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 [see bibliography] 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 [see AEA's mission]. 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.



To accompany the AEA public statement on Educational Accountability


Ahearn, E.M. (2000). Educational accountability: a synthesis of the literature and review of a balanced model of accountability. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.

Airasan, W., & Abrams, L. (2000). The theory and practice of portfolio and performance assessment. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 398.

Amrein, A. T., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). High-stakes testing and student learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18). Retrieved February 6, 2007 from EPAA database.

Amrein, A. T., & Berliner, D. C. (2003). The effects of high-stakes testing on student motivation and learning. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 32.

Ananda, S., & Rabinowitz, S. (2001). Building a workable accountability system: Key decisionpoints for policymakers & educators. San Francisco, CA: WestEd. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED461922)

Ananda, S., & Rabinowitz, S. (2001). High-stakes and assessment innovation: A negative correlation? San Francisco, CA: WestEd. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED462446)

Anthes, K., Saavedra, S., Mathers, J., & Armstrong, J. (2000). How states are responding to low performing schools. State Education Leader, 18(1), 13-14.

Armstrong, J. (1998). Designing and implementing standards-based accountability systems. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Retrieved February 10, 2007, from

Aycock, K., & Blackston, J. (1980). Staff development: A mutual accountability model. The New Albany, Mississippi plan.  (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED230521).

Baker, E. L. (2000). Understanding educational quality: where validity meets technology.  Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED449172)

Baker, E. L. (2001). Testing and assessment: A progress report. Educational Assessment, 7(1), 1-12.

Baker, E. L., & Linn, R. L. (2002). Validity issues for accountability systems (Tech. Rep. No. 585). Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation.

Baker, E. L., Linn, R. L., Herman, J. L., & Koretz, D. (2002). Standards for educational accountability systems (Policy Brief No. 5). Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation.

Bock, R. D., & Wolfe, R. (1996). Audit and review of the Tennessee value-added assessment system. Nashville, TN: Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury.

Borman, G. D., Stringfield, S. C., & Slavin, R. E. (Eds.). (2001). Title I: Compensatory education at the crossroads. Sociocultural, political and historical studies in education.  Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Brennan, R. L. (2001). Some problems, pitfalls, and paradoxes in educational measurement.  Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20(4), 6-18.

Brooks, S. R. (2000). How states can hold schools accountable: The strong schools model of standards-based reform. Seattle, WA: Center for Reinventing Public Education (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED469450)

Brown, P. R. (1990). Accountability in education (Policy Brief No. 14). San Fancisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development.

Buckendahl, C. W., Impara, J. C., & Plake, B. S. (2000, June). Evaluating district performance without a common assessment: Nebraska’s accountability model. Paper presented at the Annual National Conference of the Council of Chief State School Officers on Large-Scale Assessment in Snowbird, UT. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED445058)

California State Department of Education. Alternative schools accountability model: 2001-2002 indicator selection and reporting guide. (2001). Sacramento, CA: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED459197).

Cannell, J. J. (1988). Nationally normed elementary achievement testing in America’s public schools: How all 50 states are above the national average. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 7(2), 5-9.

Carlson, D. (2002, June). All students or the ones we taught? Presentation at the 30th Annual National Conference on Large-Scale Assessment, Council of Chief State School Officers, Snowbird, UT.

Catterall, J. S. (1997). Reflections on economic analysis and education policy: introduction. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 297-299.

Cibulka, J. G., & Derlin, R. L. (1998). Accountability policy adoption to policy sustainability: reforms and systemic initiatives in Colorado and Maryland. Education and Urban Society, 30, 502-515.

Cimbricz, S. (2002). State-mandated testing and teachers' beliefs and practice. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(2). Retrieved February 7, 2007, from

Cizek, G. J. (2001). More unintended consequences of high-stakes testing.  Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20(4), 19–27.

Clark, M., Madaus, G., Pedulla, J., & Shore, A. (2000). An agenda for research on educational testing. (NBETPP Statements Vol. 1, No. 1). Chestnut Hill, MA: National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED456137)

Clarke, M., Haney, W., & Madaus, G. (2001). High stakes testing and high school completion.  (NBETPP Statements Vol. 1, No. 3).  Boston, MA: National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy. Retrieved February 7, 2007, from

Crocker, L. (2002). Stakeholders in comprehensive validation of standards-based assessments: a commentary. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 21(1), 5-6.

