Broadly speaking, early-learning accountability systems tend to measure program inputs, while K–12 accountability more heavily weights student outcomes. Analysts at the Ounce of Prevention Fund argue that this divergence is harmful and call instead for a unified birth-to-high-school accountability system. Their own ideal framework for a coherent system has four parts: performance metrics (a mix of age-appropriate child outcomes and professional practices), performance measurements (e.g., standardized tests combined with observations of student performance), supports and consequences (e.g., better/different resource allocation, targeted to areas of greatest need), and school-quality tiers (essentially, grades for programs and schools). For each of the four parts, analysts spell out which inputs and outputs matter most, which measures are best, and how the framework improves upon the status quo. Most of the fifty-three-page brief is devoted to an exposition of the framework. But the analysts also take pains to explain what’s wrong with current systems. This is all well and good, but big questions loom (some of which the authors themselves acknowledge). For example, their suggested performance measures can be costly and time-consuming, and some have yet to be developed. But more significantly, the authors do not make a strong enough case that their solution would fix a real and important problem. While preschool programs absolutely need a greater focus on child outcomes, and while we could surely get better at evaluating and supporting elementary and secondary schools, it’s still not clear that the accountability systems of the two sectors need to mimic one another.
SOURCE: Elliot Regenstein and Rio Romero-Jurado, “A Framework for Rethinking State Education Accountability and Support from Birth through High School,” Policy Conversation No. 3 (The Ounce, June 2014).
