View
215
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
7/31/2019 Education Sector: Some Assembly Required
1/12
education sector reports
www.educationsector.org
Some Assembly Required:Building a Better AccountabilitySystem for California
By Kevin Carey
7/31/2019 Education Sector: Some Assembly Required
2/12
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was unded by the Stuart Foundation. Education
Sector thanks the oundation or its support. The views
expressed in the paper are those o the author alone.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
KEVIN CAREYis director o the education policy program
at the New America Foundation and ormer policy director
o Education Sector. He can be reached at carey@
newamerica.net.
ABOUT EDUCATION SECTOR
Education Sector is an independent think tank that
challenges conventional thinking in education policy.We are a nonprot, nonpartisan organization committed
to achieving measurable impact in education, both by
improving existing reorm initiatives and by developing new,
innovative solutions to our nations most pressing education
problems.
Copyright 2012 Education Sector
Education Sector encourages the free use, reproduction, and dis-tribution of our ideas, perspectives, and analyses. Our CreativeCommons licensing allows for the noncommercial use of allEducation Sector authored or commissioned materials. We require
attribution for all use. For more information and instructions onthe commercial use of our materials, please visit our website,www.educationsector.org.
1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 850, Washington, D.C. 20036202.552.2840 www.educationsector.org
7/31/2019 Education Sector: Some Assembly Required
3/12
1 Education Sector Reports: Some Assembly Required July 2012 www.educationsector.org
But when the bill reached the governors desk, he
pulled out his veto pen. When Browns rst stint as
governor o Caliornia ended in January 1983, the
states public education system was still seen as a
national model. The strict property tax limitationsand broader anti-tax movement birthed in the
Golden State in the 1970s were just beginning to
erode the nancial oundations o the states public
schools.A Nation at Risk, the landmark critique o
American public education, would be released later
that year, launching an era o bipartisan support
or standardized testing and school accountability,
culminating with the 2001 No Child Let Behind Act
(NCLB) and state-managed systems like the API.
The way people thought, acted, and spoke about
education policy had changed dramatically in theprevious three decades, and, it seemed, very little o
it was to Browns liking. During his 2010 gubernatorial
campaign, he spoke out against standardized testing.2
This led some to believe that Brown would support
the broad changes in SB 547, which reduced the
infuence o such tests on school accountability. They
didnt realize that, to Brown, those changes were not
nearly enough.
In a two-page veto message, Brown declared:
This bill is yet another siren song o school reorm...
while SB 547 attempts to improve the API, it
relies on the same quantitative and standardized
paradigm at the heart o the current system. The
criticism o the API is that it has led schools to
ocus too narrowly on tested subjects and ignore
other subjects and matters that are vital to a well-
rounded education. SB 547 certainly would add
more things to measure, but it is doubtul that it
would actually improve our schools. Adding more
speedometers to a broken car wont turn it into a
high-perorming machine.
Over the last 50 years, academic experts have
subjected Caliornia to unceasing pedagogicalchange and experimentation. The current ashion
is to collect endless quantitative data to populate
ever-changing indicators o perormance to
distinguish the educational good rom the
educational bad. Instead o recognizing that
perhaps we have reached testing nirvana,
editorialists and academics alike call or ever more
measurement visions and revisions.
On October 8, 2011, California Gov. Jerry Brown took a stand.
Throughout the 2011 session of the California General Assembly,
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg had been pushing
legislation designed to revamp the states system for holding K-12schools accountable for student success. Californias Academic
Performance Index (API) system hadnt been updated since 1999 and
relied mostly on standardized tests of basic prociency in reading
and math. Steinbergs bill, SB 547, would have changed the system
to include graduation rates and measures of career and college
readiness.1 The bill passed both the Assembly and Senate by wide
margins and with bipartisan support, in addition to the backing of
diverse organizations including business groups, charter school
operators, and school administrators.
7/31/2019 Education Sector: Some Assembly Required
4/12
2 Education Sector Reports: Some Assembly Required July 2012 www.educationsector.org
A sign hung in Albert Einsteins oce read Not
everything that counts can be counted, and not
everything that can be counted counts.
