Author: Kenneth Klau

Publisher:

Published: 2010

Total Pages: 33

ISBN-13:

State educational accountability models are in transition. Whether modifying the present accountability system to comply with existing state and federal requirements or anticipating new ones--such as the U.S. Department of Education's (ED) Race to the Top competition--recording the experiences of state education agencies (SEAs) that are currently undergoing transitions is both informative and important. Despite varied contexts, demands, and priorities, states charged with implementing transitions in their accountability models may find the experiences of the Accountability Systems and Reporting (ASR) collaborative member states useful in their own planning. Defining "accountability" has become more complex as individuals' understanding of it has grown. In the past, definitions have focused primarily on the interaction of goals, indicators, decision rules, and consequences. Although those components are still central to any accountability model, more recently the focus has expanded to include building capacity and providing appropriate supports. The state experiences described herein reflect the changing purpose of accountability from identifying and punishing ineffective schools and districts to providing appropriate supports and cultivating effectiveness. The audience for this paper is educational leaders responsible for the development, implementation, and evaluation of large-scale, school- and district-based state accountability systems. Using the "Key Elements" paper as a starting point for identifying possible topics, the authors asked state education leaders from participating states to share their experiences of an accountability transition in their state. Each member was asked the following: (1) State event producing transition: What was the accountability transition in your state?; (2) Context of transition: What triggered this transition? What was the event or policy decision?; (3) Effects of transition: What components of the state accountability system were or will be affected by the transition?; (4) Lessons learned: What lessons were learned from the transition in your state?; (5) Changes in goals: How have the goals of your state accountability system changed due to this transition?; (6) Communication, training, and support: What were or will be your plans for communication, training, and support?; and (7) Evaluation and system monitoring: What were or will be your plans for evaluation and system monitoring? To help the reader locate the information that is most useful to them, the content is organized in two ways: (1) Components of accountability; and (2) Individual state case studies. (Contains 1 footnote.) [This paper was prepared with William Auty and Pat Roschewski.].