Cunningham, W. G., & Sanzo, T. D. (2002). Is high-stakes testing harming lower socioeconomic status schools? NASSP Bulletin, 86, 62-65.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1993). Creating learner-centered accountability. New York: NCREST (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED364592).

Davis, O. A. (1974). Towards an accountability model of the educational process.  Final report. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University, School of Urban and Public Affairs.

Debray, E. H. (1999, April). Incentives in states' educational accountability systems: is the assumption of continuous improvement included? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED430278)

Earl, L. (1999). Assessment and accountability in education: Improvement or surveillance?  Education Canada, 36(3), 4-6.

Ediger, M. (2001). Assessment and high stakes testing. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED449234)

Elliot, S. N., Kettler, R. J., & McKevitt, B. C. (2002). Testing and accommodations research and decision making: The case of "good" scores being highly valued but difficult to achieve for all students. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 35.

Elmore, R. F., Abelman, C. H., & Fuhrman, S. H. (1996). The new accountability in state education reform: From process to performance. In H.F. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education. (pp. 65-98). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute.

English, F. W., & Steffy, B. E. (2001). Deep curriculum alignment: Creating a level playing field for all children on high-stakes tests of educational accountability. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, Inc.

Firestone, W. A., & Mayrowetz, D. (2000). Rethinking "high stakes": Sessons from the United States and England and Wales. Teachers College Record, 102, 724–749.

Ginsberg, R., & Berry, B. (1998). The capability for enhancing accountability.  Educational Policy, 12(1), 48-66.

Glatthorn, A. A. (1999). Curriculum alignment revisited. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 15(1), 26-34.

Goertz, M. E. (1999). Educational reform and instructional change. Education Statistics Quarterly, 1(2), 14-16.

Goertz, M.E. (2001). The federal role in defining "adequate yearly progress": The flexibility/accountability trade-off. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED465211)

Goertz, M.E. (2001). The long march: school performance goals and progress measures in state accountability systems. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED449234)

Groves, P. (2002). "Doesn't it feel morbid here?" High-stakes testing and the widening of the equity gap. Educational Foundations, 16(2), 15-31.

Haertel, E. H. (1999). Validity arguments for high-stakes testing: In search of evidence. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 18(4), 5–9.

Haertel, E. H. (2002). Standard setting as a participatory process: Implications for validation of standards-based accountability programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 21(1), 16–22.

Hawley, W. D., & Valli, L. (1998). Guide to the national partnership for excellence and accountability in teaching. Washington DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Heim, M. (1996). Accountability in education: A primer for school leaders. Honolulu, HI: Pacific Resources for Education and Learning, Hawaii State Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED444267)

Heistad, D., & Spicuzza, R. (2000, April). Measuring school performance to improve student achievement and to reward effective programs. Paper presentated at the Annual American Educational Research Association Conference, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED442824)

Heubert, J. and Hauser, R. (Eds.). (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved February 10, 2002, from

Hill, P. T., Guthrie, J. W., & Pierce, L. C. (1997). Reinventing public education: How contracting can transform American schools. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

Hilliard III, A. G. (2000). Excellence in education versus high-stakes standardized testing.  Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 293-304.

Hoffman, R. G., & Wise, L. L. (2000). School classification accuracy final analysis plan for the commonwealth accountability and testing system (FR-00-26). Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization.

Jones, J. C. (1996). Inside out: Accountability and performance in the California community colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED411022)

Jones, L. V. (2001). Assessing achievement versus high stakes testing: a crucial contrast. Educational Assessment, 7(1), 21-28.

Kane, M. (2001, April). The role of evaluating policy assumptions in validating high-stakes testing programs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association in Seattle, WA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED454251)

Kane, M. (2002). Validating high-stakes testing programs. Educational Measurement, 21(1), 31-41.

Kehres, R. J. (1978). A model for accountability: Education's double-edged sword.  Clearing House, 51, 449-453.

Kemp, J. E. (2000). John Dewey never said it would be easy: designing education in the 21st century. TECHNOS, 9(3), 25-29.

Koretz, D. M. (2002). Limitations in the use of achievement tests as measures of educators' productivity. The Journal of Human Resources, 37, 752-777.

Koretz, D. M. (2003). Using multiple measures to address perverse incentives and score inflation. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(2), 18-26.