SB 547 nowhere mentions good character or love
o learning. It does allude to student excitement
and creativity, but does not take the qualitiesseriously because they cant be placed in a data
stream. Lost in the bills turgid mandates is any
recognition that qualityis undamentally dierent
rom quantity.
In his letter, Brown oered no real solutions to actually
improve Caliornias public schools. His aversion to
all things quantitative bordered on anti-empiricism
and was hard to square with the realities o creating
policy or a state that educates more than six million
students every day.
But the letter correctly identied the major dilemmas
acing education policymakers today, and not just in
Caliornia. Even as legislators and executives parry
in Sacramento, a similar debate has been playing out
in the White House, in Congress, and in statehouses
nationwide.
Browns lament and the broader debate come down
to three questions. First, what kind o inormation
should be used to make judgments about the success
o educators and educational institutions? Second,
what is the best way o interpreting that inormation?
Third, having interpreted the right inormation in theright way, what should be done to help more students
learn?
Yet even as pundits, politicians, and interest groups
have spent the last decade waging an oten-
ideological battle over school reorm, educators
and public ocials in states and districts across
the country and overseas have been building a
new oundation o inormation and practice that
could, i implemented correctly, satisy even the
most suspicious, Brown-like critics o education
accountability. The pieces are alling into place. All
that remains is or public leaders to put them together
in the right way.
GATHERING MOREMEANINGFUL DATA
The Caliornia API system is based primarily on
student test scores in reading/language and math.
While science and social science tests are also
included, the results receive less weight in the overall
API score than do reading and math, particularly or
elementary and middle schools. In this respect, the
system is very similar to NCLB, which requires annualreading and math tests every year in grades three
through eight and once in high school, as well as a
token science assessment in grades three through
ve, six through eight, and nine through 12.
The problems with this approach are obvious. We
expect our public schools to accomplish ar more
than to inculcate reading and math skills. In addition
to subjects including history, science, literature, arts,
oreign language, and physical education, schools
are expected to teach character, discipline, and
problem-solving, and to produce critical thinkers andcommunicators who are prepared to thrive in higher
education, the workplace, and civic lie. Accountability
systems that ignore these goals run the risk o
distorting educational decision-making by creating
incentives or educators to unduly ocus on the
subjects that are part o the system at the expense o
those that are not.
Math and language were not randomly chosen as
the ocus o school accountability, o course. They
represent the oundational skills on which most other
learning depends. Indeed, there is little evidencein national test score data to suggest that student
learning in subjects such as civics, geography,
science, and history has suered as a result o
accountability-driven preerence or reading and math
under NCLB. American ourth- and eighth-graders
scored better in history in 2010 than in 2001, or
exampleperhaps because its hard to learn history i
you dont know how to read.3
The pieces are falling into place.
All that remains is for public
leaders to put them together in
the right way.
7/31/2019 Education Sector: Some Assembly Required
5/12
3 Education Sector Reports: Some Assembly Required July 2012 www.educationsector.org
Nonetheless, accountability systems that ignore
much o what schools expect or students suer rom
a undamental lack o legitimacy. Systems seen as
illegitimate tend to produce antagonistic relationships
with those being held accountablenot the best
environment or producing sustained excellence. The
problem, however, is that accountability systemsrequire the collection o valid, comparable inormation,
and the main tool available or gathering such
inormation is standardized testing. Tests present
problems o their own: they are expensive, time-
consuming, and risk ocusing schools on mindless
test-prep instead o authentic learning. Plus, Einstein
was right: tests are better at measuring some things
than others.
