Change in Educational Accountability

How will New Accountability Measures improve Instructional Practice to meet the needs of 21st Century

Students?

Presented By: Marisa Forbes, Kevin McGoey, Patricia Griffin,

Patricia Gitto, Weedens Blanchard

Accountability in Education

Problem Statement:In what ways do new accountability measures reflect best practices of current research in order to improve the quality of teacher instruction and student performance?

Accountability

• “What the best and wisest parent wants for his own child, that the community must want for all of its children. Any other ideal for our schools is narrow and unlovely. Acted upon, it destroys our democracy.” – John Dewey

How Does the Achievement of American Students Compare to that of Students in Other Countries in 2007?

• US 4th graders average math score was higher than 23 of the other 35 educational systems and closely similar to the other remaining 4 systems; Asian/Europe systems outperformed the US 4th graders.

• US 8th graders average math score was higher than 37 of 47 educational systems and was outperformed by Asia.

– PISA 2007

How Does the Achievement of American Students Compare to that of Students in Other Countries in 2009?

• In reading literacy, US 15 yr. olds are ranked 14th among 34 educational systems and are well below average at 25th in mathematics.

• US 8th graders average science score was higher than 35 of 47 educational systems and was outperformed by Asia and Europe.

• Finland, Korea and Canada are consistent high performers.

• Shanghai (China) ranked top globally.– PISA 2009

Accountability in Education

• Making an education system responsible for the performance of students in school and is associated with long-standing efforts to measure cognitive aptitude and ability. (RTT)

• In current educational contexts, the concept carries with it the idea that individuals, organizations and the community not only are responsible for their actions, but must also answer for their performance to an outside authority that, in turn, may impose a penalty for failure to the teacher, the school, the district and NY State (RTT).

Past Accountability Measures

1965-The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) proposed large scale funding and grants for education.

It was passed as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Legislation Act of 1965. It was initially called “War on Poverty”.

Past Accountability Measures

1983-A Nation at Risk• Found the low quality of public education in the U.S.A was endangering the country’s ability to compete internationally.

• Sought to incentivize states to set academic standards, administer tests to determine whether students met those standards, and design accountability measures to reward successful schools and punish failing ones.

• Pushed the nation further towards accountability and resulted in more federal role in education.

1990s-The Decade Of Accountability

Reauthorization of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 1997: all students with disabilities must participate in the state assessments WITHOUT the use of all of their testing accommodations.

Alternate Assessment for less than 1% of students with disabilities.

2000-NCLB

States had to drastically increase the amount of tests given.

Graduation and attendance rates were used to evaluate schools.

AYP introduced-Annual Yearly Progress, yardstick that measures how schools progress towards proficiency. All public schools must meet AYP for title 1 funding.

Over the past 20 years evaluation and accountability has shifted from being a primarily federally mandated activity imposed on state to being a self-imposed activity because of the realization that evaluation can be a helpful partner in education.

Current Accountability Measures

• K-12– NCLB (GW Bush)– Race to the Top (Obama)– Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR)

• Requires school districts and BOCES to annually evaluate the performance of probationary and tenured teachers and principals providing instructional and pupil personnel services.

Types of Accountability

• Procedural– Responsibility in conducting activities according to

prevailing expectations.

• Consequential– Responsibility for the consequences or the results of ones

actions-whether positive or negative.

Sources of Accountability

• Bureaucratic• Legal• Professional• Political• Market-based

RTT focused itself on four main areas of accountability; - Developing effective teachers and leaders by retaining, developing, and rewarding effective teachers. - Improving low-achieving schools. - Expanding student data systems that measure student growth and success, which inform teachers about how they can improve instruction. - Enhancing standards and assessments that prepare students for college and workplace. By adopting Common Standards and implementing high quality assessments.

Race to the Top (RTT)

New York enacted new education reform laws which; - expanded or linked student data systems. - required teachers and principals evaluations to be based on student academic growth. New York plans to spend $2.6 million to adopt a student growth model which will measure annual changes in individual student achievement and link them performance of the teacher. - seek to increase the state’s ability to improve its’ lowest- achieving schools.

- professional development to improve skills of teachers.

RTT

RTT and NYS teacher effectiveness, accountability, and advanced licensure

Use outcome based performance indicators such s student achievement, persistence in teaching (teacher retention rates/turnover), and production ofteachers.

Evaluated teacher preparation programs effectiveness of colleges andpublically report.

New York's proposal to RTT says that the Board of Regents will adopt a policy that prohibits teachers who are not rated as effective in the classroom from obtaining professional certification and continuing to teach.

Will develop and implement a new professional certification process for teachers by 2013 to ensure above mentioned criteria.

Who are subject to APPR Regulations?

