We analyze current approaches to carbon accounting for removed carbon sold on carbon markets, focusing on carbon crediting under the framing of a remaining carbon budget, the issue of durability, and approaches to accounting methodologies. We explore the topic of mixing carbon with other problems in developing carbon accounting methodologies and highlight the open policy questions. We conclude with a suggested framework for accounting for carbon removal accounting that simplifies climate action and enables a world with negative carbon emissions.

This document details a conceptual Framework for the Certification of Carbon Sequestration (FCCS). It is based on a system designed to support negative emissions. It provides the minimum requirements for the development of carbon sequestration standards and certificates of carbon sequestration. It allows the certification of standards so that they in turn produce certification of removed carbon that authenticates durability and verifiability. The framework (i) identifies an organizational structure for the certification system, (ii) clarifies the responsibility of participating entities, (iii) provides certificate designs and usages, (iv) details the requirements to develop measurement protocols, (v) provides mechanisms to support a long-term industry, and (vi) outlines a vision towards durable storage.

Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) is essential to meet the Paris Agreement’s commitment to stay below a 1.5 degrees Celsius average temperature increase. To provide critical foundational support to the development, deployment, and scaling of CDR, certification of carbon removal is needed. The international community is developing rules for the functioning of carbon markets. To support that process, we explored open questions on four key themes in the development of standards and certification of carbon removal through an international multi-stakeholder consultation process hosted by the Global Carbon Removal Partnership, Arizona State University, and Conservation International. Categories of stakeholders included standard developing organizations, non-governmental organizations, governments, and academics. Discussions covered 1. the treatment of emission reduction, avoidance,and removal in certification, 2. the role of additionality in carbon removal, 3. the choice of certification instrument for carbon removal, and 4. the treatment of durability in certification. They revealed fundamental differences in viewpoints on how certification should work. We highlight areas of further exploration, concluding that providing transparency on assumptions made at the certification level will be crucial to progress and, eventually, the acceptance and success of carbon removal as a climate solution.

The recent battle reported from Washington about proposed national testing program does not tell the most important political story about high stakes tests. Politically popular school accountability systems in many states already revolve around statistical results of testing with high-stakes environments. The future of high stakes tests thus does not depend on what happens on Capitol Hill. Rather, the existence of tests depends largely on the political culture of published test results. Most critics of high-stakes testing do not talk about that culture, however. They typically focus on the practice legacy of testing, the ways in which testing creates perverse incentives against good teaching.

More important may be the political legacy, or how testing defines legitimate discussion about school politics. The consequence of statistical accountability systems will be the narrowing of purpose for schools, impatience with reform, and the continuing erosion of political support for publicly funded schools. Dissent from the high-stakes accountability regime that has developed around standardized testing, including proposals for professionalism and performance assessment, commonly fails to consider these political legacies. Alternatives to standardized testing which do not also connect schooling with the public at large will not be politically viable.

This paper presents a Bayesian framework for evaluative classification. Current education policy debates center on arguments about whether and how to use student test score data in school and personnel evaluation. Proponents of such use argue that refusing to use data violates both the public’s need to hold schools accountable when they use taxpayer dollars and students’ right to educational opportunities. Opponents of formulaic use of test-score data argue that most standardized test data is susceptible to fatal technical flaws, is a partial picture of student achievement, and leads to behavior that corrupts the measures.

A Bayesian perspective on summative ordinal classification is a possible framework for combining quantitative outcome data for students with the qualitative types of evaluation that critics of high-stakes testing advocate. This paper describes the key characteristics of a Bayesian perspective on classification, describes a method to translate a naïve Bayesian classifier into a point-based system for evaluation, and draws conclusions from the comparison on the construction of algorithmic (including point-based) systems that could capture the political and practical benefits of a Bayesian approach. The most important practical conclusion is that point-based systems with fixed components and weights cannot capture the dynamic and political benefits of a reciprocal relationship between professional judgment and quantitative student outcome data.

The spread of academic testing for accountability purposes in multiple countries has obscured at least two historical purposes of academic testing: community ritual and management of the social structure. Testing for accountability is very different from the purpose of academic challenges one can identify in community “examinations” in 19th century North America, or exams’ controlling access to the civil service in Imperial China. Rather than testing for ritual or access to mobility, the modern uses of testing are much closer to the state-building project of a tax census, such as the Domesday Book of medieval Britain after the Norman Invasion, the social engineering projects described in James Scott's Seeing like a State (1998), or the “mapping the world” project that David Nye described in America as Second Creation (2004). This paper will explore both the instrumental and cultural differences among testing as ritual, testing as mobility control, and testing as state-building.