This article argues that outcome-based accountability systems are not likely to close the achievement gap. Using California as an example, it suggests that states need to pay closer attention to learning conditions and powerful programs that deliver quality interventions. The article describes the design of the California low-performing schools program, discusses reasons for its limited effectiveness, and suggests design features that may increase the chances for the state to reach its equity goals. The article argues with an eye on California that input-based design features ought to complement outcome-based accountability. Such designs require standards for adequate learning conditions alongside performance standards, mechanisms to detect systemic performance barriers, and the provision of sophisticated evaluation, high-quality support, and consequences for responsible actors.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BradyR. (2003). Can failing schools be fixed?Washington, DC: Thomas Fordham Foundation.
2.
ConleyD. (2003). The new landscape of educational policy and governance.New York: Teachers College Press.
3.
Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE). (2001). U.S. Department of Education regional forum on turning around low performing schools: Implications for Policy (Policy Bulletin pb-01-01). Philadelphia: Author.
4.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2003). State support to low-performing schools.Washington, DC: Author.
5.
FergusonC. (2000). The progress of education in Texas.Austin: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
6.
FuhrmanS., & ElmoreR. (2001). Holding schools accountable: Is it working?Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1), 67–72.
7.
FuhrmanS. H. (1999). The new accountability (RB-27-January 1999). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
8.
GoeL. (2001). Implementation of California's Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program: Preliminary findings. Paper presented at the Annual American Educational Research Association Conference, Seattle.
9.
GoertzM. E. (2001). Redefining government roles in an era of standards-based reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1), 62–66.
10.
GrubbW. N. (2000). Opening classrooms and improving teaching: Lessons from school inspections in England. Teachers College Record, 102(4), 696–723.
11.
HanushekE. A. (1994). Making schools work: Improving performance and controlling costs.Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
12.
HessG. A.Jr. (2003). Reconstitution three years later. Education and Urban Society, 35(3), 82–105.
13.
IngersollR. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499–534.
14.
JustA. E., BoeseL. E., BurkhardtR., CarstensL. J., DevineM., & GaffneyT. (2001). Public school accountability (1999–2000) Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program (III USP): How low performing schools in California are facing the challenge of improving student achievement.Sacramento: California Department of Education, Division of Policy and Evaluation.
15.
LankfordH., LoebS., & WykoffJ. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 37–62.
16.
MalenB., CroningerR., MunceyD., & Redmond-JonesD. (2002). Reconstitution schools: “Testing” the “theory of action”. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 113–132.
17.
MeyerJ., & RowanB. (1978). The structure of educational organizations. In MeyerM. W. (Ed.), Environments and organizations (pp. 78–109). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
18.
MintropH. (2002). State oversight and the improvement of low-performing schools in California (Expert witness report for Eliezer Williams et al. versus State of California). Retrieved August 15, 2004, from www.decentschools.org
19.
MintropH. (2003). The limits of sanctions in low-performing schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(3). Retrieved September 28, 2004, from http://epaa.asu.edu
20.
MintropH. (2004). Schools on probation. How accountability works (and doesn't work).New York: Teachers College Press.
21.
MintropH. & Associates. (2001). Schools on probation: Pressure, meaning, capacity and the improvement of schools.Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.
22.
MintropH., & PapazianR. (2003). Systemic strategies to improve low-performing schools.Washington, DC: National Governors Association.
23.
O'DayJ. (in press). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. In FuhrmanS., & ElmoreR. (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems.New York: Teachers College Press.
24.
O'DayJ. A., & SmithM. S. (1993). Systemic reform and educational opportunity. In FuhrmanS. H. (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system (pp. 250–312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
25.
Ofsted. (2002). The annual report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools.London: Office for Standards in Education.
26.
PetersonP., RabeB., & WongK. (1991). The maturation of redistributive programs. In OddenA. (Ed.), Education policy implementation (pp. 65–80). Albany: State University of New York Press.
27.
ReynoldsD. (1991). Changing ineffective schools. In AinscowM. (Ed.), Effective schools for all.London: David Fulton.
28.
ReynoldsD. (1996). Turning round ineffective schools. In GrayD., ReynoldsD., Fitz-GibbonC., & JessonD. (Eds.), Merging traditions: The future of research on school effectiveness and school improvement.London: Cassell.
29.
SmithM. S., & O'DayJ. (1991). Systemic school reform. In FuhrmanS. H., & MalenB. (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing: The 1990 yearbook of the politics of education (pp. 233–267). London: Falmer Press.
30.
ThompsonC., & ZeuliJ. (1999). The frame and the tapestry: Standards-based reform and professional development. In Darling-HammondL., & SykesG. (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 341–375). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
WilcoxB., & GrayJ. (1996). Inspecting schools: Holding schools to account and helping schools to improve.Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
33.
WilsonT. A. (1996). Reaching for a better standard: English school inspection and the dilemma of accountability for American schools.New York: Teachers College Press.
34.
WongK., & AnagnostopoulosD. (1998). Can integrated governance reconstruct teaching? Lessons learned from two low-performing Chicago high schools. In MacphersonR. (Ed.), The politics of accountability (pp. 26–42). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
35.
WongK. K., AnagnostopoulosD., & RutledgeS. (1998). Accommodation and conflict: The implementation of Chicago's probation and reconstitution policies. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, New York.