• All teachers/principals providing instructional services– Nonacademic and vocational subjects are exempt.

APPR plan must include specific procedures:

• Methods include:– Classroom observation

– Videotape assessment

– Self review

– Peer review

– Portfolio review

– Student's value-based and Standardized test scores

– Points add up culminating in a scaled rating for staff and principals

– Ineffective/Developing/Effective/Highly Effective

Feedback to Staff Regarding Instructional Performance

• Pre/Post Observations (during school year)• Annual Evaluation (June to allow for receipt of SED scores)• Student's assessment scores (June)• Value added analysis (during school year)• Professional Staff Development• Teacher Improvement Plan (TIP) for Ineffective and Developing

teachers (due in the first two weeks in September; developed by building principal for all required staff; developed by Superintendent or designee for principals)

Current Accountability MeasuresHigher Education (Prevailing Issues)

– The eroding belief that Higher Education is a public good for all Americans, not just a private benefit for college graduates.

– Business leaders question the responsiveness of colleges and universities to market forces in a changing economy.

– Beleaguered presidents and chancellors accuse accountability advocates for demanding more services while supplying less support.

– Civic Culture pushes political accountability, insisting colleges and universities must serve public purposes; unfortunately, this culture also periodically slides into doing the bidding of the party in power.

– Academic Culture presses for professional accountability, or faculty participation, as essential to effective governance; occasionally, it produces gridlock in campus decision making and neglects societal needs.

– Market Accountability advocates argue that colleges and universities must respond to client needs; sometimes, however, they divert higher education from fundamental purposes toward market fads.

Burton Clark’s Accountability Triangle

• State Priorities-public needs and desires for higher education programs and services.

• Academic Concerns-issues and interests of the academic community.

• Market Forces-cover the customer needs and demands of students, parents, and businesses, as well as other clients of colleges and universities.

State Priorities

Academic Concerns

(Professional)

Market Forces (Market)

Current Accountability Measures

– Higher Education

• Market Accountability- States leave more directions and cost of higher education to private markets.

• Presidents, Vice Presidents, and Trustees are responsible for meeting state and public needs in student access and attainment, economic development and public service.

• Decentralized departments—bolsters autonomy

Current Accountability Measures

• Higher Education (Bridging the Gap)

Distance between stakeholders and academics undermines the one characteristic that everyone sees as essential to balancing

accountability and autonomy – trust.

Current Accountability MeasuresHigher Education (Bridging the Gap)

– A “public agenda” prepared by top business, civic, government, and education leaders that identifies what your state needs most from higher education and includes prioritized goals, performance indicators, benchmark targets, and timetables.

– Participation in the development and implementation of the agenda by private and public colleges and universities as well as public schools.

– A focus on external results, not internal operations of colleges and universities, to produce external accountability while preserving institutional autonomy.

Current Accountability MeasuresHigher Education (Bridging the Gap)

– A commitment to adequate and sustained funding from public and private sources commensurate with the public agenda, with lower targets but not less worthy ultimate goals when budgets must be cut.

– An integrated plan that connects accountability programs and their implementation at the state, system, and institutional levels.

– A balanced approach to public funding and tuition, coupled with financial aid that ensures access and affordability in private and public institutions.

– An appreciation of the contribution to the public agenda from all types of colleges and universities, based on mission performance not mission levels.

– An integrated plan that connects accountability programs and their implementation at the state, system and institutional levels.

– Five-year reviews of progress and revisions when necessary to meet new needs.

Content Analysis

• Research methodology that examines words or phrases within a wide range of texts. – Research literature:

• Hargreaves: principles of sustainable leadership; teach-learn-assess; Finland model

• Elmore: culture of authority on schools; core (teacher and students) vs. shell (federal/state and local authority); school setting and shared culture

• Darling-Hammond: reliance on testing as reform vs. reliance on comprehensive reform agenda

Effect of Increased Accountability

Measures on Teacher Retention/Mobility The process of evaluating schools on the basis of student performance

and providing rewards or sanctions associated with good or poor performance has led to an increase in social pressure because financial reasons drive school accountability ratings tend to be capitalized into housing values (indirect accountability).

Evidence has showed that accountability systems have led schools to become more productive.

Evidence has also showed that accountability pressures have resulted in strategic behavior with questionable educational benefit.

- Some schools have responded by reclassifying low-achieving students as learning

disabled so their scores will not count against accountability systems.

- Study in Virginia found that there school districts altered their school nutrition

programs on testing days.

- Jacob and Levitt (2003) found that teachers are more likely to cheat and cause schools to

behave differently.

- Good teachers leave schools that are deemed “failing” Studies found that accountability

systems face more pressure on schools that perform well under the pressure to maintain those

high scores than low- achieving schools. (Goldhaber & Hannaway, 2004).

