Accountability Redux

This past week the New York Times ran two columns by Thomas Friedman dealing with the current state of affairs in American education. I found them filled with insight, particularly as we inch toward the implementation of the reforms of Race to the Top. A major portion of these reforms deal with standards and accountability, as they mandate that principal and teacher effectiveness be in part judged by student assessment results. Furthermore, results of standardized tests such as the MCAS will now be "drilled down" to the teacher level. Therefore, within the next year you will be able to access the aggregate results and Student Growth Percentile median values for a specific teacher. According to Race to the Top guidelines, these figures must be used for a portion of each teacher's formal evaluation. The intent behind this new system is to recognize and reward effective teachers and to weed out ineffective ones. The RTTT Program provides competitive grant money for districts who take it one step further and implement a merit pay system to reward the most effective teachers.

The challenges of implementing such a system will be great, as is always, the devil is in the details (which still have not been unveiled by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education). To be sure, all of us working in schools should be held to the highest standards of accountability, as the bottom line is student achievement. If our kids are successful, so are we. In that sense, I applaud RTTT for bringing data and transparency to a new level. However, as Friedman's column, "Teaching for America" points out, is there faulty logic in some of the philosophical underpinnings of RTTT? Some notions worthy of consideration:

• There are presently 3.2 million active teachers in the U.S. Within the next ten years it is estimated that nearly one half will retire (the baby boomers). There clearly will be teacher shortages. If the premise of RTTT is to get rid of ineffective teachers, where exactly are all of the candidates waiting in the wings to take the place of all of the bad teachers? I know from personal experience that there are presently a dearth of high quality candidates in certain content areas, particularly in the critical STEM-related (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields. Friedman makes the case that teacher training programs need to be made more rigorous, and perhaps like nations that outperform us on international tests- such as Singapore, South Korea, and Finland- only the best and brightest should be permitted to enter the teaching profession. In these nations only graduates who finish in the top third of their class are allowed to become teachers. If the U.S. adopted such a system, teacher compensation would have to be much greater than it is today.

• In today's knowledge economy, all graduates must possess essential skills such as the ability to problem solve, critically think, effectively communicate, and collaborate. This point is consistently driven home in the research and is highlighted in Tony Wagner's recent work, The Global Achievement Gap. However, as rigorous of a state assessment the MCAS may be, does it measure all of these skills in a comprehensive manner? Therefore, should teacher effectiveness be confined to just this assessment? Or should we be using multiple measures of learning, some of which are performance-based in nature (e.g., portfolios, senior projects, exhibitions, etc.)? Wouldn't these better get at the heart of these essential skills?

• The push for greater teacher effectiveness is only one side of the coin. We should do everything to reform our practices and ensure that all kids reach the highest standards. All of our schools should strive to be creative and do whatever it takes. Anything less is unacceptable. But this will get us only so far.... Part of the accountability dialogue must be around how ready to learn our students come to school. It is hardly a surprise that the annual Boston Globe Listing of District MCAS Performance is usually in the same rank order of the socioeconomic status of the 351 cities and towns in the Commonwealth. It has been well documented since the federal Coleman Report of 1966 that home-related factors, such as socioeconomic status, access to health care, stable housing, etc., are the greatest factors in predicting a child's academic success, far outweighing school-related factors. Furthermore, how the parent supports the school and his child's learning, effort, and habits of mind is also paramount. As Friedman concludes his column:

"... If we want better teachers we also need better parents — parents who turn off the TV and video games, make sure homework is completed, encourage reading and elevate learning as the most important life skill. The more we demand from teachers the more we have to demand from students and parents. That’s the Contract for America that will truly ensure our national security."

Where are these ideas in the accountability dialogue?