Koretz, D. M., McCaffrey, D. F., & Hamilton, L. S. (2001). Toward a framework for validating gains under high-stakes conditions (CSE Tech. Report No. 551). Los Angeles, CA: CRESST/CSE, University of California, Los Angeles, Graduate School of Education and Information Studies. Retrieved on February 10, 2007, from

Kuchapski, R. (1998). Conceptualizing accountability: A liberal framework. In R. J. S. Macpherson (Ed.), The politics of accountability:Educative and international perspectives, (pp. 185-196) Corwin Press: California.

Kupermintz, H., Shepard, L., & Linn, R. (2001, April). Teacher effects as a measure of teacher effectiveness: construct validity considerations in TVAAS (Tennessee Value Added Assessment System). Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Seattle, WA. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED458295)

Lane, S., & Stone, C. A. (2002). Strategies for examining the consequences of assessment and accountability programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 21(1), 23-30.

Laukkanen, R. (1998). Accountability and evaluation: decision-making structures and the utilization of evaluation in Finland.  Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 42(2), 123-133.

Leithwood, K., & Earl, L. (2000). Educational accountability effects: an international perspective.  Peabody Journal of Education, 75(4), 1-18.

Lewis, A. (2000).  High-stakes testing: Trends and issues [Policy Brief].  Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.

Linn, R. L. (1998).  Partitioning responsibility for the evaluation of the consequences of assessment programs.  Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 17 (2), 28–30.

Linn, R. L. (1998). Standards based accountability: Ten suggestions. Retrieved on February 10, 2007, from the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) web site,

Linn, R. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4-16.

Linn, R. L. (2001). Reporting school quality in standards-based accountability systems (Policy Brief No. 3). Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluations, Standards, and Student Testing.

Linn, R. L. (2001). The design and evaluation of educational assessment and accountability systems (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 539). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. Retrieved on February 12, 2007, from

Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L, & Betebenner, D. W. (2002). Accountability systems: implications of requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Educational Researcher, 31(6), 3-16.

Linn, R. L., Betebenner, D. W., & Wheeler, K. S. (1998). Problem choice by test takers: Implications for comparability and construct validity (CSE Tech. Report No. 485). Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. Retrieved on February 10, 2007, from

Linn, R. L., & Gronlund, N. E. (2000). Measurement and assessment in teaching. Des Moines, IA: Prentice-Hall.

Linn, R. L. & Haug, C. (2002). Stability of school-building accountability scores and gains.  Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 29-36.

MacDougall, P. R., and Friedlander, J. (1990). A proposed accountability model for California's community colleges: A paper for discussion. Santa Barbara, CA: Santa Barbara City College.

Macpherson, R. J. S. (1996). Educative accountability: Theory, practice, policy and research in educational administration. Tarrytown, NY: Elsevier Science.

Macpherson, R. J. S. (1998). The politics of accountability: Educative and international perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Martinez, M., & Bray, J. (2002). All over the map: State policies to improve the high school. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.

McLean, J. E., Snyder, S.W., & Lawrence, F. R. (1998, November). A school accountability model. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED428440)

Merrow, J. (2001). Undermining standards. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 652-659.

Miller, M. D., & Linn, R. L. (2000). Validation of performance-based assessments. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 367-378.

Moseley, J. L., & Solomon, D. L. (1997). Confirmative evaluation: a new paradigm for continuous improvement. Performance Improvement, 36(5), 12-16.

Moss, P. A., Schutz, A. (2001). Educational standards, assessment, and the search for consensus. American Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 37-70.

Muncey, D. E., McQuillan, P. J. (1993). Preliminary findings from five-year study of the coalition of essential schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 486-489.

National State Boards of Education. (1998). Public accountability for student success: Standards       for education accountability systems. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Newmann, F. M. (1997). Accountability and school performance: Implications from restructuring schools. Harvard Education Review, 67(1), 41-74.

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2004). School-based management and accountability procedures manual. Raleigh, NC: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED486604)

North Carolina State Department of Public Instruction. (1997). Improving schools study: Another way to look at raising student achievement (a preliminary study). Raleigh, NC: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED421482)

Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Lab. at Brown Univ (2000, April). Equity and high standards: Can we have it both ways? (LAB Education Notes, Vol. 2, No. 1). Providence, RI: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED448503)

Olson, A. R. (1973, February 26). Cooperative accountability project: An overview of the cooperative accountability project. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting in New Orleans, LA.

Outcalt, C., & Rabin, J. (1998). Responding to accountability mandates. Los Angeles, CA: ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED421181)

Packard, R. D., & Dereshiwsky, M. I. (1990). A process assessment model for avaluation, improvement and accountability in effectively meeting organizational purpose and goals [Speech]. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University, Center for Excellence in Education.

