The International Observatory on Academic Achievement - Documentary search

File number :
POEE-ISC-03e

Bibliographic reference :
Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE), Research for Action (RFA), OMG Center for Collaborative Learning (1998). The Accountability System: Defining Responsibility for Student Achievement. University of Pennsylvania.

Abstract :

The Children Achieving Challenge (CAC) was a reform implemented from 1995 to 2000 in 259 schools in Philadelphia, U.S.A. Its goal was to increase the academic achievement rate of students from underprivileged environments. One of the main components of the CAC reform was accountability, a principle involving rewards and sanctions applied to school personnel and students alike.

CAC Accountability Components
1) Criteria: Definition of skills to develop and detailed curricula for the main subjects;
2) The Stanford-9 (SAT-9) achievement test: This test, which determines six performance levels for basic skills, was adapted based on the criteria defined as part of the CAC reform;
3) The performance responsibility index (PRI): The purpose of this document was to provide each school with short and long-term goals to be reached within four and twelve years. Rewards, help or sanctions were to be given out based on whether or not these goals were attained;
4) Keystoning: This was the most radical sanction by virtue of which the superintendent had the power to transfer up to 75% of the personnel in schools whose results were thought to be a cause for concern;
5) The performance objectives of the superintendent’s office: This team was also committed to accountability and received monetary rewards and penalties based on the progress of student achievement rates;
6) Assessment of teachers: A new type of assessment was introduced, with emphasis put on teaching methods, the educational climate, etc.;
7) Passing and graduation requirements;
8) The schedule.

Responses of the System to the New Accountability Measures
The authors of this report conducted qualitative research among 21 schools and 14 school groups from primary and secondary schools. Data was gathered from interviews done with members of the school district and a survey answered by teachers.

The researchers conclude that the accountability components may have been introduced too quickly, leaving the teachers with not enough time to prepare for them. Support from the school district may also have been inadequate and too slow to come. However, all teachers had been informed of the criteria before the spring of 1997 and believed that these had the potential to benefit students. It also seemed that the PRI had not been properly understood or accepted, even though the teachers thought it contributed to improving the performance of schools. Many teachers said they felt more responsible for the achievement of their students and that the implementation of the SAT-9 test changed their practices. However, few of them thought this test reflected the new criteria or the curriculum. Finally, the new way of assessing teachers was said not to have been well understood by the teachers themselves.

Results of the First Accountability Period (after two years)
Even if the passing rate of students for the SAT-9 test increased significantly between 1995 and 1997, results were controversial in several respects. Most schools did improve, however, the results of 15 out of 259 worsened. These schools were offered help in the form of support teams managed by members of the school district and comprised of parents, school members, teachers and administrators. Two schools were also subjected to keystoning.

Preliminary Assessment of the Accountability System
To be effective, accountability must be easily understood and committed to by all players. Performance must be tied to consequences, rewards or sanctions to motivate all those involved to reach their goals. An accountability system should include help for students who have trouble meeting their obligations. It should also be tied to the improvement of state academic criteria. Progress with respect to criteria must be measured using adequate and honest technical tools. Assessment must be exhaustive to ensure students have access to the entire curriculum. Finally, teacher assessments should encourage the use of educational practices that have already proven to be efficient.

For more information on this topic, see file POEE-ISC-04.

To find out more about the Annenberg Challenge, log on to the following Website: http://www.annenberginstitute.org/Challenge/index.html

Key Words :
Accountability, School Reform, Assessment, Keystoning, Support, Underprivileged Environments, Educational Inequalities, Qualitative Analysis, Children Achieving Challenge

Monitored Countries :
United States