Public Statement:
Educational Accountability
American Evaluation
Association
Approved November 1, 2006
Download this statement as a pdf flyer by
clicking here.
The
American Evaluation Association (AEA) supports educational
accountability systems that are methodologically sound and produce
credible, comprehensive, context-sensitive information. Such systems
can strengthen teaching, learning, and educational governance. With
this statement, AEA hopes to contribute to the continuing public
debate and evolution of educational accountability systems and, in
concert with our Guiding Principles for Evaluators and our
earlier statement on high stakes-testing in education, to affirm and
extend AEA’s tradition of encouraging high-quality evaluation.
Good
evaluation has much in common with good accountability systems,
including responsibility for assuring the highest quality data and
their most appropriate use. Accountability
systems are mechanisms by which (1) responsibilities and those
responsible are identified, (2) evidence is collected and evaluated
and, (3) based on the evidence, appropriate remedies, assistance,
rewards, and sanctions are applied by those in authority. The
relevance, accuracy, and completeness of the evidence are central to
appropriate decision-making about policies, institutions, programs,
and personnel and to the appropriateness of rewards and sanctions.
The
research literature identifies several important concerns that
may arise with educational accountability systems, including:
-
over-reliance on standardized test scores that
are not necessarily accurate measures of student learning,
especially for very young and for historically underserved
students, and that do not capture complex educational processes
or achievements;
-
definitions of success that require test score
increases that are higher or faster than historical evidence
suggests is possible; and
-
a one-size-fits-all approach that may be
insensitive to local contextual variables or to local
educational efforts.
The
consequences of an accountability system that is not accurately or
completely measuring student learning can be significant. An
over-emphasis on standardized tests may lead to a decrease in the
scope or depth of educational experiences for students, if the tests
do not accurately measure the learning of some. In addition, if
resource allocations are based on difficult-to-attain standards of
success, an entire educational system may suffer. Consider in
particular those schools that are struggling to serve students who
face the greatest obstacles to learning. These schools may be at
risk for having resources unfairly underestimated or
disproportionately withheld.
AEA is
dedicated to improving evaluation practice and increasing the
appropriate use of evaluation data
To encourage the highest quality
accountability systems, we advocate approaches that feature rigor
and appropriate methodological and procedural safeguards. AEA
encourages movement in the following directions for educational
accountability systems.
-
Multiple measures:
Empirical evidence from multiple measures, data sources, and
data types is essential to valid judgments of progress and to
appropriate consequences. For example, at the local level, if
teachers' assessments as well as standardized test scores were
incorporated into accountability systems, this could provide
more detailed information regarding curriculum mastery by
students.
-
Measurement of individual student progress
over time: Many traditional
assessments examine current achievement levels only. Including
longitudinal data on student progress over time would increase
the sensitivity of the system to changes in learning made by
individual students and could
help identify the effects of services provided.
-
Context sensitive reporting:
Reporting systems that promote awareness of the many
influences affecting outcomes are part of a complete and
accurate assessment of school quality and student achievement.
Findings from research and evaluations should be reported and
considered part of a comprehensive educational accountability
system.
-
Data-based resource allocations:
If resource allocations take into consideration the needs and
difficulties that are identified from comprehensive data of many
types, the result could be greater equity in funding and
increased support for teachers and schools that serve low-income
and other high-risk students.
-
Accessible appeals processes:
The opportunity to appeal decisions enhances the fairness and
transparency of an educational accountability system that is
itself accountable for the appropriateness of its decisions and
the accuracy, completeness, and relevance of its evidence.
-
Public participation and access:
Ideally, accountability systems should be developed and
implemented with broad participation by many stakeholders. A
system that is open to public involvement and scrutiny is likely
to result in a more complete understanding of educational
institutions, their contexts, the nature and success of their
efforts, and the effects and appropriateness of the consequences
of accountability systems.
Educational accountability has the potential to improve the quality
of our schools and the experiences and achievements of our children.
The concerns and strategies outlined above are intended to encourage
educational accountability systems that fulfill that potential.
Development of
this statement
A task force
composed of David Bernstein, Linda Mabry (chair), Howard Mzumara,
Katherine Ryan, and Maria Whitsett was authorized by the AEA
Board of Directors to prepare a public statement for issuance by
the organization on the subject of educational accountability.
Plans, progress, and a draft were presented to AEA members at
three town hall sessions during the 2003-2005 association
conferences. Additional internal review of drafts was provided
by ten AEA members. External review was also provided by a state
commissioner of education, a prominent measurement author and
technical advisor to many states, a former president of the
National Council for Measurement in Education and American
Educational Research Association, and the president of a
regional education board. The resulting statement was submitted
to the AEA Public Affairs Committee, revised based on their
feedback, edited or reviewed by two former AEA journal editors
and two presidents, and resubmitted. Preliminary Board approval
was obtained June 24, 2006, after which the statement was
released for online review and comment by the full AEA
membership, revised again, and approved by the Board November 1,
2006.
|
