The Accountability Mantra: One State’s Approach to School Improvement
Steve Grossman, Ed.D.,
Senior Research Associate
Laurel Butterfield, Public Relations Assistant
Accountability is the mantra of educational reform. Since the mid-1980’s it has been gaining momentum leading up to the 2001 renewal of the federal education laws we all know as No Child Left Behind (NCLB). “The emphasis on performance improvement and accountability over the last ten years represents an important change from past federal educational initiatives, which focused primarily on ensuring that services were provided.” The regulations of NCLB require increasing standards, clear performance goals and accountability for results. Embedded in the regulations are specific adequate yearly progress (AYP) goals for improvements in students’ achievement of academic proficiency as measured by statewide tests. Schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress for a number of years face sanctions and/or interventions that increase in severity.
South Carolina created a unique system of assessment and intervention for schools in which students were performing poorly on a number of measures (including state tests). They called the program the “External Review Team Program” or ERT for short. External review teams are groups of experienced and trained professionals who work with school districts to facilitate school improvement. They use a complex protocol that examines Leadership and Governance, Instruction and Curriculum, Professional Development, and Student Performance. They review these aspects of the school and make recommendations for the improvement of the school’s operations and hopefully, student performance.
Hezel Associates was asked to evaluate the ERT program from 2001 to 2005 in terms of its implementation and effectiveness, and make recommendations to improve the program. Hezel Associates completed a comprehensive study that included surveys, on-site visits, interviews, analysis of student achievement and school districts’ ratings, among other things.
The Evaluation shared that, in fact, the ERT Program had been implemented as planned and conducted in a professional manner. It created the impetus for many valuable services and resources to be provided to underperforming schools. The program resulted in teachers and administrators focusing on clear goals for instruction, and creating and implementing plans to achieve those goals.
The study also found that a number of poorly performing schools continued to lag behind in measures of performance, and although their students were making some progress, it was insufficient. The ERT program, while beneficial to all, did not seem to be powerful enough to move persistently underperforming schools off the “Unsatisfactory” list. Recommendations were made to South Carolina regarding how the program might become more effective for the chronic underperformers.
With all of the resources that states have invested in developing, training, and launching large-scale improvement and intervention efforts like the ERTs studied, it stands to reason that education researchers should spend time considering whether and how such efforts have contributed to schools’ performance. Each study that makes use of accountability-derived data has the potential to contribute to States' ability to turn around failing schools, and helps policy makers at the state level develop, test, and refine large-scale improvements.
To download a copy of the white paper on our research of the South Carolina ERT Program presented at AERA, go to www.hezel.com/resources3.html