Accountability and School/District Quality

• In Event: 60.056 - A Role for Quality Improvement in U.S. Educational Accountability?

Abstract

Despite robust criticisms, some form of accountability for education to safeguard school and teaching quality and equitable treatment of students is important for serving the public interest. With the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reauthorization still pending, a question of interest to policymakers, practitioners, and researchers alike is: what models of accountability might be most effective for generating these valued outcomes? The US test-based accountability model holds schools and teachers accountable for student outcomes with less attention to school improvement processes. In contrast, many other countries enact more school-centered accountability efforts such as school self evaluation followed by inspection to examine school quality as in similar systems in England and the Netherlands.
School self-evaluation and inspection (SSE/I) is receiving increased attention in the United States as a policy mechanism for district/school accountability and improvement (Ladd, 2012; National Academy of Education, 2009). Of course, accountability models from other countries cannot be naively imported to the US given the vital distinctions in sociopolitical contexts. Nevertheless, particular principles and practices underpinning SSE/I may provide useful possibilities as policymakers here redesign school accountability (Ryan, Gandha, & Ahn, 2013).
School self-evaluation (SSE) is an evidence-based review conducted by school personnel about the quality of their school’s instruction, education services, and outcomes (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2011). The school is evaluated in relation to legislated dimensions of school quality (e.g., student achievement, quality of teaching). Inspection (I), a required external review, follows SSE; the inspection team assesses to what extent they agree or disagree with the school’s self-evaluation. While inspections have usually involved all schools, lower-achieving schools are now becoming the primary focus in several countries (e.g., England).
SSE/I processes are based on school effectiveness and school improvement theories. School effectiveness research focuses on the characteristics of successful schools associated with improved student test performance (teacher qualifications, for example) (Reynolds, Sammons, DeFraine, Townsend, & VanDamme, 2011). School improvement theories promote improved student learning through improvements in teaching and learning conditions, (the quality of school leadership, for example) (Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, & Easton, 2009).
As a policy instrument, SSE/I is designed to safeguard quality assurance standards (e.g., teaching standards, school environment) and the efficient use of resources. Consequently, SSE/I emphasizes multiple measures (e.g., test scores, direct observations of school safety and student behavior) as well as perspectives of various stakeholders (e.g., parents). Under some circumstances, whether standards of quality (e.g., school safety) are being met can be determined only when an inspection or external review team visits the school.
In this paper, I present an illustrative school/district accountability model for evaluating school quality that is connected to relevant state and national policy initiatives. This work draws in part on interviews and observations I conducted with educators in New Zealand and the United Kingdom, and the accountability literature (SSE/I and others). To facilitate analysis of how an accountability model emphasizing internal processes and outcomes is potentially linked to student learning, a logic model is presented to identify the underlying mechanisms of the approach.

Author

• Katherine E. Ryan, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign