Change in Educational Accountability

1
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
2
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?

3
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

4
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

5
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

6
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).

7
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.
  Johnsons Legislation Act of 1965. It was
  initially called War on Poverty.

8
Past Accountability Measures

• 1983-A Nation at Risk
• Found the low quality of public education in the
  U.S.A was endangering the
• countrys 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.

9
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.

10
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.

11
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.

12
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.

13
Sources of Accountability

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

14
Race to the Top (RTT)

• 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.

15
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 states ability to
  improve its lowest-
• achieving schools.
• - professional development to improve skills of
  teachers.

16
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 of teachers. Evaluated teacher
preparation programs effectiveness of colleges
and publically 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.
17
Who are subject to APPR Regulations?

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

18
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

19
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)

20
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.

21
Burton Clarks Accountability Triangle
State Priorities

• 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.

Academic Concerns (Professional)
Market Forces (Market)
22
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 departmentsbolsters autonomy

23
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.

24
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.

25
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.

26
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

27
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.

28
Effect of Increased Accountability Measures on
Teacher Retention/Mobility
- 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.
29
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).

30
New Accountability Measures The
Change Process

• What factors influence change?
• How can instructional leaders build capacity for
  change?

31
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.

32
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.

33
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.

34
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.

35
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.

36
Fullans 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.

37
Leadership Capacities

• Personal Vision
• Inquiry
• Mastery
• Collaboration

38
Organizational Counterparts

• Shared vision building
• Organizational structure
• Norms and practices of inquiry
• Organizational development

39
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.

40
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.

41
Mastery

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

42
Collaboration

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

43
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).

44
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).

45
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).

46
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.

47
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.

48
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/produ
  cts/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/public
  ation/books_grading_education/