HD88 - Report of the Commission on Accountability for Educational Excellence


Executive Summary:
Adopted by the 1996 Session of the General Assembly, House Joint Resolution No. 168 established an I8-member commission on accountability for educational excellence in Virginia's public schools. Citing the "great progress in establishing accountability" resulting from the implementation of the revised Standards of Learning, the resolution states that other components of the Commonwealth's public education system, such as its teachers and schools, might also benefit from standards and accountability requirements that have been "strengthened to complement and support the revised Standards of Learning. . ."

The commission was specifically charged to:

(i) "Develop and recommend a comprehensive plan for statewide student and teacher assessments;

(ii) Communicate and coordinate with other legislative study committees charged with studying and recommending revisions in requirements for remediation, summer school, high school graduation, and the causes of chronic absenteeism;

(iii) Develop and recommend a comprehensive plan for the accreditation of public schools which incorporates the revised standards of learning, and statewide student and teacher assessment goals; and

(iv) Determine appropriate alternatives to maximize 'time-on-task' and to facilitate the productive use of daily instructional time to ensure that each student's educational needs are served."

Education Reform and the Accountability Movement

Mirroring societal, economic, and political forces, education reform in America has assumed many forms in the past three decades. In the 196Os, efforts to improve public education reflected national concern over retaining America's technological superiority. The application of business principles to the administration of public schools characterized reform efforts in the 1970s; schools were to be held accountable for their operations. More recent reform efforts called for the restructuring of public education to meet the needs of students living in the "information age." Responding to this call for change, states pursued a variety of reform. initiatives, such as school choice, school performance assessments, and finance reform. A natural outgrowth of the excellence movement of the 1980s is the recent renewal of interest in standards for public education. Frustration with a lack of significant improvements in education provided impetus for standards-based reform: initiatives linking learning and accountability by making clear what students must learn and what teachers must teach.

Educational Accountability: Standards and Assessments

Whether through the implementation of more rigorous academic standards, new assessment initiatives, or outcome-based accreditation, education reform has turned its focus once again to accountability. Accountability initiatives in public education are as varied and diverse as the states and school systems implementing them, and may include various indicators of pupil and teacher performance, revised evaluation and accreditation initiatives, or post-graduation tracking of students.

Inextricably linked to educational accountability are standards (skills or competencies that are valued) and assessments (the measurement of progress toward the achievement of those standards). Although accountability seems to have become almost synonymous with standardized testing, education scholars are exploring--and school divisions implementing--other more subjective modes of assessing student achievement, such as pupil portfolios, research projects, oral presentations, exhibitions, and essays.

Although interest in alternative assessments has increased, testing remains a significant component of the accountability movement. While educators and policymakers have not roundly called for the elimination of standardized testing, they have expressed concerns about the misuse of tests; some tests designed for low-stakes decisions have been applied to high-stakes decisions, such as graduation or academic promotion.

Accountability initiatives need not be limited to pupil assessments and testing, but may also address teacher qualifications, tenure, and instructional performance; school accreditation; safety and student discipline; tracking of graduates in postsecondary pursuits; and administrative and fiscal issues. More "indirect" accountability initiatives include vouchers, school choice, and charter schools. Accountability initiatives may also authorize state intervention in school operations, financial incentives or penalties, and other "consequences."

Accountability for Virginia's Schools and School Divisions

The concept of educational accountability is not new to Virginia's public school system. Current constitutional and statutory provisions and regulations provide a plethora of mechanisms for the accountability of students, teachers, administrators, schools, and school divisions. The standards, assessments, and consequences integral to any accountability initiative are primarily found in the Standards of Quality (SOQ), the Standards of Learning (SOL), and the Standards of Accreditation (SOA).

Setting forth broad policies and minimum educational requirements for Virginia's public schools, the SOQ also provide for the establishment of the SOL and the SOA. The recently revised SOL, adopted by the Board of Education in June 1995, were crafted to "set reasonable targets and expectations for what teachers need to teach and students need to learn" and to provide "greater accountability on the part of the public schools. . . ." The 1996-98 biennial budget appropriated $6,003,000 in each year for the development and administration of new assessment materials and tests for the new SOL.

