This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Linn, R. L. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Accountability: Responsibility and Reasonable Expectations

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.

Educational Researcher, Vol. 32, No. 7, 3-13 (2003)
DOI: 10.3102/0013189X032007003


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. Lee Is Test-Driven External Accountability Effective? Synthesizing the Evidence From Cross-State Causal-Comparative and Correlational Studies Review of Educational Research, September 1, 2008; 78(3): 608 - 644. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				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]

				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]

				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]

				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]