The concept of accountability is at the center of efforts to improve the performance of U.S. public schools. The whole motivating idea of the federal No Child Left Behind Act is to hold public schools serving disadvantaged kids accountable for higher standards of performance. One of the strongest arguments against the voucher proposals that Republicans are forever promoting is that private schools receiving public money under such schemes are not asked to accept accountability or transparency for the successes or failures they deliver in exchange for public support. And by the same token, one of the strongest arguments for expanding charter public schools is that along with greater educational customization, and more quality options for low-income parents, they are required to enter into a performance contract -- or "charter" -- that makes accountability to the public central to their mission.

But real accountability for public schools means having clearly defined expectations and an honest system for measuring whether or not they are met -- a system that is supervised by public officials who are themselves accountable for success or failure. In both respects, Indianapolis' New Democrat Mayor Bart Peterson is providing critical national leadership.

Last week Peterson released a report on the performance of the first three charter public schools that he authorized in 2001 after Indiana enacted a state law that made him the only mayor in the country authorized to charter schools. (He has since chartered four more schools that will be reviewed next year, and has just announced two more new charters on the way.) Peterson has made it clear that these performance reviews will determine whether or not he will renew charters once their initial term has expired.

Peterson's "2003 Accountability Report" was based on expert reviews of the three schools in four key areas:

1. Academic performance: The report measures the progress made by students in reading, math and language compared to students nationwide.
2. Parental and staff feedback: Reviewers conduct an independent, confidential survey of parents, teachers and school staff about their level of satisfaction with the schools.
3. School site visits: Experts visit the schools twice during the year to observe classrooms and to conduct focus groups of students, parents, teachers and administrators to get information on aspects of school performance that cannot be captured by testing.
4. Financial management and governance: An accounting firm is brought in to conduct an extensive review of the schools' financial condition, while the mayor's office does its own review of school management and governance.

The 2003 Indianapolis report is different from what often passes for public reporting about educational results in states and cities around the country.

"When I granted these charters," said Peterson last week, "I made it clear that I intend to hold charter schools accountable for achieving results for our children. Since charter schools are public schools, the people of Indianapolis need to know how well they are performing."

Indeed, states and school boards around the country should take a look at Peterson's system and consider not only emulating it for charter public schools, but for all public schools. Accountability should not begin when schools have already failed, and public officials should hold themselves accountable for keeping them from failing in the first place.