More By Author
June 08, 2011
June 09, 2011
November 05, 2008
September 23, 2009
October 02, 2009
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.)
[pullquote]Could we be watching the beginning of the end for the accountability movement in toto?[/pullquote]
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.
[pullquote]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.[/pullquote]
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?