But the debate over which subjects and measures
should be included in accountability systems oten
misses a larger reality: elementary and secondary
education is a means to an end. This is not to say
that learning is not valuable or its own sake. But the
primary goal o educating children is to prepare them
to be successul learners as adultsto teach them
how to think and give them the basic knowledge
to acquire deeper expertise. Thats why the large
majority o states have moved to adopt the CommonCore State Standards, which were explicitly designed
to represent the knowledge and skills that our young
people need or success in college and careers.4
When the API and NCLB systems were being
developed in the late 1990s and early 2000s, building
accountability systems around direct measures
o student success in higher education and the
workplace was an undertaking ar beyond the logistic
capacity o most states. At that time, many states
didnt even gather basic academic inormation about
their students in a consistent manner. School, district,
and state education bureaucracies hadnt ully made
the transition rom paper to electronic records. Only a
handul o states had so-called student unit-recorddata systems that could calculate, or example, what
percentage o students graduating rom a given high
school went on to succeed in college or a promising
career.
But things have changed. Through a combination
o state and ederal investments and the relentless
march o inormation technology, most states now
have sophisticated data systems that ollow students
as they travel through the public school system into
college and the workplace.
This means that states no longer have to rely solely
on proxy measures or college and career readiness
such as standardized test scores. They can nd out
whether students actually succeeded in college by
tracking measures including college entrance rates,
persistence in higher education, and the percentage
o students who are orced to take non-credit
remedial courses in college. Similarly, states can use
Department o Labor and other data systems to nd
out what happens to students who leave the K-12
system and go into the workorce and the armed
services.5
Shiting rom proxy measures o preparation to actual
measures o success has the advantage o reducing
the amount o inormation accountability systems
need to gather. A lot goes into preparing someone
to succeed in college. Students need oundational
language and mathematics skills, the ability to
communicate orally and in writing, personal discipline,
and a acility or working with those o diverse
backgrounds. Rather than laboriously constructing
methods o assessing every one o these things
bearing the cost in time and money, and adjustingor errors o measurement reliability and validity
accountability systems can ocus on a smaller number
o bottom-line outcome measures.6
Figure 1, which appeared in a recent Education
Sector report by Anne Hyslop and Bill Tucker,
shows how inormation about college success can
signicantly alter the picture o K-12 success.7
Shifting from proxy measures of
preparation to actual measures
of success has the advantage
of reducing the amount of
information accountability
systems need to gather.
7/31/2019 Education Sector: Some Assembly Required
6/12
4 Education Sector Reports: Some Assembly Required July 2012 www.educationsector.org
One o these demographically similar Caliornia highschools scored 778 on the API, near the 800 threshold
beyond which schools are essentially exempt rom
accountability. The other scored much lower, at 698.
But the school with the substandard API has a higher
graduation rate and ar more o those students enroll
in college. This isnt just about having more typical
college-bound studentsthe dierence in the college-
going rate among low-income students is larger still.
Brown, however, has implemented or proposed
unding cuts to several dierent Caliornia agencies
that collect education inormation.
8
The governor hasspoken o the need to create education inormation
that serves local educators making decisions on the
ground. Such inormation is denitely needed, but it
shouldnt come at the expense o centrally collected
inormation that allows or statewide analysis and
comparison. Such cuts represent a pound-oolish
approach to government. Inormation is cheap in
the grand scheme o things and vital or tracking
long-term educational results. In holding schoolsaccountable, Caliornia should use outcome measures
including rates o college remediation, persistence,
credit accumulation, and degree completion. It should
also track completion o vocational training and
apprenticeship programs, military enlistment, and
attainment o proessional licenses and certication,
to gauge success among students who go directly
into jobs.
WORKING TOWARD BETTER
DATA INTERPRETATIONGathering better inormation about student outcomes
will improve educational accountability systems.
But thats only the rst stepthe next is interpreting
the inormation. Speedometers are easy to read;
spreadsheets o student test scores less so. And one
o the crucial dimensions o educational perormance
data embedded in NCLB and the API is time.
Figure 1. Similar Schools, Different OutcomesWith more informationhigh school graduation, college enrollment, and enrollment for low-income studentsa
revised accountability system could alter current perceptions of school performance.
Source: Caliornia Department o Education.
Note: College enrollment rates include graduates that enrolled in public and private postsecondary institutions nationally within 16 months o highschool completion.