The accountability of schools and school boards for quality education is highlighted in the SOA. These accreditation standards must include student outcome measures, requirements and guidelines for instructional programs, staffing levels, auxiliary programs such as library and media services, and graduation requirements, as well as "the philosophy, goals, and objectives of public education in Virginia." The Board of Education undertook a review of the current SOA, developed in 1992, in 1996; proposed revisions are expected to be released in February or March of 1997.

The Commonwealth has revised its current accountability mechanisms to incorporate student outcomes, rather than input measures such as spending levels or class size. Reflecting this philosophy is the Outcome Accountability Project (OAP), which provides annual reports of student performance data as a tool for improving public education in Virginia.

Accountability for Virginia's Students

Consistent with accountability models in other states, the Commonwealth measures student academic progress through a battery of tests and assessments. The Board of Education is directed to prescribe measures, including nationally normed tests, for the Virginia State Assessment Program. Complementing the Board's testing responsibilities is the duty of local school boards to require the administration of appropriate assessments, including the Virginia State Assessment Program, the Virginia Literacy Testing Program, and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) state-by-state assessment. In 1988, the General Assembly added a Literacy Passport requirement to the standards for graduation.

Also influencing the Commonwealth's assessment efforts are the new SOL. In April 1996, the Board of Education announced policy decisions directing the development of a new state testing program. Tests will measure skills and competencies in the four revised SOL subject areas at grades 3, 5, 8, and 11. Data generated from the initial administration of the new SOL tests in spring 1997 are to be used only to determine test validity and reliability; the data may not be used to impose consequences on schools, school divisions, teachers or students. The SOL tests are expected to be operational in spring 1998, with public reporting of test results following this second test administration.

Accountability for Professional Personnel

Alternative assessments for beginning teachers--performance-based tests that require the application rather than a demonstration of knowledge--have been explored, as has performance-based licensing. In the Commonwealth, accountability for professional personnel is primarily addressed through training, licensure, and employment laws and regulations.

Other Accountability Initiatives in Virginia

Fiscal accountability is addressed in statutory provisions governing the expenditure of school funds and the development of local school board budgets, which are approved by the local governing body. Affording further accountability for school boards is a statute allowing aggrieved parents to petition the circuit court for review of a particular school board action. Parental accountability for pupil discipline is evidenced in various compulsory attendance and truancy laws, many of which were strengthened by the 1996 Session of the General Assembly. Other indirect accountability programs may include a collaborative school improvement planning initiative, a variety of open enrollment policies, and magnet and special emphasis schools.

Issues for Study

That educational excellence has been a continuing concern in the Commonwealth is evidenced by the plethora of legislative initiatives--both successful and failed--that address accountability for students, teachers, and schools. Although. many of these measures were set aside by previous legislative action, it is nonetheless important to consider the specific objectives targeted in each bill, whether the measure effectively addressed that accountability objective, and ways in which the measure might be modified to enhance educational performance or accountability. The development of a comprehensive accountability initiative in Virginia--one that best addresses those educational goals and standards valued in the Commonwealth--is contingent upon a careful review of these previous legislative initiatives.

Also essential to the development of any accountability initiative--and to the creation of the comprehensive plan for student and teacher assessment cited in HJR 168-is consideration of current statewide student assessments, remediation, summer school, teacher evaluation, school facility review, and requirements for high school graduation. Similarly, consideration of the Board of Education's review and proposed revision of the Standards of Accreditation is necessary to create a comprehensive plan for the accreditation of public schools that incorporates the revised standards of learning, and statewide student and teacher assessment goals.

The work of other study committees, such as the Commission on the Future of Public Education, the Joint Subcommittee Studying Remedial Summer School Programs, the Standing Committee on School Dropout Prevention, the Joint Subcommittee Studying the Efficacy and Appropriateness of Establishing a School Incentive Reward Program in the Commonwealth, and the Commission on Educational Infrastructure, may also merit further consideration. Closer examination of educational accountability initiatives in other states and in the Commonwealth may also prove fruitful. Finally, in seeking to provide accountability for educational excellence in our public schools, it is necessary to consider not only the financial and policy implications of implementing a comprehensive evaluation plan, but also ways to ensure that school personnel and parents are active participants in the development of educational policies and that these persons are jointly responsible and accountable for achieving educational excellence in the Commonwealth's public schools.