Test-Based Accountability: The Promise and the Perils

Abstract

Reform movements in American education are based on theories of social change. The standards and accountability movement is based on the theory that a sequence of three activities will improve education: first, defining what students should learn (setting standards); second, testing to see what students have learned (measuring achievement); third, making the results count (holding educators and students accountable). Most analysts date the standards and accountability movement to the early 1990s, when states began establishing standards in academic subjects. States then instituted testing programs and implemented incentives for schools and students based on pupil test scores. The systems are mature enough to have produced some preliminary results. What is known so far about the effects of accountability systems on student achievement? Do they work? Are there any unintended consequences? In general, evaluations of accountability systems have been quite positive. In raising student achievement, states that have implemented such systems are outperforming states that have not done so. Although the potential for serious unintended consequences cannot be ruled out, the harms documented to date appear temporary and malleable. Promising results, however, do not guarantee the longevity of an education reform.1 Various threats to accountability exist, in particular, the political perils that state systems face when policies are implemented. What do these threats portend for the future of test-based accountability in the United States? That question is especially relevant today as the No Child Left Behind Act, the landmark legislation that federalized what had been primarily a state and local