Here's what schools accountability looks like
It's time to put some teeth into one of education's over-used buzzwords. What's needed are proper testing and real consequences for failure.
Accountability: Probably the leading candidate for bureaucratic buzzword of the 21st century so far. Maybe even the winner in the last decade of the previous century where its use by educators got rolling.
Props to U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan. In his speech Monday (June 22) to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools he only used accountability or accountable seven times. In my view, a low rate in a 3,000 word speech.
Duncan was, as is typical at these events, urging the educators to hold one another accountable for the student achievement in their schools. Don’t settle or let others settle for the sound and fury of reform, in charter schools or district schools, without real achievement, improvement in students’ skills that will also give them a real shot at success in life. The schools he was talking about were the bottom five percent, about 5,000 "chronically low achieving schools" scattered across the country, but the kind of accountability he was talking about would apply anywhere. But accountable for what, exactly? Let’s look at that because it also bears on state Superintendent Public Instruction Randy Dorn's plans for a new Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) or shorter WASL, whatever it will be.
Well, the obvious answer is that educators should be accountable for improving student achievement, presumably as measured by some test or other. Yes, they should. But by how much? Two or three percentage points? Is that enough? Or should it be 10 or 20 points? And if we say we're holding administrators and teachers accountable for closing the achievement gap between whites and most Asians and other minorities, as communities across America insist, how much or how little is OK if it's not closed all the way? And how much time should school administrators have to reach these goals? The answer is already decades. Sometimes it seems like forever.
There’s a lot of talk about accountability but little or nothing, certainly almost nothing specific, about the goal or goals that educators say repeatedly they want to be held accountable for. That might not be a coincidence.
So it's time to set real goals, not settle for moving targets like the WASL and its brethren in other states. (A shorter WASL such as Dorn proposes won't provide better information. It will only take less class time, though at least that has its advocates among both teachers and parents.)
It actually wouldn't take much effort or be very difficult to set real standards or which educators could be held "accountable." (Or maybe we could say "responsible" just for a change.) For example, graduation rates are a good measure of high school effectiveness, so let's look at the four-year graduation rates of the top ten percent or so of schools. It's sure to be 85 or 90 percent and that seems like it would be a good standard in a world where 75 percent and below is today's norm. A test the federal government gives regularly, year after year, to a complete cross section of schools called the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), provides good benchmarks for what really counts as proficient in reading, math, science, U.S history, the arts and other subjects. Real goals of 80 to 90 percent proficiency on the NAEP for appropriate grade levels look like a standard any community would want its schools to achieve.
Arne Duncan himself could fund broader use of the NAEP to keep track of schools receiving the new federal stimulus monies or to validly compare the good and bad among the charter schools run by members of his Monday audience. Broader administration of the NAEP could make the WASL and similar state tests wholly unnecessary.
And if by some chance your school district has a core curriculum for high school, administrators could even set a benchmark combined score for graduation on a series of four to six content tests such as the SAT II achievement tests. They’re handy, off the shelf and the scores are easier to work with than the narrowly ranged five-point scales of Advanced Placement courses — but those would work, too.
Standards like these would provide real bench marks against which to hold educators accountable. Set a fixed time for their achievement, say five years. That's gradual enough (though sadly it's more than a third of the time a child is in the K-12 system). And then have the school board write contracts for all the administrators in the district, including principals, requiring them to resign if the goals have not been achieved in their school or in the district by the time that five-year deadline rolls around. If that sounds too harsh, as an alternative they could be offered a pay cut equal to the percentage they fell short of the goals. Either way, that's what accountability looks like.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Wed, Jun 24, 5:32 a.m. inappropriate
In the field of health care it's understood that the patient comes to the practitioner with a history and with a host of external factors--environment, habits, financial resources-- and that all of this in addition to the efforts of the practitioner will play into the patient's health.