- Boyd (2005) found that the introduction of mandated state testing in New York led to an

increased rate of teacher turnover.

Effect of Increased Accountability Measures on Teacher Retention/Mobility

Has the Change in Accountability Standards paid off?

• Against Standards-Based Assessment– Educators must learn to do new things in the setting in which

they work (Elmore, 2004).

– Illusory emphasis on instruction (Cross City Campaign, 2005).

– Multiple choice testing represents an outdated behaviorist view of learning (Pokewitz et al.).

– Superficial responses of high stakes testing as a motivator (Darling-Hammond, 2002).

New Accountability Measures & The Change Process

• What factors influence change?

• How can instructional leaders build capacity for change?

The Concept of Change

• Change is a process, not an event. It can be planned or unplanned and can be influenced by forces inside and outside of the schoolhouse.

The Capacity for Change

• The level of dissatisfaction the stakeholders are experiencing with current conditions.

• The short and long term costs.

• The extent to which individuals understand the vision to be achieved by the change.

• The consequences of the change.

• The degree of difficulty in making the change.

The Capacity for Change

• For the school leader to make change that is effective and sustained, producing the least amount of conflict, the school must have a capacity for change.

• If the capacity for the desired change is absent, the leader can build capacity.

Building a Capacity for Change

• Establish effective lines of communication.

• Secure community support.

• Acquire support for the new program concept.

• Drive fear out of the schoolhouse.

Building A Capacity For Change

• Work out bargaining agreements.

• Acquire necessary approval from all agencies.

• Identify sources of needed resources.

• Become knowledgeable of effective change strategies.

Fullan’s Change Agent Theory

• The leader establishes readiness for change by identifying and creating four leadership capacities.

• These leadership capacities must be compatible with four organizational capacities.

Leadership Capacities

– Personal Vision

– Inquiry

– Mastery

– Collaboration

Organizational Counterparts

– Shared vision building

– Organizational structure

– Norms and practices of inquiry

– Organizational development

Shared Vision

• Every individual in the organization has a vision, and that vision causes each individual to raise questions about his/her role in the change process and to take a stand for a preferred future.

Inquiry

• Individuals internalize norms, habits, and techniques for continuous learning.

• The individual continuously checks, views, and assesses the initial mental map to make sure it fits.

Mastery

• Individuals clarify what is important and clearly see current reality.

Collaboration

• Forming productive mentoring and peer relationships, team building, and developing partnerships

Change in Accountability Efforts should:

• Use standards and authentic assessments of student achievement as indicators of progress to improve teaching and provide needed supports.

• Expand performance components that provide “tests worth teaching to” (Resnick).

• Eliminate artificial testing barriers to students demonstrating what they know to the fullest extent possible.

• (Jacobsen, Rothstein & Wilder, 2008).

Change in Accountability Efforts should:

• Develop systems that include multiple measures.

• Require and fund diagnostics for students who are not succeeding.

• Use accountability to upgrade teaching and provide the kinds of professional development opportunities, curriculum reforms and resource allocations that standards-based reform anticipates.

(Jacobsen, Rothstein & Wilder, 2008).

Change in Accountability Efforts should:

• Avoid establishing absolute outcome goals.• Ensure that all public institutions make appropriate

contributions to youth development.• Not all traits for which schools should be held

accountable can be measured by paper-and-pencil tests. (Jacobsen, Rothstein & Wilder, 2008).

Future Implications

• More intense focus on teacher quality and teacher preparation programs.

• Encourage performance based evaluations.• Institute peer review systems and teacher mentoring

systems.• More community decision-making.• Continue to reform the reforms.

References

Burke, J. C. (2011). Balancing all sides of the accountability triangle. 18-22.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2002). Standards, Assessments, and Educational Policy: In Pursuit of Genuine Accountability. Educational Testing Services.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Standards, Assessments, and Educational Policy: In pursuit of genuine accountability. Princeton, N.J.: ETS

Elmore, R. Reform and the culture of authority in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly. Vol. 23. No.4 (Nov. 1987) 60-78.

Green, R.E. (2009). Practicing the art of leadership: a problem-based approach to implementing the ISLLC standards. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

References

Hargreaves, A. (2007). School leadership for systemic improvement in finland. helsinki, finland. Ministry of Education.

Heim, M. (n.d.). Accountability in education: A Primer for School Leaders. Pacific Resources for Education and Learning (PREL). Retrieved September 28, 2011, from http://www.prel.org/products/products/accountability.htm

Jacobsen, R. (2008, October 20). Grading education: Getting accountability right. Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved September 28, 2011, from http://www.epi.org/publication/books_grading_education/