Design of Educational Accountability Systems
The focus of this research is on comparative analyses of alternative educational accountability systems. The particular focus is on alternative models for using student assessment data in
longitudinal, quasi-longitudinal, or successive cohort designs. Alternative summarizations of student test scores, e.g., the percent of students scoring above a designated cut score,
index scores based on weighted summaries of the number of students scoring in various score regions, and effect-size statistics based on scale scores, are being investigated.
Dr. Robert Linn
Measures Of Classroom Practices
This CRESST project, co-directed with Dr. Brian Stecher, is developing and validating measures of classroom practices designed to reveal the impact of accountability policies
and reform initiatives on classroom curriculum and instruction. The focus is on intermediate measures that probe more deeply than surveys and are less labor-intensive than naturalistic case studies.
Dr. Hilda Borko
Outcomes of Different Accountability Designs
This five-year CRESST project (principal investigator: Robert Linn), investigates the use of test data to inform policy level decision making. The project examines different analysis models
(for example, the value-added approach of the Tennessee Value Added Assessment System (TVAAS)), and the soundness of the information they furnish on teachers and schools. Analyses attend
to ways in which the context of assessment uses and incentive systems interact with the setting of performance standards and features of the assessment. The project evaluates the impact of
variations in system design on the validity of inferences, with a special emphasis on the validity of gains reported by school systems.
Drs. Robert Linn and Lorrie Shepard
Linn, R. L. (in press). Accountability system design. In J. L. Herman & E. H. Haertel (Eds.), Uses and Misuses of Data in Accountability Testing. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Vol. 104, Part I.
Linn, R. L. (2004). Rethinking the No Child Left Behind Accountability System. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy, http://www.ctredpol.org/.
Linn, R. L. (2004). Accountability models. In S. Fuhrman & R. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning Accountability (pp. 73-93), New York: Teachers College Press.
Linn, R. L. (2003, Sepember 1). Performance standards: Utility for different uses of assessments. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11 (31).
Linn, R. L. (2003). Accountability: Responsibility and reasonable expectations. Educational Researcher, 32, No. 7, 3-13.
Linn, R. L. (2003). Requirements for measuring adequate yearly progress. (CRESST Policy Brief 6, pp. 1-6). Los Angeles, CA: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Betebenner, D. W. (2002). Accountability systems: Implications of requirements of the “No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.” Educational Researcher, 31, No. 6, 3-26.
Linn, R. L., Haug, C. (2002). Stability of school building accountability scores and gains. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 29-36.
Linn, R. L. (2000). Assessments and Accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4-14.
Shepard, L.A. (2001). The role of classroom assessment in teaching and learning. In V. Richardson (Ed.), The Handbook of Research on Teaching, Fourth Edition. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Shepard, L.A., Taylor, G., & Betebenner, D. (1998). Inclusion of Limited-English-Proficient Students in Rhode Island’s Grade 4 Mathematics Performance Assessment. Technical Report 486. Los Angeles, CA: Center for the Study of Evaluation.
Shepard, L.A. (1991). Will national tests improve student learning? Phi Delta Kappan, 72, 232-238.
Taylor, G., Shepard, L., Kinner, F., & Rosenthal, J. (2000). A survey of teachers’ perspectives on high-stakes testing in Colorado: What gets taught, what gets lost?
