Search

As Robert Behn (2001) writes, accountability is a complex concept, requiring agreedupon goals, measures, principals and agents. For public schools under both No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and various state accountability schemes, accountability measures are test scores measuring student learning in core subjects, such as reading and mathematics. Schools which produce either above-average student performance, or else above-average gains in achievement (controlling for student characteristics) are generally deemed successful, while less successful campuses (in theory at least) are to be held accountable. But which school-type, when performing poorly, is most likely to "face the music": Charters or traditional district schools? This is a particularly important question since President Obama has made expanding the number of charter schools an educational priority, but has emphasized that these schools must be held accountable. We discuss competing views on how to achieve school accountability, followed by a comparison of charter and traditional district school accountability using school performance data from Arizona (the state with the largest charter school market share). We provide evidence suggesting that, using education standards mandated by Arizona, poorly performing charter schools are more likely to be held accountable than poorly performing traditional district schools. Under NCLB standards, however, this finding is reversed: Traditional public schools appear to be more accountable. We discuss, from a qualitative vantage point, why these results are plausible. We also outline several research directions suggested by these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]