API SCORE GRADUATIONRATES
COLLEGEENROLLMENT
LOW-INCOMECOLLEGE ENROLLMENT
-80 +4.5% +19.8% +25%
77895.1%
85.7%
65.9%
81.5%
56.5%
90.6%698
7/31/2019 Education Sector: Some Assembly Required
7/12
5 Education Sector Reports: Some Assembly Required July 2012 www.educationsector.org
American schooling is organized around units o
time, in particular the year. By convention, the
circumstances in which students learntheir peers,
their teachers, the curriculum they ollow, the building
in which they studytypically change every year.
Whether this is actually a good idea deserves more
scrutiny than it receives. But it is the way o things,and accountability systems have been designed
accordingly. NCLB and state accountability systems
all render their judgments annually.
They also ocus on absolute measures o student
learning. This is a change rom prior practice,
when students were generally evaluated on norm-
reerenced tests like the SAT-10, which yields scores
in percentiles: how students ared relative to other
students who took the test. The newer, NCLB-based
accountability systems used criterion-reerenced
tests designed to gauge student mastery o aparticular domain o learning. States dened a certain
level o mastery as procient and students met that
level or did not, irrespective o the perormance o
their peers.
The switch to criterion-reerenced exams and
prociency rates refected the conviction that there are
certain things students must know to succeed in lie,
college, and careers. It ollowed, among the designers
o NCLB, that educational accountability systems
should embody that conviction. For many, this belie
rose to the level o moral urgency: an accountabilitysystem that did not judge schools by the percentage
o students procient on a criterion-reerenced test
did not refect a legitimate commitment to the notion
that all students can learn.
The problem came when absolute measures o
student learning and annual evaluation o students,
schools, and districts intersected. Because, o course,
an absolute measure o what students know at a given
point in time refects everything that has happened
to them beore, not just what has happened to them
over the prior year in school. The obvious remedy wasto measure only how much they had learned during
the relevant time period: growth in learning over the
previous year. But as with data systems that track
student progress rom high school to college and
the workplace, the technical inrastructure needed
to calculate growth measures was lacking in many
states at the time o NCLB and API implementation.
Students werent tested in every grade, nor were there
data systems to know that, or example, the John
Smith who scored 710 on the ourth-grade math test
in one school district was the same John Smith who
moved with his parents to a new district on the other
side o the state and scored 750 on the th-grade
math test.
That, too, has changed. Most states can now track
annual progress among students on standardized
tests, which allows them to calculate growth
measures o student progress. As Richard Lee Colvin
recently wrote or Education Sector, several high-
poverty schools in Los Angeles provide excellent
examples o how growth measures open up an
important new lens on school perormance.9 Ater
a change in leadership in 2009, Audubon Middle
school in Los Angeles showed little improvement
in terms o overall prociency. Only by examining
individual student growth was the school district ableto determine that students were making substantial
progress at Audubon. They had just started so
ar below the prociency line that they hadnt yet
caught up. Instead o closing or radically overhauling
Audubon, the district worked to support the eorts
that had led to recent success.
During the 2000s, the Bush administration allowed
15 states to experiment with adding growth
measures to their NCLB accountability systems.
They required states to use a standard called
growth-to-prociency, which essentially measuredwhether growth among non-procient students was
rapid enough to bring them to prociency within a
relatively short time period, usually three or our years.
This refected a legitimate ear among advocates
or traditionally underserved students that unless
the growth measure was anchored to prociency,
schools would never be accountable or helping low-
perorming students catch up. I John Smith moves
to a new school district and his th-grade teachers
determine that, due to a substandard elementary
school education, he is reading at only the second
grade level, this represents a signicant and arguablyunair burden on the new district. But it doesnt
change the act that John Smith has no other district
to educate him, and that he needs to learn to read.
The growth model experiments had little eect
relatively ew low-perorming schools were getting
enough growth to put students on a short-run
prociency trajectory.10 Few but not all, and
7/31/2019 Education Sector: Some Assembly Required
8/12
6 Education Sector Reports: Some Assembly Required July 2012 www.educationsector.org
create school-level growth measures grew during
the 2000s, yielding a variety o approaches to
incorporating the inormation into accountability
systems. One model subsequently adopted by
a number o states was pioneered in Colorado,
which created a user-riendly interace on the state
Department o Education website designed to show
how dierent schools compared when viewed through
lenses o prociency and growth simultaneously.
