Background
School accountability measures began in the late 1990s as a way for policymakers to monitor public schools and student achievement. The No Child Left Behind Act was the first push from the federal government for accountability, mandating states to measure student achievement through standardized tests. School accountability has focused mainly on tests, and is used to present information to policymakers, teachers, principals, and parents regarding the performance of schools.
School accountability measures intend to address the wide variability among schools to close the racial and economic achievement gap. They are trying to create more similar measurements for addressing student achievement for all types of students.
Theory of Change
There are two possible policy design elements based on current systems of school accountability. The first system is “growth” (Figlio & Loeb, 2011). This system focuses on the value-added or improvements of standardized test scores from one year to the next. They are seen as more fair measures as they take students’ starting points into consideration. However, growth measures are more complicated and less easily understood for parents and politicians.
The second system for school accountability is “status” (Figlio & Loeb, 2011). The “status” system encourages schools to reach a certain level of proficiency on standardized tests. It allows schools to focus their attention on lower performing students to help them achieve the ‘target’ proficiency score. It is an easier measure to understand as it is an aggregate measure of all students’ scores.
The goal of both systems is to make schools aware of their achievement levels. This would allow them to understand which subjects to address and where to allocate more resources for students and teachers. The ultimate goal of all school accountability systems is to improve outcomes for all students regardless of background.
There are various unintended consequences that may arise from these measures of school accountability. These measures only take standardized test scores into account. This does not measure non-cognitive skills that many believe are imperative for a successful education. This causes teachers to ‘teach to the test’ or alter their curriculum to teach a narrow aspect of the subject. Therefore, many students and teachers may focus on short-term goals of passing the test. School accountability measures have influences on the housing market and donations to the school. If schools are consistently rated as low-achieving, families will move to other districts. Low-achieving schools may receive fewer parent donations (Figlio & Ladd, 2015). These unintended consequences can be mitigated by a successful school accountability program.
Evidence
There is some consensus that accountability measures provide gains in math proficiency. A 2009 study by Wong et. al. demonstrated that public schools subject to accountability measures had 0.34 and 0.24 higher standard deviation increases in math for fourth and eighth grade students compared to Catholic schools not subject to NCLB (Figlio & Ladd, 2015). There is less evidence suggesting that accountability measures increase proficiency in reading tests.
Studies have shown differences in scores of high stakes state exams, and low stakes national exams. A 2005 study analyzed data in Chicago Public Schools four years after accountability reforms. It demonstrated that there was a 0.35 standard deviation increase in math and 0.25 standard deviation increase in reading scores on the state test, but no effect on the NAEP exam (Figlio & Ladd, 2015). In Texas schools, there was a 0.31-0.49 standard deviation increase on the state test in fourth-grade math, compared to a 0.13-0.15 standard deviation increase on the NAEP exam (Deming, 2016). This demonstrates the difference between high stakes state exams and low stakes national exams. States may be changing their tests to reflect more positively on students and schools.
Test scores are not the only way to measure student achievement. In Texas, students who attended schools that were facing pressure to stay above minimum levels of proficiency were 1.9 percent more likely to attend a four-year college and 1.3 percent more likely to earn a bachelor’s degree (Figlio & Ladd, 2015). In contrast, if the struggling students were in a school pressured to achieve a higher level of proficiency, they were 1.8 percent less likely to attend a four year college and 0.7 percent less likely to earn a bachelor’s degree (Figlio & Ladd, 2015). It is much harder to measure long-term outcomes for students and isolate the factor to the school accountability measures.
There is evidence that the gains on tests do not apply to all subgroups of students. A study of Dallas schools revealed that there were gains for white and Hispanic 7th graders, but no gains for black students (Figlio & Ladd, 2015). This is problematic, but more evidence is needed to evaluate this finding.
Overall, it appears that school accountability systems lead to gains on state tests. However, the evidence for non-cognitive student achievement outcomes are mixed. The gains vary from state to state based on the proficiency levels for the state exams.
Principles
1. Rewards and Sanctions
Studies have shown that accountability systems with incentives pressure schools to positively improve student outcomes (Figlio & Loeb, 2011). Rewards could include more resources, and sanctions could force a school to restructure instruction. However, this could create undue pressure on students and teachers to perform well on standardized tests, limiting possible academic success.
2. Scope of accountability system
The scope of the school accountability measures and standardized tests has an impact on effectiveness. This refers to how many academic areas are incorporated each year, often by standardized tests. Systems which test a narrow range of subjects cause teachers and schools to shift their curriculum and ‘teach to the test.’ Evidence shows that teachers often focus only on tested subjects (Figlio & Loeb, 2011). However, increasing the scope of material covered for standardized tests is costly. Shifting the scope of accountability to include other, non-testing measures such as attendance or graduation rates, could allow a more holistic picture of school performance and student achievement.
3. Subgroups
Low-performing students are often excluded from school accountability measures by placing them in different subgroups. Schools are able to strategically change the testing pool to ensure a higher achievement rating by characterizing low-performing students as disabled (Figlio & Loeb, 2011). This limits the accuracy of school accountability measures and must be taken into consideration when designing a measurement.
4. Time period
Most school accountability systems only focus on short run goals and are measured over one year. They do not considering long-term achievement goals for students and individual variations among school years. A longer time period would help create a better picture of school growth and proficiency (Figlio & Ladd, 2015).
Stakeholders
• Parents are invested in their children’s education, and may monitor school accountability systems. This causes parents to choose schools with higher ratings, impacting the real estate market, or select money to donate to schools.
• Policymakers seek to monitor schools to ensure that resources are being allocated efficiently. They want to see improvement in student achievement across all students to ensure equity among schools.
• Teachers must teach students to prepare for the standardized tests. They may push towards fewer tests to eliminate possible stress on themselves and students.
• Administrators are ultimately held accountable for school performance. They must ensure accountability measures are carried out accurately and that student achievement is improving.