Northwest Regional Comprehensive Center
NWRCC
SEA Rapid Response
Examples Of State Accountability Systems
The documents and Web sites in this section 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.
Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) Accountability Systems
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)[PDF]
Leadership capacities for a changing environment: State and district responses to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
Dwyer, C. (2005). Providence, RI: The Education Alliance at Brown University.
Drawing from five separate research studies, this book outlines the policies, structures, and supports that states and school districts in the region (Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and New Haven, Connecticut) are creating and implementing to improve student achievement in low-performing districts and schools. The book, a joint product of The Education Alliance at Brown University and RMC Research Corporation, also takes a critical look at the demands on educational leaders in a complex, high-expectations environment following the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (abstract from Brown University)[PDF]
Forte, E. & Erpenbach, W. (2006). 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 new report summarizes requests submitted by states in 2005-06 to amend their educational accountability plans under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 as well as the related decisions of the U.S. Department of Education (ED). This is the fourth in a series of papers from CCSSO describing the development and amendment of state accountability plans. (abstract from CCSSO press release)[PDF]
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)(pdf)
Impacts of state accountability on student performance. Paper prepared for the Workshop on Accountability Board of Testing and Assessment. Hanushek, E. & Raymond, M. (2005). The National Academies, Washington, D.C. February 4-5, 2005.
This paper presents a nontechnical overview of the findings of analyses of state accountability. It summarizes three central results:
- Performance on standardized tests of the type central to state accountability systems has powerful economic effects;
- Accountability policies in general lead to higher levels of achievement, though the magnitudes of the effects are influenced by the design of the policy; and,
- Despite positive effects overall, recent work shows that these policy instruments are not effective in repairing existing disparities in performance by race. (abstract from paper intro)[PDF]
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)[PDF]
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)[PDF]
Ohio Department of Education Accountability System
U.S. Department of Education's Approved State Accountability Plans
U.S. Department of Education's Decision Letters on Each State's Final Assessment System Under NCLB
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)[PDF]
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. [PDF]