Struggling with School Accountability Issues

Measuring school and system performance presents a major challenge and opportunity for governments. The Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC) held a national consultation on Accountability one year ago. There was little consensus on key indicators for which the system must be held accountable, and many education providers rejected measurement of results as 'narrowing the purposes of education'. This spring, an independent report of the Office of the B.C. Comptroller General found the education ministry and the school system 'need to improve measurement and reporting of how well students achieve intended goals'.

A recent survey by the Education Commission of the States also revealed the disturbing message that "while state leaders know how much they spend on education each year, they probably don't know what these dollars buy or what impact they are having on teaching and learning." In January 1997, Education Week published a comprehensive report card on the condition of public education in 50 states and noted a troubling lack of useful hard data on performance:

"Public education is a vast enterprise.... Its success is clearly linked to the welfare of the nation and the future of our children. Yet we do not know in any but the crudest way, how well our education system is performing."

As Canadian governments struggle to develop accountability frameworks which provide useful data for guiding educational decisions and program investments, they focus on these questions:

• What are our priorities and targets for future learning gains?
• How can we cause schools to focus on goal-setting for improved learning?
• What is the evidence that a program significantly improves student learning?
• What are exemplary programs and what can we learn from them?
• How can funds be reallocated to support what works?

In attempting to create a climate in which all schools can become centres of excellence, some underlying principles for building a culture of continuous improvement in schools are now emerging internationally. These may be summarized as:

• identifying areas of weak performance and announcing targets for improvement
• holding school districts accountable for achieving targets
• publishing annual school performance profiles
• ensuring a school-based process to examine achievement
• improving personnel practices
• linking funding to performance
• broadening opportunities for successful learning through school choice plans

Some specific strategies now being piloted in a wide range of jurisdictions may inform the search for ways to build a culture of continuous school improvement. Here are a number of accountability models to examine for their long-term impact on raising student achievement:

North York, Toronto: The district publishes annual profiles of all its schools in a binder for parents. A four-page report card on each school provides annual test results, demographics, special programs and school improvement plans, giving parents assessment information in a meaningful context.

Dallas: Teacher and principal performance rewards are tied to learning results. Each year $2.4 million is awarded to school staffs where the 'value added' in student learning outcomes is highest. Schools compete against their own previous scores, not against arbitrary norms, and are clustered according to variables beyond school control.

Alberta: The Three-year Business Plan for Education provided by Alberta Education publishes comparative progress with previous years on a wide variety of provincial indicators, and announces specific targets for the following year.

Charter schools: These alternative public schools may continue to exist only if students demonstrate improved results. Renewal of the charter every three to five years is based on success in meeting educational goals specified in the charter.

Chicago: Superintendent Paul Vallas placed over 100 schools on academic probation last year. Test results this spring show marked improvement across the district. The largest gains were made by the poorest performing students, where schools on probation changed instructional methods and extended the school day. Principals and staff at troubled high schools have been required to reapply for their jobs. Failing students were required to attend summer classes to meet tough new standards or repeat the grade.

Nova Scotia: Individual school councils are mandated to develop and oversee school improvement plans. The council will 'prepare an annual accountability report describing school improvement activities undertaken during the year and specific results achieved'.

North Carolina: The principal evaluation plan in Charlotte-Mecklenburg combines achievement results-based evaluations with cash bonus awards. The plan rewards educational excellence, provides needed assistance, and removes ineffective principals promptly. Schools who meet their improvement targets are rewarded with bonuses.

Seattle: Superintendent John Stanford's mission to reform Seattle's public schools includes exit exams, altering teacher tenure and seniority provisions, and tying principal evaluations to gains in student achievement.

Britain: Excellence in Schools, a government White Paper (July 1997) introduces 'zero tolerance of underperformance' through measures such as setting challenging achievement targets individually for each school, enhancing annual school league tables to show degree of student improvement, and tackling failing schools through focused support followed if necessary by take-over by a successful school, or re-opening under new management.

Intervention in Failing Schools: Twenty-three U.S. states have 'academic bankruptcy' provisions in their legislation, allowing them to intervene directly in persistently low-performing schools. Intervention measures range from additional training and resources, to replacing district or school leadership, replacing school staff, or closing the school.

Texas: 800,000 students enrolled in poor-performing schools are eligible to transfer to other schools. Low-performing schools were identified as those who had more than 50% of their students fail the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills. The state offers financial incentives to other school districts accepting these students.