Over the past decade, federal and state accountability policies have defined how we measure the overall progress of K-12 students. To date, accountability policies have focused on student test scores from 3rd grade onward as the primary measure of progress, ignoring what goes on before then.
These first years of life are actually the most important to a child鈥檚 development, and we need an accountability system that measures the quality of young children鈥檚 educations in those years鈥攐ne that uses a broad set of metrics, including a wider range of outcome measures than just test scores and gauges of the quality of professional practice.
Of course we want children to excel at math and English/language arts. But that is not all we want for them, and our measurements should be broadened to reflect that. We should also stop using child learning outcomes as a proxy for the quality of professional practice in schools. We know that better professional practice leads to improved student outcomes, but the only way to really improve professional practice is to measure it directly.
Accountability systems that are more diagnostic and supportive rather than punitive will increase the chances that schools will actually get better.鈥�
Research from the University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research : a coherent instructional-guidance system, professional capacity, strong parent-community-school ties, a student-centered learning climate, and the leadership to drive change. If accountability systems measure these practices, then we know that improvements in school practice will lead directly to improvements in their accountability ratings鈥攚hich isn鈥檛 the case today.
We recently collaborated on a policy brief titled In it, we call for new accountability systems based on both professional practice and an expanded set of learning-outcome metrics, possibly including chronic student absenteeism. Importantly, these broadened accountability systems could apply to education from birth through high school, unlike an accountability system based on standardized tests.
The balance between metrics on professional practice and educational outcomes may vary across age spans, but the basic architecture can work for the education of all children. And we see it as important to apply accountability across all ages because education quality matters at all ages and for each and every child.
Research has shown quite clearly that the first five years of life, particularly the first three years, are incredibly important to a child鈥檚 long-term development. between kindergarten readiness and 3rd grade test scores, and increasingly states have focused on the importance of 3rd grade reading. But our test-focused accountability policies have presented a significant roadblock to improving the quality of education in the years before 3rd grade.
Another important shift is a move toward diagnosing what鈥檚 really going on in schools and tailoring supports to meet those needs. There is often a significant mismatch between a school鈥檚 actual needs and the consequences applied. Accountability systems that are more diagnostic and supportive rather than punitive will increase the chances that schools will actually get better, which should be the goal of any system.
Current accountability systems create strong disincentives for superintendents to push for early-learning investment. The average big-city superintendent . But children 4 years old and in preschool during a superintendent鈥檚 first year on the job wouldn鈥檛 take 3rd grade accountability tests until that superintendent鈥檚 fifth year on the job.
So even if a superintendent is able to execute a significant expansion of a preschool for 4-year-olds in his or her first year on the job (no easy task), chances are that it will be that superintendent鈥檚 replacement who sees the return on that investment. And even waiting until children are 4 years old actually misses the developmental window where the most brain development occurs.
Test-based accountability also creates the wrong incentives in the early school years. Superintendents who need to improve test scores immediately will place resources in the years that are actually tested, often at the cost of K-2 resources and quality as explained in another recent paper we co-wrote, (co-written with Justin Cohen and Alison Segal of Mass Insight Education).
The lack of focus on early learning and K-2 in education accountability policies means that superintendents may have no real idea how children and teachers are doing in those years, which makes it impossible to diagnose problems and solve them. A system that creates real accountability for birth through 3rd grade would give school leaders better information, and create incentives for them to act on whatever shortcomings were identified.
Given current accountability systems, it鈥檚 amazing that so many superintendents have still chosen to recognize the value of high-quality early learning. State accountability systems currently tell superintendents that what matters is student math and English/language arts test scores in 3rd grade and up, which creates incentives to narrow instructional focus and invest only in the later grades. But nationally the increased focus on 3rd grade reading鈥攁n important predictor of long-term success鈥攈as helped superintendents focus on the birth to 3rd grade years, even when their accountability metrics are pulling them to focus elsewhere.
It鈥檚 time for policymakers to stop giving superintendents disincentives to do the right thing while hoping they鈥檒l do it anyway. If we want superintendents to focus on instructional excellence and healthy school ecosystems and to invest resources in the developmentally critical birth to 3rd grade years, then we need accountability systems that give them the incentive and support to do that.
