School Performance Indicators, Accountability Ratings, and Student Achievement.

Abstract

ABSTRACT Researchers have been challenged to find school-level characteristics that make a difference in student achievement. This study focused on a diverse sample of 24 middle schools to examine differences between schools rated Exemplary, Recognized, Academically Acceptable, and Academically Unacceptable on four performance indicator dimensions: academic excellence, developmental responsiveness, social equity, and organizational structures. The study also examined relationships between performance indicators and student achievement. A random sample of teachers from each school and the principal provided data on the school's performance indicator dimensions. School accountability ratings, student achievement scores, and demographic characteristics were obtained from the state department of education. Significant differences were found on all four performance indicator dimensions based on school accountability ratings , as well as relationships between performance indicators and student achievement. Keywords: academic emphasis, developmental responsiveness, organizational structures, school accountability ratings, social equity, student achievement The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 1 07-1 1 0) sets demanding accountability standards for schools, school districts , and states, including new state testing requirements designed to improve education. For example, the law requires that states develop both content standards in reading and mathematics and tests that are linked to the standards for grades 3 through 8, with science standards and assessments to follow. States must identify adequate yearly progress (AYP) objectives and disaggregate test results for all students and subgroups of students based on socioeconomic status, race/ ethnicity, English language proficiency, and disability. Moreover, the law mandates that 100 percent of students must score at the proficient level on state tests by 201 4. Will schools, school districts, and states be able to respond to the demand? The standards demanded by federal and state legislation are particularly problematic for middle schools. Not only are middle schools dealing with documented declines in student achievement (Gottfried, 2010; Kinney, 2008; Linn, Lewis, Tsuchida, & Songer, 2000; Ritter, Barnett, Denny, & Albin, 2009; Usher, 2009), but they are also facing the additional developmental issues associated with the well being of young adolescents (Cook, MacCoun, Muschkin, & Vigdor, 2008; National Middle School Association [NMSA], 2004; Whitley, Lupart, & Beran, 2007; Woolley & Bowen, 2007). The interest generated by the Carnegie report, Turning Points: Preparing American Youth of the 21st Century (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989) resulted in the Middle Schools Initiative and the establishment of several alliances among educators, researchers, national organizations, and private foundations. One of these alliances is the National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform which was established in 1997 because of declining test scores, increasing school violence, and the debate over the nature and purpose of middle-grades education. The Forum is funded by the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, John S. and James L, Knight Foundation, and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation (The National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform [The National Forum], 2004). The Forum has articulated a variety of ways to identify high-performing middle schools, provide best practices, promote effective policies and leadership, and encourage public participation. It has successfully influenced the national discourse on middle school education, and it has received support from the U.S. Department of Education (The National Forum, 2004). The National Forum has generated several initiatives including Schools to Watch (STW), a program designed to impact schools at the classroom level. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 23 citations exist upstream.