The public was even more in the dark. Opponents of the reform used this situation to rally vocal opposition, which the governor then used to kill the assessment. CLAS, even in its developmental stages, provided a potentially powerful tool for teaching the public and educators about concrete goals of reforms and the type of learning and performance students are being asked to do. Failure of the California Department of Education to focus on this use of CLAS left both the assessment and the reforms vulnerable. One lesson from the experience of California and Vermont is that use of state assessment as an instrument of accountability may conflict with its use as an instrument for teacher and system learning.
Accountability requires a high degree of reliability.
In Vermont, with its limited time and resources, this meant limited attention to using the assessment to improve instruction. In California, it engendered a level of secrecy that ran counter to building either capacity or support among a broader spectrum of the public or school personnel. But these shortcomings were not foregone conclusions. As our example of the California school shows, a consistent and strategic emphasis on capacity building could lead to alternative scenarios. The study team reviewed the current literature on systemic reform, commissioned four papers about the preparation and professional development of teachers, and conducted case studies of 12 reforming schools in California, Michigan, and Vermont.