IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecl/harjfk/16-018.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Reimagining Accountability in K-12 Education: A Behavioral Science Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Gill, Brian P.

    (Mathematica Policy Research)

  • Lerner, Jennifer S.

    (Harvard University)

  • Meosky, Paul

    (Harvard University)

Abstract

The primary lever American policymakers have used to improve school performance is "accountability" in the form of high-stakes testing. But the behavioral literature, overlooked in the education policy debate, shows that accountability exists in a variety of forms that evoke different psychological mechanisms and can have positive or negative effects. Examining the psychological/behavioral literature alongside the education literature, we identify four forms of accountability relevant to K-12 schooling: outcome-based (high-stakes testing), rule-based, market-based, and professional accountability. Promoting continuous improvement in schools is likely to require multiple forms of accountability that not only offer rewards and sanctions but also increase the transparency of educational practice and provide mechanisms for improving practice. This suggests that professional accountability--which has historically been underutilized in schools--merits particular attention.

Suggested Citation

  • Gill, Brian P. & Lerner, Jennifer S. & Meosky, Paul, 2016. "Reimagining Accountability in K-12 Education: A Behavioral Science Perspective," Working Paper Series 16-018, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
  • Handle: RePEc:ecl:harjfk:16-018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/getFile.aspx?Id=1330
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Brian Gill, 2022. "What Should The Future Of Educational Accountability Look Like?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(4), pages 1232-1239, September.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ecl:harjfk:16-018. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ksharus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.