It's official: Federal policymakers across the political spectrum are finally willing to admit that Congress overreached when it passed No Child Left Behind and put Uncle Sam in the driver's seat on education accountability. First there was (Republican) Senator Lamar Alexander's proposal to get the feds out of the business entirely, save for requirements around the worst five percent of schools. Then there was (Democratic) President Obama's waiver package, which allows states to make a pitch for their own approach to accountability. And, this week, there's the (bipartisan) Harkin-Enzi bill, authored by the chairman and ranking member (respectively) of the Senate education committee, which, well, it's hard to tell exactly what it does, but it surely reduces the federal footprint around accountability. (Try making sense of the convoluted bill yourself. And quick--the mark-up is next week.)
But if the debate around the federal role in accountability is coalescing, a much bigger question remains wide open: Could we be watching the beginning of the end for the accountability movement in toto?
One harbinger might be California Governor Jerry Brown's veto of a bill to tweak his state's accountability system by adding "multiple-measures" to a test-score laden index. Brown's complaint wasn't the multiple measures per se, but the notion of data-based accountability writ large. "Adding more speedometers to a broken car," he wrote, "won't turn it into a high-performance machine."
If those of us who support test-based accountability are going to push back against these arguments, we'd better get much clearer about what we're fighting for. In other words: What are we talking about when we talk about "accountability"?
If we're honest, we'll admit that it means different things to different people:
If we are to save "accountability," we might need to shed one or two of these arguments. So which ones?
The Tough Lovers, it seems to me, are on the strongest ground politically. As a center-right country, the United States is more than happy to complain about bloated and inefficient government. And particularly now that so many people are out of work and struggling to make ends meet, a civil servant system that stresses job security is highly vulnerable to attack. I suspect that when people tell pollsters they support "accountability" in education, this is what they mean. They want people in the system to do their jobs or get fired.
The Tight-Loosers are politically safe, too, though their argument is unlikely to appeal to everyday voters, focused as it is on intergovernmental relationships and structures.
The World-is-Flatters, however, are starting to run into trouble. This is entirely predictable; in a country that values "local control" of our schools, we blush at the thought of far-away elites dictating the content to be taught in our schools. Further conflict ensues when well-connected parents and educators feel that their own niche schools--be they Waldorf or Montessori or whatever--are being violated by educational values that are foreign to them. Listen to many of the complaints of the "Save our Schools" types (or Governor Brown) and you'll glimpse the old battles about traditional vs. progressive education. We're a big, diverse country. Anything that tethers the pluralism of our education system is bound to face backlash.
But it's the Poverty Warriors, by my read, who are in the most precarious situation. It's not that they don't have a strong case on the merits. Our education system is horrendously inequitable. It's criminal to spend twice as much on the education of the rich as on the schooling of the poor. And we've all heard compelling stories about how NCLB-style accountability has given "political cover" to district and school leaders, allowing them to shift attention and resources to the kids most in need.
Still, as a center-right country, America is deeply suspicious of redistribution in any form. Furthermore, the Poverty Warriors haven't been honest about their motives. Their slogan has been "leave no child behind" when it's really closer to "take from the rich, give to the poor."
Of course, that class warfare rhetoric won't sell. Not back then, and certainly not now, in the midst of the Great Recession.
So where does that leave us?
The kind of "accountability" we should be promoting would be responsive to the arguments of the Tough Lovers, Tight-Loosers, and World-is-Flatters, while being flexible enough not to antagonize niche schools in our pluralistic society.
Such an accountability movement would continue to call for rigorous standards, regular testing, and interventions in schools that don't measure up. It would be serious about untying the hands of managers, especially so they can "hold accountable" teachers and other staff who don't pull their weight. And it would allow some sort of accountability opt-out for schools that don't want to be part of the default system. This might look like charter-school agreements in the early days--customized contracts that consider "multiple measures" and qualitative judgments that are better aligned with the mission and approach of the schools being evaluated (like the ones you love, Governor "Moonbeam" Brown).
This approach to accountability is defensible, saleable, and workable--in other words, the kind of accountability worth promoting. To push the Poverty Warrior option, I predict, is to ensure accountability's end. Which would you prefer?
Originally published on the Fordham Insitute's Flypaper blog.
Follow Michael J. Petrilli on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MichaelPetrilli
This is great. A "reformer" actually admitting that the accountability ship is leaking. A sure sign of desperation and a poor display of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute's screening team. How did you guys let Petrilli get this piece out. So unlike you to let reality become a part of the conversation. Too bad. Now we know that your own "insiders" are starting to hear the 99%.
"These are the people Education Trust, TFA, and KIPP are looking for. They can make some of the most dedicated fascists and are regularly used and discarded by the three other categories of "accountability" supporters."
In fact, that is exactly what the thought-stuck Petrilli advocates. He says it's time to double-down on the first three antiquarian avenues to continued rule by the One Percent, and to throw the poverty-warrior sorority sisters from Education Trust under the bus.
A blow by blow rebuttal: http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2011/10/accountabilitys-end-or-beginning-of.html
All of those arguments described ARE made, but quibbling about how best to justify an accountability system that essentially holds schools and teachers accountable for parenting misses the mark by a long shot. It's a smokescreen for dismantling public education by holding it responsible for variables it doesn't control. Anyone who's actually bothered to study the problem knows that standardized test scores are more predictable by looking at kids' zip codes (with all the information that's implied by those, such as parental income and education) than they are by looking at their teachers. Despite the seemingly obvious assumption that test scores are determined mostly by what happens in the school, it just ain't so.
To be blunt, someone who hasn't bothered to acquaint himself with those simple facts is too ignorant to speak intelligently on the subject of educator accountability. That apparently includes Michael J. Petrilli.
"If someone doesn't perform--whether he's a clerk, a classroom teacher, or an assistant principal--they want to see him fired."
Will this same level of accountability apply to parents who, through their own ignorance and loathsome lifestyle, undermine the herculean efforts made by teachers who work with the most difficult children in the district?
Children of gang-bangers, gang bang themselves. This is bad enough. But, these same students can not STAND to be in the same space of other students who value and work for a solid education, and do all in their power to currupt/disrupt the learning enviornment.
test-based formulae like value-added don't hold students accountable and evaluate teachers based on factors 85% beyond their control (yes, that percentage is based on the actual data).
real accountability would be a good thing if we ever tried it.
I have no problem being held accountable to actual meaningful data. Most states went the cheap route (a la your tough lovers) and simplistically implemented criterion referenced tests to measure growth...a job only a norm referenced (usually expensive to produce because research is done on individual questions prior to implementation) is capable of.
Given the choice...no accountability is better than the fraud these accountability charlatans have saddled our school systems with.
Every public opinion poll finds we are more progressivÂe than you ConservatiÂves would like to believe, so you spend billions spouting untruths.
Yes, your accountabiÂlity fetish is ending. Thank goodness.
Hey TFT, unfortunately I have to disagree that accountability is ending. You are surely aware of the fed's waiver plan. about 40 states have indicated they will take part. that plan includes a stipulation that people accepting waivers will have to implement teacher evaluations based primarily on student test scores. So those 40 states will be doing that.
for the one who balked at the waivers, thankfully, that misguided evaluation process was one of the reasons (the amount of extra money needed to implement the 'reforms' was the other). so that seems promising... however, unfortunately most of the bills that are currently up for reauthorizing nclb/asea include the same stipulation. and it is important to note that this requirement is NOT currently in nclb. In other words, this basically means it is highly likely that accountability is about to get more punitive and misguided that it currently is, not less. Im surprised HP is ignoring that point.