not measure the gains individual students make from year to year. (Nor are they intended to do so.)

Measuring annual student gains—and tying these gains to school, district, and teacher performance—is known as “value-added accountability.” Simply put, a value-added or growth model offers a means of tracking the amount of school, district, and teacher contribution to student achievement annually. It extends a different way of measuring accountability than taking student test scores and holding them up to AAYPYP requirements. Many states and researchers would like to add value-added accountability to the accountability provisions of NCLB.

States Face New Challenges

In addition to these issues, a recent spate of news items points to the tension some states are experiencing with NCLB. Florida, for instance, is considering the option of lowering its academic standards to make it easier for students to meet AYP requirements so that its schools do not risk the progressive sanctions of NCLB—a development worth watching across states.

In Texas, a potential showdown has been mounted between the state and federal government (Hoff, 2005). Schools and districts issued a rash of appeals seeking permission to follow less demanding state, rather than federal, rules for assessing special education students. When state officials granted these appeals, they jeopardized millions of dollars in federal aid. And in Utah, conflict between state officials and the U.S. Department of Education became a closely watched situation as it escalated in intensity. State officials reported that NCLB is “too invasive,” particularly in its accountability requirements, and have shown themselves to be willing to forgo approximately $116 million in federal aid.

But states might take heart.

U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings is showing some interest in value-added accountability, as well as signs of lightening NCLB requirements—particularly for states grappling with mandates related to students with disabilities and limited English skills. Spellings also appears to be contemplating how calculations should be made that will result in sanctions for schools and districts (Samuels & Davis, 2005).

Continuing Work, Continuing Issues

Meanwhile, much work remains—and implementation issues persist. Despite popular enthusiasm for accountability requirements, states have lagged in meeting NCLB requirements. As of October 2004, 19 states had not yet released report cards that included 2003–2004 data. Based on the most current report cards available at the time, 44 states and the District of Columbia reported school-level test data broken down by racial and ethnic groups. In 23 states, high school report cards included disaggregated dropout or graduation rates (Skinner, 2005).

There is little debate about the good intent of NCLB. It has been applauded for its emphasis on equity. It has been commended for its relentless insistence that all ethnic, racial, and special-needs subgroups of the student population must achieve to 100 percent proficiency. Finally, it has received kudos for its “no excuses” approach to school and district accountability for student performance. In short, the philosophy that undergirds the law has been considered virtually unassailable—and it enjoys broad popular appeal.

It should be noted that educators have longed for education to be placed on the front burner since the original authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965. And now, although issues remain and implementation struggles continue, they have their wish. Education flares more brightly than it ever has on the public agenda—and shows no signs of sputtering out.

Editor’s Note: U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings announced (April 2005) a new implementation approach to NCLB—Raising Achievement: A New Path. Visit www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/raising/new-path.html for details.

Anne Turnbaugh Lockwood is a senior program advisor for NWREL’s Center for Classroom Teaching and Learning. She holds a Ph.D. in educational psychology from the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, and is the author of six books and more than 100 articles on educational issues.

References

Center for Education Policy. (2005). The Capital to the classroom: Year 3 of the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Author.

Education Week Research Center. Editorial Projects in Education. (2005). Accountability. Bethesda, MD: Author. Retrieved March 28, 2005: www.edweek.org/rc/issues/accountability/

Hoff, D.J. (2005, March 9). Texas stands behind own testing rule. Education Week, 24(26). Retrieved March 28, 2005: www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2005/03/09/26texas.h24.html

Skinner, R.A. (2005). Quality counts. No small change: Targeting money toward school performance. State of the States. Education Week, 24(17). Retrieved March 28, 2005: www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2005/01/06/17sos.h24.html

Original URL: http://www.nwrel.org/nwedu/10-04/brief/

This online version is based upon the print version of the magazine. The information contained in it was current at the time of printing.

On the Road to Accountability Summer 2005 / Volume 10, Number 4. A publication of the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory