Keeping Accountability Systems Accountable

Abstract

THE STANDARDS and movement in education has undeniably transformed schooling throughout the United States. Even before President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act into law in January 2002, mandating annual public school testing in English and math for grades 3-8 and once in high school, most states had already instituted their own systems of state linked to state exams. Throughout the country, a battery of tests--the FCAT in Florida, the TAAS and later TAKS in Texas, the SOL in Virginia, the MCAS in Massachusetts, and the AIMS in Arizona, to name a few--awaited students in a few select grades each year. States used the results of those tests to determine their educational health and, in turn, to judge their schools. Now, with NCLB, the number of students tested annually has skyrocketed as all 50 states have exams in operation, with even more grades--seven in all--required to administer tests. [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] Though critics have denounced so-called high-stakes testing for reducing curricula to circumscribed test content and learning to rote memorization, (1) proponents have countered that the and movement has spurred increased learning, as shown by rising state test scores. (2) Many states have reported test score gains, especially in the early grades, but questions are emerging as to whether these increased test scores really do indicate increased learning--or, for that matter, if the tests measure meaningful learning to begin with. Because these state tests are the measure for schools and students, bringing potential real-life consequences to them both, these questions must be asked and answered. STANDARDS AND ACCOUNTABILITY The basic premise behind standards and accountability is quite simple. First, states determine which content and skills--the standards--their students need to learn. Teachers then teach to these standards, and state tests measure whether students have indeed met them. The various players are then held accountable for the results as a wide range of punishments and rewards kicks in. Under NCLB, if schools do not meet their state's Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) goals, as measured by gains in student test scores, they face increasingly punitive actions that can culminate in school restructuring and state takeover, potentially leading to job loss for teachers and principals. (3) As for rewards, NCLB promises public recognition of high-achieving schools as well as monetary bonuses to teachers in schools that make the greatest gains as measured by test scores. (4) Similarly, policy makers in some states provide their own sets of financial incentives to teachers and principals, as well as public acknowledgments of achievement. Then there are always the newspaper headlines, routinely praising or shaming neighborhood schools on the basis of test results. In short, becomes synonymous with a public display of judgment. Many states have also zeroed in on students as targets of their systems. According to the Center on Education Policy, roughly half of the 50 states have enacted, or are in the process of enacting, a mandatory high school graduation test. (5) By requiring such a test, state policy makers demand from students to show that they have met the state standards. Proponents of these high-stakes tests assert that students will work harder, and thus learn more, when they know that their diploma depends on passing such a test. (6) Critics, however, point to a link between state graduation exams and higher dropout rates for lower-achieving students, African Americans, and Latinos, as well as to an increased incentive for schools to push out teens who are academically at risk, effectively limiting these students' futures. (7) Finally, hovering somewhere above this sharp focus on schools, principals, teachers, and students are the policy makers responsible for mandating education policy in the first place. …