Redefining Accountability In the ESSA Era

After two decades of test-based accountability, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) opens the door for a new vision of educational accountability.   Of course, great schools have always known that accountability was more than the sum of their test scores, but it was not easy to focus the public’s attention (or that of state and federal governments) on much aside from the latest batch of scores from tests that may or may not have had much relationship to classroom learning.  Although the ESSA and educational officials will continue to care about reading and math scores, the opportunity for states and local school districts to redefine accountability is an exciting one.  My vision of Next Generation Accountability systems has three elements:  Causes, not just effects; learning, not just “gotcha’s!; and physicals, not autopsies. 

            Causes, Not Just Effects:  Imagine two schools in the same system.  They have similar student demographics, similar levels of teaching experience, identical teacher and administrator assignment policies, identical per-pupil funding, and nearly identical facilities.  Yetstudent achievement in one is dramatically higher than in the other.  The similarities of these two schools eliminate many of the traditional explanations for differences in student achievement and we are left with banal descriptions of “good teaching” in one or “ineffective leadership” in the other.  But without systematic observation of what those teaching and leadership practices are, it’s impossible to crack the code of why one school was so much better.  When I’ve conducted observations to dig into these differences, the explanations for the higher performing schools are not very mysterious. They spend more time on literacy, engage in more nonfiction writing, conduct collaborative scoring with a common definition of what student success looks like, and they have clear intervention plans for every single student that is in danger of failure.  Their Professional Learning Communities are consistently focused on the work of real PLC’s (not simply a changed label of the faculty meeting). Their leaders provide feedback on instruction that is completely separate from the typically unreliable and ineffective teacher evaluation system.  But it is very rare for an accountability system to include these essential teaching and variables.  It is as the schools had a goal of reducing student obesity, but they never knew if student weight loss was caused by diet and exercise or by eating disorders and drug abuse. In other words, causes matter, and the Next Generation accountability systems will include them.

            Learning, Not “Gotcha!”:  The fundamental purpose of accountability is to improve the performance of educational leaders, teachers, and students.  But accountability never serves that purpose when teachers and administrators perceive that the central purpose is to rate, rank, sort, and humiliate teachers, administrators, and students.  When the focus is on learning rather than punishments and rewards, there are no incentives for cheating and mindless test prep.  The only quest is to determine the best methods to serve students in each school.    

            Physicals, not Autopsies:  It doesn’t take long in most dramas about police and medical examiners for the camera to turn to the autopsy table, where clues to the cause of death are revealed.  To be sure, autopsies can provide valuable information, but if you watch those scenes closely, you will rarely see that the procedure helps the patient get any better.  After decades of accountability systems which reported on “failing schools” one year after another, we should not be surprised that these educational autopsies are without value.  Physicals may not be the most pleasant of medical encounters, but they can reveal information not only about what is wrong with patients, but also about how to improve their health. 

 

            Of course, the potential of the ESSA depends entirely on the willingness of states and local districts to use the flexibility they are grated to engage in new and creative accountability systems.  If we simply replace one narrowly focused bureaucracy with another one, we will have no one but ourselves to blame.

 

*Dr. Reeves is the author, most recently, of Inspiring Creativity and Innovation in K-12 and Elements of Grading (2nd edition), both published by Solution Tree.  He Tweets @DouglasReeves and can be reached at Douglas.Reeves@CreativeLeadership.net

Subscribe to receive our blog updates

Related Posts

  • Research Wednesday | March 4, 2026

    Do Audiobooks Count as Reading?
    Contributing author: Dr. Douglas Reeves

    While surveys indicate that more than 40% of U.S. adults think that listening to a book should not be regarded as genuine reading, Brian Bannon, Chief Librarian of the New York Public Library, disagrees in a November 23, 2025, article.  He notes that while print circulation in the library has remained flat over the past five years, audiobook demand is up 65%.

    Read More
  • Research Wednesday | February 25, 2026

    Hope for Cynics
    Contributing author: Dr. Douglas Reeves

    In this inspiring book (Hope for Cynics: The Surprising Science of Human Goodness, 2025) by Stanford’s Jamil Zaki, there is a treasure trove of research that will help all of us who support educators and school leaders who are dealing with despair in the dark winter months and pervasive threats to our schools, students, and professional careers. Professor Zaki marshals research and keen observation to make these essential arguments.

    Read More
  • Research Wednesday | February 18, 2026

    A Balanced and Skeptical View of AI in Schools
    Contributing author: Dr. Douglas Reeves

    In this thoughtful and evidence-rich article (February 12, 2026), the authors cite several randomized control trials (RCT) that provide mixed evidence on the use of AI in schools. My recent book, Education and the Ethics of AI, offers practical ways to avoid cheating – the principal concern of teachers – and use AI in an ethical and constructive way.  This new article notes that when students become dependent on AI, their performance actually decreases, especially when they practice with AI but are later tested without AI assistance. Moreover, while AI can assist with simple tasks, such as learning multiplication tables, it does not enhance students’ reasoning or creative thinking.

    Read More