The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) institutionalizes the reliance on accountability and assessment systems as a key mechanism for improving student achievement (Linn, Baker, & Betebenner, 2002). However, there is a fundamental tension between performance measurement systems, which do serve stakeholders and public interests through monitoring, and these kinds of indicators where representations of program quality are oversimplified (Stake, 2001). Evaluators are uniquely situated to made a significant contribution in the dialogue about the merits and shortcomings of educational accountability systems. Suggestions concerning how evaluation can contribute to improving and changing accountability systems are presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abma, T. A. (2001). Reflexive dialogues: A story about the development of injury prevention in two performing arts schools. Evaluation, 7, 238-254.
2.
American Evaluation Association. (2001). American Evaluation Association position statement on high stakes testing in Pre K-12 education. Retrieved March 30, 2002; from http://www.eval.org/hst3.htmreference.
3.
Baker, E. L., Linn, R. L., Herman, J. L., & Koretz, D. (2002). Standards for educational accountability systems (Policy Brief No. 5). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
4.
Carlson, D. (2000). All students or the ones we taught? Paper presented at the Thirtieth Annual National Conference on Large Scale Assessment, Council of Chief School Officers, Snowbird, UT.
5.
Chudowsky, N., & Behuniak, P. (1997). Establishing the consequential validity for large scale performance assessments. Paper presented at the National Council of Measurement in Education, Chicago.
6.
Clotfelter, C. T., & Ladd, H. F. (1996). Recognizing and awarding success in public schools. In H. F. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 23-63). Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
7.
Cole, N. S., & Zieky, M. J. (2001). The new faces of fairness. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 369-382.
8.
Cronbach, L. J., Ambron, S. R., Dornbsuch, S. M., Hess, R. D., Hornik, R. C., Phillips, D. C., Walker, D. F., & Weiner, S. S. (1980). Toward a reform of program evaluation: Aims, methods, and institutional arrangements. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
9.
Cronbach, L. J. (1988). Five perspectives on validity argument. In H. Wainer & H. Braun (Eds.), Test validity. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
10.
Educational Testing Service. (2001). A measured response: Americans speak on education reform. Retrieved October 10, 2001; from http://ets.org/aboutets/news/01052401.html.
11.
Eisner, E. W. (2001). What does it mean to say a school is doing well?Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 367-372.
12.
Elmore, R. F., Abelman, C. H., & Fuhrman, S. H. (1996). The new accountability in state education reform: From process to performance. In H. F. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 65-98). Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
13.
Ferguson, R. F., & Ladd, H. (1996). How and why money matters. In H. F. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 265-298). Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
14.
Greene, J. C. (1999). The inequality of performance measurements. Evaluation, 5, 160-172.
15.
Greene, J. A. (2000). Voices in conversation? Struggling for inclusion. In K. Ryan & L. DeStefano (Eds.), Evaluation as a democratic process: Promoting inclusion, dialogue, and deliberation (pp. 13-26). New Directions for Evaluation (No. 85). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
16.
Greene, J. C. (2001a, January 25). Beyond accountability. Keynote address at the annual meeting of the Southeast Evaluation Association, Tallahassee, FL.
17.
Greene, J. C. (2001b). Dialogue in evaluation: A relational perspective. Evaluation, 7, 181-187.
18.
Guskey, T. R. (Ed.). (1994). High stakes performance assessment: Perspectives on Kentucky’s educational reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
19.
Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and difference. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
20.
Hanushek, E. A. (1996). Comments on chapters two, three, and four. In H. F. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 128-136). Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
21.
Henry, G. T. (2001). How modern democracies are shaping evaluation and the emerging challenges for evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 22, 419-430.
22.
Heubert, J. P., & Hauer, R. M. (Eds.). (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
23.
House, E., & Howe, K. (1999). Values in evaluation and social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
Jacob, B. A. (2001). Getting tough? The impact of high school graduation exams. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 99-121.
25.
Karlsson, O. (2001). Critical dialogue: Its value and meaning. Evaluation, 7, 188-203.
26.
Koretz, D. M., Barron, S., Mitchell, K. J., & Stecher, B. M. (1996). Perceived effects of the Kentucky instruction results information district. MR-792-PCT/FF Santa Monica, CA.
27.
Ladd, H. F. (Ed.). (1996). Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
28.
Linn, R. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4-16.
29.
Linn, R. (2001). The design and evaluation of educational assessment and accountability systems (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 509). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
30.
Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Betebenner, D. W. (2002). Accountability systems: Implications of requirement of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Systems (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 567). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
31.
Linn, R. L., & Haug, C. (2002). Stability of school-building accountability scores and gains. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 29-36.
32.
Mark, M. M. (2002). Toward a classification of different evaluator roles. In K. E. Ryan & T. A. Schwandt (Eds.), Exploring evaluator role and identity. Greenwich, CT: InfoAge Publishing.
33.
Mark, M. M., Henry, G., & Julnes, G. (2000). Evaluation: An integrated framework for understanding, guiding, and improving policies and programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
34.
Mathison, S. (2000). Deliberation, evaluation, and democracy. In K. Ryan & L. DeStefano (Eds.), Evaluation as a democratic process: Promoting deliberation, dialogue, and inclusion (pp. 85-90). New Directions for Evaluation (No. 85). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
35.
McDonald, B. (1976). Evaluation and the control of education. In D. Tawney (Ed.), Curriculum evaluation today: Trends and implications (pp. 125-134). London: Macmillan Education.
36.
Moss, P. A., & Schultz, A. (2001). Educational standards assessment and the search for consensus. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 37-70.
37.
Ryan, K. E. (2002). Assessment validation in the context of high-stakes assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17, 7-15.
38.
Ryan, K. E., & DeStefano, L. (2001). Dialogue as a democratizing evaluation method. Evaluation, 7, 195-210.
39.
Schwandt, T. A. (1989). Recapturing moral discourse in evaluation. Educational Researcher, 18(8), 11-16.
40.
Schwandt, T. A. (2001). A postscript on thinking about dialogue. Evaluation, 7, 264-276.
41.
Stake, R. E. (1967). The countenance of educational evaluation. Teachers College Record, 68, 523-540.
42.
Stake, R. E. (2001). How modern democracies are shaping evaluation and the emerging challenges for evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 22, 349-354.
43.
Stecher, B., & Chun, T. (2001). School and classroom practices during two years of educational reform in Washington state (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 550). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
44.
Stronach, I., Halsall, R., & Hustler, D. (2002). Future imperfect: Evaluation in dystopian times. In K. E. Ryan & T. A. Schwandt (Eds.), Exploring evaluator role and identity. Greenwich, CT: InfoAge Publishing.
45.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46.
Weiss, C. H. (1998). Evaluation: methods for studying programs and policies. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
47.
Wholey, J. S. (1994). Assessing the feasibility and likely usefulness of evaluation. In J. Wholey, H. Hatry, & K. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation (pp. 15-39). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
48.
Willingham, W. W., & Cole, N. S. (1997). Gender and fair assessment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
