How to cite this articleEditorial projects at the Centre for Research in Education. (September 10, 2004). Responsibility. Education Week. Excerpt from Month Day, Year of www.edweek.org/policy-politics/accountability/2004/09 The concerns raised by Welsh, Graham and Williams in their study of teachers` responses to the threat of district recovery underscore the potential negative consequences of increased accountability pressures in hierarchical systems of government. Following O`Day (2002), it is questionable whether the complexity of teaching in such difficult school contexts can be significantly managed by increasing the pressure on schools and key actors. While the theory is sufficiently clear at a general level, States face difficult design challenges with technical and policy dimensions that relate to each element of the accountability system. In practice, the policy of government standards and assessments has led to rapid and dramatic changes in government testing and related policies. Each element listed above was problematic in some cases.

For example, content standards have become a frequent source of litigation. In science, the question of whether or not evolution should be taught has been an issue, from the Scopes process to the deliberations of the Kansas School Board in 1999. Even more seemingly neutral issues have given rise to great debate. For example, while the National Council of Math Teachers has urged states to develop standards focused on the study of mathematical ideas, logical reasoning, and the ability to solve non-routine problems, many people still want state standards to require memorization of mathematical facts and procedures. In the third article, Welsh, Graham, and Williams examine how teachers in Georgia perceive and respond to the threat of school takeovers by the state`s “recovery districts,” a school improvement strategy that goes hand in hand with test-based accountability (TBA). They point out that several states have already created such districts for consistently underperforming schools, and other states are preparing to implement similar measures. Based on qualitative interviews with teachers working in schools and districts eligible for government ownership, they report major concerns about the sustainability of this school improvement strategy. They identify a number of negative consequences associated with increased pressure on these schools, such as dropping out and retention strategies. Rewards and Sanctions. As a result of the business and organizational literature, the designers of accountability mechanisms sought to create tangible rewards for high performance and significant penalties for poor performance. The aim was to create real incentives for change, rather than relying solely on the goodwill and best efforts of teachers and administrators.

In addition, educators are accountable to multiple groups. Research on internal accountability shows how professional accountability can strengthen or combat government evaluation systems. Other work suggests that the public may not understand or support government standards and assessments. If they don`t, they can protest at the state level, or local school boards don`t prioritize achieving high standards, undermining efforts to achieve them. In addition, school-level accountability was developed to encourage teachers to work together to improve instruction, as opposed to programs such as incentive pay that were perceived to encourage competition among school staff (Clotfelter & Ladd, 1996). Only formal authority can be used to enforce compliance, but this authority can be reinforced by incentives related to performance judged by the supervisor. These incentives may include promotions, salary increases and job revocation. Such incentives work best when agents are held accountable for work processes that are relatively easy to specify in procedures – such as teaching certain content that may be set out in a written curriculum – and that can be observed by supervisors. Incentives are more difficult to use when work is unpredictable and uncertain. Several efforts have been made to increase bureaucratic power through various forms of performance pay and related approaches. While such experiments continue, American education has largely stuck to compensation systems that reward experience and formal education and provide supervisors with few resources to reward subordinates.

One of the main reasons for the difficulty of introducing such systems was the inability to design such systems which, in the opinion of teachers, adequately reflect their work, rather than reflecting the capricious judgments of senior administrators. In Texas, students and teachers know that the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) is important. Testing plays a central role in the state`s accountability system, for students and institutions. Under state law, students must pass each section of the exit level exam to complete high school. Students can retake any part of the test that they do not pass. Students can now take the test up to eight times. If the full battery of exams is implemented at the end of the course, students may be able to graduate by passing these tests instead of TAAS. This older system persists into the twenty-first century, although it has undergone changes as some forms of location-based management have shifted the balance between bureaucratic and political responsibility, and accountability to more central local leaders. New approaches to teacher admission have also increased professional responsibility. The most important developments, however, have been the expansion of two forms of liability that have historically played a lesser role in education: market responsibility and legal liability.

The new federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 calls on states to learn from the past 15 years and refine their accountability systems to provide the right combination of pressure and support for school improvement. Over the coming months, as leaders determine what these accountability systems will look like, advocates must actively engage and stand guard to ensure that these new systems are directly focused on improving the success of ALL students.