The schools in the lower right-hand quadrant o
Figure 2, which was generated rom the Colorado
Department o Education website, exhibit unusually
accountability systems that ail to recognize schools
achieving the greatest success in the most dicult
circumstances are, by denition, broken. There is an
aspirational element to any accountability system, a
conviction that schools can be better. I schools that
actually meet this goal are not recognized as such,
the accountability system suers a crisis o legitimacy,
just as it does when accountability ignores many o an
education systems most important goals or student
learning. And systems seen by the governed as
illegitimate tend not to work very well.
The number o states with the technical capacity to
Source: https://edx.cde.state.co.us/growth_model/public/index.htm#/year-2010, accessed May 3, 2011.
Figure 2. Denver School Performance - 2010
7/31/2019 Education Sector: Some Assembly Required
9/12
7 Education Sector Reports: Some Assembly Required July 2012 www.educationsector.org
low prociency but unusually high growth. They
are Audubon-like, low-perorming or a variety o
historical, managerial, and demographic reasons,
but making swit progress relative to other, similar
schools.
USING DATA TO HELPSTUDENTS
What should happen when schools like Audubon
perorm as they do? And what about all the other
schools that lie elsewhere on the distribution
o prociency and growthnot to mention the
distribution o graduation rates, success in college
and the workorce, and other measures deemed
important enough to include in accountabilitysystems? This is a crucial questionindeed,
accountability systems exist or no other reason than
to pose it. And there are many possible answers.
Some say the inormation should simply be made
publicly available, so that parents, educators, and
policymakers can act accordingly. Others see
transparency alone as grossly insucientmany o
the schools identied as ailures by NCLB and API
were given similar labels by previous accountability
systems. Lack o student learning in many distressed
schools isnt exactly a secret that can only be
uncovered by clever accountability design.
NCLB and, to various extents, most state-designed
accountability systems, answer the what should
happen question through the application o rules
that lead to consequences or schools. Some o
those rules are interpretive, designed to distinguish,
in Browns words, the good rom the bad. NCLB
creates a standard o adequate yearly progress
and prescribes consequences or schools that ail to
meet the standard or a certain number o consecutive
years. (API assigns every school a score on a scale
rom 200 to 1,000 and mandates interventions
when scores are persistently low.) Some NCLB
consequences are automaticgiving students the
right to transer to a higher-perorming school in the
same district, or example. But or the most part, the
consequences simply trigger some kind o orced
choice among state and local policymakers, who
are required to select rom a menu o serious, semi-
serious, and not-very-serious interventions.
This model has not worked all that well.
Implementation o NCLB and state accountability
systems has revealed a strong inverse correlation
between the number o school employees likely to
lose their jobs as a result o an intervention and thelikelihood o state and local policymakers employing
it. In other words, i you give people the option o
making hard choices, they tend not to.11
Its easy to chalk this up to recalcitrance or
insuciency o resolve. But in airness to state and
local education ocials, NCLB asked them to make
decisions they were not trained or well-positioned
to make, based on an accountability system o
questionable legitimacy that they did not design. This
is not a recipe or success. There is a better way,
one that puts the hands o interpreting accountabilityinormation into the hands o people trained to use it:
school inspections.
On Her Majestys School Inspection Service
The underlying problem with rules-based
accountability systems is that the need to gather
more inormation about the complex endeavor that
is public education and the intricacies o interpreting
that inormation in a air, consistent, nuanced, and
eective manner are in constant tension with oneanother. Put another way: it is simply impossible to
design an accountability system that contains enough
inormation and interprets that inormation eectively
through the exclusive use o dened rules. Indeed,
the two most commonly voiced criticisms o the
NCLB accountability regime directly contradict one
another: it is said by critics to be both complex to the
point o inscrutability and a crude, one-size-ts-all
punishment machine.
