Supporting Effective Teaching in Tennessee: Executive Summary | Page 17

Accountability
Accountability systems are focused on measuring student
achievement using standardized assessment tests and then
rewarding, sanctioning, and supporting districts, schools,
teachers, and students based on how students perform on
those assessments. North Carolina and Texas were among
the first states to create statewide accountability systems in
the early 1990s. However, with the passage of No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) in 2001, every state was required to develop an
accountability system that disaggregated student performance
by subgroup.23
While some states, such as Florida and North Carolina, have
developed an accountability system that goes beyond these
minimum federal requirements, Tennessee for the most part
has not. The only exception is that Tennessee was one of the
first two states to request permission from the U.S. Department
of Education to use value-added data, rather than absolute
achievement data, to measure whether schools and districts met
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) under NCLB.

As Figure 3.6 shows, the vast majority of schools in Tennessee
are meeting AYP. Specifically, 1,318 of the state’s 1,718 schools,
or 77 percent of schools, met AYP in the 2007-08 school year.
However, ten schools are in Restructuring I and four schools
are in Restructuring II, which means they have failed to meet
AYP for five and six consecutive years respectively. Additionally,
three Memphis schools are in reconstitution plans and not yet
improving, meaning they have failed to meet AYP for seven
or more consecutive years. There are also five high priority
districts, the lower-performing of which are Davidson County,
which is in Restructuring I, and Madison County, which is in
Corrective Action.
A key component of a strong accountability system is the
incorporation of rewards, sanctions, and support for districts,
schools, and teachers based on their performance. While Tennessee
does a fairly good job assisting low-performing districts and schools,
it stops short of placing heavy sanctions on struggling schools and
gives very few rewards to the highest performing schools.

Figure 3.6

Standing of Tennessee Schools Under No Child Left Behind
NCLB Status
Good Standing
Target
School Improvement I
School Improvement I - Improving
School Improvement II
School Improvement II - Improving
Corrective Action
Corrective Action - Improving
Restructuring I
Restructuring I - Improving
Restructuring II (Alt. Governance)
Restructuring II - Improving
State/LEA Reconstitution Plan I
State/LEA Reconstitution Plan I - Improving
State/LEA Reconstitution Plan II
State/LEA Reconstitution Plan II - Improving
State/LEA Reconstitution Plan III
N<10 –Small School Review
Source: Tennessee Department of Education

16

T h e S t a t e o f E d u c a t i o n i n T e n n e ss e e

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

1,325
213
28
1
21
12
12
0
0
1
4
2
9
3
2
0
0
0

1,378
106
58
13
15
11
14
3
8
0
0
2
3
5
5
2
0
14

1,318
172
27
35
25
11
5
9
6
4
4
0
1
2
1
3
1
20