Your piece implies that in the field of education, the educators' effort is the sole factor in students' success or failure. What if instead their efforts are a necessary but not sufficient component? Will accountability as you have outlined it, with a punishment and reward system, be spread to everyone involved and not just the educator at the end of the line?
Improperly implemented, the call for "accountability" becomes instead a call for a scapegoat.
Posted Wed, Jun 24, 6:05 a.m. inappropriate
Some us Moms used to have a joke that wasn't really a joke. The time to worry about their SAT scores is when they're in kindergarten.
I'm sorry you didn't mention Geoffrey Canada in your piece. His success story in Harlem is something that should be studied, emulated, celebrated. He says educating children starts at birth and he calls it "cradle to college".
Posted Wed, Jun 24, 10:44 a.m. inappropriate
PebbleCreek touches on a critical point: there's more to success than the school, the principle, the teacher. Of course accountability is an issue. As are providing the resources, salaries, etc. to ensure the system can do its part.
But what about accountability on the parental end? I have many friends teaching in our public schools. They are intelligent, dedicated people that, predictably, struggle with the children who come from homes that do not seem to value education, or have other problems.
We should expect and empower our schools to do all they can. But that, I suspect, is not the whole part of the story.
Joe
Posted Wed, Jun 24, 10:48 a.m. inappropriate
I am all for accountability, but the enforcement strategy you suggest is not taking into account the whole picture. Our nation's schools are not operating on an even playing field by any stretch of the imagination. Punishing teachers and administrators at a struggling school for failing to meet the standards that another school in a higher-income neighborhood has no problem meeting would only result in further discouraging good teachers from signing up to teach where they are most needed.
A one-size-fits-all approach to education does not work. We need better teacher training, a better compensation plan, and a system of accountability that measures more than just test scores. The plan you propose could easily end up widening the achievement gap even further, as students at struggling schools would not receive the kind of individualized instruction they deserve, and as teachers are actually punished instead of rewarded for signing up to teach at the most challenging schools in the district.
Posted Wed, Jun 24, 11:05 a.m. inappropriate
Good piece, Mr. Lilly...and good comments in response.
I, too, feel that we should be "working upstream" (much earlier) with respect to accountability, and that we should be looking for ways to acknowledge and involve parents/community in the effort.
We should be assessing children at the kindergarten/1st grade level, and at regular intervals throughout their public K-12 careers, with respect to their abilities and accomplishments. I know that this is a very idealistic view, given our chronic under-resourcing of public education (money and well-trained staff, as well as reliable involvement of parents/families), but it's the only way to recognize and act on a child's particular needs when improvement is possible. Every teacher I've ever talked to has emphasized the importance of early diagnosis and intervention, and has noted that parent/teacher "leverage" (the ability to stimulate positive change) drops drastically after the elementary grades.
In addition, every child goes through developmental "risk corridors," and I think the kids who lose contact very often do so in that critical period between, say, 6th and 9th grade.
Graduation rates, SAT II, and other "outcome" measures are important and valid--but they're known only as the horse leaves the barn. We need to pay more attention to our colts, to continue the metaphor, and take action well before they're ready to move on.
Posted Wed, Jun 24, 12:12 p.m. inappropriate
Folks,
The observations you make are certainly proof of the power of conventional wisdom; that is, that the schools are overwhelmed by factors beyond their control. Yes, it seems that way to many, professionals, electeds and parents alike, and such circumstances have at best been used to scatter school-reform efforts here and there according to the latest fads and research among eductors, and at worst as an excuse for failure. The success of Geoffrey Canada, to which Karen Lee refers, the achievements of the KIPP group of charter schools and other, unfortuntely too rare efforts proves that "success for all" can occasionally escape from its usual home on the district's letterhead. Thus complexity and multi-factor inputs don't stand as a counter argument to my basic point. We are comfortable accepting some progress and letting ourselves off the hook.
