Rethinking school accountability beyond test scores

Student test scores and other grade-based metrics have long shaped how K-12 schools are evaluated. Pablo Bezem, assistant professor of education policy at Mary Lou Fulton College for Teaching and Learning Innovation, is exploring through his research other forms of evaluations that may help schools identify areas for improvement beyond what high-stakes testing captures.

Bezem examines how “low-stakes” on-site inspections, which involve feedback-oriented evaluations, can help guide school planning and reform through their broader focus on dimensions of school quality, such as school climate, organizational conditions and leadership practice, and by fostering ongoing dialogue between schools and districts. In one of his recent papers, From compliance to collaboration: how low-stakes inspections support school planning and reforms in test-based accountability systems, he looked specifically at how principals use feedback from these on-site evaluations to create more effective improvement plans and reforms that can complement test-driven accountability efforts. Learn more in this Q&A with Bezem: 

Q. What are low-stakes inspections?

A. Low-stakes school inspections provide information that tests alone can’t capture, and they are designed to offer feedback rather than trigger automatic sanctions or rewards. First, they use a much broader lens than standardized tests. They draw on multiple sources of evidence, such as classroom and school-wide observations, and bring in the voices of teachers, students and families to build a richer understanding of what is happening in a school. Second, inspections are conducted by expert educators who observe practice directly and offer professional, contextualized feedback — not just scores or ratings. And third, these inspections create opportunities for ongoing dialogue between schools and the district. They help districts understand schools’ challenges, efforts and long-term vision, and they help schools make sense of district priorities. This back-and-forth builds collaboration and trust, which are essential for sustained improvement.

Q. What got you interested in this line of research?

A. I’m interested in how education policies and governance structures shape organizational change and support school improvement. My work examines how different accountability and governance models shape the conditions for school improvement, both in the U.S. and internationally, and what alternative structures might lead to more equitable and sustainable outcomes. In the U.S., schools are generally expected to show improvement through test scores, and districts tend to govern through incentives rather than through close, collaborative work. Low-stakes school inspections provide an alternative approach for districts and schools to engage more closely and work together toward improvement in more constructive and sustainable ways. 

Q. Why did you focus on Denver for this recent paper? 

A. Denver offers a rare opportunity to study low-stakes inspections — what they call School Quality Reviews—within a high-stakes accountability system. It is one of the few large urban districts that have carried out on-site, feedback-oriented inspections for almost 15 years. This provides unusually rich evidence on how schools and principals engage with the process over time. At the same time, Denver still relies heavily on test-based accountability. This combination of a long-standing inspection system inside a high-stakes environment makes Denver an ideal setting for examining how different accountability logics interact in practice.

Q. What does this study reveal about how principals use low-stakes inspections?

A. This analysis expands our understanding of how low-stakes inspections can influence the content of school improvement plans across the district, and it also addresses a central limitation in prior research that relied mainly on interviews after inspections. For this study, I used a mixed-methods design, combining a quasi-experimental quantitative approach to examine changes in school improvement plans across the district with in-depth qualitative inquiry by examining the authenticity of the plans and how principals understood, valued and acted on inspection feedback. Principals reported that feedback helped them clarify goals, reaffirm existing plans and gain legitimacy among staff and district leaders. Most notably, the majority implemented substantial reforms based on the feedback, and this provides deeper insight into how low-stakes inspections shape both planning and implementation.

Q. What new questions or directions did this study open for you?

A. The study showed that low-stakes inspections have the potential to reshape district–school relationships and organizational processes. The inspections also helped new principals, especially those in high-turnover schools, gain a clearer picture of their school and pursue more coherent reforms. This suggests that inspections can rebuild ties between districts and schools, creating a more collaborative process for improvement. The study also raised design questions. Denver’s inspection model is tightly structured and focused on instruction. That alignment with a clear rubric and established criteria may enhance its legitimacy in the eyes of school leaders, but it also limits the broader benefits seen in more flexible models, where inspection relies more heavily on professional judgment and focuses on the issues they consider most problematic to help schools improve.

Q. What is the big takeaway from this study?

A. My study contributes to a greater understanding of how low-stakes inspections can complement standardized testing approaches by broadening the definition of school quality and opening space for more collaborative and, potentially, more democratic forms of accountability. For districts and policymakers committed to strengthening school improvement, these findings highlight the importance of integrating developmental, non-punitive accountability tools that help rebuild district-school relationships and make reforms more sustainable over time, so schools can pursue meaningful and lasting change. 

Learn more about MLFC’s work in the area of accountability and schools: 

• Pablo Bezem, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of education policy, who teaches in MLFC’s doctoral programs. His areas of expertise include education policy and governance, educational leadership, support and accountability systems, and international and comparative education. Learn more about Bezem and his research. 
  
   
• The Center for Reinventing Public Education at MLFC also tracks K-12 developments in accountability, assessment and oversight.