NASBE Standard Examines School Improvement and State Accountability

Alexandria, VA — Designing state accountability systems and tracking their implementation are among the most consequential and complicated tasks for state education leaders. School improvement processes, the purview of school and district leaders, demand just as much of those who design, implement, and monitor them. But when state accountability and local improvement work at cross purposes, neither is likely to promote student achievement. The September issue of NASBE’s State Education Standard explores what is most likely to move the needle on student learning and how states and districts can ensure resources are directed toward what matters most for improving outcomes.

Morgan Scott Polikoff and Rachel Anderson of the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education and the Data Quality Campaign trace the arc of federal accountability requirements and sketch the opportunities for states to craft clear, sensible accountability systems aligned to supports for districts and schools. Building on that foundation, Elaine Allensworth of the University of Chicago Consortium on School Research explains the relationship between school improvement and state accountability systems and suggests ways state boards can turn their systems into tools for improvement.

Most states include measures of both proficiency and growth in their accountability systems. Christy Hovanetz from ExcelinEd makes the case for more states to adopt criteria-based growth models, where all students are tracked against a common set of expectations rather than against their peers.

Others authors focused on the practitioners tasked with improving schools. David Nitkin, Chelsea Waite, and Janette Avelar of Transcend and the Center on Reinventing Public Education asked school leaders who are pushing the school improvement envelope what is helpful and what is not in state accountability systems. The authors suggest that state leaders should pay particular attention to the insights of those leading innovative schools. Researchers Jennifer Lin Russell, Donald Peurach, and Jennifer Zoltners Sherer bring to bear their work evaluating the impact of local networks for educational improvement as they suggest how states might make them more common and more productive.

Two state board members offer their perspectives. Darrell Cobbins, vice chair of the Tennessee state board, shares the experience of the state’s first accountability hearings and his hopes for the process to spark real improvement in low-performing schools. From Indiana, state board member Byron Ernest shares what he has learned as a teacher, high school leader, state board member, and leadership coach about the keys to school improvement and state accountability systems.

Khaled Ismail recaps Education First’s work documenting excessive testing in schools and suggests principles to guide more streamlined, purposeful assessment systems.

Read and share the “School Improvement and Accountability” issue of the State Education Standard.

###