Dick Lilly
Posted Wed, Jun 24, 4:39 p.m. inappropriate
The NAEP is a lousy measure, and I'm mystified to this day why it's given the credence that it is. Consider that it purports to be a national test when we still don't have national standards, that those standards that it is benchmarked against are nearly impossible to find, and that the kids who take the test really have no incentive to care about the test, and you've got three strikes.
I say this as a past NAEP administrator for my building.
A better assessment would be the MAP, from the NWEA.
Posted Wed, Jun 24, 7:50 p.m. inappropriate
Mr. Lilly, when everyone in the room disagrees with you, it may be convenient to blame conventional wisdom but it is hardly a productive response.
Neither the KIPP program nor Mr. Canada's efforts support your idea of only focusing on one aspect of a multi-faceted system--in fact they are direct refutations of it. Mr. Canada seeks to improve children's lives by addressing every aspect of those lives--neighborhoods, parenting and yes schooling. The KIPP program puts accountability at most (though not all) steps in the education system--on the students, parents and educators. They also change other factors such as length of school year and the school day.
The point we're making still stands. As Mencken put it: For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. What you are proposing, to hold one player accountable for what should be a team effort may be clear and may appear simple but it is most surely also quite wrong.
Posted Thu, Jun 25, 9:49 a.m. inappropriate
The description of KIPP proves my point exactly. They know what the goal is so they make changes to get there. Most of K-12 does not make effective changes and we don't hold them accountable, do we?
Dick Lilly
Posted Thu, Jun 25, 9:32 p.m. inappropriate
KIPP is a nice success story, and that's good for them. The trouble with KIPP, or Green Dot, or Harlem Success, or any other model is that they've yet to develop the ability to go to scale. Beyond that, though, I think a harsh reality is that their success isn't going to be replicated everywhere; not every soldier can be a Green Beret, and that's a reality that the "Make every school a KIPP school!" crowd doesn't seem to understand.
Posted Mon, Jun 29, 10:57 a.m. inappropriate
OPEN LETTER TO SPS BOARD DIRECTORS - Broad Foundation influence rejected in California school district - implications for SPS
Dear Directors...
a contributor posted the following on the Seattle Public Schools Community Blog -
http://saveseattleschools.blogspot.com -
on a thread discussing last Friday's Seattle Times' editorial:
"Broad Foundation pulled their support from a CA district last week, a month after their Academy trained Super left her job. Note the frustration of teachers and administrators in working with such top-down leadership.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/education/ci_12681159
As an aside, the ACLU will be "monitoring" the district for the next 5 years - following findings of "extreme disparities" between the suspension and expulsion rates for African-American and Latino students and their white peers."
If the Board was not aware of these facts and matters being unearthed and posted, about:
* the Antioch school experience;
* the Seattle Superintendent and her efforts and results in Charleston;
* the $750,000 alignment consultant being brought into the SPS District and her affiliations, and
* the Broad person being brought into the Seattle Superintendent's office at a cost of more than $100K,
then this, I would suggest, would be valuable information that ought to inform your thinking, decisions, action and voting. Perhaps you still have time to undo some of the damage that's been done since the Superintendent took up her contract, and will continue to be done while we are on this path apparently dictated by Broad Foundation philosophies...
If the Board was/is aware of all of these factors and still is holding to its course, I suggest its time you gave your constituents an explanation - we and our children deserve it...
Respectfully
Sahila ChangeBringer
AS#1 parent
Posted Mon, Oct 26, 7:30 p.m. inappropriate
There are many examples of school districts, and schools, that address the parent involvement issue with some clarity.
As a former school board member I urged that our school district do the same but there is a reluctance to face this problem. Statistics show very clearly that "absentee parents" children do poorly in school in most cases but we continue to want to engage them with a note to the home.
I am aware of school districts that will not tolerate this inattention, and they have outstanding achievement scores.
We should not allow the ignorance, or indifference, of parents to destroy the opportunities for all children. We pay for this in Corrections and Welfare.
Washington has moved from 39th to 43rd in high school completion. When do we "change" the way we address this problem?