Acceptable Approaches to Educational Accountability

Due to legislation that affects America's schools and a demand for quality instruction and student achievement, demands are placed on accountability. Therefore, policymakers and educational leaders make a continuous effort to devise acceptable approaches to educational accountability (Lingenfelter, 2003). The definitive objective of an accountability system is frequently submits to defining performance standards and identifying rewards and penalties for performance. The real intention is to enhance student performance. The objective of an accountability system is to encourage effective methods and a greater undertaking and control in implementation. Educational accountability systems should be considered in terms of their integrity for improving performance and not by rewards and penalties (Lingenfelter, 2003).

A uniform accountability system is not probable to fit every state; each should develop an accountability system modified to reflect the needs of the educational institution. However, valuable accountability systems are apt to have common essential elements in place. Accountability systems are optimal when focused on essential objectives, can recognize issues in practice, examine results publicly, accentuate positive incentives, involve individuals with critical roles, and involve all individuals answerable for results (Lingenfelter, 2003). Furthermore, accountability systems should include a few clear, important, measurable goals, build ability, and empower results (Lingenfelter, 2003). At the school level, an accountability system should concentrate on suitable and essential goals that are not significantly addressed at the state level; however, at every level, focus and successful action are essential so goals should not be complex. Measurable goals are essential, but not all goals can be quantified. Accountability systems should include qualitative indicators of performance (Lingenfelter, 2003).

An accountability system that concentrates on outcomes, while allowing flexibility for experimentation and learning, is prone to be more effective than one that stipulates both means and ends. Progress will transpire when policymakers merge a concentration on the goals with persistence and incremental progress. Progress on essential goals should be plainly and openly assessed over a long period. Progress should be observed and encouraged; a deficit of progress should create demands to develop the system through better and resourceful efforts to generate results (Lingenfelter, 2003).

The outlook of penalties can serve as a deterrent, and also impart an incentive for individuals to focus on improving performance. Strategies that center on penalties for poor performance may generate resistance and therefore impede progress. Individuals with a weakened morale do not improve (Lingenfelter, 2003). Effective accountability systems will motivate low performers to explore effective, innovative educational strategies that will aid them to succeed. Policymakers who want to devise successful accountability systems should uncover an equilibrium between external and internal motivations. Policymakers can create improvement by concentrating on significant goals and determining and measuring progress by means that are internally rewarding. External and internal rewards will allow educators to compete for and retain talented individuals (Lingenfelter, 2003).

Outcomes do not occur simply because poor performance is penalized and good performance is rewarded. Training and sufficient support is necessary especially in difficult situations such as teaching under prepared students (Lingenfelter, 2003). Accountability systems should involve all individuals and employ multiple tools. The learning community can all contribute to better educational performance. Multiple assessments and strategies to enhance performance will be required at different levels to ensure progress given the intricacy of the educational process (Lingenfelter, 2003).

In addition, accountability and investment must come together to engender high performance. All individuals involved in accountability are influenced, restrained, and backed by resources offered by local, state, and federal governments. The multifaceted issues of education advocate that no accountability system is likely to be ideal even after careful consideration (Lingenfelter, 2003). Accountability systems should be held accountable for accomplishing the objectives.

Critical Factors of Learning Organizations, What Should be Measured and Why?

The abundance of accountability systems in America's schools demonstrates the array of potential methods and potential for confusion in measuring educational results (Lingenfelter, 2003). In elementary and secondary education, states use an assortment of tests to measure student performance. In their various expressions, these mediums attempt to establish the degree to which students have acquired a distinct set of academic knowledge and skills, how much students learn compared to other students, which schools perform well, and which schools perform poorly. In addition, these mediums attempt to determine how teachers perform in the classroom, how students collaborate with one another, if students possess problem-solving and creative-thinking skills, if students can accomplish complex and challenging tasks, and if schools have imparted an educational value to the students. These questions are complex and not easily answerable, different tests, measurements, and money are required to answer them all (Lingenfelter, 2003).

Lingenfelter, P.E. (2003). Educational accountability: Setting standards, improving performance. Change, 35.