Peters, R. O. (1981). Curriculum models, staff development models, and more models: Strategies       to improve accountability in the instructional process and to better manage America's public education [Opinion paper].

Pipho, C. (1997). Standards, assessment, accountability: The tangled triumvirate. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 673-674.

Plake, B. S. (2002). Evaluating the technical quality of educational tests used for high-stakes decisions. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 35(3), 144-152.

Rogosa, D. (1999). Accuracy of individual scores expressed as percentile ranks: Classical test theory calculations (CSE Tech. Report No. 509). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.

Rogosa, D. (1999). Reporting group summary scores in educational assessments: Properties of proportion at or above cut-off (Draft Deliverable). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.

Ryan, K. (2002). Assessment validation in the context of high-stakes assessment.  Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 21(1), 7-15.

Sacks, P. (2000). Predictable losers in testing schemes. School Administrator, 57(11), 6,8-9.

Sanders, W. L., & Horn, S. P. (1995). Educational assessment reassessed: The usefulness of standardized and alternative measures of student achievement as indicators for the assessment of educational outcomes. Educational Policy and Analysis Archives, 3(6).

Shepard, L. A. (1993). Evaluating test validity. Review of Research in Education, 19, 405-450.

Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4-14.

Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of classroom assessment in teaching and learning (CSE Tech. Report 517). Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Los Angeles, Center for the Study of Evaluation, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, Graduate School of Education and Information Studies. Retrieved February 12, 2007, from

Shepard, L. A. (2000). Why is teaching to the test a bad thing? State Education Leader, 1, 9-10.

Shepard, L. A. (2002). The hazards of high-stakes testing. Issues in Science and Technology, 19(2).

Sirotnik, K. A. (2002). Promoting responsible accountability in schools and education. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 662-673.

Slavin, R. E. (1997). Sand, bricks, and seeds: School change strategies and readiness.  Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.

Smith, C. W., & Chapman, R. (1973). Accountability a management tool for teachers [Guide]. Lansing, MI: Michigan State Department of Education.

Smith, M., & O'Day, J. (1991). Putting the pieces together: Systemic school reform (Consortium for Policy Research in Education Policy Brief No. RB-06). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education.

Smith, M. L., & Fey, P. (2000). Validity and accountability in high stakes testing. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 334-344.

Stallings, J. (1983). An accountability model for teacher education. In Smith, D. C. (Ed.), Essential knowledge for beginning educators, (pp. 133-139) American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education: Washington D.C.

Stecher, B. M., & Barron, S. (2001). Unintended consequences of test based accountability when testing in milepost grades. Educational Assessment, 7, 259-281.

Steeves, K. A., Hodgson, J., & Peterson, P. (2002). Are we measuring student success with high stakes testing? Educational Forum, 66, 228-235.

Strike, K. A. (1998). Centralized goal formation, citizenship, and educational pluralism: accountability in liberal democratic societies. Educational Policy, 12, 203-215.

Texas Education Agency. (1999). Accountability manual, 1999. The 1999 accountability rating system for Texas public schools and school districts and preview for the 2000-2003 accountability systems. Austin, TX: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED432812)

Thurlow, M. (1996). Questions and answers: Tough questions about accountability systems and students with disabilities (Synthesis Report No. 24). Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED404802)

Vaughn, E. S., III. (2001). Ethical and appropriate test preparation. ERS Spectrum, 19(2), 43-46.

Waite, D., Boone, M., & McGhee, M. (2001). A critical sociocultural view of accountability. Journal of School Leadership, 11, 182-203.

Wall, D. (2000). The impact of high stakes testing on teaching and learning: Can this be predicted or controlled? System, 28, 499-509.

Wallace, S. O., Sweatt, O., & Acker-Hocevar, M. (1999, October).  Leadership accountability models: Issues of policy and practice. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration, Minneapolis, MN. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED439483)

Washington Education Association. (2003). Reliability, validity, and related issues pertaining to the WASL. Retrieved February 6, 2007, from

Wellman, J. V. (2001). Assessing state accountability systems. Change, 33(2), 46-52.

Wenning, R. J., Herdman, P. A., & Smith, N. (2002). No child left behind: Who is included in new federal accountability requirements? Alexandria, VA: New American Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED469962)

Ysseldyke, J., Krentz, J., Elliott, J., Thurlow, M., Thompson, S., & Moore, M. (1998). NCEO framework for educational accountability: Post-school outcomes. Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes, University of Minnesota. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED425587)


Back to top