The answer is to rely less on rules and more on highly
trained human judgment. In his veto letter, Browntouched on this idea by saying:
There are other ways to improve our schoolsto
indeed ocus on quality. What about a system
that relies on locally convened panels to visit
schools, observe teachers, interview students,
and examine student work?
7/31/2019 Education Sector: Some Assembly Required
10/12
8 Education Sector Reports: Some Assembly Required July 2012 www.educationsector.org
Browns instinct to rely more on human judgment
or decisions about school improvement is sound. It
just needs to be trained human judgment, working
in a system with clear guidelines and a high level o
expertise.12
Such a system has been established in the UnitedKingdom or some time. As Craig Jerald wrote in
the 2012 Education Sector report On Her Majestys
School Inspection Service, the Oce or Standards
in Education, Childrens Services and Skills (Osted)
has been managing a robust school inspection
system since 1993.13 Highly trained inspectors,
many o them ormer school administrators and
teachers, conduct intensive site visits that include
structured observations o the teaching and learning
environment. Schools are provided with specic
recommendations or improvement and are judged
on their progress in ollow-up visits. Standardized testscores are an important part o the process, guiding
inspectors and helping shape the determination o
whether a school is given special measures status,
which signies the need or immediate, substantial
improvement.
But in the end, it is the judgment o the inspectors
themselves that matters most. The Osted system
recognizes the inherent complexity o educational
institutionsa complexity that cannot be captured by
a Scantron machine and a rulebook. No ormula or
set o rules can be created to automatically parse andinterpret the ull range o inormation about student
learning and long-term outcomes. Nor can such rules
perorm the kinds o holistic evaluations o school
management and culture that good inspections entail.
Only people can do thati theyre the right people.
MOVING FORWARD: BUILDINGA GREAT SYSTEM FROM
WHATS ALREADY THERESen. Steinberg took the governors challenge
seriously and introduced a new version o his
accountability reorm bill this year. SB 1458 again calls
or the reormation o the API system, reducing the
contributions o standardized tests to 40 percent and
charging state policymakers with adding measures o
college and career readiness, student advancement
through grades to graduation, as well as, possibly, a
program o school quality review that eatures locally
convened panels to visit schools, observe teachers,
interview students, and examine student work. Many
o the essential elements o a great next-generation
accountability system in Caliornia are there, along
with existing law that allows the state to move towardthe use o growth models.
However, Steinbergs new legislation still refects the
underlying faw o both API and NCLB in translating
the assembly and interpretation o data into authentic
action or reorm.
In a 2011 Sacramento Bee op-ed, Steinberg and
then-state superintendent o public instruction Tom
Torlakson wrote:
Ask a baseball an how good his teams shortstop
is, and he can point to more than two dozen
statistics, rom the number o double plays turned
to how oten the player strikes out with runners
on base. Ask about the perormance o a public
school in Caliornia, and youll get one lonely
number based solely on one set o end-o-the-
year test results.14
The baseball analogy is apt, although perhaps
not exactly in the way Steinberg intended. Ask a
baseball an what statistics he really cares about,
and he will likely respond with one lonely number:wins. From the perspective o providing broad public
inormation about school success, the API and NCLB
systems have value, as do A-F grading systems
like those used in Florida and other report-card style
measures that boil down the complex dimensions o
educational perormance to comparable, easy-to-
digest numbers and grades. Parents dont want to
spend hours poring through dozens o statistics with
little guidance, just as only obsessive sports geeks
do the same or shortstops. Summary measures
have a valuable interpretive qualityas long as
decisions about what matters most are baked into theormulas. They should be continued and publicized,
ocusing primarily on absolute measures o student
perormance and long-term outcomes in college and
the workplace.
The biggest faw o API- and NCLB-style
accountability systems is their practice o eeding
synthesized, summative measures like those
7/31/2019 Education Sector: Some Assembly Required
11/12
9 Education Sector Reports: Some Assembly Required July 2012 www.educationsector.org
described above into mechanistic, rules-based
systems or driving school improvement policies. This
hasnt worked, and it wont work in the uture. Making
the hard, complex choices about how exactly schools
are alling short and what exactly should be done to
improve them needs to be moved rmly into the realm
o impartial, inormed human judgment or, in otherwords, to inspection systems, like the Osted system
in England.
