Section 1: Articulate the Theory of Action of the State’s Accountability System

Evaluating State Accountability Systems Under ESEA

Module 1: Theory of Action

Section 1: Articulate the Theory of Action of the State’s Accountability System

This webpage is part of the Evaluating State Accountability Systems Under ESEA tool, which is designed to help state educational agency (SEA) staff reflect on how the state’s accountability system achieves its intended purposes and build confidence in the state’s accountability system design decisions and implementation activities. Please visit the tool landing page to learn more about this tool and how to navigate these modules.

A theory of action is often described in terms of inputs and resources, activities, outputs, and outcomes. SEA staff involved in developing state plans can also describe the mission, leading indicators, intermediate outcomes, objectives, and contextual constraints in the theory of action.

Often, a theory of action is depicted in a graphical format because some people find the visual helpful to understand how the pieces fit together. Rather than starting with a visual depiction, you might consider first drafting the theory of action in a narrative format. High-level theories of action are commonly described using a series of “if… then” statements. For example, “If we [enact policy X], then [stakeholders/students] will be able to [change behavior Y], which will help [stakeholders/students do Z].” Articulating a theory of action via narrative can tell the story of what you hope to accomplish, and how, in an easily understandable way. For more information on a theory of action and its components, please see the resources from the Pacific Regional Educational Laboratory on logic models.

As you start to document your theory of action, begin with the fundamental design components of the state’s accountability system and the broad objectives you hope to accomplish. Use the reflection questions in the following table to develop, revise, or confirm the high-level description of components of the state’s accountability system theory of action. You may print this webpage and use it as a template for note-taking if working with colleagues.

Table 2. Articulate the Rationale behind the State’s Accountability System

Articulate the Rationale behind the State’s Accountability System
Reflection Questions	Notes
Policy intent: What policy objectives are you trying to achieve through the state’s accountability system as a whole? How does this policy intent drive school differentiation, capacity-building, and public engagement? Examples may include the following: Increasing achievement of all students to a specific threshold Ensuring all students graduate from high school prepared for college or careers Remedying persistent achievement gaps between historically disadvantaged subgroups and other subgroups
Policy mechanisms or levers: Based on your policy intent, what are the specific policy mechanisms or levers that will promote this larger objective? These should include ESEA-required accountability components but may be framed in ways that are consistent with your state objectives and needs. Examples may include the following: Differentiation of schools that have high rates of chronic absenteeism An indicator of school quality or student success that focuses on college- and career-readiness (e.g., industry credentialing, biliteracy certification, Advanced Placement/International Baccalaureate^® coursework credit earned by all 12th graders) A statewide system of support that empowers local staff and stakeholders
Behavioral intent: What behaviors are the policy mechanisms or levers intended to incentivize? This may include behaviors for policymakers, state staff, district leaders, principals, educators, students, and the public. Examples may include the following: Supports for comprehensive literacy instruction Increased awareness of the needs of English learners Interventions to promote consistent attendance
Expected outputs: What expected outcomes does your state expect the state’s accountability system to foster? These should ultimately support the broader policy intent. Examples may include the following: Improved math instruction Improved ratio of college counselors to students Effective district use of accountability data to support schools
Articulate the Rationale Reflection Questions		Response
Reflecting on your notes above, consider whether the rationale behind the state’s accountability system is clearly and sufficiently articulated in the theory of action.
The state’s accountability system is clearly and sufficiently articulated in the theory of action.		Yes / No

After you have described the system components and interdependencies in a narrative format, it may be helpful to create or update the theory of action using a graphic format. There is no “right” approach to you how you map this out visually. It might be helpful to show the expected relationships in a linear format, but others might feel that a cyclical format better represents a dynamic policy process. For a complex state’s accountability system, the theory of action may similarly need to be more complex to reflect the full spectrum of policy implementation issues.

[Click here to continue on to the Section 2 of Module 1: Theory of Action]