Yes, we should hold public schools accountable for effectively spending the vast funds with which they have been entrusted. But accountability policies like No Child Left Behind, based exclusively on math and reading test scores, have narrowed the curriculum, misidentified both failing and successful schools, and established irresponsible expectations for what schools can accomplish. Instead of just grading progress in one or two narrow subjects, we should hold schools accountable for the broad outcomes we expect from public education —basic knowledge and skills, critical thinking, an appreciation of the arts, physical and emotional health, and preparation for skilled employment —and then develop the means to measure and ensure schools’ success in achieving them. Grading Education describes a new kind of accountability plan for public education, one that relies on higher-quality testing, focuses on professional evaluation, and builds on capacities we already possess. This important resource: Describes the design of an alternative accountability system that would not corrupt education as does NCLB and its state testing systems Explains the original design of NAEP in the 1960s, and shows why it should be revived. Defines the broad goals of education, beyond math and reading test scores, and reports on surveys to confirm public and governmental support for such goals. Relates these broad goals of education to the desire for accountability in education.

Policymakers and program managers are continually seeking ways to improve accountability in achieving an entity's mission. A key factor in improving accountability in achieving an entity's mission is to implement an effective internal control system. An effective internal control system helps an entity adapt to shifting environments, evolving demands, changing risks, and new priorities. As programs change and entities strive to improve operational processes and implement new technology, management continually evaluates its internal control system so that it is effective and updated when necessary. Section 3512 (c) and (d) of Title 31 of the United States Code (commonly known as the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA)) requires the Comptroller General to issue standards for internal control in the federal government.

In connection with its jurisdiction over biomedical research and development at higher education institutions, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations met twice to hear testimony on abuses in the indirect cost recovery practices at universities for Federal research grants and contracts. At the first hearing witnesses testified about the legitimacy and reasonableness of Stanford University's overhead charges and the adequacy of government oversight provided by the Office of Naval Research. The hearing revealed extensive abuses at the university and ineffective oversight from the Navy. Appearing were witnesses representing the Office of Naval Research, the General Accounting Office, Stanford University, and the Defense Contract Audit Agency. Two months later the committee met again to hear suggestions for changing the regulatory and staffing practices of audit agencies, and to hear about the status of audits initiated shortly after the first hearing at the 41 universities that the Office of Naval Research oversees. Appearing were witnesses representing the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Office of Grant and Contract Financial Management, the Inspector General, Office of Naval Research, and the Defense Contract Audit Agency. Included are the prepared statements of the witnesses, an HHS report, "Federal Funding to Colleges and Universities in Support of Research" and various documents and letters from Stanford University. (JB)