This would require a signicant but manageable
investment in building an inrastructure o highly
trained inspectors.15 Some will balk at devoting
scarce resources to educational spending that
is not inside the classroom, particularly during
dicult budget times. But the strategy o building
accountability systems on the cheap has proved
inadequate. Inexpensive standardized tests
and laundry lists o broadly dened and largely
unenorceable interventions cannot be combined
into systems that will actually create the kind o
steady, constructive pressure to improve that
American schools need. The cost o continuing suchailure would be vast.
Caliornia has an opportunity to use methods o
gathering, interpreting, and acting on accountability
inormation that already exist and have already been
proven to work in a way that will help the state move
its battered education system back onto a path
o national and world leadership. I the system is
designed correctly, even Gov. Brown should agree.
7/31/2019 Education Sector: Some Assembly Required
12/12
10 Education Sector Reports: Some Assembly Required July 2012 www.educationsector.org
Notes
1. Caliornia now requires graduation rates to be included in theAPI, but the update has not yet been implemented.
2. Anthony Cody, Jerry Brown to Arne Duncan: Think Again!Blog Post, Education Week, September 1, 2009, http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2009/09/jerry_
brown_to_arne_duncan_thi.html
3. The Nations Report Card website, http://nationsreportcard.gov/ushistory_2010/summary.asp
4. Common Core State Standards Initiative website, http://www.corestandards.org/
5. Anne Hyslop, Data That Matters: Giving High SchoolsUseful Feedback on Grads Outcomes (Washington, DC:Education Sector, 2011.) http://www.educationsector.org/publications/data-matters-giving-high-schools-useul-eedback-grads-outcomes. See also: Education andWorkorce Data Connections: A Primer on States Status,Data Quality Campaign http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/fles/DQC%20Workorce%20Primer_2011_Format.pd
6. College success is, o course, partially the responsibilityo colleges. Integrating college results into educationaccountability systems points toward a uture where K-12and higher education systems are held jointly responsibleor student success in the crucial transition years rom highschool to college.
7. Anne Hyslop and Bill Tucker, Ready by Design: A Collegeand Career Agenda for California (Washington, DC:Education Sector, 2012) http://www.educationsector.org/publications/ready-design-college-and-career-agenda-caliornia
8. Josh Keller, Elimination o Caliornia Agency Could LimitAccess to Student Data, Blog Post, The Chronicle of HigherEducation, August 11, 2011, http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/elimination-o-caliornia-agency-could-limit-access-to-student-data/32826
9. Richard Lee Colvin, Measures That Matter: Why CaliforniaShould Scrap the Academic Performance Index
(Washington, DC: Education Sector, 2012) http://www.educationsector.org/publications/measures-matter-why-caliornia-should-scrap-academic-perormance-index
10. Kevin Carey and Robert Manwaring, Growth Models andAccountability: A Recipe for Remaking ESEA (Washington,DC: Education Sector, 2011) http://www.educationsector.org/publications/growth-models-and-accountability-recipe-remaking-esea
11. Rob Manwaring, Restructuring Restructuring: ImprovingInterventions for Low-Performing Schools and Districts(Washington, DC: Education Sector, 2010) http://www.educationsector.org/publications/restructuring-restructuring.See also: Sara Mead, Easy Way Out, Education Next, 7:1(Winter 2007) http://educationnext.org/easy-way-out/
12. Caliornia has used visitation panels or many years.
13. Craig D. Jerald, On Her Majestys School InspectionService (Washington, DC: Education Sector, 2012) http://www.educationsector.org/publications/her-majestys-school-inspection-service
14. Tom Torlakson and Darrell Steinberg, Bill would give schoolsa better scorecard, The Sacramento Bee, July 6, 2011,http://www.sacbee.com/2011/07/06/3749797/bill-would-give-schools-a-better.html
15. Estimates are rom $65 million to $130 million. Craig D.Jerald, On Her Majestys School Inspection Service.
Recommended