Misconceptions of what teacher accountability really is are explored here, along with some valid expectations of the concept.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barro, Stephen M. "An Approach to Developing Accountability Measures for the Public Schools." Phi Delta Kappan,1970, Vol. 52, pp. 196-205.
2.
Campbell, D.T. and Stanley, J.C. "Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research on Teaching ." In N. L. Gage (ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963, pp. 171-246.
3.
Dyer, Henry S. "Controversial Aspects of Educational Accountability." Paper presented to the UFT, Tarrytown, N.Y. , September 26, 1970a.
4.
Dyer, Henry S. "Toward Objective Criteria of Professional Accountability in the Schools of New York City." Phi Delta Kappan,1970b, Vol. 52, pp. 206-11.
5.
Dyer, Henry S. "Guidelines for Drawing Accountability Boundaries ." Nation's Schools, 1972, Vol. 89, pp. 63-4.
6.
Flanagan, J.C. "Units, Scores, and Norms." In E. F. Lindquist (ed.), Educational Measurement . Washington: American Council on Education , 1951, pp. 695-763.
7.
Gaines, Edythe J. "The Future of Accountability." Invited address to the Chicago Conference on Educational Accountability. Princeton: Educational Testing Service, 1971.
8.
Gulliksen, H.Theory of Mental Tests. New York: Wiley, 1950.
9.
Havighurst, Robert J. "Joint Accountability: a Constructive Response to Consumer Demands." Nation's Schools, 1972, Vol. 89, pp. 46-7.
10.
Lennon. Roger T. "Accountability and Performance Contracting." Invited address to theAmerican Educational Research Association , February 5, 1971, New York City.
