Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine how test‐based accountability has influenced school and district practices and explore how states and districts might consider creating expanded systems of measures to address the shortcomings of traditional accountability. It provides research‐based guidance for entities that are developing or adopting new measures of school performance.

The study relies on literature review, consultation with expert advisers, review of state and district documentation, and semi‐structured interviews with staff at state and local education agencies and research institutions.

The research shows mixed effects of test‐based accountability on student achievement and demonstrates that teachers and administrators change their practices in ways that respond to the incentives provided by the system. The review of state and district measurement systems shows widespread use of additional measures of constructs, such as school climate and college readiness.

There is a clear need for additional research on the short‐ and long‐term effects of expanded systems of measures. In particular, currently little is known about how the inclusion of input and process measures influences educators’ practices or student outcomes.

The research suggests several practical steps that can be taken to promote effective systems of measurement, including providing supports for high‐quality teaching to accompany new measures, offering flexibility to respond to local needs, and conducting validity studies that address the various purposes of the measures.

The paper provides new information about how states and districts are expanding their systems of measures for various purposes, and informs accountability policy by highlighting the benefits and limitations of current outcomes‐based approaches to accountability and by clarifying the trade‐offs and decisions that should be considered.

The design of the ISBA project was guided by an analysis of the SBA theory of action, its likely effect on educators’ work across levels of the educational hierarchy, and prior research on the impact of SBA policies on teachers’ work. We begin placing our work in the context of theoretical accounts of school organizations and the occupational norms of teaching.

Soung Bae is a doctoral candidate in the Human Development and Education program at the University of California, Berkeley. Her work examines how teacher learning and development is best cultivated and the relation between beliefs and practice.

Given this casting of the problem, the logical question by the late 1980s had become, how should government craft policy tools to motivate stronger efforts by local educators? A variety of central governments in the West had tried to lift children's learning curves through new funding for particular categories of students, along with tighter regulation of how these dollars must be spent. But this assumed that legislators and education bureaucrats knew how to best organize instructional “inputs” and social relations inside classrooms. The conceptual breakthrough with the new buzz around standards-based or performance-focused reform was that government would concentrate on clarifying learning outcomes, leaving local educators to tailor school inputs and pedagogical practices. (Several chapters in this volume show how, in fact, central governments have difficulty resisting the exercise of control over output standards and input mixes.)

On 20 April ISHM‐Benelux held its 1988 Spring meeting at the Grand Hotel Heerlen. This meeting was totally devoted to implantable devices, in particular to the technologies used for these high reliability, extremely demanding devices. For this meeting ISHM‐Benelux was the guest of the Kerkrade facility of Medtronic. Medtronic (headquartered in Minneapolis, USA) is the world's leading manufacturer of implantable electronic devices. Apart from the assembly of pacemakers and heart‐wires, the Kerkrade facility acts as a manufacturing technology centre for Medtronic's European facilities.

To examine the impact of emotional, social, and cognitive intelligences on the dimensions of transformational leadership using both paper‐and‐pencil measures and assessment center dimensions.

Multiple measurement methodologies were used to conceptualize emotional, cognitive, and social intelligence. Subordinate ratings of three dimensions of transformational leadership were used as the criteria. Correlation analysis and a series of multiple hierarchical regressions were used to determine the relationship between the multiple intelligences and three dimensions of transformational leadership.

Results indicate that a multiple intelligences framework is a useful approach to predict transformational leadership. Correlation analyses and multiple regression results indicated that the multiple intelligence framework explained between 10 and 25 percent of the variance in perceptions of transformational leadership and that assessment center dimensions explained additional variance beyond paper‐and‐pencil measures in transformational leadership.

This paper extends previous research by examining the impact of cognitive, emotional, and social intelligences on transformational leadership using multiple measurement methodologies. The results of this study provide a useful framework for practitioners interested in assessing precursors to transformational leadership, with a focus on assessment centers as a useful tool for predicting transformational leadership.