Educational Researcher

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Linn, R. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Educational Researcher, Vol. 32, No. 7, 3-13 (2003)
DOI: 10.3102/0013189X032007003

Accountability: Responsibility and Reasonable Expectations

Robert L. Linn, 2002–2003 AERA President

He is a distinguished professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder, School of Education, Campus Box 249, Boulder, CO 80309-0249; robert.linn{at}colorado.edu. He is also Co-Director of the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. His research interests include educational measurement and the design and impact of educational accountability systems

Some of the central features of current educational accountability systems are discussed using the requirements under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 as the primary example. It is argued that broadly shared responsibility is needed for accountability systems to contribute to improved education. It is also suggested that systems need to be designed in ways that are consistent with research and past experience. This requires the setting of ambitious performance standards and improvement targets, but ones that can reasonably be achieved given sufficient effort and supporting resources. These design features are contrasted with the NCLB requirements. Illustrations of some of the state responses to the NCLB demands that attempt to avoid the over-identification of schools for improvement and sanctions are provided.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am Educ Res JHome page
S. W. Cawthon
Hidden Benefits and Unintended Consequences of No Child Left Behind Policies for Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing
American Educational Research Journal, September 1, 2007; 44(3): 460 - 492.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHERHome page
S. Kelly and L. Monczunski
Overcoming the Volatility in School-Level Gain Scores: A New Approach to Identifying Value Added With Cross-Sectional Data
Educational Researcher, June 1, 2007; 36(5): 279 - 287.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am Educ Res JHome page
S. C. Stringfield and M. E. Yakimowski-Srebnick
Promise, Progress, Problems, and Paradoxes of Three Phases of Accountability: A Longitudinal Case Study of the Baltimore City Public Schools
American Educational Research Journal, January 1, 2005; 42(1): 43 - 75.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Am Educ Res JHome page
J. Lee and K. K. Wong
The Impact of Accountability on Racial and Socioeconomic Equity: Considering Both School Resources and Achievement Outcomes
American Educational Research Journal, January 1, 2004; 41(4): 797 - 832.
[Abstract] [PDF]



AER home page RER home page EPA home page JEB home page RRE home page