Search

This report discusses the findings of a study that compared identified desirable characteristics of state accountability reports with 20 accountability reports generated by 7 states. Desirable characteristics included (1) clarity (the intended audience, statements of purpose, a description of the population being reported on and the states' conceptual model for its accountability system); (2) comprehensiveness in the reporting of inputs, processes, and results for students, especially students with disabilities; (3) provide comparative information with changes over time between schools, districts, states, regions, or standards; (4) conciseness or carefully chosen indicators so that no more information is given than is necessary; (5) cautions (against misinterpretations of the data or against any unintended consequences); (6) confidentiality; (7) good formats so that reports are well-organized, readable, and interesting. Results found none of the reports contained every desirable characteristic. Very few reports were clear as to who was included, the conceptual model, and assumptions. Many reports were comprehensive, concise, and comparative, but were also unclear in their presentation of information. Only four of the states provided disaggregated data on students with disabilities. (CR)

This report summarizes a study that analyzed the state education accountability reports of 48 states and Washington, DC, and the inclusion of students with disabilities in the accountability systems. Extreme variability was found to exist in the reporting practices across states and there was little information on students with disabilities. Only 11 states included test-based outcome data for students with disabilities in their reports; 5 states produced a separate special education report. Many states included input/context and/or process indicators for students with disabilities, but few reported outcome data for these students. Finally, every state was unclear on at least one educational indicator in their accountability system and whether students with disabilities were included. The report includes the following recommendations regarding reporting on students with disabilities: (1) be clear about the role of students with disabilities in data and standards; (2) while special education reports can be useful in providing detailed information about students with disabilities, general accountability reports should also include information on students with disabilities; and (3) when making comparisons among schools, districts, and states, comparisons should be based on similar populations. (Contains 28 references.) (CR)

Based on an extensive analysis of the characteristics of 113 accountability reports from 32 state education agencies, a study group convened to develop a list of necessary, desirable, and succinct characteristics of good state and district educational accountability reports. This report discusses the recommendations of the study group. Desirable characteristics were identified for both content and format, such as: (1) be clear about who the report is directed to, the intended purposes of the report, and the state's conceptual model for its accountability system; (2) be comprehensive yet concise in the reporting of inputs, processes, and results for students, especially students with disabilities; (3) provide comparative information with changes over time between schools, districts, states, regions, or standards; (4) ensure reports are concise or contain carefully chosen indicators so that no more information is given than is necessary; (5) include cautions against misinterpretations of the data or against any unintended consequences; (6) make efforts to maintain confidentiality and avoid the possibility of identifying individual students; (7) use good formats so that reports are well-organized, readable, and interesting. A checklist of desirable characteristics for state and school district accountability reports is included for those who develop reports. (CR)