|
Sitemap
| Jobs
|
Contact Us
|
Building Smart Education Systems |
Voices in Urban Education
Archives
Evidence-Based Practice
VUE Number 6, Winter 2005
| VUE Home | Archives | Order Print Copy |
EXCERPT:
Bringing Measurement to District-Based Accountability: The Challenge for State Education Departments
By David Abbott
Assistant Commissioner, Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
> Author's Biography
> Full article [PDF: 10 pages]
In response to new demands, state departments of education are changing the way they measure school and district performance. An effective approach is to look at a broad range of indicators and to provide guidance to districts so they can better support low-performing schools.
Over the past few years, federal and state policies have dramatically transformed the role of state education departments in evaluating school and district performance and program quality. The No Child Left Behind Act has placed accountability for student achievement — as measured by performance on standardized state assessments — at the forefront of state agendas.At the same time, many states, such as Rhode Island, have transformed their own accountability systems from authority-based systems, which issue rules based on school performance, to inquiry-based systems, which give districts information and tools to help the districts give needed assistance to schools.
This combination of factors makes designing state-level accountability systems a difficult task. State education agencies are not only concerned with schools' meeting federal expectations, but must also be aware of how well those schools and districts are progressing toward developing their own internal accountability systems. Effective quality assurance and program evaluation rest on an understanding of the complex forces at work in schools and school systems.
Effective accountability requires information from multiple sources to inform state departments of education as they conduct analyses and perform their new functions. Standardized-test results are not enough; states need to collect and analyze a broad range of evidence about school and district programs so they can support districts in their efforts to improve practices that support learning.
Rhode Island has adopted a system of accountability in public education that focuses on the school district's role in maintaining an internal system of continuous improvement. Schools are answerable to their districts, which in turn are responsible to, and supported by, the state education agency. Direct state intervention in individual schools is limited to schools in need of corrective action. Building a district's capacity to design, implement, and evaluate its ongoing reform efforts has become the state's highest priority.
This focus on the capacity of districts to embrace standards-based reform has greatly changed the demands upon the state education agency. The state must set clear standards and expectations for district actions across a number of content areas, and those standards must be supported by an infrastructure that identifies a range of proven management tools for districts to use to meet those expectations.
The variation of demands among urban, suburban, and rural school districts calls for a wide variety of tools. Bringing all students to high standards requires both statewide and local student assessments, curricula that are aligned with state standards, effective instructional practices, high-quality teacher preparation and training, integration of parents into the instructional process, and a coordinated accountability structure that facilitates informed decision making. Measuring the efficacy of these program and practice components is a significant challenge for both states and districts.
Rhode Island relies on two complementary accountability systems for improving student performance: School Accountability for Learning and Teaching (SALT) and Progressive Support and Intervention (PSI). Both systems rely on the use of assessment results and other evidence of student performance to inform systemic, ongoing improvement efforts. The SALT process is an annual cycle of school-based improvement activities consisting of self-study, planning, implementation of action plans, program evaluation, and public reporting. PSI is a results-driven system of accountability in which the state works with districts to address the demands of schools identified as “in need of improvement.” Both SALT and PSI focus not only on ultimate student outcomes, but also on the systemic components that support effective teaching and learning practices.
Archives
Evidence-Based Practice
VUE Number 6, Winter 2005
| VUE Home | Archives | Order Print Copy |
EXCERPT:
Bringing Measurement to District-Based Accountability: The Challenge for State Education Departments
By David Abbott
Assistant Commissioner, Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
> Author's Biography
> Full article [PDF: 10 pages]
In response to new demands, state departments of education are changing the way they measure school and district performance. An effective approach is to look at a broad range of indicators and to provide guidance to districts so they can better support low-performing schools.
Over the past few years, federal and state policies have dramatically transformed the role of state education departments in evaluating school and district performance and program quality. The No Child Left Behind Act has placed accountability for student achievement — as measured by performance on standardized state assessments — at the forefront of state agendas.At the same time, many states, such as Rhode Island, have transformed their own accountability systems from authority-based systems, which issue rules based on school performance, to inquiry-based systems, which give districts information and tools to help the districts give needed assistance to schools.
This combination of factors makes designing state-level accountability systems a difficult task. State education agencies are not only concerned with schools' meeting federal expectations, but must also be aware of how well those schools and districts are progressing toward developing their own internal accountability systems. Effective quality assurance and program evaluation rest on an understanding of the complex forces at work in schools and school systems.
Effective accountability requires information from multiple sources to inform state departments of education as they conduct analyses and perform their new functions. Standardized-test results are not enough; states need to collect and analyze a broad range of evidence about school and district programs so they can support districts in their efforts to improve practices that support learning.
Rhode Island has adopted a system of accountability in public education that focuses on the school district's role in maintaining an internal system of continuous improvement. Schools are answerable to their districts, which in turn are responsible to, and supported by, the state education agency. Direct state intervention in individual schools is limited to schools in need of corrective action. Building a district's capacity to design, implement, and evaluate its ongoing reform efforts has become the state's highest priority.
This focus on the capacity of districts to embrace standards-based reform has greatly changed the demands upon the state education agency. The state must set clear standards and expectations for district actions across a number of content areas, and those standards must be supported by an infrastructure that identifies a range of proven management tools for districts to use to meet those expectations.
The variation of demands among urban, suburban, and rural school districts calls for a wide variety of tools. Bringing all students to high standards requires both statewide and local student assessments, curricula that are aligned with state standards, effective instructional practices, high-quality teacher preparation and training, integration of parents into the instructional process, and a coordinated accountability structure that facilitates informed decision making. Measuring the efficacy of these program and practice components is a significant challenge for both states and districts.
Rhode Island relies on two complementary accountability systems for improving student performance: School Accountability for Learning and Teaching (SALT) and Progressive Support and Intervention (PSI). Both systems rely on the use of assessment results and other evidence of student performance to inform systemic, ongoing improvement efforts. The SALT process is an annual cycle of school-based improvement activities consisting of self-study, planning, implementation of action plans, program evaluation, and public reporting. PSI is a results-driven system of accountability in which the state works with districts to address the demands of schools identified as “in need of improvement.” Both SALT and PSI focus not only on ultimate student outcomes, but also on the systemic components that support effective teaching and learning practices.
|
Annenberg Institute for School Reform Brown University, Box 1985 Providence, RI 02912 |
Telephone: 401.863.7790 Fax: 401.863.1290 |
AISR_info@brown.edu
|
© all material AISR