The federal Every Student Succeeds Act requires states to develop accountability measures in five indicator areas, including the new “school quality or student success” category. States also provide relative weights for each indicator.
Research Questions
This new indicator is an opportunity to further develop multiple accountability measures beyond the common focus on test scores. How did states respond to this opportunity? Why did states respond differently?
Research Design
A review of state ESSA plans is followed by regression analyses to help explain the different weights given by states to accountability indicators.
Findings
The average weight assigned to this new indicator is 11% at the elementary level and 20% at the high school level. There is a strong preference for measures of student success rather than institution-based measures of school quality. States giving this indicator the greatest weight are most influenced by a tradition of policy liberalism and, to a lesser degree, NAEP scores.
Conclusion
Most states are taking a limited and cautious approach to this new indicator. They continue an emphasis on test measures and assessing individual student performance. In a smaller number of states, there is a more significant movement toward the use of multiple accountability measures.
AldemanC. (2017). The case against ESSA. In HessF. M., & EdenM. (Eds.), The Every Student Succeeds Act: What it means for schools, systems, and states (pp. 91—106). Harvard Education Press.
AnagnostopoulosD.RutledgeS. A., & JacobsenR. (2013). Mapping the information infrastructure of accountability. In AnagnostopoulosD.RutledgeS. A., & JacobsenR. (Eds.), The infrastructure of accountability: Data use and the transformation of American education (pp. 1—20). Harvard Education Press.
6.
BaumgartnerF. R., & JonesB. D. (2015). The politics of information: Problem definition and the course of public policy in America. University of Chicago Press.
BerryF. S., & BerryW. D. (2018). Innovation and diffusion models in policy research. In WeibleC. M., & SabatierP. A. (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (4th ed., pp. 253—300). Westview Press.
9.
BoehmkeF. J., & SkinnerP. (2012). State policy innovativeness revisited. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 123, 303—329.
10.
BousheyG. (2010). Policy diffusion dynamics in America. Cambridge University Press.
11.
BuckleyK. (2017). Innovative approaches and measurement considerations for the selection of the school quality and student success indicator under ESSA. Council of Chief State School Officers.
12.
CarlsonD. (2018). Testing and accountability: What we have learned and where do we go? In HessF. M., & McShaneM. Q. (Eds.), Bush–Obama school reform: Lessons learned (pp. 13—32). Harvard Education Press.
13.
CarnoyM., & LoebS. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 244, 305—331.
Darling-HammondL.WilhoitG., & PittengerL. (2014). Accountability for college and career readiness: Developing a new paradigm. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 2286. http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n86.2014
DeeT. S., & JacobB. (2011). The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 303, 418—446.
20.
DemingD. J., & FiglioD. (2016). Accountability in US education: Applying lessons from K-12 experience to higher education. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 303, 33—56.
EgaliteA. J.FusarelliL. D., & FusarelliB. C. (2017). Will decentralization affect educational inequity? The Every Student Succeeds Act. Educational Administration Quarterly, 535, 757—781.
24.
ElmoreR. F. (2004). Conclusion: The problem of stakes in performance-based accountability systems. In FuhrmanS. H., & ElmoreR. F. (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education (pp. 274—296). Teachers College Press.
FeuerM. J. (2008). Future directions for educational accountability: Notes for a political economy of measurement. In RyanK. E., & ShepardL. A. (Eds.), The future of test-based accountability (pp. 293—306). Routledge.
27.
HackmanD. G.MalinJ. R., & BraggD. D. (2019). An analysis of college and career readiness emphasis in ESSA state accountability plans. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27160. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.4441
28.
HamiltonL. S.SchwartzH. L.StecherB. M., & SteeleJ. L. (2013). Improving accountability through expanded measures of performance. Journal of Educational Administration, 514, 453—475.
29.
HanushekE. A., & RaymondM. E. (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 242, 297—327.
30.
HenigJ. R. (2012). The politics of data use. Teachers College Record, 11411, 1—32.
31.
HenigJ. R. (2013). Forward. In AnagnostopoulosD.RutledgeS. A., & JacobsenR. (Eds.), The infrastructure of accountability: Data use and the transformation of American education (pp. vii—xiii). Harvard Education Press.
32.
HermanJ. L. (2004). The effects of testing on instruction. In FuhrmanS. H., & ElmoreR. F. (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education (pp. 141—167). Teachers College Press.
33.
HermanJ. L. (2008). Accountability and assessment: Is public interest in K-12 education being served? In RyanK. E., & ShepardL. A. (Eds.), The future of test-based accountability (pp. 211—232). Routledge.
34.
HessF. M., & EdenM. (2017). The Every Student Succeeds Act: What it means for schools, systems, and states. Harvard Education Press.
35.
JonesK. (Ed.). (2006). Democratic school accountability: A model for school improvement. Rowman & Littlefield Education.
KarchA. (2007). Democratic laboratories: Policy diffusion among the American states. University of Michigan Press.
38.
KoretzD. (2017). The testing charade: Pretending to make schools better. University of Chicago Press.
39.
LinnR. L. (2008). Educational accountability systems. In RyanK. E., & ShepardL. A. (Eds.), The future of test-based accountability (pp. 3—25). Routledge.
40.
LovelessT.CostrellR. M., & CubanL. (2005). Test-based accountability: The promise and the perils. Brookings Papers on Education Policy8, 7—45. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20062554?seq=1
41.
MannaP. (2011). Collision course: Federal education policy meets state and local realities. CQ Press.
McDermottK. A. (2003). What causes variation in states’ accountability policies?Peabody Journal of Education, 784, 153—176.
45.
McDonnellL. M. (2013). Educational accountability and policy feedback. Educational Policy, 272, 170—189.
46.
McGuinnP. (2016). From No Child Left Behind to the Every Student Succeeds Act: Federalism and the education legacy of the Obama administration. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 463, 392—415.
47.
MeierD., & KnoesterM. (2017). Beyond testing. Teachers College Press.
48.
MintromM., & VergariS. (1998). Policy networks and innovation diffusion: The case of state education reforms. The Journal of Politics, 601, 126—148.
49.
MoeT. M. (2015). Vested interests and political institutions. Political Science Quarterly, 1302, 277—318.
50.
National Research Council. (2011). Incentives and test-based accountability in education. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12521
51.
NiceD. (1994). Policy innovation in state government. Iowa State University Press.
PiersonP. (2004). Politics in time: History, institutions, and social analysis. Princeton University Press.
58.
PlankS. B., & CondliffeB. F. (2013). Pressure of the season: An examination of classroom quality and high-stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 505, 1152—1182.
RenzulliL. A., & RoscignoV. J. (2005). Charter school policy, implementation, and diffusion across the United States. Sociology of Education, 784, 344—366.
RyanK. E., & ShepardL. A. (Eds.) (2008). The future of test-based accountability. Routledge.
64.
SaultzA.FusarelliL. D., & McEachinA. (2017). The Every Student Succeeds Act, the decline of the federal role in education policy, and the curbing of executive authority. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 473, 426—444.
65.
SchneiderJ. (2017). Beyond test scores: A better way to measure school quality. Harvard University Press.
SorensJ.MuediniF., & RugerW. P. (2008). U.S. state and local public policies in 2006: A new database. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 83, 209—326.
68.
SossJ.SchramS. F., & VartanianT. P. (2001). Setting the terms of relief: Explaining state policy choices in the devolution revolution. American Journal of Political Science, 452, 378—395.
69.
WestM. (2017). The case for ESSA. In HessF. M., & EdenM. (Eds.), The Every Student Succeeds Act: What it means for schools, systems, and states (pp. 75—90). Harvard Education Press.
